Wikipedia : In the news/Candidates/January 2017

Template:Archivetop Template:ITN candidate

Comment: Could you please add a reference for his master's degree and where he got it from?Zigzig20s (talk) 09:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ref relocated for degree but I have no info from where he got it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose needs an end-to-end copyedit into acceptable English, and additional referencing. Step hen 22:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every bit is sourced. Please place a cn tag for which you think you could not locate sources. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 01:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An edit by an English speaker is needed in places. There are some important gaps in coverage eg his career before becoming an MP, his policies in office. Additionally, the controversies section appears disproportionate and I am not sure whether or not the newspapers used as sources are adequately reliable. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could not locate any information of him other than what's mentioned. There are news coverages of him he speaking and inaugurating at places; both minor and unencyclopedic in nature. You may trim the controversies section but The Hindu, Bangalore Mirror, Daily Mail, India Today and The News Minute used in this section are all WP:RS; as is the case with all references used. You may argue that his own personal website is not RS in full sense. But it is used only to source his degree and family member's names. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I admittedly have a (very slight) COI as Dharma and I are both competitors in the Wikicup. Nonetheless: India alone has many thousand state legislators, possibly as many as 6000, not sure. These positions have all been occupied since the country became independent. Therefore, at a very rough estimate, there have been many tens of thousands of legislators since 1947: and therefore, at a normal rate of population turnover, one would expect a state legislator to die every couple of days, in India alone. Vanamonde (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! Am I small competitor for you in that Cup. But "the nomination of any individual human, [...] 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." §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)'[reply]

Support and I think Dharmadhyaksha adequately rebutted the above opposes and the article seems to be in a good state. It's being covered by other news organizations so it's sufficient to be collected in the section. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 09:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support article seems to meet the current ITN RD requirements. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Did a little more copyediting on the article to clean it up. Spencer^T♦C 16:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Alfonso Wong

Weak oppose it's barely above stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's above the 1500 "readable prose size" (currently at 1982) which DYK would accept for a full length hook. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stub is not defined by length. A 1500-character article on, say, nuclear physics, would clearly be a stub. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please never use DYK as an example of something that would be accepted for the main page! The Rambling Man (talk) 05:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that to point out that TRM's oppose was not really clear. Espresso Addict's comment below helps in understanding it better what I assume TRM also expects the article to have. And ya, I will remember not to use OSE example but if "stub" is so vaguely defined and readable prose is not a minimum requisite for RD lets us also be verbose in our oppose votes. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support meets criteria. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Stub with very limited information on Wong's life, eg what did he do between 1944 & 1960? Was there anything of note in his personal life, apart from being ambidextrous? The referencing could also do with bolstering; there are several strong statements about his comic's popularity/influence which are not adequately referenced. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given he was in post-WW2 China this might actually be difficult to get more than basic information on given the circumstances. It is unsurprising the timeline picks up when he moves to Hong Kong. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Article is sufficiently long. Gamaliel (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)'[reply]
Oppose article does not provide sufficient depth of coverage of the person's life and/or work to be useful to readers. --Jayron 32 03:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archivebottom

[Closed] Santa Claus

What the fuck?--WaltCip (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the nom, oppose since this is only one study that may or may not be indicative of a larger trend, and needs further review (not to mention circulation by reliable sources) before we can claim it's a theory. Seriously, has Harvard lost its marbles?--WaltCip (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bollocks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Granny (orca)

Comment it's not about being "really committed", it's about the fact it was indoctrinated in the RD instructions following a community consensus to do so. As for this candidate, Oppose as it's not been updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think Only in death fixed the remaining verb tense problems. Dragons flight (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posting this will bring the encyclopaedia into disrepute as people will be expecting an article about their grandmother. This should be taken to ANI. Step hen 09:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Replyto How is this an ANI issue? Consensus here is that the deaths of animals that have articles are no different than those of people with articles; if you wish to change this consensus, please start a discussion on the talk page here. I don't see how this "brings the encyclopedia into disrepute" at all. Plain old Granny redirects to a disambig page, not this article. 331dot (talk) 10:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Replyto I suspect that the assumption that random comments made at Wikipedia relate to one’s own grandmother, is probably indicative of some deeper issue related to psychological insecurity/ paranoia. Surely this must be many times more true for items appearing as front page news? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed Stephen's reply was tongue-in-cheek sarcasm. Is that not the case? Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As if anyone would ever use tongue-in-cheek sarcasm. I'm shocked. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Come on everyone, please read the Sutter Brown nomination below. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not having looked at that one as I was busy at the time, my original assumption of sarcasm was correct I see. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Support Seems well-referenced and appears to have been updated. -edit- Ah I see what you mean. Its been updated with death in the lead but the body is still alive. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on procedural grounds as we don't know if this orca is deceased. The opinion of the scientists is only based on the fact that she hasn't been seen. At a minimum, the article needs an update as TRM states. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well she has been 'considered deceased' by the group monitoring the pod, which has been reported by reliable secondary sources as such, not sure what you want here - a whale corpse to wash up with a 'Yup I am dead' sign round its neck? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who lives near a coastal area I can say that whale corpses wash up on our beaches semi-infrequently(I also googled "whale corpse on beach" as well as orcas, and got many results). I don't want anything per se; I'm simply saying I don't think this is enough. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You dont think a declaration by a group actively monitoring the pod, followed up by reporting from reliable sources satisfies WP:V? Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The opinion here by the scientists boils down to "we haven't seen this orca so it might be dead because it was really old". This orca clearly merits an article and an update as to its status, but I don't think "it might be deceased" qualifies as a recent death for an animal. Maybe it swam elsewhere; we don't know. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very different interpretation from what they actually said which is "by year’s end she is officially missing from the SRKW population, and with regret we now consider her deceased.". That is not 'it might be deceased' by any reasonable interpretation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this discussion but I am quite comfortable with my opinion as of right now. Regardless of my opinion, the article still needs an update. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orcas are highly social and only very rarely travel alone (her pod was 27 orcas). As the oldest female, she would have been considered the leader of her pod. I'm no orca biologist, but I think they idea that she just "swam elsewhere" is pretty unlikely. If the whole pod had gone missing, sure they would probably just be hiding somewhere, but in this case the researchers see her pod but don't see her which is naturally a pretty bad sign. Dragons flight (talk) 10:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If there is a concern that listing "Granny" on RD might be confusing(?), it might be worth posting this item as "Granny (orca)". We don't usually included parenthetical terms on postings, but doing it in this case might help avoid undue surprise. Dragons flight (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that's a serious concern. Stephen's comment above is clearly making fun of Newyorkbrad's in the Sutter Brown RD nomination. Nohomersryan (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Not a person; fails 2.2. Sca (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See RD rules, to whit Template:Xt pretty sure an animal counts here!! If you think that you've found an issue with the rules, please link us to "2.2" which you claim this "fails", thanks!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot that in a flight of fatuity the floodgates were opened to non-humans in RD too, no matter how insignificant they ~~are~~ may have been. Sca (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no need to apologise, these kind of mistakes you make are easily forgiven. Of course, if you don't "like" the way ITN works, you could either do something about it or do something else. That would certainly help us here! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not only 105 years old. But also a member of the endangered Main page resident killer editor population, allegedly. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I recognize that there's no affirmative evidence of her death - best we have is a lack of sighting with the rest of the pod, and following knowledge of how orcas travel in social groups, her absence likely means she died. Barring actually finding her body (given the size of the ocean...) a statement by the authority that tracks and monitors these pods to the extent that they consider her dead (and which took them a couple months to validate based on sightings) is reasonable strength of argument that it should be included here. It's a strong hypothesis by a expert/creditable group, and one carried by news sources, and since it is very unlikely that affirmative evidence will ever be found, is the right place to nominate this. Article is otherwise is good shape sourcing-wise. --MASEM (t) 18:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Come on guys. It's a whale. What, are we going to post Shamu's death to RD now? And don't bother linking me to the RFC which was a sham from day one. It was wrong then and it's wrong now. 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:9F (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shamu died in 1971. So no its unlikely to get a nomination for 'Recent Deaths'. Tilikum probably. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I see that Category:Serial killer whales is still a red link. Lucky he's not a fin whale, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To the IP user, if you disagree with the established consensus, you are free to attempt to change it by starting a talk page discussion. Until that happens, your oppose is not valid. 331dot (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, when you have established editors and former Arbcom members like Template:U making threats against such postings, like "taking it to ANI" and "bringing Wikipedia into disrepute" (my paraphrasing), we have a serious problem communicating our guidelines to IPs. Brad's interjection on the Sutter article is most unhelpful, and indicates that he's way off understanding what the community around here is expecting. Yet because of his "lofty" past, we run a serious risk of people thinking "he knows best" which he clearly does not, as he has demonstrated a few times lately. We don't need this kind of purposely disruptive !voting, nor do we need someone with such experience to summarily ignore the community consensus established and documented. My advice going forward is to ignore Brad's posts until such a time that he can demonstrate that his thoughts are up to date with community expectations which, right now, are miles apart. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Brad, not many folks knew you were a social worker. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict; responding to The Rambling Man) My concern about posting Sutter Brown to RD was that a reader who sees an unfamiliar name on RD and wonders "I wonder who that is who just died?" would not reasonably expect to find that it was a dog. It would be understandable that he or she would think less of Wikipedia after being misled in that fashion, and I thought (and still think) we need to avoid doing that. Obviously that concern does not apply if the article on RD is Granny (orca) rather than Sutter Brown. As it happens, I don't think we should be including anyone other than humans on RD, but that is a different issue and not one I feel nearly as strongly about. I would appreciate if The Rambling Man would avoid gratuitously dragging my name into discussions on this or other pages in which I have not participated and did not intend to participate, as the conduct is verging on harassment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, I would appreciate if you stopped promoting American actors to RD regardless of community consensus, as the conduct is absolutely in contradiction of WP:ADMINACCT. I will not stop reminding you that he you do not WP:OWN Wikipedia, especially not the main page. Your over-bearing conduct is bordering on ownership and absolutely must stop. Several other editors have recently noted this, so please, take that on board and desist. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(no edit conflict at all). Just wanted to make it clear, I never meant to suggest that "Beneath the facade of his National Health glasses smoulders the fire and passion of a cold toilet seat." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Episode 3. Wow, that takes me back, especially now 'Chelle is back on t' square. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Not opposed to including animals, but this is not a recent death. It is a conjecture of a possible death that may have occurred months ago. Gamaliel (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- We normally allow the posting of RDs on dates "far" after the actual death if the death is not reported for several days (often because the family wishes to have its period of mourning). This would fall into a similar situation: Yes, she probably died in Nov or Dec, but only today is this group saying that are considering her to be dead. --MASEM (t) 20:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that, opposing on "recent death date" in this case isn't valid because the death (or presumed death) has just been reported in the news. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I had doubts too, User:Gamaliel, but then I thought of other fishy nominations. It might still be useful if the article told us where he she actually lived. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He? The clue was in the title. And, as my three-year-old son would be quick to tell you, she lived in the fucking sea. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great to see a well developed vocabulary. Martinevans123 (talk)
Indeed, not Welsh or American, so able to string a sentence or two together and still be understood. Still a bit shouty, but you have to shout to make yourself understood sometimes, it seems.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Her home territory was already in the article, but I added a bit to the lead. Dragons flight (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dragons flight, that's really helpful. Glad she's not "all at fucking sea" any more. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Well sort of, per the nom, she's dead. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: If I asked someone "guess who just died?", and I told them it was a whale, they would take it as a joke. A whale or other animal is a "what," not a "who," regardless of it having a name. I see it as OK for ITN (during a very slow week,) but never as an RD, which implies us humanoids. --Light show (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you're not secretly opposing just because she was American. It's just because she's from from whales... *sob* Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I believe there is support for this RD above (most oppose votes have been refuted with the outcome of the RfCs stating that animals are eligible for RD); one question remains before posting, however, and that is whether we should clarify with (orca) or not. Could I get a few opinions? Sam Walton (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at the Granny disambiguation page, and outside of fictional people, there's no past or present that is commonly called, simply "Granny". Excluding a few that might think for a moment that WP is reporting about the death of their personal grandmother, I do not see a name conflict that we need to disambiguate here with. As I noted over at the Sutter nom, only if it is the case of exact name confusion with a notable living human should we consider the extra disamb. text. --MASEM (t) 21:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No, do not disambiguate. Post as "Granny". Any "disrepute" this brings Wikipedia is far exceeded by the continued poor behaviour of those who push items without consensus to the main page. This article, at the very least, is in good condition and actually meets the RD criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Listen

Count Iblis (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U I'd count that as your best ever post. Thank you, it made me happy and sad at the same time. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't sound orca. It sounds like nothing I've ever heard!. Step hen
"It's not a fucking fish, boyo." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks to all!

I'll second that!

It's not Welsh either, but you're not three years old and oddly my son has more respect than you seem to ever demonstrate. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"lol". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posted as Granny. Step hen 22:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See you ANI, you bloody rebel. To think that you've brought Wikipedia into disrepute once again, so overtly, I feel filthy and denigrated, etc etc etc. Happy New Year! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this should say Granny (Orca) for reasons Stephen gave early in the discussion. Banedon (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Stephen was making a joke. Sam Walton (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps but this part "as people will be expecting an article about their grandmother" is still a valid concern. Banedon (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: John Berger

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2017 January 2 Template:Cob

Oppose mostly unreferenced, including a massive section (oddly under Awards) containing all sorts of unverifiable material. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Highly notable but the article is still far from ready. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Done. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 09:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good work but still plenty left to reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Done, thanks. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 14:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Poetry and Other sections incompletely referenced, but good going so far. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Done. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 17:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fix up those bare URLs and we're good to go! Nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Fixed. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 05:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Everything is references and he won several prizes.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Marking Ready per above back-and-forth between TRM and MBlaze and confirming sourcing is all in place. --MASEM (t) 06:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posted support - Terrific job updating and getting this posted, props to the editors and mid-wives who saw this through. Thank you. Christian Roess (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2

[Closed] 2016 United States election interference by Russia

Comment For me the problem is the missing link between the Russian hackings and voting in the Electoral College. If there's evidence that the hackings influenced the Electoral College voting, then we can post this for sure. Can't find this in the article. Brandmeister^talk 13:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping But really it doesn't matter here. And it also doesn't require evidence that Russian actors were actually behind these hacks to preempt any similar arguments: it's enough that the US accuses Russia of cyber-attacks to influence the election. That alone is more than noteworthy (it's historic). Also such things aren't usually under consideration here - it's rather the extend of coverage; and this has been all over the news as a major story. --Fixuture (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose First, I think this would be considered a stale story, and the reasoning given by the nom (that we haven't had this story featured yet) is a poor reason to push any story to ITN. Second, I still think this is a story that is the subject of the systematic media bias, who for the most part did not want to see Trump become President, and thus are pushing this angle hard. That hackers from Russia have gotten to some of the US computer systems is certainly true but we're still unsure if it was agents of the gov't or the like. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also oppose any Ongoing to this for similar reasons. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping

Template:Gt

It's not an argument pro featuring it: it's just a note that so far, for whatever reason, it hasn't been featured in that section despite obvious notability & coverage etc

Template:Gt

While I agree that media is non-neutral I do not share your opinion WP:NPOV here. It's conspiracy-theory. Also it has been covered intensely by countless media outlets - not just a select few - (and imo for good reason) so I'm not sure if you're saying that the world's whole media is biased?! Also it doesn't matter. See WP:RS.

Template:Gt

It doesn't matter, as above: it's enough that the US accuses Russia of cyber-attacks to influence the election. That alone is more than noteworthy (it's historic).

--Fixuture (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a much larger issue about the current state of the English-speaking mainstream media that we have to be aware of , and the US election shows a lot of those true colors. Everything I've read on the claims of Russia influence and hacking have certain elements of truth, but the media are taking those nuggets of small truths and making that the central story because it helps to contest what they weren't expecting to happen; they've done this before on smaller stories, but this is the first major story I've seen it done on. Yes, the US has leveled accusations and they have taken sanctions which consisted of similar asking some dozen of Russia intelligence officials to level the US - a hand slap compared to sanctions against major threats. It's also commonly presumed that as soon as the transition of office happens that those sanctions will be dropped, and make it seem like actions in the last part of a lame duck term. That's why to me, unless there was something harder to prove the Russian gov't was really behind it, or extensive tampering with the actual election process, that this is just a FUD-type story that the media is pushing, and one we as a neutral encyclopedia should avoid pushing. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bullet GRAMMAR NOTE — Both blurbs contain plural subjects with singular verb. Sca (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bullet Should be fixed now - the blurbs can be improved.--Fixuture (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm not seeing this mentioned anywhere on the BBC international news website homepage (currently top 5: Turkey gun attack, Brazil prison riot, Spain migrants discovery, Israeli politics, Baghdad car bomb), even the top six stories on the US homepage of the BBC website has Mariah Carey's non-synch-ed lips and the passing of MASH actor William Christopher listed above this hacking row. It's way off the main pages now, this can be safely put to bed and ignored, much like the rest of the world have already done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There can never be any consensus on this story and any related political stories. Completely independent of their objective newsworthiness, different standards than the usual measures are being applied, almost to the point of being the definition of a moving bar. The story in itself -- isolated -- should be the only one we are looking at here. The various ITN versions of the story itself (U.S. government claims Russia attempted electoral interference through hacking, U.S. retaliates against Russia for that reason) are not conjecture. The action upon which the retaliation is based has been confirmed by the major U.S. intelligence agencies. However, many people are insisting that to be valid, specific damage as a result of the action (in this case a change in the election results) must be proven ... in a case where public opinion and not physical ballots were targeted. If anyone ever finds an absolute measure by which to assess the exact reasons behind all sudden shifts in public opinion, let me know, because it would be really useful to the world to have such an absolute measure.

The division also breaks down along firm political lines. If you voted pro-Trump (or pro-Brexit), you will be highly likely to see any attempt to give this story the light of day as an attempt to provide an alternate reason why Clinton was not elected. If you voted pro-Clinton (or anti-Brexit), you will be just as likely to see a documented attempt by Russia to influence an election in Trump's favour as a dangerous precedent. I have seen no attempt by either group toward compromise, and thus there can never be consensus so long as that refusal to compromise exists. In ITN, indefinitely stalled compromise will always result in non-posting (due either to non-consensus or to eventual staleness). Such silence on specific types of stories is a very common form of censorship.

This type of result may possibly be an inherent weakness in ITN. If so, it is growing, not receding. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's like comparing a tabloid "RUSSIA HACKS AMERICA!!" with a broadsheet "Growing speculation that Russia somehow influenced the presidential election". We would never post the latter, as it's just a hypothesis. Do we post the former? Sometimes, but it's a classic Kardashian test case. We're not here to go along with the mass hysteria, we're here to provide some encyclopedic balance and value. Also don't forget this is English-language Wikipedia. As I demonstrated above, if you have to go from the BBC News homepage to the America/Canada news homepage and then find it listed below Mariah Carey, you should, by now, get the hint that this isn't of interest to most of the world. If ITN is growing away from a tacit over-acceptance of American "news" stories, I'd see that as a strength, not a weakness, and its growth should be encouraged, strongly. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the sanctions and expelled diplomats are the better story for ITN purposes, and it closed as no consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support ongoing: Most of the sources given in the nom. are dated. Something more recent, like 30-minutes ago, should be used. In any case, when the CIA, FBI, DHS, and the U.S. President agree on this, we should take note. Forget the BBC or U.K. press for this one. And when someone like John McCain says "it is clear that Russia has attacked the United States of America," we can assume this one will be ongoing and hot for months, at least.--Light show (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Those agencies work for Obama. Trump denies the allegations. Besides, there is no evidence, so it could be fake news.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the sanctions and near 35 expelled russian diplomats are facts and the real event, the hacking is just a wierd acusation of some country against another, Maduro from Venezuela did a simil acusation every month, we gonna post it?--Feroang (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb (or, as a second preference, ongoing) - came to this decision slowly, but regardless of whether or not you believe it's true or think it really made a difference, it's an official accusation made by the US government, and most journalists seem to find the claim credible. Nothing like this has really happened before in the USA, and the expulsion of diplomats and announcement of sanctions means that there's ongoing events associated with it. I think it's very newsworthy. Blythwood (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No consensus for expulsion of diplomats which is a meatier topic. If we posted every example where country A accused country B of various types of malfeasance, we would post nothing else. For mine, the claims that Russia allegedly hacked websites having a material effect on the American election are greatly exaggerated. It is more a case of a failed campaign trying to shift the blame to someone else. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. And I suggest a speedy close. This is very similar to "United States sanctions against Russia", which was closed with no consensus. (See discussion below.) Please cut it out. This is a POV-pushing non-story, denied by Russia and poopooed by the POTUS-elect, and we don't need to keep arguing against its inclusion ad nauseam.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, oppose as nominated - I still continue to support posting something related to this, but can't accept a blurb with "accuses". Countries (and politicians) accuse one another of things very often, and many of the time it's either untrue or nothing comes out of it (e.g. "Trump accuses Clinton of felony"). If posted, this should include something substantive that has happened, such as sanctions. Banedon (talk) 09:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We already voted that one down (see above). I'm afraid this alleged fake news is old news.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Five-day-old fish. Sca (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on article quality, but we'd need to work out a better blurb. --Jayron 32 15:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But it's simply not in the news any longer. The world and even the US has long moved onto the next Trump affair, this time tweeting so hard the Republicans buckled on policy. What a state of affairs, when this supposed "superpower" country is run by the "grab her by the pussy" Twitter-wigger. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And please give the POTUS-elect a chance! He was "egged on", remember?Zigzig20s (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's still in the NYT and WSJ today. Friday's apparently the important briefing day, and per NYT, "Next week, Mr. Trump is certain to face questions about his position..." Obviously ongoing. --Light show (talk) 06:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could still be fake news. Assange just denied it. Looks like the Obama administration is the only cohort trying to push this story.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2017 January 1 Template:Cob

January 1

[Closed] António Guterres as the new United Nations Secretary-General

Oppose We posted his election a few months ago, and in fact added the election of the UNSG to ITNR as a result. The ceremony of taking the position now is not really ITN itself. --MASEM (t) 15:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Masem. For the the same reason we most likely won't post Trump's inauguration. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – There's only one UN secretary-general in this disunited world. Sca (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Elections are notable. An elected person assuming office is not notable. Elia Soaten (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I remember the election was posted - the custom here does not post the event of such elected people taking office. HaEr48 (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] NYC subway line opening

Oppose good faith nomination. Not sufficiently important for ITN. While interesting (I'm a native New Yorker) this is essentially a local/regional news story. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the Moscow Ring Subway posted then? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am undecided on this, but with the Moscow Ring, as described, it drastically changed the topology of the Moscow subway; this bit seems more about helping to alleive a stressed system but not really changing the topology. So I can see the difference, but I do think there's something similar about these too, as the cost and # of people affected are similar. --MASEM (t) 00:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Upper West Side has 2 lines, now the Upper East Side will have 2 lines. Not as drastic a change in topology as a ring around the city but still more important than an equal-size line in my part of NYC would be (outer boroughs). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - not your run of the mill subway extension, big project by any standard (impact, cost, length etc). 81.204.120.137 (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is a GA but has nearly doubled in size since it passed in March. I've tagged it as too long because I'm concerned that the average reader won't want to trudge through reams of text, if they bother to wait for the page to open at all. There is also a talk page discussion on the issue. Its development history should probably be split from it. Fuebaey (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just one of 30+ lines in NYC subway, hardly of interest outside New York. HaEr48 (talk) 04:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's only 9 trunk lines. It'll become a trunk line instead of a branch of the Broadway Line when it's extended in the future. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support The project has huge interest outside New York and is a very large infrastructure project being completed, equal to others that have been featured on ITN (Moscow Ring Subway, bridge openings, etc.). Sounder Bruce 05:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is this "huge interest outside New York"? The linked news sources in the nomination, as well as maybe all of the references of the article, are local New York sources. Could you point me to a news source in Kenya, for example, talking about this? HaEr48 (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Philippines Germany Dec 28 2016: (translated with Google Translate) <in New York Project of the Century> No other infrastructure project in the American metropolis is so infamous: A subway on Second Avenue was already spoken in 1919. Now it is finally opened. On January 1, the metro line on Second Avenue will finally be opened in New York. It is not just a project, but for decades the largest extension of the subway network of the American metropolis. Above all, the "Second Avenue Subway" in New York is something like a bad "running gag" and notorious as a project that is never realized. Their construction has been under discussion for almost a hundred years, but the plans have been abandoned one by one. The fact that they have now been implemented is considered a miracle for many New Yorkers. Poland New Zealand Herald Guardian the Independent (UK) Washington Post Singapore Maybe more will appear on Monday. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm afraid this is something very regional, and barely something of people's concern. --QEDK (愛) 05:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you produce any evidence for this rather bizarre statement? 81.204.120.137 (talk) 09:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of enough compelling evidence that it is of interest outside NY. I hope the contradiction logic works for you. --QEDK (愛) 09:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What lack of outside interest? Reported in Polish, British, German, Filipino etc news, that's hardly lack of outside interest. Again, could you please provide any evidence for your bizarre statement? 81.204.120.137 (talk) 10:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support although maybe it should read "a section of the Second Av Subway" or some other similar statement? I mean it is only 3 stations and is only ~20 city blocks long for now. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 09:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closer to twice that but okay. Changed. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, you're right. 63-96, right? —GFOLEY FOUR!— 21:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose as too regional. Even if it transports a lot of people every day, it's still a subway system in one city of one country of the world. Banedon (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Bandeon; this is too regional a story. While I find it personally interesting, I don't feel it is so dramatic a change to warrant posting to ITN. Maybe if this was the NYC Wikipedia, but not just Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Ditto, ditto. The only generally interesting aspect is that it took so many years to finish. (I also opposed the Moscow Ring Subway.) Sca (talk)

PS: At 23,000 words (!), target article is way overlong for general readers. Sca (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it is overly detailed and recentist. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The opening of a 3.2 km section of a subway line is not notable. If this line was in Africa, I doubt it would even be nominated. Elia Soaten (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Lex and new line stop in the #1 most prestigious and #1 population density zip codes in America so that's a huge minus then. The 72nd & Lex station is 200 yards from "Earth's richest apartment building". Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The 97-year development time seems like a good DYK hook, but this isn't ITN material. Even the opening of an individual city's first metro line is rarely going to get posted here, let alone incremental development (and I speak as a transport enthusiast). Thryduulf (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too marginal.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] 2017 Istanbul nightclub attack

Support - thanks for the nomination. A very tragic attack. Clear details will not emerge for some time, so we should wait until we have at least one official announcement, but the eyewitness reports I am seeing right now indicate a high number of casualties... --GGT (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Not clear how big this is or the casualty level. As of right now the death toll is in the low single digits. If it stays there I'm not sure this will fly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Governor of Istanbul just announced at least 35 deaths. Will add as soon as online resources are available. This is clearly a major-scale assault. --GGT (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support, yes, obviously. Made particularly salient compared to... the attacks that happen about twice a day by now... by the fact an attacker seems to still be inside with hostage, reminding one of Bataclan. LjL (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to Support once we have enough that's adequately sourced to post. This is clearly going to be a big deal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, but likely Support - I'd like to have us wait a few hours for details to become clear. It does seem it is still an active situation. I've also provided a less clunky alt.blurb (IMO). --MASEM (t) 00:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Notable event with many casualties, very sad way to begin a year. EternalNomad (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support after article is developed - Not properly structured, so wait until done so. - Sherenk1 (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's clearly the biggest news right now. SWF88 (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, then support: I think we should wait a bit so more accurate details can come out, and the article can be developed a bit, but then definitely support. Seagull123 Φ 01:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support given the custom of posting multi-death high-profile attacks in ITN. Agree with above comments that we should wait until the article stabilize a little bit. HaEr48 (talk) 04:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do note that the Turkish gov't has ordered a media blackout of the event, so we are not likely to get more details in the short term. As such I think we should accept that the info we have is all we're going to get at this point, and judge if there's anything glaring with the article before posting. --MASEM (t) 05:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Makes sense. --QEDK (愛) 06:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. --Tone 10:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update since ISIS claimed responsibility. Something like "ISIS claims responsibility for an attack on a nightclub (pictured) in Istanbul, Turkey, which killed at least 39 people and injured more than 60 others during New Year's celebrations." Banedon (talk) 09:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Tony Atkinson