Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/December 2017

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

[Posted] RD: Khalid Shameem Wynne

 * Oppose in current state. First four paragraphs are completely unreferenced. MurielMary (talk) 09:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb People die in traffic collisions all the time. It's not that unusual. Also he's retired, so any impact of his death seems likely to be minimal. RD only for me, when it's sourced. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD only the article is well-sourced now.  sami  talk 18:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD Article is sourced. Ready for RD. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support RD too. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 09:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Cheryll Sotheran

 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Short but adequate and decently referenced. No issues. Marking as "Ready." -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Sparse but meets minimum requirements.  Spencer T♦ C 20:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Erica Garner

 * Support - short article, but seems to be sufficient. Only issue regarding sourcing is the prevalence with which one of the sources is used, but checking it out, it works in the broader context of the article. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - per above. Short article but sufficient.BabbaQ (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Ongoing: Iran Protests

 * Strong Support I also strongly opposed including them at first, but now I support this notion. Just look at this map: http://iran.liveuamap.com Karl.i.biased (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - All over the media. Article seems sufficient enough to be added.BabbaQ (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Ongoing seems a bit ambitious given that it only started two days ago...Zigzig20s (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And are continuing without a designated end-date in sight. The events are still transpiring, and thus ongoing seems apt. The duration of events before the nomination should not impact upon the fact that they are still occurring. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose still small potatoes. I don't see anything from the map linked above which prompts me to think this is currently significant.  The BBC has in on their homepage, but only after the meaningless new year's honours, and a fire in Manchester where one person was admitted to hospital for smoke inhalation.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, this is a huge story. Just google "Iran"--it's everywhere.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's too early to know if this is a huge story. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As I noted, it's a super slow news period, there's nothing going on around the world, Iran is of minor interest so it's got a few headlines. If they start systemically shooting protestors to death in great swathes, you'd get my vote, otherwise this is just local politics, disgruntled people harking back to the "good old days".  Not significant at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, Iran is not "of minor interest" to the world order. If this is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT on your part, it's not valid. Remember we don't just edit Wikipedia for Western readers--we have a global readership.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with whether I like it or not. This is minor news at this time.  If it flairs up to something substantive, then we'll have a different discussion.  I think your constant badgering is actually doing more harm than good and actively reducing the chances of this ever being posted.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose in favour of a blurb. Banedon (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * - Given the uphill battle that the blurb has to reach consensus, I would question the effectiveness of this oppose. It is unquestionably a good faith action, but could end up inadvertently prevent the appearance of the story on ITN in any form, which will occur if both noms are stifled. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. If this isn't worthy of being a blurb it's not worthy of being ongoing either. It also works both ways. You could retract this ongoing nomination and support the blurb, if you want to see this on ITN. Banedon (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I could, but I feel that this particular incident is much better suited to ongoing. Ongoing, to me, implies a consistent and developing story, where a blurb is reserved for a big single incident, that is usually completed (barring weather occurrances) and the impact of which is somewhat known. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is too soon to tell if this will be ongoing much longer. That's why I proposed a blurb...Zigzig20s (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - Sufficient expanded. Top news in BBC. People have died. Sherenk1 (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support why not? It's in the news, well referenced. If the protests stop on New Years day, then nom it for removal. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing or blurb, a major story with sufficiently frequent updates. Davey2116 (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Quality article that is being updated regularly. Meets all of the ongoing requirements.-- Jayron 32 05:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Public protests in Iran are rare and this one is the largest since 2009's presidential election protests. --Saqib (talk) 07:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose in agreement with The Rambling Man. -- M h hossein   talk 07:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Ongoing is fine for now. N  ight  D  08:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't think this has been going on long enough to warrant Ongoing. It also still isn't that big a deal yet. As the BBC noted it its piece, the protests are not on a massive scale, such as that which brought about the 1979 revolution there. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article contains disputed claims like "several thousand-person crowds protested across Iran" in the lead which should be checked based on the reliable sources.(I removed it) Therefor, it can not be put on the first page before solving the problems.-- Seyyed(t-c) 09:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing If anything significant emerges, a blurb may be considered, but enough for ongoing. Brandmeistertalk  12:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing "Several thousand" (reading, maybe slightly higher than 10,000) is not very large of a protest, not one to highlight in ongoing. A blurb however, documenting the number of deaths as a result, would not be out of line. --M asem (t) 14:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please suggest an altblurb below.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Something like "Days-long protests against the Iranian government and economic disparity result in at least X deaths and more than Y arrests." If it is posted as a blurb in a day or so, that blurb can be updated if those numbers change. --M asem (t) 14:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, maybe. I wonder if we should add the pro-government rallies too; they may have been staged but the Western media mentioned them (and apparently the Iranian state media only showed their footage!). By the way, there is now a lot of content sourced with articles in Persian--I hope someone is able to double-check them.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Article is not stable (I've just had to semi-protect it). Black Kite (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you please stabilize it? This huge massive story is everywhere in the news but on Wikipedia's main page at this point...Zigzig20s (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We're not a news ticker. There is no rush for us here. --M asem (t) 17:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikinews or even WikiTRIBUNE (!) are different projects, you may be interested in working over there. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I do think the main page needs to be current...Zigzig20s (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I remember mentioning protected articles in ITN a while ago, responses were that whether or not it's protected is irrelevant: . Banedon (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - would prefer a blurb, but regardless, this is clearly news worthy, far more so than most other items currently on the main page. Article is also in good shape, and the factual accuracy tag has been addressed. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing Unless this spirals out into something more large scale and long-term. Would consider individual item instead.  Spencer T♦ C 19:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing at minimum. Topic receiving sustained coverage across sources, article suffices. James (talk/contribs) 23:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Black Kite's observation about the article's stability. Chetsford (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment still making global headlines. Article still getting updates. It's stable enough for an "ongoing event". Typically stupid reactions section, but otherwise fine. Think we could move on this? --13:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmicAdventure (talk • contribs)
 * Support - This is only getting bigger. Now top item on BBC, Reuters. Other outlets don't have this as the headliner, but do carry several items on their front page. Article is being updated and is getting better.Icewhiz (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing It's continuing, growing, and major news covered by major outlets. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Further evidence that this is ongoing and exacerbating. Article is now worthy of an ongoing listing on ITN. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 21:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Recy Taylor

 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Looks good.  Spencer T♦ C 20:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] 2017 Iranian protests

 * Oppose local politics of little significance, we're not surprised about corruption and rising prices in Iran, are we? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "There were even chants in favour of the former monarchy toppled by the Islamic revolution of 1979, while others attacked the regime for supporting Palestinians and other regional movements rather than focusing on problems at home.".Zigzig20s (talk) 09:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To quote the BBC piece, "demonstrations do not appear to be taking place on a massive scale". This may become a big deal, but it isn't yet. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there were all sorts of quotes, but I fail to see how that is really of any significance. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose posting mere protests unless a tangible effect is created, like a change in government or resignations. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Stub Sherenk1 (talk) 12:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Support now. Article sufficiently expanded Sherenk1 (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose I am still trying to find the number of participants, but from what I could gather al-jazeera reports that the number of protests in Kermanshah was around 300, and that protests there were presumably the largest in the country. This is waaay too small of a protests wave to be included in the ITN template. Karl.i.biased (talk) 12:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Changing my position to Strong Support Scratch what I typed above. Now that I see the extent of the protests in Iran, I believe it absolutely warrants inclusion to the ITN. Karl.i.biased (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Support - very unusual to have these kinds of protests in a country such as Iran. Protests are the biggest since 2009, are across the country. and mix economic with political complaints. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - protests should be posted, in my view, if they cause substantial change, or if they are of gargantuan scope (like the Women's March). This nomination satisfies neither, and so should not be posted. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per Karl.i.biased. Let's not be biased as well and demand changes before allowing a blurb about protests to be posted. We posted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/January_2017#[Posted _Protests_against_Donald_Trump] and he's still President. Banedon (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Which got by as a result of their (much larger) scope. Implications are required here. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So scope is the only measure? Nobody died there in the US, 4 people died in Iran already. Not to mention that the idea that number of people participating is representitive of anything is absurd when the countries are these different. Not only is the population of Iran more than 4 times smaller than that of the US, but the urbanisation level is much smaller to. Have you ever tried organizing mass protests in rural Wyoming? I bet that would be much harder than in New York. And then ofc social media use is much more widespread in the us.... tldr the sheer size of the protests isn't important. at all Karl.i.biased (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine then, a better example. Here in Ireland there are roughly 4.5 million people, about 1/18 the population of Iran. We have had, in the last decade, multiple protests which had in excess of 100,000 people occurred, and substantial changes were made to the bill they were protesting as a result. Nothing of even this size has occurred in Iran. If I got a protest of five people together over in the Pitcairn Islands, your logic would dictate that that story would warrant a blurb. Size, in this case, absolutely matters, or else ITN could be a ticker for protests worldwide. Stormy clouds (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Size matters, pun unintended, but weight of RS does too (and more).Zigzig20s (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support blurb or ongoing nom above. Major story, and article has been sufficiently updated. Davey2116 (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are a variety of factual issues with the article. For instance, the article states "The pro-government demonstrations were orchestrated by the government, and many of those 4000 attending were bused in." which is supported by a single source which says that, only generally, "Typically, pro-government demonstrations are orchestrated by the state, and many of those attending are bused in.". This is one of half-a-dozen glaring issues I saw just in a very cursory review. We can't link to the article from the main page in its current state, in my opinion. Chetsford (talk) 02:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support for blurb, as 12+ people are reportedly killed. -- N ight  D  13:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support on significance I'm seeing a lot of this in all of the news sources I read. Vanamonde (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Unprecedented protests. Unlike previous protests, this series of protests are anti-Islamic Republic. It's historically significant.--2601:C4:C001:289E:9957:9065:F6EE:9381 (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Rose Marie

 * Oppose far too much unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - serious inadequacies in referencing. Stormy clouds (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose -Inadequate reference and too much puffery all over the page. Successful singing career, widely known, leading as well as several disjointed sentences. This is unpostable. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Sue Grafton

 * Support I added one CN tag but all in all the article is in good shape and adequately referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Article is well referenced and thorough. MurielMary (talk) 10:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017 Kabul suicide bombing

 * Oppose for now I was thinking about nominating this earlier this morning, but I saw the quality of the article and demurred. It's a stub and requires significant expansion, at least a doubling of prose. It seems significant enough on the merits that I would support a fleshed out article. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It could certainly be larger, but I've expanded it a good bit. Vanamonde (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes you have. I re-rated it a Start-class article from Stub-class, and I'll change to weak support since it seems to have the bare minimums, and can be expanded in time. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Support/Question The article is in okay shape, but I am not sure (and forgive me for being way too blunt) what is the cut-off for including terrorist acts? I assume that, all things equal, it comes down to number of deaths. Or at least it comes down to the number of deaths if the act was done by the usual perpetrators in the usual country and there were no famous people among the casualties. Now, this is not the deadliest terrorist act of this year in afghanistan, not even the second deadliest. Not even the third. So I assume there should be some cut-off, I mean, we wouldn't report on a car bomb that killed 2 Afghanis, right? So what is the cutoff? How do we determine whether a terrorist attack in Afghanistan warrants inclusion in the ITN or doesn't? Karl.i.biased (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no "death toll" minimum, and it would be wholly inappropriate to have one, IMO. It should be based on the extent of the news coverage of the event, which in this case I believe exists. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So, in short, we add news about any terrorist attacks to the ITN if they are reported widely and I assume, thoroughly. Ignoring the number of casualties, or the size of the blast, or any other similar details? Karl.i.biased (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In short, you are welcome to nominate anything which you believe meets the WP:ITN criteria, whether it's a terror attack or a YouTube video with loads of hits. Either way there's no guarantee it will be posted, but all nominations are generally greeted with joy.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What I said was more my opinion than a guiding force here. Some editors keep the death toll in mind when supporting or opposing more than they should, I think. There's also factors of systemic bias (and many local sources not being in English) and some editors who discount attacks in that part of the world because it's a war zone. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support article is short, but sufficient. Subject is sufficiently covered by news sources.-- Jayron 32 19:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Isn't it in a war zone?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the point being made previously, and above, is that it really shouldn't make that much difference to an ITN nom. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yet Syria is routinely ignored at ITN, terror attacks in Pakistan general fail as nominations unless a threshold of death is reached, and mass shootings in the United States (rightly) face a steep battle to be posted. Attacks like this are routine (consider this, and this fact diminishes their significance both in the RS news and here, as horrible a fact as that is. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think part of the point here is that we should encourage and promote such stories about events in Syria. We don't need to promote more mass shooting stories from the US, that is all entirely self-inflicted.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's in a war zone. People die in wars and the sky is blue.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's definitely black, and will probably be grey tomorrow. As are most of our discussions.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per Jayron32. Davey2116 (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Even with the BBC article noting there have been several similar bombings over the last few months, this specific one has a rather large death and injury toll and appeared to be against civilians rather than soldiers/police, making it not an average affair in the area. Article is in good shape. --M asem (t) 20:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose perhaps pointlessly but the barely above stub article will never be expanded. Compare to another slaughter in Afghanistan this year 2017 Herat mosque attack. At this point, these ought to be compiled into a list 2017 terrorist attacks in Afghanistan with a few paragraphs each, not standalone articles. This latest incident has already fallen out of the headlines. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - no longer appearing in the news, and (despite a large death toll), lacking in significant lasting impact. This is a terror attack in a region where they are a dime a dozen. Prevalence reduces impact, and this is true in this scenario, especially given the fact that Kabul is still a war zone. Agree with the idea of compiling these disparate articles into one, as per CosmicAdventure, but don't think that this should be posted, especially given the article, which is weak despite commendable efforts. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Terrorist attack in an area with frequent terrorist attacks. 331dot (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment at the moment I am neutral on the subject; I should point out that terrorist attacks are often frequently posted on ITN in the past, and thus are ITN/R, even though these events aren’t listed there. However I should also point out that many nominations that fit within this criteria have also been turned down as well for various reasons. Kirliator (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Disagree. If an event is not listed explicitly at ITN/R, then it does not get to avail of the benefits of being at ITN/R - specifically, forgoing the notability discussion. We cannot just ad hoc declare that "Terror" is ITN/R because disparate terrorist attacks are posted. Imagine if that rationale where applied to catastrophic weather events, which are also posted frequently. Every weather nom, provided article quality was sufficient, would get a free pass because other weather events were posted in the past. Thus, I don't feel that this is a fair statement in the slightest. Notability for this nom has not reached consensus - proclaiming that, as it is a terror attack, we don't need to reach consensus, is a skewed application of policy in my view. Stormy clouds (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Support article meets minimum requirements, but only the minimum; it still needs work. SamaranEmerald (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - clearly notable. High death toll. Ok references.BabbaQ (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - major attack with significant fatalities, not something that happens all the time. also, some sources (in this case Anadolu Agency) indicate that death toll has increased to 50. Juxlos (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support pretty significant losses for a single attack, even in a war zone. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 16:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Insufficient coverage to demonstrate notability, rm "admin attention" tag. The last time we posted an Afghanistan attack was this article: May 2017 Kabul attack. If this incident is truly notable, more would be able to be written about it in the article, up to the size of the previously posted one to ITN. Willing to reconsider my oppose if article is expanded.  Spencer T♦ C 22:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Nichols Canyon

 * Support - looks good to go. No notability concerns as this is an RD, and the horse's article would survive an AfD, especially given its sourcing. Stormy clouds (talk) 12:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support This horse has a better article than many humans. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Rambling Man is right. When the citation needed tags are addressed, we can post it. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ok.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose a quick glance reveals at least one unreferenced claim in the first few paragraphs. I'll need to take a harder look later, but right now it's not quite there yet.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Question how could it be sold for 48,000 Guinea in 2011 - a coin that's not been minted for 200 years? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I found it. Wow, obscure. TIL right? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose There is too many CN tags before this can be posted. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Liberian presidential election

 * Comment definitely newsworthy, isn't this an WP:ITNR? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure it is. The target article should be Liberian general election, 2017, which needs some work. --Tone 20:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This and only this should be the bold article, regardless of the quality of the BLP. --LukeSurlt c 22:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Question - subject to article quality, could both articles be bolded? Mjroots (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - clearly newsworthy. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support good to go with just the election bold-linked (i.e. alt 1), let's go with that for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Support the first blurb until the election article is brought up to scratch, which it currently is not. The BLP has a couple of issues though I do not think they are sufficient to justify an oppose. In a few spots language is used which has an overly promotional tone to it. Also the section "Honours" needs work. Currently there is no text and some of what follows is not clear, i.e. what kind of honor etc. Also I added one CN tag and we may need sources for any claimed honors not covered elsewhere in the article. All in all the article is not bad and referencing appears to be adequate, if perhaps not great. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't care that much, but we didn't blurb "Reality TV celebrity Donald Trump is appointed President of the United States". I added altblurb3 which omits the trivia. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. Brevity in a blurb is also a virtue of itself. --LukeSurlt c 22:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose lack of update - beyond 'x won election, defeating y'. What were the campaign platforms? Were there any significant events between April 2016 and Dec 2017? I don't understand why we should highlight Weah's article when the ITN/R one contains more information about this election. Unless of course the event isn't actually about the election and the purpose is to draw attention to a football/soccer career that ended ~15 years ago. Fuebaey (talk) 06:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb 3(don't need to mention his former job). 331dot (talk) 09:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb2 Support any of the blurbs, and don't really care which. Leaning towards 2 because it is a particularly prestigious "earned" award. It's not just his former job. GCG (talk) 12:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support good to go article about notable election. BabbaQ (talk) 14:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I feel that attention should be drawn to his footballing legacy, as it is the detail upon which most of the reliable sources in my newsfeed are latching. Alt 2 attaches prestige, but this is dissimilar to the case of Trump. The power of the position was the story in the news for Trump. The story here is, for better or worse, exceptional footballer becomes President. I feel personally that this cannot be omitted, and we should go with Alt 2. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Respectfully disagree. Every head of state was something else before: be it a former legislator, business person, activist, whatever. The popularity of soccer does not automatically add notability to this persons former career. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Alt3. I've posted a bare-bones blurb, as I personally find it very odd to post a head-of-state's former occupation; we haven't done that with any of the other recent elections. If further discussion establishes consensus for this, I will be happy to add that fact. Vanamonde (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Alt 3 Donald Trump's "profession" wasn't even considered in the blurb when his election was posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] NASA to send a probe to Alpha Centauri in 2069

 * Oppose re-nominate in 2069 when it launches. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose some serious WP:CRYSTAL here. I mean, it's an awesome news story and I'm interested, but 2069? Must be some sort of hundredth anniversary thing, but no. If Wikipedia is still around in 2069, post it then. A lad insane  talk  19:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - cool story, and I am glad that they are working on interstellar travel, but there is little substantive here beyond NASA stating their intentions to use currently non-existent technology. If there was a concrete plan in place, or testing ongoing, then I would support. But not at the moment. They also intend to find life on Mars. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Target article is a stub, which is hardly surprising as there is virtually nothing to say yet.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Aside from it being 52 years from now, something that far ahead would probably get cancelled or forgotten sometime soon. Juxlos (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Johnny Bower

 * Oppose for now. This is someone we really should get up as an RD. But referencing is really poor and is going to need significant improvement before this can be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Much improved. Well done. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose the prose looks nicely referenced, just the awards section as far as I'm concerned. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Conditional support when the "Awards and honours" is referenced.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Done, and Support. GCG (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

[Removed] Remove wildfires from ongoing
Now almost entirely contained. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - No longer a major story. Jusdafax (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per Jusdafax. A lad insane  talk  17:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - due to the valiant efforts of the firefighters, now a redundancy not worthy of main page placement. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support good to go (away). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Removed, Stephen 22:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Larry Libertore

 * Support looks too short really to cover such an individual, but good enough for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I understand we don't debate importance of RDs, but I don't think a write-up in the local community newspaper constitutes being "In the News." If a real paper picks this up, the article is fine. GCG (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Is The Gainesville Sun a "local community newspaper"? I don't know.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is one of those cases I think where if you think the individual fails WP:N the place to take it is afd. I'd not !vote keep this one at afd. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well thanks to you both for your insight, I'd suggest one of you either do something about it or work within the remit of ITN's RD criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * RD criteria is that the subject's "death is in the news." An alumni newsletter would not count, but the New York Times would. Absent a policy, it's up to the consensus to say what qualifies. In this case, none of the top ten papers in Florida are posting the death of a Gator QB. GCG (talk) 22:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer my question about the Gainsville Sun. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 26K, so yes, it a micro paper. I fully expect this to hit the major papers by morning and be posted before i get a chance to reverse my vote. But it seemed like a good hill to die on. GCG (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So is this good? I think the Gainesville Sun is a real paper. How about The Ledger? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * AJC has it now, so I'm changing to Support GCG (talk) 12:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Referenced. Sufficiently notable.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - I agree with TRM. Referenced. Notability seems to be right at the notability threshold. So inclusion is warranted.BabbaQ (talk) 12:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Posting. Alex Shih (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Heather Menzies

 * Support - After Improvements are completed. I don't understand though why the nominator not just add some sources and a few clean up edits. In it's current state the article is far from being RD ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm still confused by the "support once all the improvements are made" style of comment. Meaningless for RD.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is short, lacking information on every aspects (early life, career, personal life) and is in need of sourcing. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Article has been greatly improved since the above comments. Davey2116 (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Referenced. I've improved the layout.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Television section still mostly unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ready I have removed the uncredited/specified/cited TV appearances and noted them on the talk page for future restoral when documented. The article has no other tags, and is ready for posting. μηδείς (talk) 05:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment no, still unreferenced television episodes. A blue link to TJ Hooker (for example) does not verify her appearance in the specified episode, no siree.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You are quite aware that a named and dated episode serves as its own primary source, this episode "A Kind of Rage" is dated as appearing in 1984 and Menzies is credited 1 minute and 33 seconds into the episode as guest starring (playing Dr. Kincaid). Your tendentiously false statement of policy and your unwillingness to verify primary sources is your personal problem, and not an impediment to posting this nomination. μηδείς (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * No, it's not a personal problem, it's a problem for our readers (e.g. "Thornton's Account" isn't even mentioned on the Bonanza page, let alone her role in it). But thanks for your pointed accusation and personal attack.  I'll add it to the list.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:47 pm, Today (UTC−5)


 * Oppose until the TV section is properly referenced.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Menzies is named in the credits of that Bonanza episode. It is a primary source and no special knowledge is needed to read the English-language credits naming her.  Blue links to articles are not relevant, our policy is, and per WP:PRIMARY: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."  One needs no specialized knowledge beyond English literacy to read the names in an episode's credits. μηδείς (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, there's no way to even verify if each of these episodes even exists!! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec)I'm just holding this nomination to the same standard as the one for Jim Nabors (which you also participated in). I did the work then and referenced the film and TV appearances and the same should happen here. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Not ready as evidenced above. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not ready, as the TV appearances are still largely unreferenced. Removing both tags: this isn't somehow more urgent than other RD nominations. Vanamonde (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - citations added to TV section, should now be fully referenced. MurielMary (talk) 10:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not ‘fully’ referenced by any stretch. Stephen 11:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Kindly add cn tags or point out what is missing? MurielMary (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Some of the TV appearances don’t have a reference, and specific episodes do not appear in the references given. Stephen 11:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I see. Tidied up and should be ready to post now. MurielMary (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Fujimori pardoned

 * A very notable figure, not sure if the pardon is an anticlimax. Needs more than the current one-sentence update.  Not to be insensitive, but are we going to see him on RD shortly?  Need more info before deciding to support. μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Fujimori's own article is clearly unsuitable as a target, and as mentioned above, the pardon "section" of the "arrest and trial" article is inadequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It meets both the updated content and the significance requirements. What more do you want from the article? I think the significance of the event is pretty clear (and thus far undisputed), and this is obviously an example of a recent event that relates directly to previous occurrences (the crimes, trial, and conviction), which the article covers pretty thoroughly. -- irn (talk) 17:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I remember one sentence, repeated, as being the update requirements. And I'm sure I understand the significance of pardoning someone who's going to die soon anyway, seems like a standard Christmas-political-vote-winning-manoeuvre, added with the additional aspects of corruption of Kuczynski's own doings, this is just kissing babies.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. I just had another look at WP:ITN regarding "update requirements", and found The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable. which seems to be what I was recalling, as opposed to what you're claiming. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer my question. You also seemed to have missed If the recent/current event relates directly to previous occurrences (e.g. a major award honoring past achievements), the article can be considered sufficiently updated when there is consensus that it contains appropriate, up-to-date coverage of the entire chronology, irrespective of when the text was written or how many sentences pertain specifically to the recent/current event (apart from the requirement that it be mentioned). -- irn (talk) 17:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I want more coverage of why he was pardoned, what was wrong with him, what's the political background and context to the pardoning, who else was pardoned, etc etc etc. You have no consensus at all so your counter-claim is actually baseless.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment You're kind of burying the lede. Try altblurb. GCG (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I can get behind that, but I think there should be a link to Alberto Fujimori's arrest and trial. Would it be too wordy to add something like "who was serving a 25-year sentence for corruption and human rights violations." to the end? -- irn (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That article is well-updated. I agree that we should try to include it into the alt-blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support alt-blurb I think the story is notable (especially since we rightly didn't post the failed impeachment) and the alt-blurb is the right way to capture it. Davey2116 (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on significance. Even if this action was taken purely for the optics of it, I'd say this is significant. Fujimori was a head of state, but had a far larger impact on his country than most presidents before or after. We seem to be considering several different targets, all of which are somewhat patchy at the moment. Vanamonde (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support revised alt-blurb. This should be posted (it is at the top of yesterday's Council on Foreign Relations e-mail newsletter for example), but Fujimori's article lacks references.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * More: After reading the CFR newsletter more thoroughly: they link to this article, which explains " Many protesters labeled Kuczynski a traitor, while political opponents denounced the pardon as part of a crude political deal. On Thursday, a parliamentary bid to impeach Kuczynski over allegations of corruption failed, after Fujimori's son Kenji and several other lawmakers withdrew their support.". I don't think we can add allegations to ITN, but still. This is only mentioned in passing at the bottom of Alberto Fujimori's arrest and trial.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The e-mail newsletter itself reads, "Kuczynski's political opponents have denounced the move as part of a political deal. Fujimori's son, a lawmaker, withdrew his support for a parliamentary bid to impeach Kuczynski (DW) late last week.".Zigzig20s (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have changed my vote to Oppose for now because Alberto Fujimori's arrest and trial may be POV-pushing.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * support - quite an historic event as Fujimori a terrible dictator gets pardoned. Plus significant protests.BabbaQ (talk) 12:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on the merits but I agree the referencing is an issue and this shouldn't be posted until that is addressed. 331dot (talk) 12:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The emphasis should be on the newly created Pardon of Alberto Fujimori.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed and changed target on altblurb from Kuczynski to that. Now Support altblurb, as I think the impeachment vote is an important factor in reporting the pardon story.GCG (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the altblurb is better now. However, it's not clear if they are protesting because he was released from prison, or because of the alleged quid pro quo with his son.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We may not need to worry about this however. It's not clear to the Financial Times either. Anyway, Support. Big story and the article can/will be expanded/improved as the story progresses, but I believe it should appear on the main page now.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this ready now? -- irn (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph of Pedro Pablo Kuczynski's early life section is unreferenced...Zigzig20s (talk) 05:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added a citation to the second paragraph. Nika de Hitch (talk) 07:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine for the main page, but it would be better to have more than one source for an entire paragraph.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support The newly created article is well sourced for a new article and good enough to pass. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Consensus is a little hard to read here, but Marking Ready, as I think there is enough support for the new article as target, and opposition centers on quality of non-target article, which has been improved. GCG (talk) 11:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What blurb are you suggesting is ready and has consensus? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Altblurb. Emphasis on the pardon.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean the blurb which is politically loaded? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The event is, the blurb isn't. This is much much much more tame that the CFR newsletters...Zigzig20s (talk) 11:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The blurb most certainly is, it's using Wikipedia to place a direct link between the two events. That's not what an encyclopedia should be doing. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We're just giving a series of chronological facts, but we are not saying he pardoned him because he escaped impeachment (although some RS do).Zigzig20s (talk) 12:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, we're opening ourselves up to criticism that we're making some kind of causal link by wording it that way. Even if that's not the intention. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We're not. For example, we don't mention his son. It's fine, believe me.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes we are. It's not fine.  Believe me. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you the only editor who objects to this altblurb? It's a big story and should appear on the main page. If you want to suggest another altblurb, please do it promptly.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know, why would you ask me? Any alt blurb should be neutral, not loaded, probably dropping the first clause would be a good start. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Because I think it's neutral. It's chronological. If you have no altblurb to suggest, then it's not very productive. If we redact the first clause, we remove chronological information about the event, which is a form of POV.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not neutral, I can assure you of that. I've told you how to improve it.  This conversation is no longer productive.  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The noting of the two events merely points out that very substantial events are occurring in rapid succession, which is in itself definitively correlated. If your wife leaves you, your dog dies, and you crash your pickup truck all on the same day, you're going to put all that in the same country-western song, even if there is no causation. Nevertheless, an admin is free to tweak as they see fit, but we have 8 in support, including 5 for the alt-blurb specifically, so we should not keep this off the MP due to one vote of opposition. GCG (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the point, the causality is implied by the alt blurb and that's something we should avoid. Plus it's far too wordy for ITN.   Plus you really can't count! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is that it implies causality. My opinion is that it does not. A difference of opinion does not mean I don't understand your point, nor does it justify personal attacks. You're better than that. GCG (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks there, your counting is way off, and that's fact. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb2. Surely that sorts out any issues?  The existing altblurb is ... dubious, because it implies causality. Black Kite (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It does not imply causality. It simply presents more facts chronologically. This new altblurb simply robs our readers of facts.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really, because the bolded link provides plenty of explanation of any possible link between the impeachment and the pardon. Black Kite (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I prefer altblurb2 as it is more comprehensive, but altblurb3 has my support too.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * If the thrust of the sentence is that PPK sparked protests (which is how the alt-blurbs are written, with the verb being "sparks"), then we ought to mention the impeachment proceedings, because that's part of the reason for the protests. If we don't want to mention the impeachment proceedings, then we ought to focus on just the pardon and go with something like the first blurb. -- irn (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is another reason to have the lengthier altblurb with all the chronological facts. The protesters know all the facts. Why shouldn't our readers see them on the main page too?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb 2 I don't think the impeachment link is necessary and this solves the neutrality issue.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's still too emotive. It should be something like "Protests erupt after ...." rather than the current alt. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you want "Protests erupt after Peruvian President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski survives an impeachment vote and pardons jailed ex-president Alberto Fujimori."? You are the only one who is keeping this from getting posted on the main page. Meanwhile, our readers can't find the article. So please tell us if this is fine by you. Otherwise, do we need complete approval from every editor to post an item?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I don't want the "impeachment" to be part of it, obviously, as I've stated a number of times. I'm clearly not the only one keeping this from getting posted.  Readers can find the article.  You need "consensus" for blurb and article quality, not individuals.  I'm surprised you don't know that.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I see only one oppose, from you. There appears to be consensus. The impeachment is a fact, get over it. We suggested altblurb2 without it and it's still not good enough for you apparently.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I don't deny the impeachment happened, but you're missing the point again and again. The story is the pardoning, not what preceded it.  If you don't understand that by now, I'm wasting more and more of my very valuable time, and I'm not going to do so any more.  Cheers.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, you're wrong. The Council on Foreign Relations suggests they may be protesting because of a quid pro quo. We don't want to do that on Wikipedia, so a series of chronological facts seems the best way to represent what happened/what's happening. Before it's too late to be "in the news" any more!Zigzig20s (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no "maybe" there. The protesters themselves are saying that part of the reason for the protests is because they suspect a quid-pro-quo. -- irn (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment This has been marked Ready for some time now. Can we get a admin with better counting skills then I to weigh in here? I have just the five fingers on my left hand, but I can definitively count to one. Dissent on the impeachment piece, however minimal, should not prevent posting of the pardon itself. GCG (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Seriously. There's a clear consensus here. -- irn (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Admin note I'm newly minted as an admin, and I'm UNINVOLVED in the above discussion. I see consensus to post something, although not necessarily in what to post. I do have reservation in posting either of the proposed blurbs due to NPOV issues. Are there any objections if I were to post as a blurb: "Peruvian President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski pardons jailed ex-president Alberto Fujimori."? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that would be perfect. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright then. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted More neutral blurb suggested above. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Santa is NOT on his way

 * Good job it's only once a year, eh? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC) sing-a-long-a Tlhslobus

I am treating this as a humorous nomination intended to poke fun at one of the sillier customs of the season. In that vein I think it can be left open over night. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Still time to book. folks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ad Orientem. It seems I had to say systematic lying to kids (etc) was something serious in order to re-open this supposedly 'cute but clearly not serious nom', and now I have to pretend to agree that systematic lying to kids (etc) is hilarious in order to keep it open. I guess it just goes to show it's a funny old world. Tlhslobus (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, is this a genuine nomination or a bit of fun? If the former, it seems a fairly obvious oppose from me. — fox 21:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * While we are on the subject; how about pointing out the fact that Christmas is really 13 days away on the original Christian calendar? Just sayin... -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Oppose ITN does not report things that *don't* happen, nor do we conduct media criticism or OR. And what about the presents, @Tlhslobus? How do you explain the presents? GCG (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - #Bah, humbug!. Mjroots (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment A radiocarbon study that shows a bone long thought to be a St. Nicholas relic and housed in St. Martha of Bethany Church in Morton Grove, Illinois, does in fact date to the time of the saint's death. So maybe he needs a rest by now? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Humorous but oppose. The supporting source is an op-ed. "Fake news" is WP:OR.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb II only As always, children are right, while we became too old. Brandmeistertalk  21:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The presents are brought by three Wise Men who are 300 years older than St Nicholas of Myra and Bari, which explains why scientists never find reindeer poo at the bottom of chimneys at Christmas, because camel poo is completely different.Tlhslobus (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose systemic bias! We'd not post this if it were the great pumpkin. Also not enough deaths! --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Santa exists. Proof: Note that if the statement "X = A implies B" is true and A is true then that implies that B is true. Then let A be X and B the statement that Santa exists. So, X says that if X is true then Santa exists. Now if we just assume that X is true, then it's clear that Santa exists. What if X is false? Well, any statement of the form X implies B is always true if X is false, and since X = X implies B, this means that assuming X to be false implies that X is true, which is a contradiction. Therefore X can only be true, and therefore Santa actually exists. Count Iblis (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] AVIC AG600

 * Comment it's in the news for sure. Ref #4 for china.org is used for weight and range but is not in the ref. Should be easy to fix. Haven't had time to check the rest. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - We post various first flights from time to time, this airplane is the biggest of its type (and an uncommon type at that), and it interests me personally. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Incremental? other than being bigger than the last model, what else makes this noteworthy? Some true design or technological advance? μηδείς (talk) 04:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What else? Well, it's Chinese. A nation that has punched well below its weight aircraft manufacture-wise for years. Seems to be starting to catch up now though. Mjroots (talk) 07:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's Chinese! Had it been Irish support would have been a no-brainer?  Sorry.  Am leaning oppose unless I can be pointed to why this is a qualitative, not just a quantitative story.  Otherwise we'd be posting the Dow and the US Federal Debt every week. μηδείς (talk) 15:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment not wishing to be dragged into a "Dow Jones hits xxxx" debate, in what sense is this the largest? And by how much?  And which record does it break?  I.e. how "incremental" is it?  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ShinMaywa_US-2 was the previous biggest (in use) I believe. Would make a good DYK - despite being only marginally bigger it can carry more than twice as many passengers. Its certainly a feat of modern engineering. Still SUBSTANTIALLY smaller than the Spruce Goose though. If we are going by size, the real big thing will be someone matching that. (Yes yes, I know its a flying boat) Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above comments as too incremental. The Beriev Be-200 carries more people, and the AG600 surpasses the ShinMaywa US-2 by just 12% on max takeoff weight. GCG (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to point out, the Beriev BE has a 'proposed' passenger only variant (BE-210) which would carry more people. The standard version does not. I don't believe a 210 has actually been put into production or even prototyped. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't catch that. Switching to neutral. GCG (talk) 12:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose owing to relatively low news coverage. For example, the source cited in the nomination is under Asia -> China, as opposed to World. Google also finds few mainstream newspapers covering this, although there are lots of specialist publications. Banedon (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The BBC regularly rotates coverage on its front page without changing the location of the actual article. So while you would have to navigate to World/Asia/China today to find the article, it was more prominent when the article was posted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak support Outside of the standard 'its in the news' and of sufficient quality, 3 reasons. 1. Its of a unusual type. Really big amphibious plane improvements do not come along that often. 2. Its from a country not known for its planes. 3. While physically its not much bigger it has significant advancements as standard over others in its type - its a big engineering improvement if not actual size. !vote is 'weak' because the above 3 really only contribute as to why it was covered in the news, and its getting a bit stale now. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose at this point, this nomination is virtually stale. SamaranEmerald (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per Only in death. Hopefully this can get more attention before it's stale. Davey2116 (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose– stale Kirliator (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] UNSC resolution 2397

 * Oppose posting North Korean rhetoric. If we want to post the passing of the resolution, maybe. 331dot (talk) 12:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose North Korea has made numerous claims similar to this in recent years, last year they claimed that another resolution was the exact same thing, and this year, they claimed that when the US flew two bombers near its territory, that it was an “declaration of war”, despite this, they never respond in a manner as though war has been declared. Kirliator (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sabre-rattling and North Korean rhetoric at it finest. As the previous user mentioned above, we actually had a post very similar to this back in October, which almost everyone opposed.  This is fine if it were posted to DYK, but not ITN. SamaranEmerald (talk) 14:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - If we posted every moment of bellicose North Korea rhetoric on ITN, we literally would not have room to post anything else.WaltCip (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - North Korea would like to cordially invite you to fear North Korea - nothing new, nothing newsworthy. If North Korea actually instigate war, then we'll revisit. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – More blather. Suggest snow close. Sca (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Loony NK is already at war with the UN. That's what an armistice is, war in a state of suspended animation. There has been no peace treaty ending the Korean Conflict. You can't unfriend someone twice. μηδείς (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] HMAS AE1

 * Support Seems nicely ref'ed, showing on front page of a few sites I checked. GCG (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support, it is in the news, but dating back to 21 December, so if posted, that should be considered. Blurb needs work, I've suggested alt.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support it might be Australia's greatest naval mystery, but that doesn't sound that impressive when one considers there are a couple hundred countries in the world. Still, I saw just enough coverage to support (that plus the fact that the current blurbs are pretty old). Banedon (talk) 12:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per Banedon. I saw coverage of this too. Davey2116 (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Maurice Hayes

 * Support Article looks solid and decently sourced. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Tropical Storm Tembin (2017)

 * Support per nom and article looks decent. Brandmeistertalk  12:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Article decent, incident is significant. --M asem (t) 17:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Major event. Article is in decent shape and well referenced. My only quibble is the current information section which smacks of a news ticker, which we are WP:NOT. I suggest removing it. The links to current information can temporarily be put in External Links. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - solid article, major significance. Marking ready. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I know things are still happening, but the article contradicts itself with the numbers killed and isn't up to date (last update 0600 UTC 23/12). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Being the creator of this article, I'll try to add more as the hours go by and will make sure the number of fatalities are equal and well sourced. This storm is a 'big' one at the moment. I'll try my best to add in the info. :) Typhoon2013  (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, no problem, I just hope that before it gets posted (which it absolutely should) then when it goes up it's at least as internally consistent and up to date as possible. Of course, once it's on the main page, all bets are off!  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ready certainly meets notability and update requirements, well sourced, tags are merely procedural and not a hindrance to immediate posting. Please let's not wait for this to be days old. μηδείς (talk) 02:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted slightly modified blurb. I'm not too happy about the "current information" section, but otherwise decent, and a significant event: so I'm not going to ignore consensus here. Vanamonde (talk) 03:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017

 * Oppose good faith nom. We almost never post this kind of political news. Honestly I think snow may be in the forecast for this one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think not. Considering that Net Neutrality was posted due to its widespread coverage - and because this tax act received nonstop coverage for months in the media for being supposedly damaging to the vast majority of taxpayers in the US - it's way too premature to call this SNOW. The tides have changed on ITN recently and I think we've become a bit more inclusive of these sorts of stories.--WaltCip (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose this has dominated US news and "global significance" is a fake made up requirement. Still the bill is meaningless in terms of it's actual impact on real people. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting this domestic policy change. 331dot (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ad Orientem - "the weather outside is frightful, but the fire is so delightful, and since we've no place to go, let it snow, let it snow, let it snow." Stormy clouds (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * SNOW Oppose per Ad Orientem. ZettaComposer (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The nominator can withdraw his nomination, but the bias above is astounding, given the repeal of the Obamacare tax, the number of corporations announcing bonuses, raising their minimum wage voluntarily to $15, billions promised in new investment and trillions in repatriated capital. That this was posted as an attack on a BLP is outdone only by the silly panic over the net neutrality non-event.  We would have posted it if the federal government had forced corporations to accept the $15 minimum wage.  But the fact that they can afford to voluntarily ("meaningless in terms of it's actual impact on real people") is seen as what?  Shameful?  μηδείς (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Shameful? I know that I would not support a nomination about changes to the Irish tax code, even if it completely overhauled everything, including HSE policies, and drove strong economic growth. To post the US's government doing such a thing would amount to little more than geocentricism, one of the things that ITN is stated to be against. All that happened here is that the government of one country changed its tax policy - the size of the country is not of important in my view. If it is, then yes, I guess that I am biased, given that I wish to prevent ITN transforming further into an exclusively US item. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The POV exhibited is shameful. The nomination was open for 25 minutes.  Opposing this on grounds that it's legislation is fine--we should not have posted the net neutrality order either.  But consider the difference.  Here, dozens of large corporations have announced bonuses, raises for hourly employees, and new investment directly related to the biggest tax reform in the US since the 1980's, one that cuts the world's highest corporate rate in half, and we hear that this only benefits the 1%?  This is both unorthodox in posting and withdrawal and the comments are, if one assumes good faith, ill-informed at best. I am not going to renominate it, if someone else does I will support it.  I will also respect WaltCip's prerogative in withdrawing it.  And although consensus in the past has been to leave nominations up for at least 6-12 hours, I won't comment further. μηδείς (talk) 00:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 6-12 hours is a pipedream. Had I not closed it when I did, it would have been closed within an hour as WP:SNOW.--WaltCip (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: June Rowlands

 * I've cleaned up and updated the article. Only need a ref for the one sentence covering her early life. -  Floydian  τ ¢  16:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Referenced and balanced.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There isn't a single sentence describing what she accomplished in her mayoral career, which is what she is notable for. All that's currently included about that is information about her election and then a sentence about political drama that she was wrongly associated with. I'm sure some obituary coverage will have information about what she accomplished while in office. Best,  Spencer T♦ C 05:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Article well sourced enough for posting --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] UNGA Jerusalem vote

 * Oppose I'd like to make several points here. Firstly, the blurb is unnecessarily indicative on the President of the United States when the decision doesn't affect his personal life but the foreign policy of the United States. Secondly, the United States have their freedom to choose how to shape their relations with other countries and it's not someone else's business to decide on the legitimacy of their decisions. Thirdly, it seems like the media don't give too much damn about this resolution and have put the news on the back burner. Finally, there is not even a sign of some long-lasting impact from this resolution that would make it worth posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to change the blurb, I would more than likely support it.
 * top storiesLihaas (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've proposed a less indicative blurb, but my other three points still hold.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * support altblurb
 * don't get other points as A. what country X/Y/Z wants/does/will do is irrelevant (and a bit POV a reason to support/oppose) and B. it IS in the news.Lihaas (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The blurb is factually incorrect, aside from not meriting posting.  The UNGA is a toothless body and it certainly does not have the power to nullify US laws or decide where the US or any sovereign country places its embassy to another country. If countries start breaking diplomatic relations with the US(unlikely) over this, then that might merit posting, but not this toothless vote. 331dot (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weird from someone who [rightly] points to the merits/in the news other than the politics as an aside. [politics are irrelevant, ie the UNGA 67/19 posting.Lihaas (talk) 12:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but your comment does not entirely make sense to me. Opposition to the US move was already known and publicized at the time, this toothless resolution just restates it. 331dot (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. We posted a single insignificant notification of embassy change of address so really just for parity we should be posting the response from the rest of the world. (Dear US, get fucked, signed, everyone.) As it stands, it meets the criteria of being both in the news and widely covered. Subject to a few minor issues it should be good to go. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It was already clear immediately after the decision that the rest of the world was opposed to the decision, this vote is just a formal expression of that. It changes little about this matter. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fortunately actual change taking place is not a criteria for being on ITN. If we are going to tacitly support Trump's racist and divisive pronouncements by giving them front page coverage and then not give the bare minimum to the response, we are just being used as part of his hate machine. At this point it just looks like more of the pro-Israel bias that is widespread on ENWP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is true that "actual change" is not a formal ITN criteria, but it is part of my personal criteria. It need not be part of yours, that is the whole point of this discussion.  My opposition has nothing to do with Donald Trump, the US Government, or Israel, it has to do with the merits of this story.  No ITN posting should be seen as an endorsement of any viewpoint. Readers interested in this toothless vote will learn of it from the article on their own. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Its good you admit your vote is not based on the ITN criteria. I hope the closer will take that in mind. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I admit no such thing, as every user has their own personal criteria, otherwise there would be no point for discussion on this page and we would simply use a formula and be a news ticker. We disagree and that's fine; I submit there is no further need to discuss this between us two. Thank you 331dot (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, ok, change of topic...you should see the adorable little sweetie on my whatsapp DP...haven't met her in 3+ years and she has grown. Must be what 7 now ;) Lihaas (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Just doesn't seem to have hit enough worldwide headlines (round here the sustained coverage is on Damian Green being a dirty old man, but I wouldn't put that up for ITNC). I wonder if we're reaching "Peak Trump" and the world generally is just getting tired of his ranting and sticking him on mute. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support we posted the recognition, we should post this as well. Toothless or not, this is still the action of >100 countries, including countries such as Japan, NZ etc that are traditional US allies (hence the comment that they're sheep a couple of days ago). Banedon (talk) 11:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Almost all of the UNGA passes a resolution every year criticizing the US embargo against Cuba. These resolutions are meaningless and simply reflect what is already known. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Umm see UNGA 76/19Lihaas (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is a resolution where the GA determined the status of an entity in relation to itself, which is meaningless outside of the GA. They can pass a resolution making Mickey Mouse the leader of the body if they want to. 331dot (talk) 13:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support We posted the US declaration, which seemed excessive to me. How can we not post the reaction of basically every other country in the world? Seems an enormous case of WP:GEOBIAS here. AusLondonder (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So your argument is, we posted this initially even though it was excessive, so we should post this too? The reaction was already known at the time. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose The UN is not exactly a pro-Israel organization. Is anyone surprised? There is nothing newsworthy about this.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * UMM, how was the country created??Lihaas (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "How the creation of Israel was helped by a UN vote in 1948 when, due mainly to the colonialism of the time, it had a much smaller mostly Western membership" seems irrelevant to our present discussion. Zigzig20s said "The UN is not ...", not "The UN has never been ...". Tlhslobus (talk) 09:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support The news I see comes from a very wide variety of sources, and I'm seeing a lot about this. In terms of significance the reactions should possibly have been in the same blurb, but would have meant sub-optimal language; so posting this separately is the next best option. Vanamonde (talk) 12:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - As long as we posted the U.S. declaration regarding Jerusalem, it seems fair that we would post the counter-declaration from the United Nations.--WaltCip (talk) 12:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - and propose alt blurb 2. A significant reaction from so many countries. starship.paint ~  KO  13:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - As per above. Sherenk1 (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Though I still oppose this, I've suggested an alt blurb as the UNGA has no power, effectively or otherwise, to nullify actions of the US or any sovereign nation. 331dot (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Symbolic vote, non-binding, changes nothing. Trump recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital increased discord and the chance of war, which is why it was posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as purely a symbolic vote. Each nomination should stand on its own merits - the fact that we posted Trump recognizing Jerusalem, which was much more newsworthy, should not influence whether we post this entirely predictable response.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Absurd The general assembly can vote to effectively nullify pi if it wants. But where the US puts its embassy is between the US and Israel. μηδείς (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Muboshgu; Trump's decision has consequences, such that the UNGA felt the need to respond. Except that response does NOT have consequences. These are not comparable. GCG (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Support the UN has been voting against Israel's illegal occupation for 50 years. Story is in the news. Refs could be a little better. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - lack of enforcement renders this moot. It did produce a comically Emperor Palpatine-esque speech from Nikki Haley though. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose The final blurb I would support as it is correct and newsworthy. The blurbs using the verb "nullify" I do not support as they are factually incorrect. The verb "nullify" means to make something null and void. The General Assembly doesn't have the legal authority under the UN charter to actually nullify the actions of a member state - a point which the sources are all very clear about. It can declare something null and void (in the same way I can declare all Wikipedia policies null and void if I want, but I can't actually nullify Wikipedia policies). Only resolutions of the Security Council are binding on member states. To nullify indicates a declaration carries with it actual effect, which is not correct in this case. Chetsford (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per AusLondoner. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Due to lack of top story treatment by most English news sources. &mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 00:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose the article is not good quality, there are typos and some of the sources need to be improved - it is also very difficult for editors to improve it while it is under a 1RR restriction. Also, I think that including the announcement was enough, its not clear that this resolution with have any effect beyond reaffirming, and the standards for inclusion on ITN are usually pretty high. Seraphim System ( talk ) 02:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - It's not about one's political affiliation to either Palestine or Israel/USA. It's about it being a globally important event. Oranjelo100 (talk) 03:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support As per Only in death does duty end Karl.i.biased (talk) 07:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment That it took four tries to get a blurb that didn't farcically inflate the importance of the vote should tell you something about its actual relevance. GCG (talk) 13:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb 3. Considering the vote total, clearly globally significant; certainly more so than the Amtrak train crash or the embassy move. James (talk/contribs) 17:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose This was expected as a result of Trumps decision, that the rest of the world would not like it. As this is just a vote of no binding results, it is an not unexpected result. The more recent vote on stronger NK sanctions is more lasting impact than this. --M asem (t) 17:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Highly significant, worldwide coverage. This is the most notable UN resolution in years, as the theatre around it with threats and screaming etc. from Trump attests to. It was widely interpreted by RS as a the world community's rejection of Trump. --Tataral (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem, also while the UN declares the recognition as null and void, Trump will still recognize it by heart, a decision the UN can do nothing about. Kirliator (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that the pereminent power is isolated (UK and France voted agqainst them) is a whitewash???Lihaas (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support, using Altblurb 3 or 4, but Oppose if using Altblurbs 1 or 2: I'm against altblurbs 1 and 2 because the vote hasn't "effectively nullified" anything. As for supporting posting anything, it's in the News and especially relevant per WP:WORLDWIDE. The only problem I see with posting this item is that such a posting might help mislead a few of our readers into mistakenly thinking that we were not part of the Western mainstream media (who have consistently ignored anti-Western UN GA votes (as being toothless, irrelevant, biased, etc), as the likes of Noam Chomsky frequently complain, ever since the GA stopped being a Western mouthpiece sometime around the 1960s thanks to decolonization - before then the same media regularly reported the GA as 'the moral conscience of the world'). Note that a few of our contributors (arguably including me, but, in my case, only to a very slight extent, as I'm 75% to 95% mainstream) are 'exceptions that prove the rule', as is also the case with a few of the contributors to the rest of our mainstream media. But I think the number of readers thus misled will be very small, so I've decided not to let that possibility trump (oops, sorry for that unfortunate POV-like double entendre ) other considerations. Tlhslobus (talk) 09:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - per James and Oranjelo100. Jusdafax (talk) 10:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – Votes here seem almost evenly split, with one (or two?) more on the plus side. Hard to derive consensus from that. On the other hand, this resolution shows how thin support for DT's current policy vis-a-vis Israel is among major U.S. allies, which seems very significant. Another consideration is that for many readers the Christmas holidays will overshadow any news that's the least bit old. So I'd urge an admin to decide now whether to post. (Marked for attn.) Sca (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I voted and cannot judge consensus here, but I will note that some of the opposition was due to the dodgy language about nullification in the original blurb, which has since been addressed by alternate blurbs. Also, "The US can put its embassy where it likes" does not IMO carry any weight as a reason for opposition. The opposition due to significance and level of coverage remain, of course. Vanamonde (talk) 16:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * comment why has this been closed repeatedly when it is near co000\000nsenus?Lihaas (talk) 16:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment uh-oh, Christmas just turned bad... In other news, this story is actually not really "in the news" any longer, is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sadly not. Standard time out tactics. If you argue long enough it will go stale. Granted that would actually be a more relevant closure than 'no consensus' with zero reference to the points made. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Bruce McCandless II

 * Oppose with regret, far too much of it unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Cited the whole article. Let me know if you would like additional work done. Feel free to ping me whenever an astronaut dies and the article needs additional work, I am trying to get them done ahead of time, but do not get to them all in time.  Kees08  (Talk)   01:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, now that the article is referenced.  Kees08  (Talk)   01:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, now properly referenced and, as the first to conduct a free-flying spacewalk, of somewhat more notability than your average astronaut (if there is such a thing!). - The Bushranger One ping only 01:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per The Bushranger. Not exactly a household name, but still notable (more so, per se than Scott Altman). A lad insane  <small style="color:#6C2EA2">talk  05:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support and marking ready. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that I had used the famous of photograph of him in an article I had created, without knowing who it was of: but now I do. Vanamonde (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

2017 Jecheon fire

 * Support Article short but reasonably sourced, significant incident. --M asem (t) 17:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. It's a stub. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose we don't post stubs. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose only 206 words. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 23:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Needs massive rewrite no longer a stub, but much of the prose reads as a very bad machine translation, and some of the facts cannot be parsed from what is written. A bilingual editor needs to put this in proper, idiomatic English before it can be posted. μηδείς (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Support It need to be expanded from the Korean page which includes more info. But the article is good. CherryPie94 (talk) 10:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Um, no. The article is not "good".  The first sentence of the text reads "On December 21, 2017, 15:53 (KST), a vehicle in Duson Sporium caught fire that was ignited by first-floor ceiling of the parking lot".  If this were sourced in Polish or Portuguese I could figure that out, but I can't parse the original Korean, so I can't fix, or even guess what this obvious machine translation is supposed to mean.  Nothing of this poor quality is going anywhere near the front page, which is a shame, because they death count makes it appear worthy of notice. μηδείς (talk) 02:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There is English sources that can help you rephrase it. http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2017/12/23/0302000000AEN20171223001451315.html CherryPie94 (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there are such phrases. If so, why don't you do the necessary work yourself?  μηδείς (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I tried fixing and adding info to the page, however, my Korean is limited. Nevertheless, if you see something wrong, shouldn't you fix it, instead of complain that the article in no good and has a "poor quality"? CherryPie94 (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The purpose of this page is to evaluate nominations, and I have done so. I do indeed fix items when I have a basic working knowledge of the source language, including articles in Portuguese and Polish which I do not speak, but am familiar enough with in general that I can and can work with a machine translator.  In this case I cannot do that, and it would be absurd of me to try.


 * Nor is it my job; the nominator has that responsibility (we don't just throw spaghetti at a wall here to see what sticks) and there is also a slot called "updated by" in the nomination template. The nominator, updater, and supporters, and those editing the article itself bear those responsibilities.  If a general reader like myself who's been herding through ITN nominations for half-a-dozen years can't even guess what's going on by reading our article, it's not that reader's responsibility, but it's creators to fix it and seek help, which they can do using other resources like volunteer translators, and the ref and help desks.


 * I am not the big bad monster here. I am just warning the nomination's supporter's that it will fail if even sympathetic readers can't understand what is being said there.  Also, it's Christmas in my neck of the woods, and the only reason I have time to type this right now is because the rest of the family are out shooting each other with Nerf guns. μηδείς (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I have made a few improvements, but there still remain sentences like this: "The firefighters believed that most of the victims had inhaled toxic gases and died early in the fire, however, a controversy arose when a family member claimed that they receive a phone call from the victim four hours after the fire broke out. The bereaved families criticized the fire department for having missed the emergency rescue golden time." The tense issues and such phrases as "golden rescue time" are easily fixed, but I don't have the time to do this for the entirety of the article, which will soon be stale. It is a shame that a story like this will apparently not be posted while the death of three in a routine derailment was. μηδείς (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Ken Catchpole

 * Weak Support The referencing is not fantastic, but every paragraph does have at least one citation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak support per AO, it's just about good enough, but sadly short for such a "great". Hey ho, good enough for us though.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added more refs (was interrupted by RL on 22nd). Happy to add more if someone wants to add tags. Thanks JennyOz (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Marking as Ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T♦ C 18:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

[Stale] RD: Dick Enberg

 * Support - Article needs some additional references though first before posting. BabbaQ (talk) 12:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support p  b  p  15:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per BabbaQ. (Additional references required should lead to an oppose vote in my view.)--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The majority of the article is unreferenced. Black Kite (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose nowhere near good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I had too much work to do before leaving for my Christmas holiday to work on this. I don't have the time to devote to it now. Shame it's not in better shape than when I last saw it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Catalonia Election

 * Oppose for now. It's still a regional election. If something happens that makes this more than a regional election, then we can post that. Banedon (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose We generally don't post non-national elections. At the moment there isn't anything here other than a regional election. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support This is obviously a highly notable election that eclipses the normal restraints customary for a sub-national vote. The BBC World Service devoted 30 minutes of uninterrupted coverage to news and analysis of it today alone, which is notably remarkable given it was a busy news day. It covered the front page of papers in Sweden (Dagens Nyheter), Malta (Times of Malta) ), Denmark (Jyllands-Posten) , France (Libération) , and numerous other countries around the world, and is currently the leading headline on politico.eu. This election has implications beyond Catalona, including Spain and the whole EU generally. Chetsford (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and Chetsford. Davey2116 (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support; although a regional election, this is a notable step in the dispute. 331dot (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose They're not an independent nation-state. Posting this on the main page would be POV-pushing, an activist way to promote their cause.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The newsworthiness of events is a factor of their relative importance to other events, and the interest displayed by people in them (see here on page 2). The legal status of a thing is not a factor in evaluating the newsworthiness of that thing, either by the standards of ITN or by a consensus view as to what constitutes news. If it were, there would be no such thing as crime reporting.Chetsford (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not a news ticker...Zigzig20s (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The stated purpose of ITN is to "help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news". The legal status of Catalonia is irrelevant to a determination as to whether or not the election was "in the news". Chetsford (talk) 02:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - significant step ahead for pro-independence. Election was regional but stil an election about the independence of Catalonia more so than anything else.BabbaQ (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - the ramifications of this can be huge, hence, it warrants the inclusion to the ITN Karl.i.biased (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTALBALL.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The election is not an anticipated event. It is an event that has, in fact, occurred. The fact that Karl used a past-tense verb is not enough to invoke CRYSTALBALL. Chetsford (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support this was not an "illegal" unilateral referendum. It was a frankly authoritarian dictat imposed by the central government after standing law had been overridden in the name of an "emergency".  Given that alone it is noteworthy, and given the round denunciation of Madrid and Felipe in the results, it's a hell of a lot more monumental than a roleback of Net Neutrality. μηδείς (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * support per Chetsford and Medeis, regardless of outcome. When ready as it is had no porose yet. so Franco is dead alas, as for that matter is spain when the Basques and Canaries follow, not to mention Scotland and South Tyrol coming near you... Lihaas (talk) 05:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - per nom and Chetsford. Jusdafax (talk) 05:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support This is a clearly notable election with wide media coverage. Those claiming that it's simply a regional election, thus marginalising what was happening in the last three months, seem to have a point.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - yes, it's a regional election, but one with potential for major changes ahead, and of Continent-wide importance far in excess of its locality. This is a clear case of WP:IAR needing to be invoked and the story posting. Mjroots (talk) 08:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Marking ready given the apparent consensus for posting. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Free Catalunya! Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * unmarked ready for lack of a sourced prose update.Lihaas (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Prose for results - ✅ - Stormy clouds (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Stormy clouds. But the issues I mention below are still not addressed (and regretably I will not be attempting to fix them myself per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, due to unnecessarily unpleasant previous memories of unsuccessfully attempting to improve a Catalonia article).Tlhslobus (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support in principle but oppose for now per . The Aftermath section is unreferenced, and the article lacks any prose discussion on the results and their implication. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am convinced this is notable as per Mjroots above. It's not ITNR and it shouldn't be but that doesn't mean it can't pass the "ordinary" ITNC criteria. I haven't yet checked article quality (I'm phone only right now and prefer to do that on desktop). --LukeSurlt c 13:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding the blurb, I don't think it's accurate to say Puigdemont leads these parties. Puigdemont is the leader of Junts per Catalunya but there are 3 different parties which make up a pro-independence majority. Also describing him as "exiled" is misleading, as this is self-imposed. Without qualification it makes it sound like Spain expelled him from the country. Lastly the pro-independence parties maintained rather than gained a majority. All of these issues are dealt with in the alt blurb I've just suggested. --LukeSurlt c 13:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Exile is almost always self-imposed - like Puigdemont, another leader in exile would be free to return to the country but, also like Puigdemont, would very likely face charges and possible imprisonment there, which is why they are regarded as in exile. Anyway, it's up to 3rd party sources to determine that, not us, and plenty do call him exiled: On the other points, you're probably right, and on that level I agree that your new blurb is better. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose the blurb makes it unclear what the election was. Given the big recent news from Catalonia, people might assume it was another referendum on independence.  As it was actually the autonomous communities parliament, the significance is nuanced.  The 'independent' parties were participating in an election sanctioned by Spain and continue to at least implicitly acknowledge Spanish sovereignty.  Don't think it is ripe for ITN and given the muddled situation too nuanced to be blurbed. --Klaun (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Semantically, an election and a referendum are different ideas. There is no such thing as an "independence election". The participating parties were in an election forced by Spain, and the election was firmly divided along independence lines. The Home Rule League acknowledged British sovereignty, yet this did not make their stance nuanced. This is a clear victory for pro-Catalan independence, even in the face of harsh Spanish criticism and come-downs, and so is not particularly nuanced in my view. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support – Due to widespread coverage and implications for other European ethnic regions. Sca (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per Medeis. GCG (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on Notability, Oppose for now on Quality : (Although there are still some changes I'd like to see, as indicated below, I'm satisfied that quality has now improved enough for me to be able to change to Support) At the very least we need more text explaining the results, and in particular, we need an explanation for how our Infobox shows the Pro-Independence parties up 3 seats when they are actually down 2, as pointed out in The Guardian, and as I have already asked here at the Talk Page. We probably also need to spell out that the Pro-Independence parties are again short of a majority of the popular vote, and their percentage is actually down (seemingly by about 0.4%, though there may be rounding errors in that figure). Regretably I will not be attempting to fix these issues myself per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, due to unnecessarily unpleasant previous memories of unsuccessfully attempting to improve a Catalonia article. Meanwhile, could somebody please ping me when they feel these issues have been fixed, so that, assuming they are indeed fixed, I can then decide to switch my vote to Support. Tlhslobus (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the great work, Stormy clouds. Although there are still some changes I'd like to see, I'm satisfied that quality has now improved enough, so I've now changed to Support. The additional changes I'd like to see is by how much the Pro-Independence percentage popular vote is down, with both percentage (47.49%, only in the lead last time I looked) and change appearing at least in the Aftermath section (and change possibly also in the lead, where 47.49% is already found). Pro-Independence down 2 seats should perhaps also appear in the lead, if it's not is already there. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose inclusion of "how much the Pro-Independence percentage popular vote is down" since no such figure exists. This week's vote was an election to a regional legislative body, not a referendum on independence. Including "how much the Pro-Independence percentage popular vote is down" could only be accomplished by assuming that each individual voter voted on a candidate based solely on their position on the political status of Catalonia, and ignored any other issues being debated during the campaign such as road construction and maintenance, education funding, or marginal tax rates. Chetsford (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not that it matters much now that the item is posted (unless somebody wants it pulled), but I was simply using inaccurate shorthand for the percentage vote for Pro-Independence parties, which is reported in reliable sources such as The Guardian link I gave above (which they gave as 47.5% at the time (with 1% of the vote still to be counted), adding that it once again failed to reach 50%). So I expect there are now many reliable sources now mentioning that the figure is down on 2015, and, assuming that is the case, it should be reported, per WP:NOTCENSORED (and, if necessary, WP:IAR, etc). Tlhslobus (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

, - issues have been addressed. Are you willing to support? Stormy clouds (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose results section needs prose update. Opinion polls prose has no refs. Campaign section needs prose. Stances table has no refs. Insignificant local election, but also not MP quality. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support the "aftermath" section contains the necessary prose as other commentators noted was needed. My comments on notability are above. This is ready to post. --LukeSurlt c 20:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Remarking ready given consensus and updates made to article. Tagging uninvolved admins to streamline posting before nom is stale. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * + image? Works for me either way. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Posted <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 22:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Pull could you take a look please? Unless I'm missing something there are still missing refs (maybe the prose update for results standard has gone out the window but surely we're not ok with whole unreferenced tables). --CosmicAdventure (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The tables are mostly unreferenced or their referencing is unclear. I have dropped a note on the article talk page and will give a little grace period in case this can be quickly fixed. But if the referencing is not improved fairly quickly I will pull it until this issue is corrected. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I reviewed those before posting. Do not pull, as the sources are provided at the bottom of the table. Providing individual citations for each box is not required by policy or standard... doing so would cost hundreds of hours of volunteer time on each article such tables exist in. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 19:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . Improvements are ongoing and I am not pulling it. The results tables are good now and the only other three that are not adequately referenced are being worked on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you good sir! <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 22:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] December 2017 Melbourne car attack

 * Oppose. Where are you getting "terrorist incident"? The authorities are taking great pains to make it clear that this isn't a terrorist attack and that it's being treated as a straightforward road accident in which the driver was under the influence of drugs. &#8209; Iridescent 11:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I never said that it was a terrorist incident, but rather that such events are usually listed on the front page. I will remove the reference if it offends you. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 11:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This isn't a "mass civilian attack", it is as Iridescent describes it. No one has died. I would question whether it even merits an article. 331dot (talk) 12:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course it's a mass civilian attack (deliberately perpetrated by a civilian against a mass of civilians). 19 people have been injured. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 12:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess I equate "mass civilian attack" with "terrorist attack". I would also question how "deliberate" it was if the alleged suspect had a mental illness. 331dot (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not newsworthy in the slightest, owing to the lack of deaths and the lack of a terroristic motive. It was already a stretch getting the AmTrak crash up there. --WaltCip (talk) 12:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Impeachment of Pedro Pablo Kuczynski

 * Oppose Prose makes the impeachment sound like a formality, then the vote fails... there could be a story there. But what happened with the vote? Don't they have whip counts in Peru? It sounds like they were trying to force a resignation without having the coalition for impeachment. If the threat was just braggadocio, there's not enough here to post. GCG (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nom. We don't usually post things that don't happen. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a process that has been set up and voted, then it happened, and is sufficiently relevant. Other versions of Wikipedia named it as news. – User:Ravenanation
 * Oppose. Doesn't seem to be significantly in the news. We didn't post a recent failed vote to impeach Donald Trump which also was minimally in the news. It also doesn't seem like this vote was technically on the merits of impeachment, if I understand it right. 331dot (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is different from the impeachment of Donald Trump, this is a process that has been set up and voted on and not a proposal. – User:Ravenanation

[Posted] RD: Bernard Francis Law

 * Support Article looks solid and well sourced. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as per Ad Orientem Chetsford (talk) 06:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

National Council of the Judiciary

 * Comment If I read the European Commission's press release correctly, at this stage Article 7 is under consideration by the European Council and Polish authorities still have time to comply. Brandmeistertalk  10:02, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's correct. There is a three-part process for suspension of a state's franchise: first, a proposal to declare a "clear breach" must be tabled; second, a "clear breach" must be declared; third, the European Council can suspend voting rights. Currently the Commission has tabled a proposal to declare a "clear breach" which is the first time in the history of the EU this has occurred. Chetsford (talk) 10:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose – for now. As Brandmeister notes, it's only the beginning of the EC "clear breach" process, which reportedly may take up to three months. Also promulgate is not a synonym for enact or implement; it means basically to announce or propose. But Duda has signed the bills into law. Sca (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The president of Poland first signs a bill and then, by decree, orders its promulgation in the official gazette which must occur prior to its effective date. This is the final step in lawmaking and is what has occurred. In practice, this is a one-step process and, because the gazette is itself a state institution, the president is in fact promulgating via the gazette and in common parlance in most parliamentary republics in the non-English speaking world this is what is said instead of the absolutely literal "the such-and-such legal journal promulgated". However, I'd be fine substituting the equally correct - albeit less specific - signs for promulgates if it's less likely to create confusion. (Implementation is a different matter entirely and pertains to the functional application and enforcement of a law, which is accomplished by the civil service or the responsible ministers, or the two in concert. Enactment is the whole process of lawmaking from parliamentary resolution to presidential signature to promulgation by presidential order; the president alone cannot enact an law.) Chetsford (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I see that is an additional meaning of promulgate. In my experience, though, in the English-speaking world it's more typically used in a context which doesn't mean finalize or enact. (Example: "The border changes promulgated at the Potsdam Conference." In that case, they were proposed by Stalin at Potsdam but final enactment was supposed to have occurred at postwar peace conference that never was held. The new borders weren't recognized de jure by the West until decades later.) Sca (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A fascinating anecdote. Anyway, back to the subject; I've added an alternate blurb that is more "average Joe" friendly. Chetsford (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose until EU voting rights are actually suspended, rather than political to and fro processes. Stephen 23:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per the previous nomination. If we say wait till this happens, and it happens, we shouldn't be changing our minds either. Besides, Brexit was about invoking article 50, and we've posted multiple blurbs on that even though the UK hasn't actually left the EU yet. Banedon (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] North Korea accused of performing the Wannacry cyberattack

 * Added comment I'm working to try to remove a lot of duplication in the article (I think there was a merge some time in the past, so a lot of info duplicated). But the sourcing is there, it's more a preliminary quality issue I'm fixing. --M asem (t) 17:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am reminded of the confident assertions that Iraq had WMD. The sources provided seem too speculative and provisional. Andrew D. (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I do agree that these are claims, and until their reports are made public, difficult to see how confident they are, but it's not so much whether there is the smoking gun, but that this is a formal accusation by multiple countries towards NK, which is geared to try to urge UN to take some type of action. --M asem (t) 17:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose unless something actually happens. To those who have been paying attention, this whole saga involving North Korea has been all hat and no cattle. Officials talk a big game about ratcheting up sanctions or taking "unilateral action" but it never amounts to anything.--WaltCip (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose China and Russia are practically their only trading partners, if they aren't onboard with sanctions it is just so much saber rattling. --Klaun (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Just one baby throwing candy angrily at another. No substantial news here, nothing worthy of ITN. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless you're implying that Donald Trump has authority over other countries such as the UK, Japan and Australia, that's plainly incorrect. Banedon (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Corriedale lambs in Tierra del Fuego.JPG - A visual representation of the named nations. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If Shinzo Abe, Theresa May, etc had a Wikipedia account, I think they could press a case that you're insulting them. Banedon (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If world leaders held themselves as sacrosanct and above critique, even on en.wiki, we would be in a dystopia. Or the country who is integral to this nomination. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Though in all seriousness, I don't feel that, even if true, the fact that North Korea was behind WannaCry is worthy of ITN. Both the attack and the revelation of whodunnit, especially given the inability of the West to impose punishments, are of minimal lasting impact. Ran riot earlier in the year, and got posted then. Does not need a reiteration now, in my view. So, I'll stick with oppose. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a better reason to oppose. Banedon (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support – This is a different kind of kerfuffle than those attendant to PRK missiles, which never hit any target. WannaCry bedeviled some 200,000 computers, including those of the UK's health service. – Sca (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support on the one hand there's little the US can do to change NK's behavior . On the other hand if indeed there's little that can be done, then there's not likely to be more significant developments. If this is worth posting at all, now is the time to do so. This is also the collective action of multiple different countries, plus it's seeing lots of coverage (Googling for "Wannacry" turns up pages upon pages of results within the past 24 hours). I'm willing to support this. Banedon (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose easy target, not interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose is this an act of war? The US and UK are acting as if it's an act of qvetch.  When two permanent UN Security Council seat holders and nuclear powers do nothing, it's not news. μηδείς (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose North Korea is behaving badly. In other news the sun is expected to rise tomorrow in the east. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per Banedon. Davey2116 (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, stale. According to the article, the North Koreans have been the main suspects since June. Because this accusation does not get the world much closer to the truth, this news is stale. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] 2017 Washington train derailment

 * Provisional oppose for what I'm well aware are The Wrong Reasons, before anyone shouts at me. If this goes on the main page and Perpignan crash doesn't, it will cause a lot of legitimate complaints of apparent systemic bias. Since the likelihood is near-as-zero that Perpignan will be in a fit state to post, I don't feel we should be running this one either. In most circumstances, OTHERSTUFFDOESN'TEXIST isn't a valid argument, but since the DuPont train derailment article itself is fairly poor quality I don't really feel it's appropriate to run it in these particular circumstances. &#8209; Iridescent 18:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Perpignan crash hasn't yet been nominated. It would still be a viable nomination as it is newer than the oldest item on ITN. --LukeSurlt c 18:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. While I admit to the logic of the beginning your argument, Perpignan crash is only 3,817 bytes as opposed to the DuPont train derailment which is 11,719 bytes. If the article was nominated for inclusion, would require much needed expansion. I am not saying it isn't notable, but the separation in articles qualities is already evidence of any potential systematic bias complaints. &#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  20:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * MattLongCT, note that when I made the above comment, the article in question looked like this, was a mighty 244 words long, and could politely have been described as "an embarrassing piece of crap". &#8209; Iridescent 20:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , fair point. I probably should have thought that through. My apologies.&#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  20:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * With respect,, it was hardly an "embarrassing piece of crap"™ then. It had structure and was fully referenced. It was short as the story had not long broken. I'm well aware that one side effect of nominating an article at ITN is that many editors will pile in and improve it, as has happened in this case. Regardless of whether or not it gets posted, my nominating the article means that Wikipedia as a whole has benefited. Mjroots (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment the item is "in the news", and unlike motor-vehicle incidents these types of accidents are fairly rare, and the article is decent (without even a spelling or grammar error!). Normally I'd support, but I'm getting rather weary of seeing ITN post utterly irrelevant disaster stories based purely on "significant number of deaths". Crappy planes operated by two bit airlines crash, trains derail, the Taliban shoots up whatever, it happens. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Death toll appears to be up to 6, and expected to rise. Moreso, what's troubling was this was the inaugural run of the train on this new stretch. As a note to Iridescent, no one has nominated that Perpignan crash, so trying to compare, right now, is apples to oranges. (I spot checked, and my gut would say to post). --M asem (t) 18:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose at least for now, as Masem notes, the death toll is low but is expected to rise within the coming hours or so. I will likely reconsider then, but at the moment the disaster’s death toll is too low for ITN for the moment. Kirliator (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no "minimum threshold" for a death toll required for ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support In the news, rare enough event, decent article to showcase. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, low death count, self-explanatory. In addition, the events “rarity” has nothing to do with ITN worthyiness. SamaranEmerald (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Infrastructure failures of this sort are rare and significant, so yeah that's relevant. The death toll, however, is not relevant for our purposes here. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - In the hierarchy of ITN-newsworthiness for crash events, trains usually occupy the lower tiers, particularly with one such as this where there are so few casualties.--WaltCip (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support high speed trains do not regularly crash, even less regularly do they kill people while doing so. That this happened on the inaugural passenger service on the line adds to its newsworthiness. There is no death count requirement for ITN (and nor should there be). Thryduulf (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * @Thryduulf, be aware that "high speed train" has a very different meaning in the US (where because of track-sharing with freight haulage trains run far more slowly than in Europe or Asia) than it does in the rest of the world. The train in question had a maximum speed of 79mph. &#8209; Iridescent 19:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak support if this happened in the UK or Germany or France, it should be at least nominated, and probably should be posted. Getting up towards 100 casualties and half a dozen deaths, plus the added interest of the inaugural run, this is probably not a bad shout for ITN.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as it was on its inaugural run and caused a significant amount of deaths. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose we need a source in the nom, and I'd like a little expansion to balance somewhat tenuous notability. GCG (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies, source now added. Mjroots (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And added a couple more. --M asem (t) 19:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Significant crash, all things considered. 2607:FEA8:1CDF:DF8C:F113:4427:DD71:1B19 (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per Thryduulf, TRM and Stormy Clouds.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, I personally find polls like these to be mostly fruitless. Even if the consensus is in favor of the supporters, it is largely a short-lived victory as from my various visits to the site’s main page, it often times gives overtaken by other nominations within the next month, and many people often forget as though such a vote pertaining to said event ever occurred sometime afterwards.  In addition, many of these events fade from the public’s eye after a while as well, and are eventually forgotten overall. 97.46.1.130 (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I may be mistaken, but I think "it often times gives overtaken by other nominations within the next month" belies a misunderstanding of the ITN process. Items in the ITN template on the main page are listed solely in chronological order (newest to oldest), moving down the ordering as new items are added above. Any item, regardless of its status, is likely to remain on for about a week until it eventually is too old to be listed. --LukeSurlt c 19:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm perplexed that there is no clear criteria here for discussion. This event is definitely "in the news" but lots of editors here state that isn't enough.  It has to be of long term significance, they proffer, which is sort of at odds with "news" given that is transient at its core.  And given the standing policy of including sports events here... the whole long term significance argument seems to fall flat.  So how can there be more clarity?  Frankly, I see lots of articles that seem to hang around the ITN section for quite a while.  It doesn't really seem very timely. --Klaun (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Support The purpose of the In the News section is "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news." As editors we have the duty to provide every reader the information they need to know immediately. This gives notice to the reader that the topic of this article may soon affect various other world events. It is clear, that the day of such an event happening, we will see a lot of coverage. The debate on further notability or the need to merge the article must come later. It is the most catastrophic derailment in the United States since the 2015 Philadelphia train derailment. Many of these tragedies happen for reasons that have yet to be discovered (as evidenced by the current 2 year litigation of the previously mentioned article). The President has already addressed the nation that this is proof of a need for a shift in US Domestic Infastructure policy. The Governor of Washington has declared a state of emergency. For these many reasons, this article is a strong candidate for appearing in the In the News section and possibly on the front page.&#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  20:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the ITN section is on the front page, and yes, we know what the purpose is, but I'm certainly not searching for it, I know it's in the news but it's not that big a deal in a global sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree its not that big a deal, but it's making the news 7,500 miles away in the UK, I suppose Seattle to Sydney is in that region distance-wise too. Mjroots (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - If this is posted, alt-blurb 2 is WAY too long as far as ITN blurbs go. A summary of the event is all that is needed.--WaltCip (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WaltCip, Excellent point. I modified the blurb to be only one sentence and much more condense. Thank you for mention it!&#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  20:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment ALT Blurb 1 is very inaccurate. It is the inaugural run of the Cascades on the Point Defiance Bypass (essentially a reroute), not the inaugural run of the service.  Sounder Bruce  20:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing. It is the inaugural run using the Point Defiance Bypass where the accident occurred, but not the inaugural run of the Amtrak Cascades as a whole.  Would it make the blurb too long to say "inaugural run using the Point Defiance Bypass" where it currently just says "inaugural run". Calathan (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No big deal to drop the "inaugural run" from the blurb. Mjroots (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Marking as ready Mjroots (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per Masem and Muboshgu. Davey2116 (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per SamaranEmerald & WaltClip. Little evidence of notability, especially in the long term. Banedon (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Nearly every accident involving commercial forms of mass transportation (trains, planes, and boats), even without deaths, are going to be cataloged and investigated by agencies like the NTSB, FAA, etc. so that the issues that led up to the accident aren't repeated in the future, to determine liability, etc. In such a case, if there are significant deaths or injuries, that makes the accident notable by our standards. It may not be in the news outside of local papers in a few days, the results of the NTSB investigation may never be widely reported, but the accident remains logged and its report of the investigation will continue well beyond that. --M asem  (t) 21:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you remember Puisseguin road crash? It was nominated back when it happened too. It seemed to tick all the boxes: relatively high death toll, uncommon event, etc, and was only not posted because the article quality was poor. Two years later, what kind of lasting impact came out of the crash? Nothing, as far as I can see. It'd be especially ironic if your answer to the "do you remember ..." question is "no". Banedon (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not what our fr:Accident de Puisseguin article says.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 22:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not sure "injuring at least more than 77" is grammatically correct. Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not, and it's already been fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Pull I have opposed posting accidents like this in the past, and here there is no hint of crime or misconduct, nothing to make this other than the unfortunate but statistically run of the mill transportation accident. Were there signs of sabotage, or even hints of criminal behavior I might entertain it.  But there isn't.  Unless something else breaks, this is obviously undue weight. μηδείς (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I assure you, doing 80 on a 30 corner with a train is a *hint* of a crime somewhere, either directly through human intervention or indirectly through equipment failure. A genuine no-fault actual brakes failure is low down the list of probability here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You can "assure" me all you like, Mr. Mackey, but your opinion is BS, neither RS nor compatible with BLP. You need to stop implying criminality with your crystal ball.  Meanwhile 8 Americans and 12 total are killed in Quintana Roo, but that's Mexico, so it doesn't really matter, one suspects. μηδείς (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It really doesn't take a fucking rocket scientist to determine that there was at minimum some criminal negligence in play which led to this crash. Trains don't just accidentally via mechanical fault go 80 MPH down a 30 MPH stretch.--WaltCip (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak support notability is on the border of post/don't post, but the article has good quality and goes into good depth for the topic.  Spencer T♦ C 16:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Honduran general election, 2017

 * Agree strongly regarding significance, and I think that the announcement of the final result makes a good blurb for ITN. But the article could really use some help - I've been trying to keep it updated, but there's a lot missing. Off the top of my head, there's nothing in there regarding the police going on strike, the physical attacks on the press, or the announcement of the final results last night and the reaction to that. (I'm really curious to see how today's national strike plays out.) And that's all just one section of the article, the rest of the article is scant, to say the least, especially background and international reaction. But I don't think it would take too much work to get it there. -- irn (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I fully agree with these reasons and I hope that my recommended blurb helps to at least move this along. I'm adding the page to my watchlist.&#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  16:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Highly notable news story getting significant coverage worldwide and with an unpredictable outcome. Getting it in the news section will help any weaknesses caused in the article. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Conditional support for Alt Blurb. If you reference Hernández's education. I've added CN tags.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ by User:Irn. Marking ready given consensus. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support – A separate section could be created surrounding protests if they build up momentum, but overall this is main page material.--<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 18:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Changing from Ready to Attention needed. The major news here appears to be focused on the controversial aspect of this election, but this isn't covered comprehensively in the article. More eyes are needed for this entry. Alex Shih (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Alex Shih, I added an article by the New York Times that addresses the expanding political crisis caused by this event.&#8213; <em style="color:black">Matthew J. Long -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  20:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added some content.


 * Support alt 2 only when ready. I think the blurb has to mention that the official results have been doubted due to the irregularities, and that the OAS has called for a new election. Neutralitytalk 23:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Chilean general election 2017

 * Conditional Support There are a couple of unreferenced sentences in both articles. Please fix this first.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cambalachero (talk) 02:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - clearly significant international news. Stormy clouds (talk) 09:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In Chilean general election, 2017 the primary section is unreferenced. The main article for this Chilean presidential primaries, 2017, points to for the results, but this does not link directly to the primary result and I cannot navigate in Spanish to find where/if this information is contained. --LukeSurlt c 11:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've found a news article with the results in percentages. This is OK for the purposes of Chilean general election, 2017. This was the last referencing issue. Sebastián Piñera article looks OK as well. Support, ready to post. --LukeSurlt c 11:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support GCG (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. The election of a head of state is notable and the relevant articles fit the standards. Inatan (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Atlanta Airport Power Outage

 * Weak support major disruption at worlds busiest airport is in the news, but update is weak. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose ITN is not a news ticker, and I don't see a long-term impact here.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nom. This is a blip. It has all of a paragraph in the linked article which in the long run may be more than it deserves. If it were it's own article I doubt it would survive AfD. The long term significance of this event is likely to be somewhere between trivial and non-existent. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not a significant issue. Things happen. --M asem (t) 01:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose short-term issue that will be or has already been resolved. Kirliator (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose mildly inconvenient for a handful of individuals. First world problem.  No long term impact on anything, not even suitable for DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Rambles - you're needed in the cockpit.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Kim Jong-hyun (singer)

 * Oppose article doesn't even mention his (untimely?) death. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * @The Rambling Man: This death is incident "now". So english newspaper's reports are later than Korean newspapers (e.g. Yonhap). If you need more source, see Guardian etc. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't say I needed more, I said the article needed more. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * More of what? Heinz Wolff is featured in recent deaths and his article is far shorter than Kim Jong-hyun and doesn't even include a section about his death.CherryPie94 (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * When I reviewed the article, it didn't even mention his death which, if it's "such big news", should be covered in some detail. Wolff's article at least mentioned his death in the prose.  No-one said anything about a "section about his death".  Cheers.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * there's a death section now, so your vote should be updated? starship.paint ~  <font style="color:white;background:black;">KO  02:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support looks okay to me now. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support This is a very major incident in South Korea and even English newspapers are writing about it.CherryPie94 (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Only as a note, as long as we have reliable foreign sources about a notable person's death, that still works for the purposes of RD posting. There is no requirement that English sources must cover the death - it helps, but not required by any means. --M asem (t) 22:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as there is currently an edit war over his personal life. Also the "Music Programs" section is unreferenced.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * - I've nuked the unreferenced section. starship.paint ~  <font style="color:white;background:black;">KO  02:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Things seem to have settled down and referencing is good, so switching to Support.Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Considering the massive spike in page views for this article (far higher than for all the other deaths currently highlighted |Bernard_Sherman|Alessandro_Kokocinski|Heinz_Wolff|Kim_Jong-hyun_(singer)), it would look a little odd if this wasn't mentioned. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support looks OK. feminist (talk) 12:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support article content seems referenced, no problem tags starship.paint ~  <font style="color:white;background:black;">KO  13:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted This was a huge disappointment. When I first read the RD title I was about to break out a bottle of champagne. Alas it's the wrong Kim Jong---. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * - surely that would be a blurb if it ever happens. starship.paint ~  <font style="color:white;background:black;">KO  13:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Bitcoin breaches the $20,000 barrier

 * Oppose What's so important about $20,000? If anything, a story related to BitCoin would be if that valuation crashes as this news article suggests would be more appropriate for ITN. --M asem (t) 14:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose $20,000 is paltry in terms of size, in addition bitcoin is rarely used on the surface world and web and is mainly used as currency for drug trafficking. Kirliator (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, an arbitrary threshold. Unfortunately I don't think the meteoric rise in BitCoin's value is something that can fit into the ITN framework. --LukeSurlt c 15:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose I'm not seeing this story "in the news" anywhere, which is strange, because bitcoin has been popping up a lot in recent weeks. Also the target article doesn't do much to explain the current price bubble. As a reader, if I click a bold link, I want details about that link, not a wall of text about the blockchain. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose simply because the threshold is arbitrary. The current bubble is very interesting and definitely worth reading up on, but it doesn't fit in the ITN framework, as LukeSurl said. Also, "History of bitcoin" may be a much more interesting target if we were to do something with this. ~ Mable ( chat ) 16:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The crash, if and when it comes, would be worth a blurb. (Must confess I really don't understand the crypto-currency concept; as far as this poor mortal can figure out it's just a cyberized ponzi scheme.) Sca (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

[Stale] RD: Sharon Laws

 * Oppose far too much of it (e.g. results of races) unsourced. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too much unreferenced content.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Heinz Wolff

 * Support Looks well sourced now. Black Kite (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thx Mjroots (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support a few tweaks from me, and the missing ref. Great Egg Race!  RIP.  This is now good to go.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, his death was covered, with some vintage BBC footage, in the BBC News at Ten tonight. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Bernard Sherman

 * Support - when improved. Article looks ok, but references needs to be improved.BabbaQ (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - I have trimmed the unreferenced content. The rest has in-line references. The article sounds balanced and comprehensive.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Net Neutrality repealed

 * Support on notability This is all over the news and will have ramifications not just in the US. However, the article has many missing references so it's not ready to post. Davey2116 (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Even though this is U.S. specific, the amount of media attention both online and offline surrounding this particular event has been astronomical. It's hard to go anywhere without hearing the words "Net Neutrality" in any context.--WaltCip (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support in agreement with the above statements. I do think that, especially with an online website like Wikipedia, this is a very important ITN topic, though I would add another source for confirmation. Otherwise, it's ready to go. Thanks, User:ST15RMwikipedia 19:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per the above. I've added Ars Technica as another source for confirmation. Thunderforge (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I don't think it should be necessary for me to go into detail on why the repeal of net neutrality in the United States is a highly notable story. This is an unprecedented change in FCC policy. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. This comment should not be considered a support or oppose; I get that this is exploding in the news and affects many people directly or indirectly, but is this that radical a change in policy?  The current regulations were only implemented a few years ago and this change merely reverts back to the prior policy.  Someone will likely sue in an attempt to stop it, states are trying to pass their own net neutrality laws(which the FCC is also trying to stop) and it will almost certainly be changed once a Democratic president is in office who can tip the balance of the FCC. Just some thoughts. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not that radical a change in my opinion, but the reaction across the Internet has been monumental, on levels of SOPA.--WaltCip (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Without going deep into the history: while the repeal is revoking the 2015 order, there had been various regulations in place that enforced net neutrality since at least 2010 (around the same time we started hearing providers wanting to make fast-lanes for traffic); the 2015 order came by because courts found that a previous FCC order that enforced NN was improper, so the FCC then raced to correct that with the 2015 order. This is effectively the first time that there has been no net neutrality protection on the US internet infrastructure while internet providers have been pushing for tiered services. --M asem  (t) 21:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is my last comment here since Wikipedia is not a forum and the request has been posted, but in response to 331dot the idea that this only goes back to 2015 is a complete falsehood. This goes back to 1996 where lawsuit after lawsuit from 98 to 02 to 07 to 2010 to 2011 to 2014 all pushed the FCC towards writing net neutrality into law. The principle behind it is as old as the internet itself. You're right that there will be lawsuits, but it's absolutely "radical." BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Posted <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 21:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Pull CN tags all over the place. Is anyone actually reading these articles before piling on support? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It has 260 unique sources and a C class rating. Even with its CN tags, it's unquestionably a well-sourced article. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "C" class? Really? Well it's got serious referencing issues and should not be linked on the main page. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that it has not been checked against B class criteria. Note that out of all 5 presently featured news articles, C class is the highest rating of any primary link with two of the five being start class. Note that the 15 CNs are in an article with 262 unique sources and 340 separate citations. It's undeniable that this is a well-sourced article and it's quantifiable that it's both better sourced and an equal or better class than the other present news articles. With regard to all of our established criteria, you simply have no argument here. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * CA's opinion is the one that usually holds sway around these parts, but your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. GCG (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've eliminated nearly all unsourced content from the article, so this problem should be solved. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not solved. ITN doesn't rely on some wikiprojects quality evaluation applied at some point in the past. ITN has it's own guidelines (which perhaps you've not bothered to read) which state "Updated content must be thoroughly referenced. As with all Wikipedia articles, citations must be to reliable sources.". The target article is objectively missing references, which makes it objectively inadequate for the main page, which makes it objectively necessary to pull until it's fixed. Cross posting this to WP:ERRORS and pinging and  in the hopes that one of them can take a look and pull as necessary. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know, CA, your own citation says "as with all Wikipedia entries" which implies an idealized state for the whole of WP, not a higher standard for ITN. It also also also says that "Articles [with] 'orange'- or 'red'-level tags...may not be accepted for an emboldened link" which seems to imply that those without serious issues are not automatically disqualified. GCG (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * shrugs I've never seen ITN be ok with such poorly referenced content before, but no one seems to care, so whatever then. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Pull Huge gaps in referencing. I have also posted this at ERRORS. I just added multiple CN tags and there were already a lot. How did this get posted? -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Pulled pending improvements in referencing. I counted at least 15 CN tags. That's not acceptable for the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to say that the recent edits per the content of Template:Citation needed appears to be drive-by tagging. Much of the content that now has CN tags does not require external sourcing, for example: "as upheld in National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services.[citation needed]" note that it simply refers to the ruling of an event and then links to the event. Some of these CN tags will be removed without content being removed because they weren't added judiciously. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In general, any claim of fact that is not obviously non-controversial should have a citation to a reliable source. In most cases links to other WP:articles do not meet that standard as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. That said, if there is a CN tag next to a claim of fact that is already cited before it (usually it should be in the same section) then a duplicate cite is not required. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging:    I've taken the time find sources for all statements with CN tags. There's zero left. I request that the article is readded to ITN. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't think this should ever have been posted in the first place. It is a combination of navel-gazing and political POV.  The regulations were a regulatory fiat, not a law.  They addressed noactual problem, and had no demonstrable effect while briefly in place.  And not only has the sky not fallen since their repeal, the FCC has also reiterated that the FTC can prosecute anti-competitive practices, and mandated that any bottlenecking of service be made completely transparent to the customer, unlike the previous practice where slowdowns did not need to be advertised beyond a vague user agreement.  There might be a real argument for the congress halving the US corporate tax rate (now the highest in the world) if that happens.  But net neutrality repeal was a non-event. μηδείς (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Re-Posted Well done to U|BrendonTheWizard on making the needed improvements. With respect to the above oppose, I think there is a consensus to support this on its merits. However if that changes I will be happy to take another look. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per User:Medeis. A non-story. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm not seeing much coverage of it, and no strong argument as to why it matters either. In fact some sources even go ahead and say nothing much will change (e.g. this opinion piece on Bloomberg). Open to changing my mind, but I'd like to see some reasons for why this is highly notable. Banedon (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Disney buys Fox

 * Oppose since (despite the breathless reporting) it hasn't actually happened. When you read the actual announcement, all that was announced today is an agreement in principle subject to shareholder approval from both companies, legal clearance in the US, and regulatory approval in every market in which the companies operate (e.g. most of the world). The deal is also predicated on Fox's bid for Sky being successful, which isn't at all certain (the British government have already vetoed that deal once). &#8209; Iridescent 13:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose but if this acquisition goes through, which it probably will under this administration (but who knows anymore?), it should be posted. This would be one of the largest acquisitions of its kind, and it has the potential to completely reshape the media market in the USA.--WaltCip (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Since ITN precedence has established that we post these mergers at the time of announcement, rather than execution, support.--WaltCip (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support In terms of importance and size, this is a major buyout that affects much of Hollywood. In terms of timing, we have discussed business deals before, and its been determined that it is the point of announcement that is the point where ITN is appropriate, as that's when it is actually covered the most; the actual act may be a short blurb in newspapers when it happens but nowhere near the volume of coverage on the point of announcement. Yes, there are things like US regulatory actions that could stop it, and in those same discussions, if that stoppage is considered significant, that itself could be another ITN. --M asem (t) 14:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Significant news, quality articles. As noted by Masem, the time to link an article on the main page is the time when people are actually reading about it outside of Wikipedia.  Since this is true now, it makes sense to post it now.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Typically with business transactions the announcement gets far more attention than the actual close of the deal; that point would get called stale and not in the news if we waited, resulting in no business news on ITN. We should do this now. 331dot (talk)
 * Support per Masem. There will be a much louder chorus of "now is not the time" if we try to post this when the deal closes. GCG (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Blurb needs work though; technically this is a merger. "Buys assets" underplays that less than a third of the existing company will be spun off. GCG (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've tried an alt blurb; we know Fox would keep its news side, but its hard to present a short blurb with calling out the exceptions. "most of Fox's entertainment divisions" is about the best summary that implies the news stays with Murdock. --M asem (t) 15:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That was why I wrote "buys assets from the 21st Century Fox" instead of "buys the 21st Century Fox". It left it implicit that Fox still exists after the deal, which is about some of their assets, not about the whole group as such. However, the alt also seems fine, and I have no problem with it. Cambalachero (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support This is a significant event in entertainment and business. It has the potential to have major impact on entertainment consumers, and not just in the US, with assets in India and the UK, notably, included. As far as the blurb is concerned, it is true that Disney is acquiring 21st Century Fox, though the news business will be spun-off prior to deal closure. --heat_fan1 (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Big news if it takes place but too much presumption that this will actually happen. As another user said there are still many hoops to jump through and many areas where the deal can fall apart. 208.74.36.138 (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This user made only 2 edits in wikipedia (unless it's a regular user who forgot to login in; in that case please do so and sign as needed) Cambalachero (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If this falls apart or is blocked in the courts, that would likely merit posting. If it closes, it won't make the news. The time to post is now. As noted below, there is discussion about this somewhere. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Last place I can find is in 2015 here . --M asem (t) 17:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment we've established that the announcement is the time to post business deals. Could another "regular" dig up the discussion at Wt:itn? It's been weeks since I've been at a computer... --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I found Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 49 and Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 53, both confirming that posting when it's in the news is the right time.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's them. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmicAdventure (talk • contribs) 17:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Biggest news in the entertainment business for years. Announced now, it's appropriate to post now. Radagast (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per Masem. Davey2116 (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per above.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per above. -Thunderforge (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 21:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like we now have an article for the Disney acquisition of 20th Century Fox: Acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney. Could we make this the bolded article? Mz7 (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It’s tagged. 08:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen (talk • contribs) 08:03, December 15, 2017 (UTC)
 * Pull since Acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney is the only reasonable target article. If that's not worth posting because it's tagged or whatever, then the entire item shouldn't be there. Banedon (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * At the time this was posted, that article didn't exist. --M asem (t) 18:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see why that's an argument for not pulling this. Circumstances change, we change accordingly. Banedon (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We can't !vote on something that doesn't exist. The individual articles were appropriately updated when this was posted. --M asem (t) 18:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That brings to mind an old issue never resolved. What if an article is fine when posted and then rapidly becomes non-fine? Standing policy appears to be "do nothing" in which case ITN becomes even sillier than it already is. Someone complains about tags, easy, remove everything that's tagged. Once the article is featured, restore everything. Banedon (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it's an argument to pull. ITN requires a reasonable update in a target article, not a brand new target article that might not survive AfD. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If the target article doesn't survive AfD then we can go back to the current blurb. Featuring tangential articles is not good because it enables all sorts of contortions even when the target article has little to do with the story, e.g. the current featured blurb "The United States Federal Communications Commission (Chairman Ajit Pai pictured) votes to repeal Title II net neutrality rules" could also be "The United States Federal Communications Commission (Chairman Ajit Pai pictured) votes to repeal Title II net neutrality rules". Banedon (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment what is really problematic here is that the published blurb states "... announces that it will buy most of ..." whereas the reality of the situation is that it has announced an intention to buy, and nothing more. The dithering over whether it should link to one article or another is all very well, but until the blurb's false certainty is resolved, this is just rearranging deckchairs.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I do see it was changed, but one thing with business news is that when big company A says they will buy big company B, that implicitly stating there's the shareholders involved, the FTC involved, and a whole bunch of other hurdles. Though it is better for us to be precise (adding "intent") since not every reader will know that. --M asem (t) 22:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a lot simpler than that. They simply can't do what the original blurb said.  It was factually incorrect.  It's factually correct now.  And absolves Wikipedia from the need to apologise without reserve when it doesn't happen. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

RD: Pat DiNizio

 * It seems like yesterday because it was yesterday. Neutral as the filmography still needs to be cited, even though it's not the primary focus of his career.--WaltCip (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - CN tags and if possible, maybe an expansion on his early life can be provided seeing there are multiple obits. Since filmography and discography doesn't have to be cited, it shouldn't be factor. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Dan Johnson

 * RD only. Praljak was front page world news, this isn't. Black Kite (talk) 10:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I see. I have now stricken out the suggestion. Davey2116 (talk) 11:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Stub.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still a stub. Could use expansion during early life and early career. The primary focus of this article appears to be his short tenure of office and his suicide. Support Article fixed and well expanded w/ well sourcing. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Alessandro Kokocinski

 * Support no glaring issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good. Davey2116 (talk) 10:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Good to go.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 21:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] United States Senate special election in Alabama

 * Oppose ITN isn't really the place for local politics – Nixinova ⟨T|C⟩ 05:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * SNOW Oppose Of course. No, it may signal the Trump backlash, but it's not ITN material. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as per above. A regional election that doesn't even nominally change the balance of power in the chamber to which the elected person will sit. --LukeSurlt c 05:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope We have firmly established that local elections are not ITN material. EternalNomad (talk) 05:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@User:Stephen I would like to appeal your closure on the grounds that it is invalid to refer to this as a "local election". A Federal election for national office is hardly "local". In addition, in January 2010 the Massachusetts Special election and its ramifications were considered to be worthy of inclusion in ITN. I'd argue that further discussion should be allowed before closing this.SecretName101 (talk) 07:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Checking the 2010 case, that was when the Democrats lost the supermajority, which had significant consequences. In this case, the Republicans still keep the majority, as noted above. --Tone 07:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support this is major international news (Independent, BBC News, New York Times, Times of India, Sydney Morning Herald). It's been the top story on BBC News for the past 24 hours, and I can't ever remember an election in Alabama getting that amount of coverage in the past. Far from being "local politics", the wider world is seeing it as a de facto referendum on Trump's style of leadership - given it was him and Steve Bannon who were the vocal minority to get behind gay-bashin' Roy Moore. (I have re-opened the discussion so people can elaborate on this, and would recommend people focus on what reliable sources are covering over their personal opinions of what they would like to see). <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, your source selection is a form of cherry-picking because these stories are specifically on the "US" sections of the respective international news sites, which by definition focus specifically on US-based stories. You have to take a good look on the SMH or Times of India sites before you can locate coverage of this election, and even then, the primary focus is on Trump who seems to be compulsory clickbait material.--WaltCip (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose It's clickbait, but still local politics.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not local politics in Britain, India or Australia - so why is it headline news there? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If it gets to Main Page could we use a picture of the horse, please? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It was only published in the international press because of it's sensationalistic. Did we post about Britney shaving her head or Macron's dog peeing? See this, this, this, this, etc.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't recall that being the front-page news headline for two days. As Moore appears to have refused to concede (presumably on the assumption that God will fix the recount), the story is far from over yet. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Lap dogs are people too, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a local election in one state. It's not significant. The media want ad revenue, but we don't, thank God (pun intended).Zigzig20s (talk) 13:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I doubt the BBC want 'ad revenue'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Widely reported internationally. Its a local election, with national significance, and international coverage due to the people involved. I also second the horse request. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - no different to a shock by-election result in the UK, and I wouldn't expect that to be published. Optimist on the run (talk) 11:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Top news on German Radio. The world speaks about it, - it would seem strange not to mention it. Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A straightforward "surprise result in local by-election in which the candidate from the party who traditionally dominate the area lost because of personal controversy" story, and as such no different to something like Richmond Park by-election, 2016 which we wouldn't have dreamed of posting. &#8209; Iridescent 12:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Much as I think Zac Goldsmith is a spoiled brat and a nasty piece of work, I don't really think that's there's any equivalent in the UK - the best analogy I can think of is if UKIP put up Jayda Fransen as a candidate for some hypothetical Clacton by-election on a ticket of deporting all Muslims and re-introducing the death penalty and was leading the polls, only to be beaten by a Corbyn-supporting Labour candidate. It just wouldn't happen. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how "Extremist candidate doesn't get elected" is ITN-worthy, even from the US. All this demonstrates is that polls aren't relaible - something that has alreasy been shown in recent years, on both sides of the Atlantic. Optimist on the run (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment this wasn't any old by-election and the US Senate isn't any old legislative body. False equivalences are silly. If itn had run the election it would have been "snow close Alabama is a red state, don't waste time considering". Thanks for reopening. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The subject is in the news and the articles have been thoroughly updated, so the criteria for posting are met. I wouldn't support this if it weren't reported internationally, as Ritchie333, Only In Death, and Gerda Arendt attest. Davey2116 (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per Davey2116.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, no, no, no, no!!! - No election of this sort in any other country would make it to ITN. The only reason this is getting attention is because of the amplified media attention over the GOP candidate. The GOP hasn't even lost their majority in the Senate!--WaltCip (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Strongest oppose As pointed out, there is no change in the majority leadership in the Senate, so this is not ITN material. Those claiming that its being massively covered should be reminded that ITN is not a news ticker and we are more careful as to what stories better represent a global encyclopedia. --M asem (t) 14:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * According to In the news :"Opposing a specific story merely because one opposes all stories of that type (such as elections, or sports, or disasters) do not often generate agreement from the community.". I am supporting it because it has had significant coverage in multiple, independent, worldwide sources, and nothing else. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Supporting because it has multiple global coverage is effecting asking us to be a news ticker. ITNCs do need wide news coverage to be posted; just that some degree of news reporting is observed. But we do not use the measure that "covered internationally" as a posting rationale. --M asem (t) 14:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But is that not how Wikipedia works full stop? WP:GNG - "significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources". You can't just make up criteria based on your personal opinion and expect everyone else to fall in line with that. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's just abolish all the constitutional amendments after the 10th - "that would eliminate many problems". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ITN does not work off GNG rules, its a much narrower criteria for inclusion to avoid being a news ticker. (And even with the GNG, which looks for enduring coverage rather than a spike, that means that even a burst of international coverage doesn't assure an article. Though for this special election article, its notability is not at issue). --M asem  (t) 14:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose As much as I like the outcome, it's still not ITN material for the above reasons. Especially that this doesn't change anything relating to the Senate majority. † dismas †|(talk) 14:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The Senate majority has been halved, to it's smallest possible value? Many commentators are saying that this is quite significant. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Halved, but they still have it. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Though momentarily of great interest in the U.S., it is as others have said essentially a parochial matter that doesn't meet ITN norms. Suggest close. Sca (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's already been closed once incorrectly; closing again would be inappropriate.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support What do editors here mean that ITN isn't a place for politics? In this particular case we are talking about 25 years since "ruby red" Alabama elected a Democrat, this would easily pass notability criteria. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Assuming that Wikipedia's readers all know about the significance of Alabama in U.S., let alone international, politics is a form of systemic bias.--WaltCip (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose on WP:BIAS grounds and the fact that control did not flip. 331dot (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Just to be clear here, the story of this nom is that Alabama didn't elect a child molester. That's what you think ITN should post? This is systemic bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To avoid the BLP, I do assume you mean "alleged" child molester. --M asem (t) 15:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] 2017 New York City attempted bombing

 * Oppose - No. This is simply too little of a statistical impact to be included at ITN. On top of that, its only meaningful notability is to New York City, not the United States, and especially not the entirety of the English speaking world. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 18:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * From above: "Please do not... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not think my comment in any way falls under that statement, if you read it comprehensively. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 19:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I was glad nobody had nominated this yesterday. One lone idiot who hurt himself more than anyone else. We New Yorkers have mastered the Keep Calm and Carry On attitude of our forebearers. Better to ignore this idiot than give him coverage and potentially inspire other idiots than to give this any more coverage than it's already gotten. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I know I am going against character here (never been accused of being foolishly consistent), but this appears to be the sort of low-level local crime we generally don't post. There was no great conspiracy, no larger plot, no widespread damage.  There's no there there on this one.  The article itself probably (IMHO) wouldn't withstand an AFD (given the AFD was proposed in a few weeks once coverage died down) and given that, I don't see where this should be posted.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as we don't usually post attempted attacks. EternalNomad (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I was waiting for this to be nominated. The general consensus on ITN is that in order for a terrorist attack to be posted in a major city, there has to be a significant number of casualties. Here, nobody even died. There were four injuries, none of which were life-threatening and one of whom was the attacker. The New York subway system was disrupted - which already gets disrupted on a fairly regular basis anyway due to poorly maintained tracks - and that was it. The news is literally just covering it because it's New York City, Times Square, and ISIS-related. The rest of the world has already moved on.--WaltCip (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We moved on before the rest of the world. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Ed Lee

 * The source for the cause of death seems to be former Mayor Brown, with no confirmation by Lee's office. This should be better confirmed before posting. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Confirmed. James (talk/contribs) 16:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Acting Mayor London Breed announced it from City Hall a few hours ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support p  b  p  16:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else find Ed_Lee_(politician) to be a bit over-positive? It feels like it was written by a big fan of Lee's. --LukeSurlt c 16:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I added a neutrality tag. Like I said, needs work. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I worked on it a little bit, but I still think it needs a little bit more work. When it's ready, I'll support it. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I invite you to give it a look over and tell me if there's more NPOV violation anywhere. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Support due to the notability of the person who died, the sitting mayor of a major city. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The tone now seems OK. Living thousands of miles away and with limited internet access right now I'll recuse myself from assessing whether the selection of events from his mayoralty is representative. --LukeSurlt c 07:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Article well sourced and well updated. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support I don't think we need to bury him on the gentrification concerns. It's doubtful any mayor could have made much of a difference. It's mentioned once, which seems good enough. GCG (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Marking ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

RD: Charles Robert Jenkins

 * Oppose The "military awards" section is unreferenced.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Death to traitors.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 11:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Your jingoism notwithstanding, we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. RD postings need only verify the quality of the article, not the notability (nor any sort of moral standing).--WaltCip (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose on grounds of reference problems. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 05:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sufficiently notable, but there are reference problems per above. Davey2116 (talk) 10:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Issues with the article regarding sourcing. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted to Ongoing] Thomas Fire

 * Oppose See the previous Lilac Fire nom. Yes, there is destruction and people are disrupted but being the 5th largest fire in CA is not a reason to post. --M asem (t) 16:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Fifth-largest fire in California history is indeed not a reason to post. The impacts of the fire and the fact that they're "in the news" are two reasons to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding alt-blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The reason it is in the news compared to, say, the much bigger fire in British Columbia that is still considered active, is that it is happening in SoCal. Not to try to trivalize it too much, but that's basically making it a "first world problem" because it's affecting an affluent area (LA), rather than wilderness of BC. That's the news bias at work here. --M asem (t) 19:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd say a bigger fire burning wilderness is less significant than a smaller fire in a heavily populated area. But you're right that there is news bias. I didn't know about the B.C. fire until reading your post. NPR had the Thomas Fire as their lead story during their Morning Edition this morning. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment since we're getting these somewhat similar "my fire's bigger than your fire" noms periodically now, shouldn't we consider an Ongoing slot for the California wildfires? I mean, this one has seen 8,000 people evacuated, not a big deal....  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be opposed to ongoing. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm also with TRM on this. The California Fires have been top news stories for several weeks now, and looks like they are going to continue being so for a while.  Rather than the shotgun-scattershot method of trying to get each one up individually, the omnibus article could be a good target for the ongoing section.  If we solved the WP:PROSELINE issues with it, and expanded each section to a short synopsis of major points, I think we could use it for ongoing.  It's not there yet, but its doable.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * With the added bonus of my support, we're getting it rammed down our news throats over here, well until we had some snow and then it all became about how crap we are when the weather changes. Regardless, I'd support a Cali-wildfire ongoing nom, assuming the article was up to snuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing per above. Davey2116 (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted to Ongoing Stephen 23:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing on multiple fronts. Fifth largest fire is a bad sign, since it means there were four bigger ones. Fifth largest fire in California is an even worse sign, since that's only one of the US's many states. 1000 structures burned is not many. 8000 people evacuated is minute. $50 million of damages caused is also minute. For comparison we have stuff like 2017 South Asian floods affecting several orders of magnitude more people. Pull. Banedon (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you understand what article was posted to ongoing? Stephen 02:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose loosely per Banedon, but with an added element of WP:BIAS. The article is December 2017 Southern California wildfires. Sure. Kind of repeating a common refrain here, but if there were fires of this magnitude (displacing a similar number of people) in Tanzania, would there be several efforts to post it? They're not notable enough, in my opinion.  A lad insane  <small style="color:#A32732">talk  02:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If nominated and the article is regularly updated then it would stand a good chance. Stephen 03:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support ongoing for general fire article. Condition is suitable, I do note nothing seems to have been added for December 12, but the rest of it's fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

[Pulled] Resignation of Indonesian legislative body speaker

 * Support Article looks in good shape. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 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 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)


 * A "third rate hell hole". I'm married to an Indonesian. How many times have you been there? Maybe re-consider your words? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose per Abductive. The article for the legislative body outright says that the chamber has received multiple allegations of being rife with corruption.--WaltCip (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Apart from Reuters (ystdy), haven't seen it on main Eng.-lang. sites. Sca (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * comment took a quick look, the refs need to be checked. Look for the word "crony" in the article see if the ref supports. I suspect npov issues. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Coverage and article looks good. James (talk/contribs) 16:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment this has apparently been posted, despite consensus actually moving away from it being posted. Hmm.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Pull no clear consensus demonstrated. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted - Good to see you mate! I hope you know I don't have a stake in this. So, I assure you this is not intended to be a !supervote of any form. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 18:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Especially good to see you too buddy. No worries.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose and pull Not significant enough for ITN. The discussion should have been allowed to continue; there was no consensus to post.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you expound on how you find it "not significant enough" for posting? I'll also note that the discussion has not been stopped, and is gladly encouraged to continue if necessary. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 19:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As has been mentioned above, this is not a head of state or government. If John Bercow resigned in similar circumstances I would vote the same way.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak pull (never thought I'd type that) -- I'm not seeing this "in the news" anywhere. It's not the lead story on the EN Jakarta Post, and it's absent from the news aggregators all-together. Comments like "PT Orbit Terminal Merak, owned by his crony, oil trade kingpin Riza Chalid" deserve an NPOV tag, honestly. Weak because ID is a huge country by popn and we so rarely get stories out of there, and in this case the decades long record of corruption FINALLY catching up with him, makes this perhaps an exceptional case. (I agree with Ad Orientem above). --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Pulled - for now, due to the consensus becoming unclear. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 20:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I greatly admire an admin who has the humility to pull their own posting.--WaltCip (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support This aligns to a Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell in the US, methinks - that would get posted. Is there any evidence that this level of corruption is commonplace in Indonesia? GCG (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Remember that the English Wikipedia reaches the entire English-speaking world. Thanks, User:ST15RMwikipedia 20:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Uh, yeah. That was my entire point- that we shouldn't dismiss events because they occur in the non-Anglophone world. GCG (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Vera Katz

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

[Posted] RD: Keith Chegwin

 * Oppose. Insufficient lead section per WP:LEAD, much of body text is uncited.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 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)
 * Yes, it would have been lost on non-Brits, not so sure they would have found it incredibly offensive though. You should see the barnstar left me (you probably have though, as I'm pretty sure you're one of my TPSs. Mjroots (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You monsters! Suffice to say that if I lived in Tunbridge Wells, I'd be disgusted.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 11:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Funny you mention Tunbridge Wells, I live about 10 mi from there! Mjroots (talk) 15:03, 12 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] <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(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? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(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)
 * Post-posting support, now, what about that blurb? Mjroots (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, since you actually got a barnstar for the suggestion, it must be a shoo-in, surely. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the BBC have already got in there with making people outraged: so we'd be in good company...  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I read the article ... And I still don't get it. To my friends across the Atlantic: sorry for your loss. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * the suggested blurb was a clever play on words referencing a children's programme Cheggers hosted. Mjroots (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Russian troops withdraw from Syria

 * Oppose None of the three articles cited has been updated to include the relevent information. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 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. --LukeSurlt c 14:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And the BBC also says there "Mr Putin made a similar withdrawal announcement last year, but Russian military operations continued." But the BBC seems to be having its own problems - its article is all about 'partial withdrawal' but its headline currently just says 'withdrawal'.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:20, 12 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)
 * Not a good analogy - what happened with US troops in Japan at the end of WW2 was (for very good reasons) the exact opposite of a withdrawal.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose, purely an announcement by a politician  (Putin) made to promote his reelection.   Abductive  (reasoning) 22:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose current blurb: I'm currently neutral if the words 'partial withdrawal' are added to ALL blurbs under discussion. In other words, keeping the present blurb but adding an altblurb is not good enough for me, and I don't feel free to change the main blurb myself, which might also be problematic in that existing votes are for/against 'withdrawal', but not necessarily for/against 'partial withdrawal'. So it might be better to close this, and re-open it as a new nom about 'partial withdrawal' (though I'm at ITN too intermittently to know whether that's the recommended procedure or not).Tlhslobus (talk) 10:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose'. No evidence outside of a statement that the event is actually occurring. We should not be effectively promoting press releases on ITN. James (talk/contribs) 18:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Lalji Singh

 * 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)
 * The book has been referenced. Is this G2G?--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 23:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Simeon Booker

 * 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

 * Support Well sourced, ready to post.LM2000 (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support appears to be ready. --LukeSurlt 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)

[Posted] RD: Grant Munro

 * Posted swap out oldest Stephen 22:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Tombs discovered in Egypt

 * 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.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 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

 * 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. – Nixinova ⟨T|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. -- M h hossein   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)
 * Actually it seems that others have now managed to fix the worst problem without our help, but I think I'll just leave it in their competent hands.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment al-Abadias image adds no more to the ISIL blurb than Dolt45's image added to the Jerusalem story. Please bring the dinosaur back. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I must varn you, CosmicAdventure, ve haf vays of making you not talk so disrespectfully about our beloved Fuhrer (, tho hopefully I won't end up regretting seeing The Donald and his pals as mainly just a rather sick joke). Tlhslobus (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] DRC Peacekeepers attack

 * 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)
 * 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 (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . 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)

[Closed] Lilac Fire

 * What about it?--WaltCip (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The Thomas Fire is significantly bigger. Why nominate Lilac over Thomas? Why not nominate December 2017 Southern California wildfires? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:00, 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) --M asem (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). --M asem (t) 17:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not notable. Never heard of it. – Nixinova ⟨T|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 (talk • contribs) 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)

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

 * 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 ~  <font style="color:white;background:black;">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 ~  <font style="color:white;background:black;">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. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(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. M asem (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. 193.34.160.162 (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Australia's still the largest, most populous and most significant country of Oceania though. starship.paint ~  <font style="color:white;background:black;">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)
 * Yes, there is, and it's well documented. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 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. 79.116.223.170 (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. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 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 Values 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 ' 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. --M asem (t) 16:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But the bolded article was changed to Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017, where there are no such issues - see the posting admin's note.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Farthest black hole

 * 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. 79.116.223.170 (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please explain about how this is scientifically significant. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 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. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 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)


 * 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)
 * 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. 79.116.223.170 (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. 161.6.7.1 (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. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> 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)

[Posted] Halszkaraptor escuilliei

 * 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

 * 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. --M ASEM (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). --M ASEM (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. 63.224.191.9 (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? 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. 63.224.191.9 (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.  63.224.191.9 (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. 63.224.191.9 (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. 63.224.191.9 (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)
 * See above. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment This is not a new idea. Other presidents had this as a campaign promise too but then reneged.  The Jerusalem Embassy Act was passed in 1995 but Presidents since then have been stalling it with a waiver.  Given the US's long history of delaying implementation of this, it might be best to wait upon the actual move of the embassy.   Actions speak louder than words. Andrew D. (talk) 20:28, 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. 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? 91.49.65.208 (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? 91.49.65.208 (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, 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.  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 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.  Spencer T♦ 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 ~  <font style="color:white;background:black;">KO  02:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * - thank you. I was misled by BBC and Boston Globe.... starship.paint ~  <font style="color:white;background:black;">KO  02:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 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 ~  <font style="color:white;background:black;">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) <big style="font-family: webdings;">&#xF0F6; 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)
 * Um- there are apparently many hundreds of thousands of people and world leaders who disagree that this has "no real impact". ; 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)

[Closed] Time Person Of The Year 2017

 * 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.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 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. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> 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. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(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)) --M ASEM (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. --M ASEM  (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)

[Posted] Johnny Hallyday

 * 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. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(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 ( is the equivalent of  ) - so I'm not going to toss an RD out of the window just yet. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(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. --LukeSurlt 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. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> 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. --M ASEM (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 en.wiki. 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). --M ASEM (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 Systemic bias. --LukeSurlt c 16:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 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. M asem (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 tags - what's a good source for French single chart positions? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(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)


 * Posted Good enough for RD at this point. High-five to for the work put in. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Jean d'Ormesson

 * 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 . 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

 * 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)
 * Conspiracy theories have WP:SNOW chance, especially obscure ones. Suggesting closing. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Russia at the 2018 Winter Olympics

 * 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? --M ASEM  (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

 * 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)
 * 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.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 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.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 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. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> 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)


 * 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. --M ASEM (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. - <font face="Century Gothic"> Eugεn  S¡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. --LukeSurlt 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. &#8209; 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, ! 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 Kite – Sca (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. --LukeSurlt 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.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 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. &mdash; 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. 128.227.244.222 (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)

[Posted] Ockhi

 * 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? --M ASEM (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. --M ASEM (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. --M ASEM (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)

[Posted] RD: Christine Keeler

 * Support Decent article. Well sourced. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - just the one cn, but that isn't enough to prevent posting. Mjroots (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - as above decent article. Sources looks ok. RD ready.BabbaQ (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Shashi Kapoor

 * Oppose Too many unreferenced statements and sections made up of long lists of films. Would have been good to see a nominator's comment too.--Bcp67 (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Unfortunately, referencing is the issue. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - The article is well informative & referenced and within scope to nominate here. सुमित सिंह (talk) 10:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - well referenced. RD ready.BabbaQ (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not well referenced. Still many, many unsourced statements. Nowhere near RD ready.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] Ali Abdullah Saleh killed

 * Support blurb The assassination of a former head of state is absolutely worth a blurb, especially when it exacerbates a crisis like the one we see in Yemen. EternalNomad (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb though as a note reading both accounts, I'm not sure if "assassination" is the right term. I know they say he died by a sniper bullet, but it sounds like there was tons of combat happening all around and being hit was not as much directed as one would normally figure with an assassination. --M ASEM (t) 14:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Definitely notable enough for a blurb. I wouldn't want to post until, between Ali_Abdullah_Saleh and Battle of Sana'a (2017) we have an adequate write-up of the collapse of his alliance with the Houthis and the subsequent military clash that resulted in his death. --LukeSurlt c 15:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support alternative blurb overwhelmingly. This is a dramatic and a significant development in the Yemen Civil War. Plus, death (an assassination at that) of a former leader of a large country is notable in any case. I don't think we should wait for a write up, if anything, adding these news to the main page of english wiki will stimulate writers to make a good write up on the story. As for the blurbs, I supported the alternative one since it's much more informative when it comes to the circumstances of his death. Karl.i.biased (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. The death of a former head of state in combat is certainly notable. The article is seeing constant development. Inatan (talk) 15:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Right now the lead of the Ali Abdullah Saleh article says that he was killed in a bombing of his house, though Ali_Abdullah_Saleh isn't so clear. Al Jazeera report Houthi statements that he was killed in a RPG/gun attack on his vehicle. At the very least his means of death need to be clear before any main page posting. --LukeSurlt c 15:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Question the article relies heavily on an archived version of (http://www.presidentsaleh.gov.ye) Is that a WP:PRIMARY source? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Or self-published? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support alternative blurb though I'm not against the original one, either. This is a huge development in the Yemeni conflict. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb The death of Saleh is very notable making it eligible for the ITN. The original blurb is concise enough. -- M h hossein   talk 18:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The assassination of a former head of state is a notable news, especially when it has impact on the current political affairs.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Posting. The battle article is in a good shape, we could bold it as well ... --Tone 19:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I would argue though that we should add the info from the alternative blurb since it is much more informative. Maybe we can keep this discussion open (I am new and not sure how this page works) so that we can see what other users think about it? Karl.i.biased (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Just wish the blurb would refrain from pointing fingers or hinting at Houthis. Even BBC, Reuteurs just put killed without saying who. The situation in Yemen is quite chaotic and there are lots of people who may want to take revenge at Saleh, including UAE/KSA ground allies, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, South Separatists, etc. not just Houthis. The area he died in was supposedly under UAE control according to reports. --Tachfin (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment We have to take into account, however, that the Houthis took responsibility for his death (according to a variety of news sources like this: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-security/yemens-ex-president-saleh-shot-dead-after-switching-sides-in-civil-war-idUSKBN1DY12V). Not saying that it's impossible that he was killed by someone else, but I think that if they admit responsibility it's sufficient to add them as the responsible party. Karl.i.biased (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Strongly support blurb - The former long-term ruler of Yemen getting unceremoniously shot dead amid hostilities in the capital city is a pretty significant development. I'm shocked, frankly. I know I shouldn't be, but I am. I also think that Saleh's image should be used on the main page. This is a big deal. Kurtis (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Pull there are unreferenced sections and CN tags. Consensus: yes. MP quality: not yet. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And several of the refs fail verification. However "important" some bit of news might seem, quality is the gatekeeper. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Good call, after a closer look I found several issues myself. Pulling for the time being. --Tone 20:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am new to wikipedia, can we just remove both parts of these two statements that failed verification? As far as I can see they are relatively minor parts. One deals with whether he blamed citizens for the massacre, the other - whether citizens were armed or not. The third one (the first one you marked as not in the source) is a pretty generic statement about the beginnings of Arab Spring in Yemen, it doesn't appear biased and I think it's pretty easy to find other sources for that statement. I would have searched for them, but I have to go to sleep right now. Karl.i.biased (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Finding sources is better than removing altogether. In any case, there are several parts that need improvement. --Tone 20:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it looks better. There is a paragraph at the start of the "Protests" section where the content doesn't match the ref -- if that gets fixed up I think it's good to go. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb The assassination of a former head of state is blurb worthy. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Very significant development in the War on Yemen. 45.74.78.23 (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Looks good now. Notability is not in question as per the consensus. Davey2116 (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Re-posted Stephen 01:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 *  Re-pull  (Changing to Comment per discussion below) - Quality issue pointed out above at 00.42 by CosmicAdventure is still not fixed and is still (rightly or wrongly, or a bit of both) flagged there as 'not in citation given'.Tlhslobus (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Nah just leave it. The ref isn't great, but it's a summary of a blue link, and it's not exactly controversial. Let it ride. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK then, CosmicAdventure. But should the somewhat debatable 'not in citation given' flag stay or go? (For instance, the citation mentions the Tunisian President and corruption, but not democratic reform and human rights abuses). Tlhslobus (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * One more ref for a few non-controversial bits ought be fixed, but not keep the article off the MP, IMO. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: John B. Anderson

 * Support I fixed the article, updated it and added more citations. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you sure did. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Major figure of 70s and 80s US politics. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support good to go, well done those involved in getting it up to scratch, nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

2017 Rugby League World Cup (men and women)

 * That blurb is very long, can we condense it? (Do we really need to state both losing sides and repeat the name of the sport?) I've tried to come up with a shorter version but keep running into the ENGVAR plural issue. I've added alt1, but it suffers from the win/wins problem - suggestions welcome. The women's article is much further from being ready, so the issue might go away if the men's goes up on its own. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've had a crack at making it more succinct, with alt blurb 2.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Alt blurb 2 seems good. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Alt blurb two doesn't link to Australia national rugby league team, Australia women's national rugby league team, 2017 Rugby League World Cup or 2017 Women's Rugby League World Cup - all of which would be standard to wikilink to for this sort of blurb. In the current form it doesn't actually use the words "World Cup". --LukeSurlt c 15:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Standard but not required, right? It's hard to hit all 4 articles without sounding ridiculous. "Australia takes both titles at the 2017 Rugby League World Cup Finals, with the Men's team defeating England and the Women's team topping New Zealand." GCG (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I hope they don't get good at cricket too. Oh. Bugger!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Depends how good you mean. <b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Abdication of Emperor Akhito

 * Comment. He announced his intention to abdicate in 2018 2019.  Anything could happen before then, he may wish to abdicate sooner, he could (hopefully not) pass away before then.  When the abdication occurs and his son takes the throne it will be ITNR(a change in head of state) so I'm wondering if we should wait until then.  That said, a Japanese emperor has not abdicated in a very long time, so maybe the announcement is worth posting now.  I'm undecided at the moment, but the blurb should be accurate. 331dot (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Guardian currently says spring 2019, not 2018. --LukeSurlt c 16:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. He's announced his intention to abdicate in 2019 (not 2018), and two years is a long time; he may change his mind, he may fall under a bus tomorrow, he may abdicate sooner. "First in 200 years" isn't as impressive as it sounds, given that Mutsuhito's and Hirohito's very long reigns mean there have only been six emperors in that period (and Yoshihito de facto abdicated in 1919, he just never formally resigned and instead just handed over all duties to Hirohito). Given that it will automatically be posted if and when it happens, I see no reason to post it now. &#8209; Iridescent 16:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Iridescent here. With a date in 2019, this is a bit "crystal-ball-like" to anticipate it will actually occur. --LukeSurlt c 18:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I think, upon reflection, that I oppose as well. This would be no different than Donald Trump announcing he will not seek reelection in 2020.  He has plenty of time to change his mind. 331dot (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, it's a good faith nomination undoubtably, and if it was immediate, I would support this; however the emperor is not set to abdicate the throne for over a year now. Nevertheless I agree with what you guys mentioned above:  we'll never know what will happen during the time between now and when he plans to abdicate. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Definitely something we will want to post when it actually happens. In the meantime best wishes to H.I.M. on his impending retirement. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Closed as premature. μηδείς (talk) 04:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Michael Flynn

 * Oppose Parochial story. If it leads to something major, then it can be re-assessed. Black Kite (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: In the altblurb I've put in a target article, the ongoing investigation. Per Black Kite's second sentence above, I don't think this actually merits a blurb (So Oppose blurb). But it might merit inclusion in Ongoing, about which I'm currently neutral.Tlhslobus (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've also re-ordered the altblurb wording, to avoid implying he lied to the FBI in the investigation, since I don't know whether it was then or earlier that he lied.Tlhslobus (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose local politics, nothing here for a global encyclopaedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but it's also the kind of 'local' and 'parochial' politics that is probably one of the lead items in the news of most of our readers, unlike most of the stories we post at ITN (but I agree it shouldn't be a blurb, so am I allowed change it to Ongoing, about which I'm still currently neutral, or is that up to the nominator?) Tlhslobus (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It might interest American readers for a day or two, but it's not something I'd expect to see as something notable enough to be a news story of the year. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose The problem isn't that the story is "parochial" or "local politics" (from In_the_news/Candidates, "... 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.") The problem with posting this is the guilty plea is for one relatively minor count (yeah, lying to the FBI is minor compared to the other things he could've been charged with) and is only the next (granted big) step in the investigation, a step towards nailing the big orange target. That's what we're looking for. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's local politics. It's not of any influence or encyclopedic value.  It has no real consequence.  It's barely newsworthy.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh it's newsworthy. A U.S. NSA admitting to lying to the FBI. A Trump official turning on Trump. It's just not ITN-worthy because we're not a news site and we're waiting for the big enchilada. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed re the specific Flynn story, but the nominator seems inexperienced (for instance, she doesn't have a lead story) but her comment ("Going to be mainstream for a while as part of the whole Russia investigation/scandal.") suggests she might want it to be reported as part of something Ongoing, so what's your view on that? Tlhslobus (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Totally understand that, it's a completely good faith nomination. But, there's a pretty established consensus here that we're not going to post every major development in this Russia/Trump collusion case, and ongoing isn't really appropriate either since the timing of the updates is sporadic and unpredictable. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Muboshgu, I'll now oppose Ongoing below.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Muboshgu. Also I don't think Ongoing is appropriate, that's meant for articles with daily updates over a sustained period and this will die down again now that Flynn's had his court appearance.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for dealing with the Ongoing aspect. But I'm still neutral on that, as I note the target article in the altblurb (Mueller's ongoing investigation) has been updated on 14 of the last 31 days (and probably a lot more further back, and probably a lot more to come). Tlhslobus (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * (I'm now also opposed to Ongoing, see below).Tlhslobus (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Muboshgu. I'll add that a guilty plea isn't yet a sentence, and there's likely more to come; this is a minor step in a developing story so it's too soon to post this. Banedon (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I expect the sentence is suspended pending his cooperation in the investigation, similar to George Papadopoulos. Flynn and his son will probably stay out of prison entirely as a result of this plea and the coming cooperation. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Ongoing, per Muboshgu's above reply to me. (I am already opposed to a blurb, as indicated earlier on). Thanks again, Muboshgu.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Question: So far many opposes, no supports, how long is the 'decent interval' we should wait before closing per WP:SNOW? Tlhslobus (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't. It hurts nothing to leave it open. Getting sick of "snow closes" because the "regulars" don't like something. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In a way that's partly why I asked how long we should wait, but unfortunately it's not strictly true that it hurts nothing to keep hopeless things open - it uses up editors' time that might be more productively used elsewhere, on or off Wikipedia. Tlhslobus (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Respectfully disagree. Read the nom, oppose or not, move on. No need to revisit, no time wasted unless you want to waste it. It'll go stale on it's own and expire off like all the others. Or the supports will rally and it'll go up. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, CosmicAdventure, but I also respectfully disagree. In practice in the real world it's not always easy to walk away from replying to something added here (our two conversations here are arguably a case in point, but even if they aren't it doesn't really mean that leaving hopeless things open never wastes people's time). But to avoid wasting any more of each other's time I suggest we both respectfully agree to differ. Tlhslobus (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * (I should add that once your support came in there was no longer any case for an early close).Tlhslobus (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Higher up the tree than Manafort, but not high enough for ITN. 331dot (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sticking with my above oppose, but is there anybody 'higher up' that doesn't have Orange hair, and, if so, what rank might they hold? Tlhslobus (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Either Trump or maybe even his son in law(who works for him).331dot (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, 331dot. I guess I'll just have to wait-and-see how we all react if his son gets nailed (I'm assuming, perhaps wrongly, that he's not (or no longer) officially working for him). Tlhslobus (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Would we care if it gets Pence? I've seen some suppositions that Pence may be caught up in some of the stuff Flynn was involved in, possibly to the point of obstruction. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but my guess is probably not. I expect we'd have a big row but there'd be no consensus, so no posting. Quite likely same goes for Kushner, Donald Jr, and even Trump himself if he's impeached but has not yet been convicted nor resigned. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd probably support posting Pence being charged as the #2 official in the US government. 331dot (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So probably would I, but that wouldn't guarantee consensus. I might add that even Trump's conviction or resignation and replacement is technically not ITNR, since he's a head of state of a country where the head of state is normally elected, and there would have been no election. I expect there would still be a consensus for posting Trump's departure (subject to quality), but saying so will probably get me indefinitely banned for being in breach of WP:MYSTIC MEG :) Tlhslobus (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Support first cabinet official of the Orange Idiots admin to be convicted, major international story, important update to a story that's been running along for over a year. No requirement at WP:ITN for "international significance" and a "Please do not" above regarding complaining about the same means such objections would be rightly ignored when judging consensus. Article is pretty decent. "Weak" because the charges are fairly minor and the investigation is ongoing -- but make no mistake this is "in the news" right now, today, RIGHT NOW, so WP:ITN is certainly satisfied. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair points, but before I even considered changing my current Oppose, I would need to see a convincing refutation of the arguments above by Muboshgu that persuaded me to oppose. Tlhslobus (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with Muboshgu, I still think this is a reasonable milestone to post is all. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and thanks for your reply, CosmicAdventure. But I guess it's just not a big enough milestone for me.Tlhslobus (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, for the sake of technical accuracy, the National Security Adviser is not in the Cabinet (though admittedly usually more powerful than most of those who are). Tlhslobus (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support per CosmicAdventure. Important development. Davey2116 (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong support as nominator. I wouldn’t usually put my own name here, but given the above I think that it may be needed. — <font face="Rage Italic" size="4" style="color:magenta">Kay Marie <font style="color:red">Talk 23:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Pleading guilty != conviction. And yes, we all are aware of what the likely end game will be here, this is far too early a step in the process to treat as ITN. --M ASEM (t) 23:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with your Oppose, but 'likely' seems a bit too WP:Mystic Meg for me :) Surely you meant 'possible end-game'? Tlhslobus (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is a minor conviction in a political scandal that we don't know where it's going. Every country has political scandals and we almost never post on them until/unless they directly touch on the head of state or government. This may, or may not be a step in that direction. But by itself it is trivial and reading anything more into it requires a really big and well calibrated crystal ball. I am not prepared to go there. Not yet anyway. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] 2017 Peshawar Agriculture Directorate attack

 * Oppose - article is not up to snuff in many divergent regards. The proposed blurb is an irredeemable mess. Even if the prerequisite fixes are made, I would still be on the fence vis-á-vis notability or newsworthiness, given that it is a terror attack in a region where attacks with more fatalities are frequent. It may be an embodiment of ethnocentrism, but I am seeing a lot more Meghan Markle in my newsfeed than this story. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is in a terrible state, bordering on the unreadable. Black Kite (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC) See below
 * Oppose with regret the article, as Black Kite notes, is terrible, but the item is certainly newsworthy. Needs a shedload of work before it can seriously be considered for main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose on notability even if quality were fixed. My opposition has nothing to do with the above-mentioned Meghan Markle. We rightly have an article about the attack in the encyclopaedia, but I just think on principle there should be something pretty exceptional about a terrorist attack before ITN reluctantly gives the terrorists more of the oxygen of front-page publicity that may help keep them going.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I think your oppose is an opposition to giving terrorism a voice, then your vote should be discounted. What's "exceptional" about a terror attack?  Blowing up the WTC?  Blowing up trains in Madrid?  Blowing up a marathon in the US?  Each of these had substantially different consequences, yet all were exceptional.  We disregard multiple deaths in a gun attack in Peshawar because it's not Las Vegas or San Bernardino or Fort Hood?  More Children Are Shot Every Day in America Than the Number of Kids Killed in Texas.  We should absolutely stop posting mass killing in the US and focus on those in places like Pakistan, Syria, Iraq etc, as they are now more meaningful.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Or bombings and vehicular attacks in London? We should post things which are "in the news" per WP:ITN. If you believe the purpose of ITN should be changed to champion "meaningful" stories, I'd suggest an RFC. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Actually the real problem seems to be interpreting 'in whose news' in the light of WP:WORLDWIDE (aka WP:BIAS).
 * 2) Ironically, if TRM thinks that too much violence in America gets reported at ITN, then one way to try to stop this is to be able to say "we didn't report 13 deaths in Pakistan because we deemed them non-notable (see diff here), so, per WP:WORLDWIDE, why would we claim that 10 US deaths are more notable than 13 Pakistani deaths?"
 * 3) I guess whether that is a good idea or not depends on whether or not we think WP:WORLDWIDE should be scrapped as hopelessly unrealistic, at least for ITN, about which I'm open-minded, but here is not the place to discuss that, beyond saying that somebody might want to try to modify ITN's rules to clarify ITN's relation to WP:WORLDWIDE, but consensus on that clarification may be unachievable.
 * 4) Also ironically, I tend to think that TRM is right about ITN reporting too much violence in America, but mostly for different reasons, as stated elsewhere. I think we are consciously or unconsciously far too tied up to the media's money-making mantra "if it bleeds it leads" when trying to assess a story's notability. (But for some unclear reason we only seem to post the violence part of the media's "sex and violence and celebrity" recipe for financial survival).
 * 5) Meanwhile, given your above-stated views, shouldn't you be casting an Oppose vote on notability grounds, especially given that it has now gained its first support vote on quality grounds?
 * 6) Tlhslobus (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Tlhslobus (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * In answer to TRM (and my apologies for the Wall of Text, but I've been confronted with a lot of points that seem to call for an answer):
 * 1) What makes an attack exceptional may vary, but usually a high death toll will be involved, though other factors may also be involved. As with everything else regarding notability, it is really a matter for us to decide at the time on a case by case basis. I may be forgetting some instances, but I am not aware that I have ever supported posting any recent terrorist attack (or mass shooting either), with the possible exception of the Friday 13th November 2015 Paris attacks (and conceivably some others that I have forgotten), and I have occasionally opposed them on similar grounds to those given above by me.
 * 2) In theory I may also sometimes support such stories (I would probably have supported posting 9/11 and perhaps also the Madrid bombings if I had been around at the time). I'm not sure, but I may well have supported posting the Paris killings, because they were especially shocking to me for personal reasons which I won't go into (and which may or may not have distorted my judgment as regards their notability). And I might well have supported the Egyptian horror we currently have posted if I had been aware of it when it was being debated (or then again I may simply have failed to notice it because I usually ignore such things wherever they happen, both to spite the evil publicity seekers who cause them, and because something like 200,000 people die every day, so I'm never quite sure why I should be less concerned about their deaths than about the deaths of the much smaller number that the terrorists seek to gain publicity from, and that the media seek to make money from).
 * 3) I do not deny that like any sane person I dislike giving terrorists unnecessary publicity (on the contrary, I said as much above).
 * 3b) And I would also not deny that I think that if Wikipedia gets a reputation for giving more helpful publicity to terrorism than absolutely necessary that will also be damaging for Wikipedia (which is not what ITN is supposed to be for, and any rule causing such damage should simply be ignored per WP:IAR).
 * 3c) And inevitably such views are liable to consciously or unconsciously influence my views on whether a story is sufficiently notable for ITN or not.
 * 3d) But that does not mean that my views (and vote) on what is and is not notable enough for ITN should be discounted. What people see as sufficiently notable for ITN, and why they do so, will vary from individual to individual, and their reasons will usually be a mixture of both conscious and unconscious reasons that are ultimately too complex to be fathomed by themselves, let alone by anybody else. And therefore mine are as valid as any other editor's (unless we are going to start discounting your vote everytime somebody states or hints that your views on notability might really be motivated by some sort of bias or other, and discounting every other editor's votes on similar grounds)
 * 4) As for this being in Peshawar rather than America, I regularly support postings on grounds of WP:BIAS aka WP:WORLDWIDE (most recently our current sumo wrestling story, and before that our Rohingya story, and before that our Mnangagwa story, all of which I supported posting (while you seemingly said nothing either way, presumably for very valid reasons)). I also remember being criticised by you for objecting to having the European refugee crisis on Ongoing because in my opinion it violated WP:BIAS (which I argued was a serious quality issue, treating quality in its broadest sense) by being too Eurocentric, since, if I remember right, all the relevant interlinked articles on the global refugee crisis seemed to spend about 95% of their text dealing with about one to two million refugees headed for Europe, and about 5% on the remaining 58 or 59 of the 60 million total. (Note: I am European myself, and have never lived anywhere except Europe, but this does not mean that I think Wikipedia should be what I see as absurdly Eurocentric, as in the afore-mentioned example). So please assume good faith, and please try to avoid at least the appearance of personal attacks on me by at least appearing to imply that I only care about deaths in America but not Pakistan.
 * 5) Meanwhile, as far as I'm concerned, this attack remains insufficiently exceptional and therefore insufficiently notable for ITN.
 * 5b) Put another way, about 200,000 people died on this day, give or take maybe 50,000. Why should I be expected to accept that none of them are notable except the tiny handful whose posting just might help to cause more such deaths, and why should I not be allowed think and say that I don't think those particular deaths are so exceptionally notable as to warrant posting at ITN (in this case that 13 deaths are each individually about 200,000/13=about 16,000 times more notable than all the other deaths), and why should my vote be ignored if I think and say so (but accepted if I think but don't say so)?
 * 6) Tlhslobus (talk) 06:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - Looks well developed now. Sherenk1 (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The "Attack" section is still poorly written and partially unsourced. Black Kite (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's now sourced, and I've tidied up all of the bad writing. This is OK to go now should it be decided it meets the notability criteria. Black Kite (talk) 11:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. The article seems ready now, in terms of quality. The event itself was always notable enough. After all, one of the criteria for In the News is simply that it be in the news, and all but one of our current articles are about events that happened over a week ago. Inatan (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. The blurb needs work, though. I think I shall compose an alternate version. Inatan (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Twenty-fifth terrorist attack in Pakistan this year; doesn't stand out as especially noteworthy. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * At least 3 of these have articles of the necessary quality to have been featured (although that may not have been the case at the time). Do you know by any chance if any of them were? Inatan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * February 2017 Lahore suicide bombing, 2017 Sehwan suicide bombing, 2017 Mastung suicide bombing, June 2017 Pakistan bombings, and August 2017 Quetta suicide bombing were posted on ITN. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Inatan (talk) 06:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support I think the opportunistic transvestism of people who would otherwise stone transvestites makes this noteworthy enough to post. μηδείς (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The refs are all at the end of the paragraphs, which makes checking them a bit of a hassle. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The article has been greatly improved since I last checked. Also, the notability of this attack should not be in question. Davey2116 (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: (My Oppose vote is already above).
 * Thanks for the useful links, Cyclonebiskit.
 * You have told us above that February 2017 Lahore suicide bombing (18 dead), 2017 Sehwan suicide bombing (over 90 dead),  2017 Mastung suicide bombing  (at least 28 dead), June 2017 Pakistan bombings  (96 dead), and August 2017 Quetta suicide bombing  (15 dead),  were posted on ITN. This one is 'at least 13 dead' (out of perhaps 200,000 people who died that day, perhaps 3000 of them in Pakistan).
 * (As I've sort-of already said above, but without most of these facts and figures) I can't see anything remotely notable about this - if we post (as is looking very likely) it will be the 6th terrorist attack in Pakistan posted by us so far just for this year, and one of the least deadly of these, and possibly the least deadly of them. (And for all I know there may have been other deadlier attacks that we didn't post).
 * And this posting pattern also gives our readers a very distorted view of what Pakistan is really like (for instance, over 1 million have died in Pakistan in the past year, with over 99.9% of these deaths being unrelated to terrorism).
 * But by posting this totally non-notable story we will also be sending a message to every terrorist in Pakistan and elsewhere (and to every critic of Wikipedia in Pakistan and elsewhere, who will in my view be 100% justified) that if you kill about a dozen Pakistanis (or people from other non-Western countries) you will get very little front-page coverage in the West to help with your funding and recruiting, except on Wikipedia where you will get several days on the front page.
 * The purpose of ITN is not to post non-notable stories that just might help kill Pakistanis and other non-Westerners, nor to give readers a distorted view of the world, nor to provide ammo for Wikipedia's critics (indeed any rules that lead to that result are supposed to be ignored per WP:IAR). (Nor is that the purpose of WP:WORLDWIDE either).
 * But it looks like I'm wasting my time, so I'll be saying no more, at least not on this occasion (and possibly not in future either, especially if, as I expect, I never get around to writing some criticism of Wikipedia elsewhere).
 * Tlhslobus (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:BIAS does not contradict ITN as it does not suggest the anti-western agenda that many here seem to think. It merely acknowledges that BIAS exists and editors should try to expand their worldview, not enforce that worldview on readers. The purpose states that we are helping readers find things 1) they are already looking for or 2) things that might interest them. In both cases, serving this purposes means western-centric stories, as any audience cares more about their locality than the other side of the world. GCG (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The actual news media seems to have taken a giant yawn on this. I didn't see it in the headlines even when it was fresh, certainly not now. Sad, but not notable. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)