Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

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

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

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

Olga Tokarczuk in 2017
Olga Tokarczuk

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

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

Purge this page to update the cache

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

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

Headers[edit]

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

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

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

Please do not...[edit]

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


Suggestions[edit]

May 27[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 May 27
Law and crime
Politics and elections

May 26[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 May 26
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports

(Posted) 2018 UEFA Champions League Final[edit]

Article: 2018 UEFA Champions League Final (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In association football, Real Madrid wins their third consecutive UEFA Champions League by defeating Liverpool F.C. in the final.
Alternative blurb: ​In association football, Real Madrid win the UEFA Champions League, defeating Liverpool F.C. in the final.
Alternative blurb II: ​In association football, Real Madrid defeat Liverpool F.C. to win the UEFA Champions League and Lyon defeat Wolfsburg to win the UEFA Women's Champions League.
News source(s): The Guardian, The New York Times, BBC
Nominator: SounderBruce (talk • give credit)

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: Currently working on a match summary while waiting for sources. SounderBruce 20:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alan Bean[edit]

Article: Alan Bean (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NASA
Nominator: Kees08 (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Bean was the fourth person to walk on the moon. Kees08 (Talk) 19:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Article is well-referenced and has decent coverage outside just his astronaut career. SounderBruce 19:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment books section unsourced, else it looks fine. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support books section sourced. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

RD: Ted Dabney[edit]

Article: Ted Dabney (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Eurogamer
Nominator: Masem (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Co-founder of Atari. Unfortunately he was less the spotlight compared to Nolan Bushnell so details are not as great as Bushnell's. Masem (t) 17:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose barely above stub, and "Dabney appeared on the RetroGaming Roundup podcast in October 2010 and told his story in a two-hour interview.[3]" gives the game away, there's clearly a lot more here that could be added. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm trying to find access to this one 2009 magazine that he had a lengthy interview in. As I noted, he was known but overshadowed by Bushnell in terms of fame. --Masem (t) 23:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
      • And as I noted, interviews are out there, so the article is inadequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
        • There's the question of actually how much useful information there can be added from these. For example, there's a 29 page transcript of an interview with him from the Computer History Museum in 2012 which I've already included. Of those 29 pages, there's maybe a page of essential biographical information, the rest of interest in detail of Bushnell, the formation of Atari, and the construction and manufacturing of Computer Space and Pong, which can be discussed on those articles. Much of the interview there is anecdotes, not useful for a bio page, particularly when we have separate key pages for those other topics given their importance to the history. The other articles that I've seen that follow the 2009 interview all have essentially the same, so I'm not expecting of finding more useful relevant biography information. And I should point out that I have expanded it well past a stub (more start-class now) with what I have found. --Masem (t) 13:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
        • Also to add, we're at the problem now that we have the current bios that are out there from RSes that are basing their research and writing on what I've added since. eg has some word-for-word from what I wrote) so new sources I fear might be slightly flawed. --Masem (t) 13:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Support. Looks like a solid start now but I'm concerned at the reliance on a couple of sources, one of which is oral history. Can you add some more sources, even if they just confirm the existing information? Espresso Addict (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Some of the details that involve Bushnell, Alcorn, and the launch of Atari can be readily corroborated - but most of anything outside that (pre- and post-Atari) is going to have to be based on what Dabney had said during the oral history interview, since he never got the fame that Bushnell did. I will add a few for the Atari stuff though. --Masem (t) 14:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Added some corroborating sources for the Atari-related stuff. --Masem (t) 14:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Repeal of 8th Amendment referendum[edit]

Article: Thirty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2018 (Ireland) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Ireland a referendum votes to repeal the 8th Amendment
Alternative blurb: ​In a landslide result, Ireland votes to repeal the 8th Amendment
Alternative blurb II: ​In Ireland, a referendum votes to repeal the 8th Amendment, allowing for the legalisation of abortion.
Alternative blurb III: ​In Ireland a referendum votes to legalise abortion through repeal of the 8th Amendment
Alternative blurb IV: ​In a landslide referendum result, Ireland votes to allow the legalization of abortion
News source(s): Irish Times BBC The Guardian
Nominator: Yorkshiresky (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The result will be announced sometime this afternoon (local time) but exit polls indicate an overwhelming yes vote. In unlikely event of a no there's an altblurb. yorkshiresky (talk) 09:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Alt3, once the official count is made. Constitutional amendment to the opposite of the prev position is a major event. Don't hold this until subsequent act of parliament is passed. That might be worthy of another ITN entry, but the change to the constitution is most important.-gadfium 09:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - I inadvertently nominated this item at the same time as Yorkshiresky, so am removing that and leaving my comments here - I anticipate this nomination being contentious. However, the repeal of the Eighth Amendment has been one of the most controversial and divisive matters in Irish politics for decades - imagine if a referendum repealed the 2nd Amendment stateside. The campaign has been long and arduous, and resulted in a very high turnout. Media coverage has been deafening in Ireland, and sizable abroad, with a lot of British and American media discussing it. The referendum was anticipated to be very tight, but exit polls indicate that it will be a landslide victory for the Yes side. Formal results are expected in the next few hours, following the precedent set by the gay marriage referendum, which we posted. Either way, this is massive news in Ireland (will likely be one of the biggest stories of the decade), and as such I feel it warrants a posting on ITN. I would also prefer altblurb 2, out of those offered above. Stormy clouds (talk) 09:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • When counting is complete and the outcome clear definitely strong support. Very significant change in direction for Ireland and is being widely covered in international news. MurielMary (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support alt3 when official. One of the prominent no campaigners has conceded defeat according to the BBC, but as this isn't an election that doesn't mean anything formally. This is very likely to be the biggest news from Ireland this year, and a very notable change for a predominantly Catholic country. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment,. As I understand it, strictly speaking this was not a vote to legalize abortion, but a vote to permit the legalization of abortion. Abortion will still be illegal in Ireland until they actually change the laws. As such I would favor a blurb that mentions both the Amendment and abortion(not one or the other). 331dot (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
@331dot: - that is correct. Should/when the referendum passes, the government will have the ability to implement legislation regarding abortion in Irish law, rather than placing it directly in the constitution (as with, say, guns in the States). I agree as such regarding the blurb. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Huge story and the article appears comprehensive. Agree with 331dot on the blurb. Jusdafax (talk) 11:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - A major social step forward. I too agree with 331dot on the blurb. HiLo48 (talk) 11:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong support, for all the reasons already given by others, but preferably for something like altblurb 4, which doesn't mention Repealing the 8th, a concept which is both incomprehensible or meaningless outside Ireland, and also arguably technically incorrect. We are not simply repealing the 8th, we are replacing it with different wording, and the new wording is what matters - without it we'd arguably be back to the 1861 Offences against the Person situation (that already banned abortion before the ban got put into the constitution by the 8th amendment in 1983), or at the very least any abortion legislation could be found to be unconstitutional for any number of imaginative reasons by some future conservative Supreme Court.Tlhslobus (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support particularly alt IV, per seismic and Tihslobus. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly notable and important. Would support any blurb that emphasised the historic importance. doktorb wordsdeeds 12:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted, with a slight tweak as a referendum doesn't vote, people vote in one. Also we don't usually use "landslide" or similar. Black Kite (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Err, too soon? The vote result hasn't been announced. We're going off exit polls at this point, which are not likely wrong, but not proper --Masem (t) 12:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support upon confirmation. [portion of comment moved inside hat] -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
ITN/C is not a forum. Thryduulf (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[This was originally posted as part of the support comment immediately above] The worst calamity to strike Ireland since the Great Famine. The loss of life is likely to be incalculable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: - ehh, what about The Troubles - mainly focused in the North, but there was significant bloodshed in the Republic too. Also this and this weren't great in terms of deaths. Stormy clouds (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Over time I think the loss of life in the Troubles will pale by comparison to this. And of course that bloodshed was, at least in theory, criminal. This carnage is going to be protected by the full force of the law. The others too will in time be overtaken in the lives lost. Wars eventually end. For the first time in my life, I am ashamed of my Irish ancestry. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Ad Orientam, you're a good admin, and a great editor. And then you come out with something like that... —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: - the people have apparently democratically chosen to enshrine that "carnage" into the law, by a hefty margin. The reaction of the media in the States has been scrutinised greatly over here, and routinely condemned. American lobby groups repeatedly used funds to try and interfere in a fair referendum here, and they lost. If the modern values of a secular Ireland are disparate from those of the diaspora, then it may be time for those abroad to reflect on what it means to be "Irish", because it is more than just a party every March. I personally am not too uptight on it, but making comments like "I am ashamed of my Irish ancestry" and invoking the famine after a referendum which has massive support and is considered to be a progressive move forward, like the gay marriage referendum, would not go down well in green sections of the internet. If that is your belief, you are entitled to it, but know that it is not endorsed by the vast majority of your brethren. (I'd also steer clear of r/Ireland). Stormy clouds (talk) 14:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Um, Pulled again. I posted it and then went to look at the article, which isn't updated with the result - mainly, it appears, because the result hasn't been announced (or votes even completely counted) yet, even if the outcome is obvious. Will obviously be posted at that time. Black Kite (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Why posted it w/o checking? not goodprecedence.Lihaas (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I humbly apologise for making a mistake and then immediately fixing it. Hopefully your Wikipedia experience has not been significantly degraded by the three minutes that said error sat on the main page. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Piling on Support presuming the exit polls are correct, and agree altblurb IV is best. --Masem (t) 12:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Alt 4 – Reads best. (Referenda do not vote, people do.) Sca (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • We can probably post at the point where enough constituencies have declared numbers that the result is a mathematical certainty. I assume news orgs will alert when this occurs. --LukeSurl t c 14:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment "landslide" doesn't belong in a blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Ad Orientem. Lepricavark (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite: BBC is reporting that the referendum has mathematically succeeded with only three constituencies left to declare. Now we can post. --Masem (t) 16:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted -- KTC (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: isn't it spelt "legalisation" in Ireland? Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @Anarcho-authoritarian: In the UK both forms are accepted, but s is more common than z. Ireland usually agrees with the UK on spelling matters, but I don't know whether it does in this case (the Irish English article doesn't elucidate). Thryduulf (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
@Anarcho-authoritarian: - I am not fully up on the formalities, but we are generally taught to spell with an "s" rather than "Z" in cases like this. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I didn't even see it. I literally just reverted to what Black Kite had posted. The Irish Time and the Irish Sun both spell the word with a 's'. I'll change it. -- KTC (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Brazil nationwide strike[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2018 Brazil truck drivers' strike (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Truck drivers in Brazil go on strike nationwide due to rise of diesel prices.
News source(s): Bloomberg
Nominator: Alumnum (talk • give credit)

 Alumnum (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Support sees quite a lot of coverage, dominates local news, even the army got involved. Banedon (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly having a big effect inside this country. And the article seems good. I must also note that I have not seen this in the news in my country. That's a reason often used by some here to prevent posting of items they don't like. I am clever enough to be able to tell that this IS still important. HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
@HiLo48: One and two form SMH.Lechatjaune (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. This is a big country. I'm not in Sydney. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support got huge international coverage such as Bloomberg, Washington Post, BBC, NY Times, The Guardian,The Sydney Morning Herald, Al Jazeera, Deutsche Welle, EuroNews (FR), Le Figaro (FR), Le Journal de Montréal, Corriere del Ticino (IT) among many others. Lechatjaune (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - It appears the article was translated from Portuguese, or written by someone whose English was learned as a second language. I caught a few wording errors, but there may be more. The lede should be looked at in particular. I’d like to support this but not until a copyedit by fresh eyes is completed. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 23:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose minimally "in the news" (digging through various sources to find re-published AP stories doesn't count as "in the news" for me). Of course this will be posted because "domestic issue" only exists as a cudgel to keep US-centric stories off the main page, so please deal with the missing refs. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not seeing this headlining anywhere in any news that I read. Maybe mildly interesting, but looks like it's on the way to resolution in any case. Chances are we'd post this and then have to remove it like the nonsense "US government shutdown" we had to debate interminably earlier in the year. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Looks like an important story, article is adequate. I think we can post it and post necessary updates as the situation changes. Davey2116 (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not actually in the news enough to be posted here. Lepricavark (talk) 12:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

May 25[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 May 25
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology

(Closed) 2018 Mississauga restaurant bombing[edit]

Strong consensus against posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Seconded by nom.Lihaas (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2018 Mississauga restaurant bombing (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 15 people are injured in a bombing in Ontario, Canada.
News source(s): [1] [2]
Nominator: Lihaas (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: VERY long shot (i myself questioned if it needs an article), but i believe we posted a london attack w/ no deaths. We posted the van attack recently, so it might be construed as not "rare". No urgent update on their website, considering police have shut it for investigations [3].As Nominators are usually considered "supports," consider this as a weak support. I've organized the page a bit, and added something, btw. Lihaas (talk) 12:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose stub. "Background" section references van attack that has not in any way been linked to this attack. "Reactions" section typical wall of flags offering no value (though when the US president blames MS-13, or "muslims", or whatever Fox and Fiends tells him to blame, that'll be worth adding for the LOLz). --LaserLegs (talk) 12:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Background is b/c of the location periphery (i moved it from "See also")\ within the wider toronto area (maybe a canuck can confirm that).
Reaction is b/c of pertinence w/ trudeau's visit to india and the Khalistan controversy.
My question is would you support it based on the situation (obviously page will expand, it was just a few hours ago).Lihaas (talk) 12:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm from southern Ontario, "See also" is fine, fit's the golden horseshoe region. It's in the news today, I generally support stories which are in the news with a quality article. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I just wanted to get a bearing.Lihaas (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this point. They do not seem to think this is either a terrorist act or a hate crime, and just domestic violence. If that changes, it might be possible to consider it. --Masem (t) 13:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nominate article base on its quality and notability not random comparison with another country. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Weird but not really significant. Sca (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality (I'm undecided about significance) - the article doesn't do anything to explain the significance, nor the relevance of the sole reaction quoted (this is not a request for more quotes!). Thryduulf (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No reason to see this as anything more than a local crime. I'm puzzled why we even have an article about it. Modest Genius talk 14:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Because it's in the news? Because bombings aren't exactly routine in Canada? Because no one knows the true motivation yet? Because this wouldn't be the first act of ethnic violence targeting Indians in Canada? If there is some WP:MINIMUMDEATHS for WP:N please let me know. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
      • There is WP:NEVENT which means events should have some enduring coverage before we consider them notable. Unfortunately, many editors rush to create articles on breaking news before notability can be assessed. --Masem (t) 14:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as somewhat unusual as it is, due to a lack of deaths I doubt this will have much of a long-term notability. Juxlos (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
It was inevitable that link would eventually turn blue.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, I've coded my links so that redirects are green and stubs are orange. User pages are purple. I smell Barney! - Floydian τ ¢ 19:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - truthfully, I would have been somewhat on the fence, given the unclear motives, to post this if there were 15 dead, as I initially misread. With no death, it is hard to view this as an interesting triviality, not reaching the bar of significance needed for ITN. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not notable enough for ITN. Lepricavark (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

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

(Posted) EU's General Data Protection Regulation[edit]

Article: General Data Protection Regulation (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation goes into effect, imposing strict privacy controls for European citizens worldwide.
News source(s): CNN
Nominator: Masem (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: The GDPR while only covering European users has significant worldwide implications since it can fine non-EU companies for failing to protect EU citizen data. That's while you've likely been getting tons of "we've updated our T&Cs" even if you're not European over the last few days. Masem (t) 00:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose too many missing refs, too late in the day to tag them all now. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the article is okay and everyone's probably confused and annoyed by the constant WE'VE UPDATED OUR PRIVACY POLICY spam.  Nixinova  T  C  04:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support it is important enough, and the sourcing looks good enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support affects a lot of people. Banedon (talk) 05:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the article is littered with unreferenced statements. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - The entire world will be affected by this change of EU scandal. It's from the uprise of Zuckenburg Facebook scandal. Privacy laws like this will require all data-involving apps especially social medias to update themselves, and especially Facebook will be affected. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 06:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC) Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 06:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support article in sufficient state; not fac. Significant impact globally. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 06:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Blurb-worthy, postable. Jusdafax (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Good idea. A event which will have significant long-term implications for data privacy, even to users outside the EU. The article isn't brilliant but it's good enough to post. Modest Genius talk 10:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per TRM. Referencing issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
oppose evenif worldwide, it is just domestic citizens of 27-28 states (same reasoning domestic US decisions were [rightfully] not posted).Lihaas (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Inappropriate or misuse of EU citizen data by any company worldwide can incur fines of up to 2M Euros or 4% of the company's annual revenues. It's less about how this affects citizens of those states and more about how it is drastically affecting Internet business operations. --Masem (t) 13:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Countries. Not states.--WaltCip (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
We rightly posted US Net Neutrality laws and we'll rightly post this once the article is up to scratch. I'm curious to see how the EU is going to enforce it's laws beyond it's borders though. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
By fining companies who do business within the EU. Those that don't operate in the EU aren't affected, which is why some US companies have started blocking EU users rather than comply with GDPR. The EU isn't trying to enforce laws beyond its borders, just require multinationals that do operate within the EU to abide by its rules. Modest Genius talk 14:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
And already the lawsuits have started: $8.8B total from lawsuits against Facebook and Google. --Masem (t) 14:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The internet isn't a store front, EU citizens can visit websites in countries not bound by the GDPR, whose owners do not maintain a business presence in the EU. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Correct, but if that website wants to store personal data about EU users they need to comply with the GDPR. Quite how easy it is to enforce will be interesting to see; it's certainly got a lot of multinationals worried. Regardless, this is getting into WP:NOTFORUM rather than an assessment of an ITN blurb. Modest Genius talk 14:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This affects a lot of people and companies. Many people have received E-mails already with notifications in relation to this new rule taking effect. Dragnadh (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • There's a fair amount of the article that doesn't have inline refs, but most of this can be assumed to be implicitly supported by the text of the law itself. --LukeSurl t c 16:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Notable, and article is adequate. Davey2116 (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posting, the current version does not have referencing issues anymore. --Tone 06:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

May 24[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 May 24
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
  • Aftermath of Venezuelan presidential election, 2018
    • The president of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, during a ceremony to celebrate his re-election, ordered the military high command that the Armed Forces sign a "loyalty" document, after claim to have frustrated a supposed conspiration that sought to avoid the holding of presidential elections of May 20 and blamed to the United States and Colombia for being behind it. Maduro also said that the leader of this alleged conspiration "was fugitive and that he had escaped to Colombia". (El Universal)
    • The Human Rights NGO, Foro Penal, reported the arrest of a major of the aviation, which is added to the imprisonment on May 22 by order of the military justice of eleven officers of the Armed Forces. Other versions, of press and activists, assure that they would be at least 15 the detentions by this presumed plot. (Canal N)
Science and technology

Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa merger[edit]

Article: Thirty-first Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan (talk, history)
Blurb: ​On May 24th, 2018 in 229-11 vote National Assembly of Pakistan passes the historic bill to announce the merger of Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) with province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
News source(s): The Express Tribune, Geo TV, Daily Times, The Guardian
Nominator: Nauriya (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: I think the article is well written and it is a major part of a country's constitutional change as well as significant on both government and provisional level. Nauriya (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment I think the FATA-KP merger should be posted to the news section, however, we should wait until the amendment becomes law. It has been approved by the National Assembly and the Senate now, but it needs to be approved by the KP assembly and signed by the president before the merger can actually occur.Avg W (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Comment Also - having written the article so far - I consider it to be incomplete. It should include more information about the background leading up to the amendment, the reasons for the merger, political support and opposition, the specific ways in which the constitution is being amended (right now I have just listed the articles that are being amended and appealed without elaboration) and the significance of this change. Avg W (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose local politics as far as I can see. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, at least now per Avg W. I'm willing to reconsider when the change happens, but the article will need to do a better job of explaining the significance in practical terms at that time. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
support in principle pending issues above.Lihaas (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Note: Those who are saying it has yet to be a law, then what about Paris Abortion Bill news already posted when it is also yet to be singed by the president and instilled as a law.Nauriya (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Nauriya: If by "Paris Abortion Bill" you mean the Irish constitutional referendum then you comparing apples and oranges. A country-wide referendum with a massive turnout that reversed the county's position regarding an issue with a long history of bitter controversy (in multiple countries) that is extremely widely covered around the world doesn't compare with a parliamentary vote comprising step 2 of 4 in a process to reorganise the internal administration of a medium-sized (in terms of international influence) country. Thryduulf (talk) 10:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
This merger has also come after a long history of "bitter controversy" and it is equally important as it will impact the lives of 5 million people living in a region where they were deprived of many basic rights and this merger is a big deal, and I am sure the concerned country is not of a "medium-sized". Nauriya (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

UEFA Women's Champions League[edit]

Article: 2018 UEFA Women's Champions League Final (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In association football, Lyon defeat Wolfsburg to win the UEFA Women's Champions League.
News source(s): BBC

Nominator's comments: Not sure if this is notable enough. Probably the most notable game of the season in women's football though. Perhaps it could be combined with the inevitable blurb for the men's final. Needs some work though i assume. 37.138.235.204 (talk) 06:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose (tweaked the blurb per house style) article has no prose summary of the match. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I was wondering what the norm was. But to be honest, i was too lazy to go through the archives to find an example. So, thanks for fixing it. 37.138.235.204 (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Much as I would like to support a women's football item, few fans of the sport are even aware that there is a female version of the champions league, let alone who won it. Right now this just doesn't attract enough interest to merit yet another football story on top of those listed on WP:ITNR. Maybe if the standard improves and the competition gets more media attention, but that's at least a few years away. Football is a long way behind many other sports on gender balance. I suspect the 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup will be the next postable event in women's football. Modest Genius talk 10:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
    The women's world cup actually seems to be ITNR. But anyway, agree that women's football does not attract very much interest or attention. I don't watch it myself either. I was nontheless curious about testing the water about the topic even if it was unlikely to get posted. Honestly, i would even borderline oppose this myself on notability. 37.138.235.204 (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
    Of course the irony is that posting this would be very progressive and probably applauded across the globe as an indication that Wikipedia is more encompassing than most think, but sadly it's clearly not going to happen. None of our readers would complain about this, just the establishment here... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
    And it could even get combined with the men's blurb. Without that possibility i doubt i would have nominated it. But all of that does not matter if the article is not good enough, which i strongly assume it is not. 85.16.163.65 (talk) 10:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Modest Genius. At present, the event does not meet the high notability threshold of an ITN item, unfortunately. Stormy clouds (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose not notable enough for ITN. Lepricavark (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support It could be bundled with the men's Champions League result into a combined blurb. Just added a summary to complete the article. SounderBruce 19:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support adequate game summary now, no missing refs that I can see. With people practically frothing at the mouth shrieking "systemic bias" you'd think there'd be more support for curbing one of the worst actual biases at ITN: sport stories are almost exclusively male. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
    • To a large (but not exclusive) extent systematic bias regarding sports coverage at ITN is consequential to the systematic bias in mainstream news coverage, and at least in Europe Women's football is significantly lower in status and coverage than men's events. I don't watch football (men's or women's) so I can't say whether this is justified in terms of quality or participation or any other metric, but even if it is not ITN is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I don't have an opinion whether this does meet the notability threshold for ITN, but we don't post things simply to reduce systematic bias otherwise we'd be posting say African women's netball competitions at the same rate we post US men's baseball. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
      • "To a large (but not exclusive) extent systematic bias regarding sports coverage at ITN is consequential to the systematic bias in mainstream news coverage". Fixed it for you. Thing is, that doesn't stop people from leaping around, shrieking, and spitting venom at US-centric stories righting the great wrongs of America. In this case, we get an easy win: the women's event article is sufficiently updated to feature on the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John "TotalBiscuit" Bain[edit]

Article: TotalBiscuit (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Kotaku, BBC
Nominator: Masem (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: I know there's an orange tag, I need to wait a bit to let editing on the death news die out to replace primary with better sources. Masem (t) 23:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Possibly the second most cynical brit I know ... may he rest in peace. Re: primary sources -- I dunno if you'll be able to clean that up, he basically podcasted his own illness. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Actually, I've been able to hit all but 2 (outside one longer Reddit post he made but referred to in other sources). There's a handleful more but his illness/struggle with cancer was well reported on, just not the nitty gritty. --Masem (t) 01:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Support nice work Masem. Subject passes WP:N and a handful of primary sources about non-controversial items like his illness are ok by me, and WP:PRIMARY would seem to allow this. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose nearly there, fix final [cn]. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Fixed up. --Masem (t) 05:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. No tags on article. I fixed a CS1 error so there are no more problem hidden categories. wumbolo ^^^ 07:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-referenced article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 10:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Came here to post this. Looks fine to me. shoy (reactions) 13:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • support beat me to it.💸Money💸emoji💸💴 14:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posting, using the article name. Ping me if you want it changed. --Tone 14:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Jack Johnson pardon[edit]

Consensus will not develop for this to be posted. Stephen 01:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed image
Article: Jack Johnson (boxer) (talk, history)
Blurb: Jack Johnson, the first African American world heavyweight boxing champion, is pardoned for his 1913 conviction for violating the Mann Act.
News source(s): ESPN
Nominator: Bender235 (talk • give credit)
Nominator's comments: Clearly encyclopedic. bender235 (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Other than a quick sentence or two about the action, I'm not finding extensive coverage of this story in news outlets. Even major sports outlets aren't treating it as a "front page" story; it's mostly buried in boxing sections. --Jayron32 18:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
It sure isn't the dominating story of the day, but I didn't see the Venezuelan presidential election, or the Palme d'Or film festival filling newspaper front pages either, and yet we have them in our current ITN. --bender235 (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This news is small potatoes. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posthumous pardons face an uphill battle at ITN. We did post Alan Turing's in December 2013, but Johnson is no Turing, and a year-and-a-day prison term isn't comparable to chemical castration. Oppose. —Cryptic 20:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, political act by politician. Abductive (reasoning) 21:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: More symbolic; not sure if this would be eligible for DYK but this would be more suited there. SpencerT•C 22:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Cryptic. Daniel Case (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

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

(Closed) Cancellation of North Korea–United States summit[edit]

Consensus will not develop for this to be posted. Stephen 01:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2018 North Korea–United States summit (talk, history)
Blurb: ​United States President Donald Trump cancels a landmark summit with North Korea Chairman Kim Jong-un, citing hostility from North Korea.
News source(s): CNBC
Nominator: Masem (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: The article is not fully updated with the news yet. And while cancellation of an event may normally not be ITNR, this summit was a groundbreaking one (the first time a US leader was to meet with an NK leader), and this was after all the work SK did to help bring NK around. Masem (t) 14:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in Principle on notability, the article itself is in decent shape, but the update isn’t in the best condition at the moment, largely because it is breaking news. Still this does seem worthy for ITN. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - We didn't post the announcement of the summit back in March 2018, precisely because we knew something like this was going to happen. No one should be surprised by this. It makes no sense to not post the announcement of the summit but to post the announcement of the cancellation of the summit.--WaltCip (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
    • If the summit happened, I am pretty confident we would have posted on its occurrence (as we did with the SK-NK one). With a political event like this, posting at the announcement doesn't make sense because we know that the event would be covered when it happens (or in this case, isn't going to happen). --Masem (t) 14:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Of course we would have posted at its occurrence, because it would have been a momentous occasion, because - this is key here - Trump and North Korea respectively have a terrible track record on keeping dates and promises. How many times has Jong-un promised a truce, diplomacy, or de-nuclearization, only to backpedal from it later? The cancellation of the summit, as far as I'm concerned, is status quo for US-NK relations. There's an entire article devoted to promises made and not kept.--WaltCip (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support it's certainly in the news. Does this mean Trump won't get his peace prize? Also how triggered up do editors have to be for an article to require "change approval"? Wow. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The one he had no reasonable hope of getting anyways? If I were a gambling man, I wouldn't stake my money on it. Not that the peace prize really means much of anything in the first place. Kurtis (talk) 00:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose no, we shouldn't post this, because it's not something that's actually happened, because we didn't post the announcement of it and frankly, knowing Trump, because it's just as likely that he'll change his mind again anyway. Black Kite (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose we just don't post things that don't happen. Inevitable Trumpism. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – More grandstanding. If they ever do meet, and agree on something – anything – that would be worth posting. (I expect this cancellation will fade fast from the news.) Sca (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose is notable, but in a way this was more or less predictable considering hostilities between the two nations. Kirliator (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Events that didn't actually happen are not suitable for ITN. EternalNomad (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
    • That's objectively false, but whatever. We posted Scotland voting to remain in the UK for example. I expected this nom to go down in flames, and won't defend it, but let's not use blanket objections like "Events that didn't actually happen are not suitable for ITN". BUT MUH PEACE PRIZE!!! --LaserLegs (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Barack Obama pre-emptively got a Peace Prize for peace that he ended up not delivering on. The Nobel committee won't make that mistake again.--WaltCip (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
        • For ending the disasterous and illegal Iraq war? Nah, he delivered on that. The commemorative coins! What are we gonna do with all these medallions?? Use 'em for taxis??? --LaserLegs (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Amusing as this whole episode is, we always knew that it was unlikely to happen and/or lead to any concrete progress. "Historic event doesn't occur" isn't an ITN blurb. Trump can make himself look ridiculous without our help. Modest Genius talk 16:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the summit is cancelled. No way. Who could have seen this coming? We should not post non-events, and the Scotland example is not apt as they did actually vote, not just say that they would then not get around to it. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support This is in the news. That's our purpose, right? Calling this a "non-event" isn't really accurate, as this is the culmination of the attempt at a summit. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the initial announcement was not posted, so it seems hypocritical to post this as well. Also Trump notes that the summit can happen in the future, per a report on the CE portal. SamaranEmerald (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Nothing happened. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The destruction of the nuclear test site might be more significant [4], even if it's been much less widely reported. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This never happened. It was never likely to happen. It was always nothing more than typical Trump bluster. The news is still that there is a lying, racist, bullying, misogynist, discriminatory, incompetent pussy grabber in the White House. Everything else is just political colour and movement. HiLo48 (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Bleve that would be dyed-in-the wool. Sca (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
In U.S. English, pussy-graber is officially hyphenated. Sca (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I am NOT the topic. HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Something not happening isn't typically newsworthy. If Trump had actually met Kim, that would be different. He did not. Ergo, status quo ante bellum peace talks. Kurtis (talk) 00:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

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

(Needs attention) MH17 investigation[edit]

Article: Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Joint Investigation Team concludes that the Buk missile system used to shoot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 originated from the Russian 53rd Anti-Aircraft Rocket Brigade.
Alternative blurb: ​Australia and the Netherlands say they are holding Russia responsible for downing a Malaysia Airlines passenger jet in 2014.
Alternative blurb II: ​Following the Joint Investigation Team's conclusion that Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down by a Russian Buk missile, Australia and the Netherlands formally hold Russia responsible.
News source(s): Openbaar Ministerie, BBC, Reuters, NPR (on AU/Nlnds' assertiong)
Nominator: Brandmeister (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Official confirmation of the unofficial suspicion, even if the criminal investigation is still ongoing. Brandmeistertalk 13:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Support It is hard to judge if there is going to be any criminal-type proceedings from this, but official closure on the cause of this crash is appropriate, and the article seems updated and well sourced. --Masem (t) 13:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article quality is sufficient, article is sufficiently updated, item is being covered sufficiently by reliable news sources. --Jayron32 14:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Suppport – with the proviso that we avoid language implying that the JIT proved that it was shot down by the Russian BUK. (Presumably, only the Russians know with absolute certainty.) In the article, I changed today's new "confirmed that" to "declared that." There are numerous acceptable uses of "confirmed" farther down in the article. Sca (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support as this is merely confirmation of something that was already overwhelmingly likely, but it's certainly in the news and has implications for international relations. Can we make the blurb more concise? I've not checked all the nuances of the report, but would it correct to say "The Joint Investigation Team reports that Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down by Russian forces"? Modest Genius talk 16:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No, because the article suggests that the Buk was under the control of rebel Ukranian forces, not Russian ones. Black Kite (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Which article suggests that? --bender235 (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, what about "The Joint Investigation Team reports that the missile which shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was provided by Russia"? Modest Genius talk 11:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Suppport – this is a major development in this investigation. BabbaQ (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Until we have a truly independent investigation, everything that comes from it is just politics. HiLo48 (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Russian misinformation has found yet another victim, it seems. (/off-topic) --bender235 (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Is that an attack on me, Russia, or both? HiLo48 (talk) 04:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I think the only way you could get a "truly independent" investigation would be for aliens from another planet to investigate it. 331dot (talk) 08:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
That would depend on which planet they came from. Vulcan might be OK, as Vulcanians are not very emotional. Sca (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree, and I'm glad you see that. Many here don't. HiLo48 (talk) 08:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I see that, but I also see that this is as close to an official conclusion as we are going to get. An investigation involving Russia seems remote(as they would have been involved with this one if they wanted to be) so that shouldn't prevent this from being posted. Readers can see for themselves the nature of this investigation. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Only if some of us are consistently vigilant about the language used in the article, making sure it always makes it quite clear where statements come from. I'll be watching. HiLo48 (talk) 09:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
We can't mention this again until those aliens arrive? I think ALT Blurb is perfectly satisfactory. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support per Modest Genius. Banedon (talk) 05:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: Dutch and Australian media report today that the Netherlands and Australia officially hold Russia responsible. I currently don't have the opportunity to update the article, but it might add to the relevance. Thayts ••• 09:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - As per above comment. Added alt blurb Sherenk1 (talk) 11:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - As per above comments and with alt alt2 blurb. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I've added a 2nd altblurb to tie the developments together. AU/Netherlands are blaming Russia due to the conclusion of the investigation, even if the investigaton didn't say Russia did it. --Masem (t) 14:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per above, with a preference for alt2. Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per above, with a preference for the 2nd alt blurb as well, to which I've added the words "Russian" and "formally". Thayts ••• 20:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
⇒ The phrase "formally hold Russia responsible" is perplexing. What does it mean in practical terms? Are Australia and the Netherlands going to file criminal charges against the Russian Federation or sue it for damages it in their own domestic courts? Rotsa ruck. Russia is a sovereign state. Nor would one expect action from the International Court of Justice, since Russia is one of the (in effect) permanent members. Seems the original blurb is the only one unequivocally correct. Sca (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Because they plan to bring Russia to the ICJ. Will the ICJ likely do anything? No, but its a matter of "being on the record" in case they have to justify things like sanctions or other unilaterial actions against Russia. --Masem (t) 22:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I would support when the ICJ makes a similar conclusion. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
It does seem that MH17 may become an ICJ case at some point. If that happens we could consider posting that fact then. Meanwhile, it's high time we either post Alt1 or close the discussion. Sca (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Though if something gets posted, it should be ALT1. While I understand Joint investigation team is not the target article, it is currently a sub-stub that shouldn't be linked on the main page. But even then, HiLo48's concerns are legit. There were no Russian investigators in this "joint" team. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Apart from HiLo48's concern over the investigation, nothing will actually change if Australia and the Netherlands, that is 2 out of 193 UN members, hold Russia responsible for downing the aircraft with no sign of any further implications. Sorry, but this is not going to revive the people who tragically lost their lives in this accident, and no-one on the planet would dare to give a damn that coming to conclusion could change the world. That said, we're not here to advertise the surprisingly outstanding finding that 'Russia downed the aircraft'.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
    I don't think the aim here was to "revive the people who tragically lost their lives in this accident", so I don't think you need to apologise. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
    Anyway, I fail to see any major implications and world-changing manifestations coming as a result, except we now know that the finding inclines towards Russia as being guilty for downing the aircraft, which is nothing surprisingly outstanding, though. I'd consider posting this only in case the international reactions result in severe consequences, but it doesn't seem that someone cares about the whole thing too much. Yet, no need for a hurry and let's wait to see how this is going to develop.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
    If we wait too long it won't be news. I agree there may not be any direct consequences from this for weeks or months. I'd disagree that "it doesn't seem that someone cares about the whole thing too much." I'm sure there are very many people who want to see Russia held to account, although it seems it was military incompetence that was largely to blame for the tragedy. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
    I consider this news a stepping stone to another resulting news with major impact that would merit inclusion. The consequences of this might be a UN resolution of any sort, economic sanctions, military restrictions, political isolation or whatever else on a global scale. Once any of these happens, we can post a blurb using a clause 'as a result/consequence of' to recall to this news; if nothing happens, then this news would fail the test for producing major impact. There is no time-frame, however, in which anything has to happen, so we can practically keep this on hold indefinitely, and wait for its noteworthiness materialise at any time in future. After three days, we have 2 UN members holding Russia responsible with 190 (excluding Russia) remaining silent and no other sign of potential consequences. But the things might change. Let's wait and see.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
    It's a bit blunt to say no one cares too much indeed, obviously the Netherlands and Australia do, and think of all the victims' relatives... Apart from that, several other countries and organisations like Germany, the UK, the US, the EU and NATO have reacted to the JIT's report and called for Russia to cooperate in the investigation (as until now they seem not to have cooperated constructively at all). This might not have ended up in the article yet, though. Anyway, I certainly believe this story will have a tail and looking at the current doubt of posting this I agree to perhaps post news about a later development instead. Thayts ••• 16:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
    Oh, and all the other countries that form the JIT obviously care much as well, because why else would they be investigating? Thayts ••• 16:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Important story. Davey2116 (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

⇒ Stale. Suggest close. Sca (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

May 23[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 May 23
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports

(Attention Needed) Cyclone Mekunu[edit]

Article: Cyclone Mekunu (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The island chain of Socotra, famed for unique plants and animals found nowhere else on the planet, is coping with the aftermath of a powerful cyclone.
Alternative blurb: Cyclone Mekunu has hit southern Oman killing two people, including a 12-year-old girl, and leaving at least three others injured.
Alternative blurb II: ​Powerful Cyclone Mekunu strikes Oman and Yemen leaving at least 10 dead and 40 missing.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Alaha.cyclone (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Known as the Galapagos of the Indian Ocean is a disaster zone, hence the notability. Article just created. Sherenk1 (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose Not yet in the namespace that I can check to assess its suitability for main page. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
    Now it has been moved to mainspace and subsumed into another article. My oppose remains. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, but Oppose in quality and oppose blurb considering that this “article” is not in the best condition, despite being on about a hurricane; however the real problem is the suggested blurb, which is too long and does not directly state the name of the hurricane. it should be rewritten to match the layout similar to ones posted about previous hurricanes. Kirliator (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose no article yet, just a draft. Rather surprised the Tropical Cyclones Wikiproject hasn't gotten on this one yet; maybe someone could enlist them. They're usually on it. --Jayron32 16:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jayron, surprised that, if this is significant, the wikiproject hasn't got a B-class article already up and running. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Article has been created. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the event here is significant enough (this isn't a known hurricane zone as far as I'm aware) and the article seems decent, but the blurb is off, to me; the story here is the 40 people missing and five dead in Socotra, not the two dead in Oman. Vanamonde (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Luis Posada Carriles[edit]

Article: Luis Posada Carriles (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Miami Herald
Nominator and updater: Vanamonde93 (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Article could use a little cleanup. I'll try to get to it in a few hours, but nominating in the hope that other folks work on it. Vanamonde (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose The refs around Cubana Flight 455 aren't great, and that article is a mess so no WP:BLUELINK. The 2005-whenever had a paragraph that was unsubstantiated. Anyway, tagged my best, overall not a terrible article would be nice to feature. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Support I still don't like the way the UN docs are used as primary sources because of negative qualifiers like "she claimed" which are in the article but not the source. It's a minor NPOV thing though not enough to keep from posting. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Also nice work Rms125a@hotmail.com and Vanamonde93 cleaning it up. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I've done a good bit of work on this since nominating it; further fleshing out and detail would be useful, but it certainly has more substance than the average RD posting. Vanamonde (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article looks to be in good shape, as far as I can see. --Jayron32 11:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support looks okay to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I've spot checked a few references and found no issues. This looks good to go - marking ready. Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 17:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dieter Schnebel[edit]

Article: Dieter Schnebel (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NZZ
Nominator: Gerda Arendt (talk • give credit)
Updater: Jerome Kohl (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Gerda Arendt (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Died 20 May. German composer, musicologist and theologian who was an influential academic teacher and thinker. - I promised myself not to ever come here again, after Wanda Wiłkomirska, but it's about him, not me and my feelings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment the article looks to be pretty comprehensive but the lack of inline citations means I'm unable to quickly check whether there are any unreferenced statements and whether the references do verify what they claim to. Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose right now, as it should be subject to a {{inline}} template. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Do you mean the different referencing style, to have the link to the ref in brackets, giving name and year? That's Jerome's style. It could be changed if you insist. (It was different before.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I dont think that we disallow this style of referencing, see Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing. --Masem (t) 13:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
The Rambling Man, what do you think, also considering the below. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Parenthetical_referencing and Parenthetical referencing for Wikipedia policy and the usual parameters for Harvard inline citations. The article on Schnebel still has a few claims marked as needing citations but, on the whole, is rather heavily laden with inline citations. All you need do is follow the blue links from the author-date citations to the reflist.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. — Hugh (talk) 01:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I think that when I first looked that I just wasn't parseing the parentheticals as references. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - seems ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - is this being reported in English language sources? 1779Days (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Trial of Nikola Gruevski[edit]

Article: Nikola Gruevski (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Former Prime Minister of Macedonia Nikola Gruevski is sentenced to two years in prison for unlawfully influencing officials in a purchase of a luxury bulletproof car.
News source(s): BBC, The Washington Post, ABC News
Nominator: Kiril Simeonovski (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: I remember that we usually do post trials of former prime ministers or heads of state that end up with an imprisonment verdict. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment/question With criminal trials (of anybody) conviction is normally the point at which we post. Did we do that in this case? If so is there anything particularly noteworthy about the sentence that merits a second posting? Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No, we didn't post the conviction at the time it was made. In fact, he was convicted for multiple criminal charges in a relatively short time, and this is the first one that has come to a conclusion. I can't tell much about the severity of the rest nor foresee what might happen as a result, but an imprisonment verdict in the resolution of the first one seems noteworthy.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment missing refs in the wiretapping section are a no-go. Also the trial needs to be fully fleshed out. "the Prime Minister of Macedonia is the country's leading political figure and de facto chief executive" in case anyone was wondering (I was). --LaserLegs (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • We do post convictions, especially when resulting in a prison sentence. However, the update is a bit short in the article. --Tone 06:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support involves a former head of government which is certainly news-making. Banedon (talk) 05:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, obviously. The target is a BLP which is inadequately referenced. Regardless of the newsworthiness (or otherwise) of this, we can't just promote such stuff to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

RD: Philip Roth[edit]

Article: Philip Roth (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: American author. Referencing issues in awards and novels section. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Support – Okay article, C-class, the {{cn}} tags aren't really that major.  Nixinova  T  C  06:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I will hold off supporting this until the list of works is cleared up with references. The awards section seemed to be reasonably well referenced. Capitalistroadster (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose three sections are orange tagged as needing more references (one of which I added) and there are few other uncited claims in other sections. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's not the {{cn}} tags that are the problem, it's the (rightly) orange tagged sections. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

May 22[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 May 22
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
  • At least 16 people are killed and 38 wounded in Kandahar, Afghanistan, by the accidental detonation of a container of explosives while security forces were attempting to dispose of it. (Al Jazeera)
International relations
Law and crime
Sports

RD: Antonio Lupatelli[edit]

Article: Antonio Lupatelli (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Newsweek
Nominator: Masem (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: aka Tony Wolf, noted Italian writer of children's books (eg Pingu). Unfortunately, the bulk of media reporting this is in Italian, and our article is woefully poor to support it presently. Masem (t) 13:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Man Booker International Prize[edit]

Articles: Man Booker International Prize (talk, history) and Flights (novel) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Man Booker International Prize is awarded to "Flights" by Olga Tokarczuk.
News source(s): Official Website The Guardian BBC News
Nominator: Lucie Person (talk • give credit)

One or both nominated events are listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: Reformating nomination from Lucie Person for parsability. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Support as the Booker article has stayed in good shape over several years. I'd like to see if Flights could be improved to be featured in the blurb (bolded), there's a few reviews I see, I added one as a refidea to the page, but I'm sure there's more. --Masem (t) 01:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as nominated per ITNR, "Unless otherwise noted, the winner of the prize is normally the target article." I can support this if the target is Flights (novel). Banedon (talk) 01:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yep, the bold link needs to be to Flights (novel), which is currently a 5-sentence stub. Needs some expansion before it's postable. Modest Genius talk 09:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality only. It needs a lot of work before it can make the main page. AIRcorn (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. The Flights (novel) article has been improved; it's not great but meets our minimum standards. Ready? Modest Genius talk 11:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Comment. Thanks for noticing my edits, @Modest Genius:! I, too think that it's ready now, so I've added the 'ready' tag. Hopefully that's not too soon? ⇒ Lucie Person (talk|contribs) 22:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Hmm, well this has been tagged "ready" for about 36 hours, any admins here? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Just saw this. Minor issue; this would push Maduro off the template, leaving us without a picture. I've added a picture to CMP, so perhaps it would be better to hold off until the bot does its thing. Of course, if we're okay with no picture, this can be posted right away. Vanamonde (talk) 09:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Aaand posted. Vanamonde (talk) 09:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Flights should be italicized, not in quotes. --LukeSurl t c 09:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Philip Wilson guilty[edit]

Article: Philip Wilson (bishop) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An Australian court finds Catholic Archbishop Philip Wilson guilty of concealing child sexual abuse in the 1970s.
Alternative blurb: Catholic Archbishop of Adelaide Philip Wilson is found guilty of concealing historical child sexual abuse in the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle, Australia.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: The most senior Catholic in the world to be charged and convicted of the offense. Article has some referencing issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Major news on the Catholic Church paedophilia front, which is a big issue globally and in Australia. I have found references for the two claims which had been tagged with "citation needed". HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak support I have to read the news articles to understand the scope of why we should post this, as the article on Wilson is not really clear on why this decision was so important (as I read elsewhere, the diocese he was in was considered the epicenter of the Catholic pedophile situation in Australia, and securing a conviction that it was covered up seemed to be a key result for further investigation based on the Guardian's article. Thus, the charge has merit as ITN, but the article should explain this better. --Masem (t) 06:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support it's pretty clear from just the blurb what the significance of this is, let's hope it's just the start of rooting out the evil. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose "failing to report allegations of abuse". That's not significant. Let me know when the actual predators are convicted. Also a few missing refs. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Not significant? Tell that to the victims. The fact that priests knew they would not be reported made them feel freer to continue their predations. It was the complete system that allowed these crimes to occur. HiLo48 (talk) 10:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Right great wrongs and all that HiLo. Story is way down in the headlines. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Many American events, particularly sporting ones, that make it to ITN, are NEVER in the news outside that country. HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Comment The "predator" in this case, Father Jim Fletcher, was convicted of child sexual offences in 2004 and died in prison in 2006. Archbishop Wilson is now convicted of covering up Fletcher's crimes. --dmmaus (talk) 10:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I realize that I may be going into this with an emotionally charged viewpoint, but damnit, WP:IAR.--WaltCip (talk) 10:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Added altblurb. I'm leaning towards LaserLegs in rationale, seeing that this occurred prior to when Wilson became archbishop and because the actual perpetrator was convicted in 2004. I'd prefer to see an official government inquiry report into the systematic failings of a national religious entity on this matter, rather than a piecemeal DYKable blurb about what one official did [not do] when he first started out. Fuebaey (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Please explain what the fact that the perpetrator has been been convicted has to do with this? HiLo48 (talk) 11:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Because without A, there would be no B. I'm making the assumption that the significance of this event lies where Wilson is a high ranking official within an influential organisation. Rather than a random neighbour knowing that the guy next door is abusing other people. The former may reach the bar for posting on ITN but not the latter from my POV. Fuebaey (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons stated by Masem. Literally thousands of clergy were complicit in these acts. If we can't tell readers in the blurb why this one is special (and we cannot), we need to do so ASAP in the article. ghost 11:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Now seeing in RS that "Wilson...faces a maximum two-year jail term." So quality aside, this is really unimportant. ghost 13:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I was on the same side as you when I first read the BBC article, and saw the short term. It's reading a few others that have more indepth to understand why authorities were seeing this as a key step in the ongoing investigation of the situation; his conviction means they can access more records, etc. --Masem (t) 14:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - high-ranking official of one of the world's largest organisation is convicted. Big news in the denouement of the Catholic sex abuse scandal, and worthy of posting. Article is fine, but could do with an expansion per Masem. Stormy clouds (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Not convinced a "failing to report" situation rises to ITN-grade significance. Sca (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Sca. Failure to report a crime is not ITN-level stuff. Lepricavark (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Doesn't rise to the level of significance for ITN. Perhaps manageable at DYK. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment I think those claiming this "crime" being not significant enough are missing the point. After all, those individuals would need to vote against Al Capone's conviction on tax evasion. It's the bigger picture which Masem and Stormy Clouds note here, that's significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    • No we get it perfectly. It is, I think, roughly equivalent to Michael Flynn pleading guilty to lying to the FBI. Insignificant on it's own, but the bigger (yuge) picture .... So I guess you could say in this case that it's local crime, nothing here for a global encyclopedia. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
      • No, you don't. But I'm not surprised at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
        • "But I'm not surprised at all." are you commenting on my competence, or on me personally there TRM? --LaserLegs (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
          • Neither, I'm commenting on my lack of surprise. You can re-read it if you like. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose mostly per Sca. The church sex abuse scandals are a big deal. But in the grand scheme of things this is a minor blip. Much bigger news will be coming if Cardinal George Pell is convicted. And then there is the recent news that everyone of Chile's 23 Catholic bishops handed in their resignations to the Pope in response to his demands and the ongoing sex abuse scandals in that country. I tried, and failed, to interest anyone over at WP:Catholicism in this story as a possible ITN candidate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    I think "An Australian court has found a Catholic archbishop guilty of concealing child sexual abuse in the 1970s. Philip Wilson, now archbishop of Adelaide, becomes the most senior Catholic in the world to be charged and convicted of the offence." is sufficient for ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
This whole topic is a big issue indeed, but again I don't see the Most Rev. Wilson's failure to report "allegations" (per our article) 40 years ago in Australia as top-drawer news. (Perhaps if I were RC I'd have a different opinion?) Sca (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
PS: As of 20:45 Tues., the Wilson story had faded from prime play on major EngLang news sites. Sca (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- this is no more significant than a hardcore torture proponent being placed in charge of an international intelligence agency with paramilitary options. 165.225.0.96 (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Changed to oppose as this event is no longer in the news.--WaltCip (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
It is in Australia. And if you think that doesn't matter, many sporting events we post hardly ever make it outside their home country. HiLo48 (talk) 04:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I browsed through the websites of the Sydney Morning Herald, the Canberra Times, the Brisbane Times, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and found nothing. I have to go to the BBC website and go to the Australia page to find that the story is being covered. So while it might have been picked up by the BBC, it doesn't actually seem to be news in Australia.--WaltCip (talk) 10:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes it is. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
@HiLo48: that is a really unhelpful comment. WaltCip gave a detailed explanation of why they believe it not to be in the news. If you disagree with that, the very least you should do is provide some evidence to the contrary - it should be easy if this is as significant as you claim. Thryduulf (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I really can't be bothered. The reasons are quite clear. Items don't have to stay in the version of the news foreigners see for weeks on end to be posted here. Many NEVER make it to the news I see. (e.g. US college sport.) You need to come to Australia to see the reality. I am beginning to doubt the knowledge or motives of some of those opposing this. HiLo48 (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I think I see why you had an enforced hiatus from ITN in the past now.--WaltCip (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
@HiLo48: Pleas (re)read WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:ITN#PURPOSE and WP:ASPERSIONS. While I would like to visit Australia, practical considerations mean that even with unlimited funds (something I do not have access to, alas) it would not be possible to make it before this nomination is stale (it's a fair guess that this applies to most other commenters too) you will have to provide us with evidence (see WP:V) that this is still in the news in Australia. We don't necessarily need items to be international headline news for weeks, but we do need to see evidence of significant coverage somewhere. US college sports are certainly disproportionately nominated here, but not very many actually get posted - and while the ones that do may not make international headlines (they don't tend to here in the UK for instance) they do get significant coverage in the US, and evidence is presented to back up the assertions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Masem. Seems like an important chapter in the Catholic sex abuse scandal.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This doesn't seem to be significant on it's own merits, and while the Catholic sex abuse scandal is a huge topic this conviction doesn't seem to be a major milestone in that. I get the distinct impression that most people involved with the prosecution see it as more of a proof of concept that worked as expected stepping stone on the way to bigger more important things. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    Heh, ironically I think your latter statement is right which is why it is important. But hey. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes Thryduulf. Rambling Man is right. This IS a major stepping stone. Australia has been going through major agonies over child abuse in the Catholic Church. This is a huge breakthrough. It may be worth noting that someone else ahead in the list of charged Australian Catholics is George Pell, a major figure in world Catholicism. This getting ever nearer the top. It's not just a minor case in unimportant, little Australia. It matters. The world needs to be told. HiLo48 (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
      • My point is that even the people involved with the prosecution don't see this as a major step worth massively shouting about. Your comments about "Australia has been going through major agonies", "someone else ahead in the list of charged" and "This getting ever nearer the top" tell exactly that story - this is just one small step in the middle of a much larger story. Just as we don't post every step of a presidential impeachment or every conviction of a drug cartel member, we don't need to (and shouldn't) post every step of this story. Thryduulf (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
        • That is simply false. As I read it, in multiple places, the people involved with the prosecution see this precisely as a major step worth shouting about. That's why it was nominated. We Australians aren't just ignorant, dumb ass colonials, thank you very much, and what happens here CAN matter for the whole world. I am finding the tone of some comments here very insulting to a country not normally seen as a major player in world affairs. HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
          • And I find "the world needs to be told" to run contrary to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, but hey, that's just one Kiwi's opinion.--WaltCip (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
            • @WaltCip and HiLo48: Indeed. It is not ITN's job to tell the world anything. It is to point readers at encyclopaedia articles about significant topics that are already in the news. Per others this isn't really significantly in the news. Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
              • Yes it is. HiLo48 (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
                • @HiLo48: Yes it is what? If you think it is ITN's job to tell the world things, then you need to re-read WP:ITN#Purpose. If you mean that yes, it is ITN's job to point readers at encyclopaedia articles... then we agree and your response makes little sense. If you mean that yes, it is significantly in the news then you need to please provide some evidence of that - just gainsaying anything the other person says is not helpful. Thryduulf (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
                  • What do you mean by "Yes it is what?"? I think the logic of the conversation flow is quite clear. You provided no evidence for your claim. Why do I need to.? HiLo48 (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
                    • I made three statements and you could have been referring to any of them. The first and second are backed by WP:ITN#Purpose (the first also by WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS) - both previously noted. The third statement points to the evidence provided by others elsewhere in this discussion even though it's very difficult to prove a negative. If you want to convince others to support your position then you need to present cogent arguments back by evidence. Thryduulf (talk) 08:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Unproductive argument re 'racism.' Sca (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
          • I really don't understand why you seem to believe it being in Australia/about Australians has any bearing on my opinion of the story whatsoever? I'm assuming good faith that you are not accusing me of racism, but I assure you that my !vote would be the same whatever country this related to. Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
            • Racism? Huh? What race do you think Australians are? This is getting silly. HiLo48 (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
              • We Australians aren't just ignorant, dumb ass colonials, It's not just a minor case in unimportant, little Australia you seem to be asserting that my views on Australia and/or Australians are coloruing my view of the significance of the story. Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
                • I'm sorry, but I find it very difficult to discuss this with someone who leaps to some conclusion about race when I say "Australian". There is no rational connection. HiLo48 (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
                  • There are different definitions of racism and racial discrimination. For example, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination defines "the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life." (my emphasis). ---Sluzzelin talk 12:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
                    • By trying to cover so much, that definition destroys the idea of what racism really is. It is simply not discrimination against a nationality, especially such a multicultural one as Australian. HiLo48 (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
                      • Whether you agree with that being called "racism" or not, the effect is the same. Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Stormy clouds. Davey2116 (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per Stormy clouds, TRM and HiLo48. Jusdafax (talk) 02:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose as both inconsequential and no longer making headlines. 165.225.0.68 (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I can handle different opinions. I will be able to accept this not making ITN, if it's based on sensible reasons. But a claim that this is inconsequential is just plain ridiculous. HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Anti male-guardianship campaign[edit]

No consensus to post. Stephen 06:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: anti male-guardianship campaign (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Saudi authorities crack down on anti male-guardianship campaign.
News source(s): The Independent, Thomson Reuters, The Atlantic
Nominator: Boud (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Crackdown on adult women (and male supporters) campaigning for women to not be legal minors in the country with one of the worst women's rights records in the world. Boud (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose "crack down" means what? It looks like a minor scuffle, and not of broad interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    • "Crackdown" is the term chosen by Reuters, and the crackdown is expanding. The #metoo women's rights campaign is an ongoing newsworthy event across US/Europe since a year or so ago. In Saudi Arabia being a rape victim can often lead to being imprisoned. These are some of the broad context for why these arrests, of (mostly) women organising to defend themselves, are attracting a lot of Western mainstream media attention. Boud (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm just saying it's not encyclopedic nor is it going to be posted ever in this form. Don't "crack down" on the messenger. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose This appears to have been an ongoing thing since 2011, and this was just one recent event among that. Not really a significant event in the larger scheme. --Masem (t) 21:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose At least the way the blurb is written. "Crack down" is too vague, and in this case denotes a handful of arrests which IMO doesn't rise to ITN-level significance. EternalNomad (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Crackdowns in Saudi Arabia are like twisters in Kansas or bombings in Yemen - it will take something exceptional to qualify. If the Saudis arrest tens of thousands within the span of a few days,then we can talk about posting a blurb about a crackdown. Kurtis (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

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

May 21[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 May 21
Business and economy
  • Economy of Japan
    • Sony agrees to a $2.3 billion deal where they will buy a controlling interest in EMI Music Publishing. The deal will mean that Sony would indirectly own 90% of the music publisher and its two million songs. (BBC)
International relations
Law and crime

(Posted) RD: Dovey Johnson Roundtree[edit]

Article: Dovey Johnson Roundtree (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT
Nominator: GreatCaesarsGhost (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: American civil rights activist. ghost 11:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment The paragraph about Michelle Obama in the lede is undue. I think it should be moved to the body of the text.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 Done; Support. — Hugh (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Article is well fleshed out; can't check some of the book sources, but the citations are filled out. Marking (ready). SpencerT•C 04:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 04:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert Indiana[edit]

Article: Robert Indiana (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The New York Times
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Article well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

(Closed) Nipah virus[edit]

No article to assess. Stephen 23:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Henipavirus#Outbreaks (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Health officials in the south Indian state of Kerala say nine people have died in confirmed and suspected cases of the deadly Nipah virus.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Sherenk1 (talk • give credit)

 Sherenk1 (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose that it is a simple one-liner in a wider articles is telling for me, once it becomes significant enough for coverage in its own article, I would reconsider. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose How is this "in the news"? –Ammarpad (talk) 11:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose with the reader call being to Nipah virus, there should be an actual article on the topic first. — xaosflux Talk 13:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Open to this in principle, but without an article it's hard to assess. I don't know why there isn't even a separate article on the virus. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per lack of article. Lepricavark (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

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

(Closed) 2018 Billboard Music Awards[edit]

Unanimous consensus against posting this item on grounds of notability and quality - closure per WP:SNOW. Stormy clouds (talk) 06:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2018 Billboard Music Awards (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Billboard Music Awards is hosted in Las Vegas
Alternative blurb: Ed Sheeran wins top artist at the Billboard Music Awards
News source(s): [5]
Nominator: Lucie Person (talk • give credit)

  • Comment: Looks like it's not part of WP:ITNR#Music? Any special reason that this should be posted? HaEr48 (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
    • It's likely not part of ITNR as the Billboard awards are strictly given based on sales/popularity, rather than any critical voting or vetting process. Further, we already have the Grammies as ITNR to cover predominately American music; we don't need a second sub-tier award ITNR. --Masem (t) 05:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
      • Except we can't seem to get the Grammies posted, as the relevant article is always in shitty condition.--WaltCip (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
        • "Not our problem". We shouldn't post lesser awards that might have better articles just because the more major award page wasn't updated in time at its turn. And FWIW, this current specific article is not of quality to post - there's almost no prose, and just listing out who performed is not the same as covering the ceremony. --Masem (t) 13:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose four brief lines of prose in total? Not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with TRM here, the article lacks any real substance, and there is nothing calling out why the "top artist" category is so special (as opposed to say "top song" or "top album". — xaosflux Talk 13:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unlike other award shows, the Billboard awards are based on sales, so the winners are by and large already known beforehand. It's more of a promotional device for the magazine/charts than an actual awards show. Teemu08 (talk) 13:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Cogent reasons already given above. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on notability. Not significant enough for ITN. Lepricavark (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even if this was a significant event (which I don't think it is) the article is just a bunch of tables.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

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

May 20[edit]

Portal:Current events/2018 May 20
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports

(Posted) RD: Richard N. Goodwin[edit]

Article: Richard N. Goodwin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT, WaPo, NPR, Boston Globe
Nominator: Davey2116 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Neutrality (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: American speechwriter and political advisor dies at 86. Some sourcing issues. Davey2116 (talk) 04:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

RD: Bill Gold[edit]

Article: Bill Gold (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Times
Nominator: Challenger l (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Not a very long article - requires a lot of proper sourcing. Challenger l (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose Article could use a full length career section (seeing he has the qualifications for one), a death section as the article abruptly ends by listing all of his credits and the article needs way more sourcing. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose sourcing (or lack of it) alone is enough to stop this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Cyclone Sagar[edit]

Article: Cyclone Sagar (talk, history)
Blurb: Cyclone Sagar makes landfall in Somalia, killing at least 16 people.
Alternative blurb: Cyclone Sagar makes landfall in the Middle East and East Africa, killing at least 16 people.
News source(s): The Weather Channel
Nominator: EternalNomad (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Strongest cyclone in Somalia's history according to TWC. EternalNomad (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Support Article looks okay.  Nixinova  T  C  06:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Several referencing issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Support - Issues addressed - Sherenk1 (talk) 04:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Addressed some CN tags. A lot of other referencing seems to have been addressed. Note that more recent reporting is putting death toll at 31+, so blurb may need to be double-checked before this gets posted. Kenmelken (talkcontribs) 15:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support with updated blurb. Article looks well referenced. Avg W (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment needs an admin to deal with the copyvio notice, but consensus to post is clear here. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Admin has dealt with the issue. Ready to post. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Was just about to post this but there is a copyvio tag. Ping me when fixed. --Tone 07:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
    Tone that tag is requesting an admin to delete certain versions from the history, only you or one of your fellow admins can action that, not us mere minions. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Apparently this has been already done two days ago but the red tag remained. Posting now. --Tone 09:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) Venezuelan presidential elections[edit]

Article: Venezuelan presidential election, 2018 (talk, history)
Blurb: Nicolás Maduro is reelected as President of Venezuela in a contested election
Alternative blurb: Nicolás Maduro is reelected as President of Venezuela
Alternative blurb II: ​Venezuela's President Nicolás Maduro has won re-election to another six-year term.
Alternative blurb III: ​Incumbent Nicolás Maduro is re-elected President of Venezuela
News source(s): The New York Times The Guardian BBC The Washington Post The Telegraph
Nominator and updater: Jamez42 (talk • give credit)

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: Per WP:ITNR Jamez42 (talk) 03:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment I think the blurb needs to be more clearly worded. It's an WP:EGG as-is. Does "contested election" mean that the fairness and validity are in question? power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
It does. However I'd be grateful for blurb suggestions since English is not my native language. --Jamez42 (talk) 03:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - Provided Alt blurb 2. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - See referencing issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 04:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Fine article. Added altblurb3.  Nixinova  T  C  06:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Would prefer waiting for more international reactions to the results to be added to the wikiarticle. --PFHLai (talk) 09:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
@PFHLai: Updated with the "Recognition" section. However I don't think that there will be many more announcements since most of the governments mentioned already declared they would dismiss/accept the results beforehand, like the Lima Group. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. This is on ITNR (head of state election), so I've adjusted the nom template. The article is detailed and looks well-referenced on a quick look, with prose on the result and reactions. We never cast doubt on the legitimacy of an election in a blurb - that can be left to the article. alt1 or alt2 are fine with me. Modest Genius talk 12:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually that reaction section is mostly to the buildup rather than the result. Some additional material would indeed help there. Modest Genius talk 12:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
@Modest Genius: Is it possible to add in tge blurb somehow that the election is polemic? Several international bodies have warned against its irregularities and governments have warned that they would not recognize the results.--Jamez42 (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
This comes up every time there is a disputed election. Consensus at ITN has consistently been that it's impossible to accurately summarise electoral concerns and stick to a WP:NPOV within the short length of an ITN blurb. The concerns are rightly discussed in the article and prominently stated in its lead, so anyone who clicks the bold link will immediately be aware that not everyone thinks the election was fair. It's not ITN's job to decide which side is correct. Of course consensus can change, but I don't see a good reason to go against it here. Modest Genius talk 15:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
The best blurb for any (especially heads of state) election is better and more encyclopedic in the from of "xxx is elected president of yyy". I wish this should be made standard phrasing for these elections. Because there's no election that is 100% absolutely accepted by everybody, even if it is a mock election. Moreover, ITN is not meant to editorialize or tell what is right, which is what essentially bringing weasel words like "disputed", " contested", "unfair", "sham election" and their like will mean. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Roger, thanks! --Jamez42 (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose It's not horrible, but referencing is weak. Too many unsourced claims. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
In blurbs 1 & 2, "as" is redundant. Sca (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Is that an ENGVAR difference? To me it sounds like an Americanism if you remove the 'as'. Modest Genius talk 14:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I concur. "as" is just fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
As president is not an office in any country I know of. Cf. Washington Post, Nov. 9, 2016: "Donald Trump, a New York real estate developer and former reality television star, was elected president of the United States on Tuesday, stunning many ...." – Sca (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
'As' is a conjuction, not part of the office name, as I'm sure you know. Looks like ENGVAR. cf. BBC one month ago: "expected to be elected as president". Modest Genius talk 18:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Which type of English do they speak in Venezuela? Sca (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Aha, change the goalposts... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Alt. 3 – Looks OK. Sca (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Alt3. SpencerT•C 23:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ernst Sieber[edit]

Article: Ernst Sieber (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Neue Zürcher Zeitung
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Article well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Billy Cannon[edit]

Article: Billy Cannon (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NOLA
Nominator: TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Article is GA --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

  • support - ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Article is in good shape. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Posted Good job on the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

References[edit]

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

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