In the news toolbox |
---|
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.
|
How to nominate an itemIn order to suggest a candidate:
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
Voicing an opinion on an item
Please do not...
|
Suggestions
March 27
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Friedrich Achleitner
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NZZ among others
- Updated and nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk • )
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: Father of architecture criticism in Austria, unique documentary of 20th century architecture there + concrete poetry! I expanded a stub. Yes, there could be more but I'm tired, feel free to add. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Looks good to go. Sca (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support satis. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
RD: Michel Bacos
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [1] [2]
- Nominated by Sir Joseph (talk • )
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: Entebbe pilot Michel Bacos who stayed with hostages dies Sir Joseph (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Looks okay. Interesting person. Sca (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I'm mildly confused by the "Films" section, are these films in which he was depicted? It's not clear. And also, beyond the couple of awards, I'm not clear why this individual has his own article. Does the conferring of either (or both) the B'nai and Legion of Honour awards make this individual notable beyond WP:ONEEVENT? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
2018 Turing Award
Blurb: In computing, Yoshua Bengio, Geoffrey Hinton, and Yann LeCun recieve the 2018 Turing Award.
Alternative blurb: In computing, Yoshua Bengio, Geoffrey Hinton, and Yann LeCun recieve the 2018 Turing Award for advances in deep learning.
News source(s): BBC
Article updated
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: ITN/R award. All three bios look OK. Yes, they do award the "2018" award in March 2019 for some reason. LukeSurl t c 16:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose only on quality. Bengio's should have a bit more about his studies (particularly if he stated in academia, you'd think there would be more); Hinton has some stray CNs, and I see some unsourced award statements in LeCun. All fixable. --Masem (t) 16:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
March 26
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
RD: Ranking Roger
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC News
- Nominated by Ritchie333 (talk • )
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: Rude boy and toaster. Still some sources needed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. There are a couple of paragraphs in the Collaborations section needing references. However, it isn't too far away. Capitalistroadster (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market
Blurb: The European Parliament approves the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, giving member states 2 years to update laws to support it.
Alternative blurb: The European Parliament approves the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, leaving member states to update their laws to support it.
Alternative blurb II: The European Parliament approves the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market.
Alternative blurb III: The European Parliament approves the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market but is not yet approved by member states.
News source(s): The Verge, BBC
Nominator's comments: This is basically locked in at this point. The 2years is only a deadline, states can start passing the laws at any time. Masem (t) 14:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, the two years only start when the Council approves it and it's published, cf. the BBC source: It is now up to member states to approve the decision. If they do, they will have two years to implement it once it is officially published. Since that is only a formality though, I would support the item without the "giving member states 2 years to update laws to support it." part. A sad day for the internet indeed and certainly noteworthy if for all the wrong reasons. Regards SoWhy 14:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, not an EUian so I am a bit confused on the exact next state (between EP and the start of the 2 year deadline). I did add altblurb to point out that it is still on the states to make the laws happen, this is only the Directive to force those laws. --Masem (t) 14:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Next is approval by the Council, followed by publication in the official journal. The two year deadline does not start before 20 days after publication. Since the member states could theoretically still stop the Directive, both alts are incorrect though because if they do, the Directive would have failed. Regards SoWhy 15:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's what I've been reading, but most do not expect the Council to have a different result; the fact it passed the EP means it had even a better chance in the EC (eg passing the EP was considered the only point where this could be stalled). So Altblurb 2 is added to express the basic fact of EP passage. --Masem (t) 15:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Next is approval by the Council, followed by publication in the official journal. The two year deadline does not start before 20 days after publication. Since the member states could theoretically still stop the Directive, both alts are incorrect though because if they do, the Directive would have failed. Regards SoWhy 15:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, not an EUian so I am a bit confused on the exact next state (between EP and the start of the 2 year deadline). I did add altblurb to point out that it is still on the states to make the laws happen, this is only the Directive to force those laws. --Masem (t) 14:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support The approval of this directive means that more than 500 million people (including the United Kingdom) will have limited freedom on the Internet. That's a very big deal.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure we should be using "controversial", let the readers decide upon that. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- It's hard to find a RS media source that is not calling this in some form "controversial". The bulk of our article is about how controversial this is, which is a neutral fact. Now, whether WP favors or opposes this, that clearly should be left out. --Masem (t) 16:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Most things are controversial to someone. This should just state the facts without promoting a POV, even if sources are calling it that. When most sources refer to an attack as a terrorist attack, you strongly oppose that modifier. This is the same. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- It's hard to find a RS media source that is not calling this in some form "controversial". The bulk of our article is about how controversial this is, which is a neutral fact. Now, whether WP favors or opposes this, that clearly should be left out. --Masem (t) 16:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose for the same reason I opposed it the last 4 times I opposed it: The article is not up to scratch. The "Content" section, that most critical section, is a list of objections to specific parts and in no way summarizes the actual content of the directive. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- What I see in the content section is where there has been changes that were influenced by some criticism. But the bulk of the criticism or support is all well outside that section. We don't need to fully document the contents of each Article, just give the broad highlights that have been noted by 3rd party sources. --Masem (t) 19:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support. The end of the Internet as we know it. The article can be expanded, but it's pretty long. wumbolo ^^^ 18:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment A modest suggestion -- can "voting" editors weigh in on both quality and signficance? I got a feeling this nom will be longer than the article and consensus may be tough to judge. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment added alt-blurb 3, which is factually accurate. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support pending improvements Highly consequential for half a billion people. Editors have raised a number of legitimate criticisms of the article's quality, but if they are addressed, this should be posted swimmingly. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 19:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support - this means a new era for the "me me me generation" that posts videos etc with songs that are copyrighted.BabbaQ (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- ...what? Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- This new law basically means that people will not be allowed to use some music for work they do like videos on Instagram, Youtube etc.BabbaQ (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- i got that, but why is that your !vote explanation? see GreatCaesarsGhost's comment Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Baby boomers post on Instagram? --LaserLegs (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- What a bizarre !vote.--WaltCip (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support pending improvements - Very significant event.
Quite updated, and seems ready to be reported. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 00:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)With a bit of extra updates and cleanup, it should be ready to go be presented to the world. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 00:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC) - Support on notability. Still a few citation needed tags in there. I'd favour the original blurb, as it adds a bit of context to the immediate implications without overly lengthening the blurb; otherwise, altblurb2 is fairly direct and to the point. Altblurb3 and altblurb1 sound a bit more awkward to my ear, so I'd avoid phrasing similar to those. -- Ununseti (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment according to our own (confusing) article on the subject "The Directive still requires final approval by the member states." and "The Council of the European Union will make a final decision on the measure on 9 April 2019.". It would seem there are still several hurdles between now and the end of the process. Probably best to wait. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- I heard Italy might veto it. I'd prefer waiting on posting this until the decision is 100% final with no blockades remaining. Dat GuyTalkContribs 14:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm fine with holding off to the 9th, and understanding that if there is not significant news coverage then, then this should still be posted because this being the point of news. I doubt it will not be covered, but again, as many press outlets have conceded the battle is over, there might be far less coverage then. --Masem (t) 16:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
2019 Thai elections
Blurb: Unofficial results in the 2019 Thai general election indicate no party won a majority
News source(s): [3]
Article updated
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: Looks like this election and its aftermath will be in the news (especially in Thailand) for quite a while. Banedon (talk) 02:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support A few sections of the article could use some references, but the article is overall in good shape and improvements shouldn't be too difficult. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 02:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- I think it'd be prudent for us to wait for the "official" result. Why should we be in haste to post unconfirmed result in a journalistic fashion? – Ammarpad (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Because it's in the news now, the official results might take a while, and even if we post now we can always update the blurb if and when the official results are given. Banedon (talk) 09:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Then this lends me to oppose outright. We'd not rush to post "unofficial" result because we fear the "official" one "might take a while" and be lost in oblivion; we are not racing to beat any print deadline. I am afraid, that's quite contrary to what ITN is for. – Ammarpad (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Because it's in the news now, the official results might take a while, and even if we post now we can always update the blurb if and when the official results are given. Banedon (talk) 09:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose we simply don't post "unofficial" results, this is an encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose posting any unofficial result. Actually I can't remember any blurb that says 'this is unofficial result'!– Ammarpad (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Wait until official results are in, support once they are and have been added with properly cited text. Article is of sufficient quality otherwise. --Jayron32 11:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: The results the Election Commission is expected to announce on Friday are still "unofficial". The final "official" results are expected to be announced on 9 May, after complaints are investigated and disqualifications made, so it will be a long wait. If we want to post an update on the election results (rather than confirmation of the prime minister), we'll need to go by the "unofficial" results. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I do think its fair to talk about the story around the nature and chaos around this election and that because of that, official results will not be released until May. --Masem (t) 14:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. I think we should wait for the full unofficial results due on 29 March, but probably not until May. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
March 25
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
|
Proclamation on Recognizing the Golan Heights as Part of the State of Israel
Blurb: The United States recognizes Israeli sovereignty over the disputed Golan Heights, occupied since 1967.
Alternative blurb: The United States recognizes Israeli sovereignty over the disputed Golan Heights, internationally recognized as occupied Syrian territory.
Alternative blurb II: The United States proclaims that Israel has sovereignty over the disputed Golan Heights, internationally recognized as occupied Syrian territory.
News source(s): BBC Proclamation text
Nominator's comments: Significant development, US is the only other nation other than Israel to recognize the Golan as Israeli. I used the word "occupied" as this is not disputed by the international community, not even the United Nations. Also important in the context of the upcoming Israeli election. Nice4What (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose
US is the only other nation other than Israel to recognize the Golan as Israeli...
. We should not include fringe opinions on the Main Page.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)- While I don't think we should post this story for other reasons, I would not call the US's view in the larger issue around Israel and the middle east "fringe". They are a significant player in the Middle East situation. --Masem (t) 01:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- This is a major development for Syrian politics as well, this isn't suppose to be American-centric. United States is the first to recognize the Golan Heights as part of Israel, similar to how the United States was first to recognize a unified Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Nice4What (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Question Did we post when Syria recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia as countries? The US decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem was a dramatic shift in policy and had lasting consequences, but I'm not sure that this story is comparable. I'm not saying it's unimportant, but my (admittedly limited) understanding of the situation is that it's about as consequential as any member of the UN recognizing any other de-facto-but-not-de-jure polity. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Syria does not have much geopolitical clout compared to the US. Beyond the Middle East, the US disregarding Syria's territorial integrity may have wider consequences (see this article). Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support I don't see why we wouldn't post this. The US is a world superpower (hyperpower even). That a world superpower can embrace a fringe position makes it more notable, not less. This will be of interest to other countries as well, especially those in the Middle East; in fact Turkey has already said it's going to raise the issue at the UN. This kind of international event with future repercussions should be posted on ITN. Banedon (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- With all due respect, the US being a world superpower doesn't mean that all of its foreign policy decisions are automatically ITN/R, and the Turkish & Israeli governments are at odds with each other in more or less every situation. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 02:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not invoking ITNR here - just that it's in the news. US policy decisions make much more news than, say, Paraguay's for a reason. Turkey is hardly going to be acting alone in this case either. Syria also said it will contest the recognition, Russia expressed concerns, etc. Banedon (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support Notable development. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support Worrying development, and not just for the Middle East. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment – The orange one is "
deviating significantly from the prevailing views
" on this matter. By definition that is fringe. I don't think it matters how powerful the nation is. @Masem: imagine if the dean of the most respected university in a particular scientific field deviated from an accepted theory despite the opposition by an overwhelming majority of the researchers in that field. Would we even mention their opinion on the article about that subject. In the same vain, we should not elevate this. I am reminded on Twitter's laughable insistence that blue check mark verification icon does not represent endorsement. By using the word "recognize" we inherently are implying that this is somehow the acceptance of known fact. Sure the word has many definitions but a few of them have this connotation. It would be less misleading to say "The United States claims that Israel has sovereignty over the disputed Golan Heights.
" or something like that. I may even agree to "proclaims" (which is in the title of the article), added as Alt.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC) - @Nice4What: The comparison to Jerusalem is a false equivalence. Many scholars including Palestinians accept Israel's sovereignty over at least West Jerusalem. And since a nation can choose to put their capital anywhere within their territory, it is not farfetched to recognize this claim, no matter how damaging critics believe the policy may be. But unilaterally recognizing a swath of disputed land as belonging to one of the belligerents in the dispute is surely fringe when no other nation has joined in the proclamation.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Yes, the "orange one" has the authority to speak for the U.S. in this regard, but it's a bit intellectually dishonest to frame this as "a superpower is endorsing a fringe idea!" While it's technically true, but it's really just one guy who (I think BLP would allow me to say) might be a few sandwiches shy of a picnic. Let me pose this question: how is the situation materially altered beyond the headline? GreatCaesarsGhost 11:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose – This bit of Machtpolitik rhetoric doesn't change anything on the ground, which has been controlled by Israel for half a century. Sca (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per GCG. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support The country of Israel is basically a giant territorial dispute, internationally. When a major country like the U.S. recognizes an area as being controlled by Israel it's very much newsworthy and deserves to be posted. I would feel the same if the U.S. declared Syrian soveriegnty over the Golan Heights. ViridianWindow (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose, this is merely political posturing on many levels. Chief among them is the fact that there's really no such thing as "recognizing sovereignty" of a piece of conquered territory. A country can recognize new states such as Kosovo or East Timor, but not the Crimea or the Golan Heights. Abductive (reasoning) 21:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- support - whether we like it or not this is a significant recognition by the US which is a major player in this situation.BabbaQ (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, but WHY? Why is it significant that the US is supporting this claim, when Israel maintained control for 50 years with no support? What changes for any single Syrian or Israeli, for any square meter of this territory? GreatCaesarsGhost 01:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose One country recognizes that another one has gained territory from a third, more than half a century after it happened. We've had 52 years to see the actual effect of this event; the recognition itself isn't particularly world-shaking. By the way, this is hardly a fringe position; nobody argues that Granada is Spanish-occupied Moorish territory or that Asia Minor is Turkish-occupied Greek territory. Nyttend backup (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- To be fair, nobody argues that Granada is Moorish territory occupied by Spain because the international community has long recognized Granada as part of Spain's legitimate and legal borders, whereas Moor isn't a country. In this case, the international community's stance is that Israeli presence in the area is illegal under international law, and the US recognizing the opposite is not enough to change that in any material way. I agree that the decision from the US isn't consequential (the de facto situation that Israel has a presence in the area is unchanged, the de jure position that the UN views that as illegal is unchanged). The clout from the US as a "major player" will prove useless in the Security Council, where France, UK, China, and Russia all intend to oppose the decision from the US. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 19:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
RD: Fred Malek
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Politico
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.
– Muboshgu (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - Only one page and is the English one. Without rellevance. (Alsoriano97) (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Alsoriano97: All individuals with a standalone WP article are presumed to be notable and may have an entry in RD as long as the article is updated and of sufficient quality. "Relevance" would be, well, not relevant in this case. –FlyingAce✈hello 22:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. Not fully updated for tense. Some sources needed (not tagged) and others seem to me insufficiently solid to support the material. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose a few citations needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Scott Walker (singer)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
- Nominated by Sherenk1 (talk • )
- Updated by Yorkshiresky (talk • )
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: Rock singer. Ref issues. Sherenk1 (talk) 09:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Have been working on it and think I've addressed all the citation issues. yorkshiresky (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Multiple paragraphs and discography lacking a single reference. Stephen 00:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Discography is unreferenced. However, in the text, most of the albums have references so it needs to be added to the discography. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Opposeseveral uncited claims in the prose. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Added refs for outstanding uncited claims.yorkshiresky (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support good enough. Nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support - good enough for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support per above, thank you, yorkshiresky! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Posted. Excellent work. Black Kite (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
March 24
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Politics and elections
|
(Closed, Reposted) Special Counsel investigation conclusion
- 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.
Blurb: U.S. Attorney General William Barr sends a four-page letter to Congress that there is not sufficient evidence that President Donald Trump colluded with Russia or obstructed justice.
Alternative blurb:
Alternative blurb II: The Special Counsel investigation concludes that there was no collusion between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russia during the 2016 presidential election and there was insufficient evidence pertaining to allegations of obstructed justice.
Alternative blurb III: The Special Counsel investigation concludes that there was no collusion between U.S. President Donald Trump's campaign and Russia during the 2016 presidential election and there was insufficient evidence pertaining to allegations of obstructed justice.
Alternative blurb IV: The U.S. Special Counsel investigation, headed by Robert Mueller (pictured), concludes.
News source(s): CNBC, ABC News
Article updated
- Support global headlines today, "in the news" for nearly two years, this is the time to post. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
SupportAgreed, this is the time to post. Davey2116 (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose"not sufficient evidence that President Donald Trump obstructed justice" is misleading. Mueller report according AG Barr did not make a determination on this question. I support posting on the collusion question.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Coffeeandcrumbs, perhaps the hook could say "not sufficient evidence the campaign colluded with Russia, while allegations of obstruction of justice were not addressed", or something like that? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- However, Barr did address that issue.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- While Mueller presented the available evidence, he did not make the final call. The blurb is technically correct but lacks context and is misleading for such a controversial topic. Mueller as Barr quotes said it does not exonerate the president on the question of obstruction.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Couldn't I or whoever that accepts this nomination and puts it on the Main Page improve the blurb to add the context that it does not exonerate Trump completely yet? Aviartm (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. ITN also requires that the updated bolded articles meet certain standards. See oppose by Masem below.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Coffeeandcrumbs: Alright. I made it present tense and improved it. I think if I added the exoneration part will make it too long but I am not sure. Should be added though. Aviartm (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- You have not improved it at all.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Coffeeandcrumbs: How about now? Aviartm (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Support altblurb only.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)- But then you changed it.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Coffeeandcrumbs, I changed it back. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Coffeeandcrumbs & Muboshgu I think my altblurb is best because in the four page letter, Barr states that they could not conclude on obstruction of justice but did say no collusion..."The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities." You can read the letter here. Aviartm (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Muboshgu I did recognize earlier today the ambiguous nature of the letter. However, in the second half discussing obstruction of justice, Barr deliberately says "The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction." I feel that if the DOJ had an exact position on collusion, they would clearly state so like they did in the letter on obstruction of justice. Aviartm (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Aviartm, what you "feel" is not the same as what we objectively know. Mueller wrote: "While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him”. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Muboshgu True. Yes, that quotation is in the letter but under the Obstruction of Justice section, not the whole letter. This is also stated in the letter that clears the confusion: "In making this determination, we noted that the Special Counsel recognized that “the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference," and that, while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon the President's intent with respect to obstruction." So the Special Counsel did recognize that they could not find any links of Trump and/or his Campaign colluding but could not reach a consensus on obstruction of justice. These are two things. Aviartm (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Muboshgu Yes but wouldn't you think the DOJ, if they knew that reliable, reputable evidence investigated by the Special Counsel showed that the President did collude, they would be saying that? The Special Counsel did conclude, it is done. That is the Special Counsel's findings assessed by the DOJ. Since the blurb is to report the findings and not speculate further potential investigation, altblurb2 appears to be the most appropriate. After all, Wikipedia is not a NOTACRYSTALBALL. Aviartm (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Aviartm, I wouldn't think too much of it because that's the unknown: WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. I could easily suggest that Barr's letter was the coverup Trump appointed him for, but I can't be sure of that. All I know is that he hasn't been exonerated from anything, and the other investigations continue. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- MuboshguThe New York Times link was to the AG Letter, not their take, so no WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. The only thing that Trump has been exonerated of is allegations of Russian collusion, not Obstruction of Justice. This is what I have repeatedly been saying. That is why Ad Orientem has been saying. Please read my 3rd most recent comment or go to the Donald Trump Article Talk Page where we have conversed there. Aviartm (talk) 02:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Muboshgu Yes but wouldn't you think the DOJ, if they knew that reliable, reputable evidence investigated by the Special Counsel showed that the President did collude, they would be saying that? The Special Counsel did conclude, it is done. That is the Special Counsel's findings assessed by the DOJ. Since the blurb is to report the findings and not speculate further potential investigation, altblurb2 appears to be the most appropriate. After all, Wikipedia is not a NOTACRYSTALBALL. Aviartm (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Muboshgu I did recognize earlier today the ambiguous nature of the letter. However, in the second half discussing obstruction of justice, Barr deliberately says "The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction." I feel that if the DOJ had an exact position on collusion, they would clearly state so like they did in the letter on obstruction of justice. Aviartm (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@Muboshgu What you know is neither here nor there. We go by what reliable sources are saying. And they are all reporting that the investigation by the Special Counsel has stated that there was no collusion between either the President or his campaign and Russia. That's what is being reported and that is what we go with. Anything else is likely a BLP vio. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ad Orientem, saying that "there was no collusion" is not the same thing as "the SC did not find collusion" and that's the important distinction to make. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Muboshgu Except that the SC did state that there was no collusion. They did not state that there was insufficient evidence. They said there was no collusion. See the above quote from the NY Times. Any statement saying or implying anything else is false and a BLP violation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ad Orientem No, the SC hasn't stated anything publicly. This is what AG Barr is stating, not Mueller. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- No. It is what pretty much every reliable source is saying. And that, again, is what we go with. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ad Orientem, we really need to be careful with what we're calling "reliable sources" in this because sometimes you find out that you were just wrong. This needs to be vague. Jerry Nadler: “His conclusions raise more questions than they answer.” – Muboshgu (talk) 02:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- No. We abide by what RS sources say. Not our intuition, gut feelings, personal knowledge, suspicions etc. If they make a mistake and correct it, then so do we. That I have to explain this to an admin is disconcerting. Right now RS sources are pretty much unanimously saying that Trump and his campaign have been cleared of the collusion accusations. Your position is starting to look like a bad case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ad Orientem, perhaps it is. Alt2 is probably a fine compromise blurb, and all of the updates that happen will be nominated and debated. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- No. We abide by what RS sources say. Not our intuition, gut feelings, personal knowledge, suspicions etc. If they make a mistake and correct it, then so do we. That I have to explain this to an admin is disconcerting. Right now RS sources are pretty much unanimously saying that Trump and his campaign have been cleared of the collusion accusations. Your position is starting to look like a bad case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ad Orientem, we really need to be careful with what we're calling "reliable sources" in this because sometimes you find out that you were just wrong. This needs to be vague. Jerry Nadler: “His conclusions raise more questions than they answer.” – Muboshgu (talk) 02:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- No. It is what pretty much every reliable source is saying. And that, again, is what we go with. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ad Orientem No, the SC hasn't stated anything publicly. This is what AG Barr is stating, not Mueller. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Muboshgu Except that the SC did state that there was no collusion. They did not state that there was insufficient evidence. They said there was no collusion. See the above quote from the NY Times. Any statement saying or implying anything else is false and a BLP violation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. No opinion on item or precise wording but the blurb needs to mention in bold the target article, avoid overlinking and be in the present tense. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- There's no bolded link in the blurb. If it's to be Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019), that article hasn't gotten an (unreverted) update - certainly not one meeting WP:ITN#Updated content - and much of it hasn't even been updated for the Friday conclusion-sans-results. —Cryptic 20:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
SupportGreat, this is over. In the news, etc etc. Now, the real investigations of the NY AG, SDNY, and relevant House committees can really kick off. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)- of SDNY or by SDNY? --LaserLegs (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- LaserLegs, "by". I just want us all to remember that the investigations of Trump are not over. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Changing my vote to ongoing because it's clear that this isn't "over" based on a partisan AG's two-day summarization of a two-year investigation. The House Judiciary Chair points out that this three-and-a-half page letter from Barr raises more questions than it answers.[4] – Muboshgu (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- of SDNY or by SDNY? --LaserLegs (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose only on quality, there's a handful of CNs in the article. This is ITN-worthy ending a good year+ long story that has been in the news throughout. --Masem (t) 20:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose US house Democrats are demanding a hearing - I would wait until it is done. Juxlos (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Altblurb added. Feel free to tinker. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- But isn't showing up. Is the template busted somehow? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu: Our edits conflicted but I ensured your edits and mine came to fruition. Hopefully everything shows up. I added your altblurb. I don't see it either. Not sure why. Aviartm (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support Ongoing only – Being not declared guilty is not the same as being declared not guilty, i.e. exonerated, as AG Barr acknowledges, and Demos "vow to press on with their own investigation." Like Brexit, it ain't over. – Sca (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support altblurb2 I think we finally have a Donald Trump blurb that we can post. Note: I strongly oppose the first two proposed blurbs as they incorrectly imply that the issue of collusion was not definitely ruled out by the investigation. All of the sources I am reading, including fairly left leaning ones like the NY Times and WaPo are saying that it was. Only the question of obstruction of justice remains open due to lack of evidence. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- WASHINGTON — The investigation led by Robert S. Mueller III found that neither President Trump nor any of his aides conspired or coordinated with the Russian government’s 2016 election interference, according to a summary of the special counsel’s key findings made public on Sunday by Attorney General William P. Barr.
- Mr. Barr also said that Mr. Mueller’s team drew no conclusions about whether Mr. Trump illegally obstructed justice. Mr. Barr and the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, determined that the special counsel’s investigators lacked sufficient evidence to establish that Mr. Trump committed that offense, but added that Mr. Mueller’s team stopped short of exonerating Mr. Trump.[5]
- Ad Orientem Great job on the altblurb2. Currently am having a conversation with Muboshgu if you noticed and that is what I was trying to convey. Great job on the altblurb! :) (I was about to upload my comment but our edits conflicted with your article pice.)
- Mr. Barr also said that Mr. Mueller’s team drew no conclusions about whether Mr. Trump illegally obstructed justice. Mr. Barr and the deputy attorney general, Rod J. Rosenstein, determined that the special counsel’s investigators lacked sufficient evidence to establish that Mr. Trump committed that offense, but added that Mr. Mueller’s team stopped short of exonerating Mr. Trump.[5]
- Support altblurb2 I support altblurb2. Aviartm (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment This is not a comment on whether or not it should be posted, but if I'm not mistaken they've not released it to the public yet, have they? Developments of interests could be expected in the near future (not suggesting that this nomination waits, though) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 01:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support but I have my doubts about alt 2: it should mention the Trump campaign, not Trump himself. Banedon (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- I second that any blurb posted should refer to the campaign Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 02:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Appropriately worded to address NPOV concerns. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I'm fine with either alt2 or alt3. The first two are inconsistent with what is being reported. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed but they are about 250 characters long. Perhaps shorten to "
...U.S. President Donald Trump's election campaign and Russia and there was insufficient evidence of obstruction of justice.
" More trimming may be necessary.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed but they are about 250 characters long. Perhaps shorten to "
- Posted Stephen 04:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose This nonsense needs to be pulled. The words of William Barr are not the final steps of this process, and we don't even know if the letter is an accurate summation. Nihlus 04:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Pull The blurb as posted would be noteworthy if it were true, which it isn't. As those are the words of Barr and not Mueller, let's wait a few days to get the facts correct...or just say the investigation was closed and let that be it. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- GreatCaesarsGhost "The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” - Barr AND Mueller's words together on Russian interference. Again, lastly, with Obstruction of Justice: "The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other – as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction. Instead, for each of the relevant actions investigated, the report sets out evidence on both sides of the question and leaves unresolved what the Special Counsel views as “difficult issues” of law and fact concerning whether the President's actions and intent could be viewed as obstruction. The Special Counsel states that “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” - Barr AND Mueller's words together. Current Blurb holds both of these points. Nothing is distorted about the Current Blurb. Aviartm (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Pull per above. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Pull. The blurb as currently stands has an editorial bent.--WaltCip (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment instead of pulling, why not just shorten the blurb to what has happened which is "The U.S. Special Counsel investigation, headed by Robert Mueller (pictured), concludes.". Then we can keep this obviously notable story with a decent article in the box. Nifty right? --LaserLegs (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- I would concede that the consensus above says the *ending itself* is noteworthy (I'm neutral/weak oppose myself). Barr's summary is decidedly POV though and should be removed in any case. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment as best as I can tell, under the normal legal process, Barr's decision as AG to not instigate any charges means this is over. Barr has the option to not share the Mueller report with Congress or the public. Now, I know Congress is trying to force him to turn it over or get him to testify, but this is all out-of-process at this point; those events may not happen, but the AG closing the book on the matter is an end point. --Masem (t) 13:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Don't see a problem with the blurb. No need to pull.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- There's definitely no consensus to have it posted right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment As I have noted (repeatedly) above, the blurb reflects what has been reported in virtually all of the reliable sources. That is what we go by. Suggestions that the United States Attorney General is misrepresenting the findings of the special counsel sounds like a lot of IDONTLIKEIT POV/OR with a dash of fringe conspiracy theory thrown in for flavor. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- No one suggested he is lying, but he is a biased partisan in this matter - there is every reason to think his specific interpretation of the findings will be colored by that partisanship. RS's have gone to great lengths to attribute the statement to Barr, and it is WP:OR to transfer it to Mueller. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with GreatCaesarsGhost. We shouldn't attribute Barr's words to Mueller. Originally, only Barr knew what was in the report, but it has since been delivered to Congress, and Congress already disputes Barr's summary of it. We're in no position to make the judgment call that Barr is right and Congress is wrong. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 15:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment – Once again: We still don't know the details of the report. "Concludes that there was no collusion" is an oversimplification of an issue summarized as "did not find evidence that..." etc. As noted above, being not declared guilty is not the same as being exonerated.
- However – particularly in view of the amateurish pulling of Previn on Feb. 28 – I can't support pulling this one. Instead, suggest we relegate it to Ongoing. The vagaries of U.S. politics being what they are, it's likely to go on as a news story for some time. – Sca (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Change to altblurb4, as suggested by LaserLegs above. The current blurb is wayyy too long. I don't think it's a good idea to try and encapsulate such a complex topic in a blurb. Let the reader go to the article to see what the investigation found. -- Ununseti (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I've proposed altblurb5 without the part on the obstructed justice. I also strongly oppose altblurb4 because its wording tells absolutely nothing about the investigation, while a blurb should always report a clear message extracted from a newsworthy story.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment it's pretty clear that more time needs to be taken to establish a consensus-led blurb for this story. Using the ITN section of the main page as a sandbox is inappropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- The level of IDONTLIKEIT commentary in this discussion, and now the posted blurb has been modified w/o consensus such that it no longer reflects what has been reported in virtually all reliable sources, is deeply disturbing and discouraging. When people complain about political bias on Wikipedia, this is the kind of crap they are talking about. Do what you will. This has become a POV clusterfuck and I am done with it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- I've reread some of the media reports , the Barr letter an a few other things and taking into account the above, and I am going to strongly suggest that this simply it put to Ongoing. It is clear that we are not yet presently going to be able to come up with a blurb that is concise and stays neutral that is accurate to the situation, and the next several days as Barr determines what to publish from it will be interesting. I also see something I even missed in the letter, is that this are his preliminary findings, meaning subject to change. So I think that with the report done and Barr reviewing, that makes this ongoing (in the same manner that Brexit is - both events are building up to something but we don't know what). That way, we are covering something that at this point is unescapably in the news and from a decent quality article, but avoid the minefield of trying to make a statement towards it on the main page when no one else can make one either. --Masem (t) 15:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Altblurb IV / Ongoing / Pull I'm equally okay with all three courses of action, but the blurb as-is is too problematic. Per the comments above, altblurb IV is both the most concise and least misleading, but the details of the report are still to be announced. I'm starting to lean in favor of the recommendations by Sca and TRM that we hold off on a blurb until a consensus develops, and perhaps leave it in Ongoing until the public gets to know what's in the report. I have no issue posting that the 22 month long extravaganza has concluded (as altblurb IV does), but I do take issue with going solely off of Barr's summary of it, which is already being disputed by congress (now that the report has been given to congress). We cannot make the judgment call that Barr is right and Congress is wrong, and we cannot attribute Barr's words to Mueller as the other blurbs do. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 15:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: I live in the US and so can’t speak to if this receiving international press
covfefecoverage, but I will point out that for the sake of accuracy, there is no legal term called “collusion” (there is, but it means something different, as in Colin Kaepernick’s collusion lawsuit against the NFL). I would support a change to “conspiracy” (the name of the crime) or “coordination” (what Barr calls it in the summary). — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)- pythoncoder, whether or not this has international coverage isn't relevant per the "Please do not" section above on this page. I would not argue with changing the term to "coordination", but "collusion" is the most commonly used term. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- This is the biggest fiasco I have witnessed in ITN Candidates in regards to interpretation. The Department of Justice has concluded and brought a summary to Congress and the American People. All of these distorted POV attempts to hijack and change the Current Blurb should be detested. Just because something is not formed in your image does not mean it is wrong or incorrect. These nominations must be neutral and impartial and that is what the Current Blurb possesses. We already know a bunch of people are at odds with Mueller's conclusions and what not. But this will not detract from the final judgement that the Department of Justice reached. Wikipedia is Wikipedia:NOTACRYSTALBALL. Any attempt at second-guessing the findings is violating this WP and in violation of Wikipedia:Biography of living persons. Aviartm (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with Robert Mueller's conclusions. It has to do with failing to attribute the summary of the report to William Barr. There is an ongoing post-mortem to this investigation here that we need to account for, and we currently are not.--WaltCip (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- I tried earlier but I guess that was not applicable due to the information we were trying to reach a consensus.
- The DOJ investigation is done, and the AG has provided a summary of his findings. I'm afraid that's how it is. When the house convenes new investigations, when those conclude, we can post them as well. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with Robert Mueller's conclusions. It has to do with failing to attribute the summary of the report to William Barr. There is an ongoing post-mortem to this investigation here that we need to account for, and we currently are not.--WaltCip (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Remove the obstruction part. That they failed to reach a conclusion is non-news. The rest of the blurb will necessarily be partisan, but it's passable. wumbolo ^^^ 16:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- WaltCip I have no idea which news you are following but every news source I have read or listened to is heavily talking about the non-conclusion of obstruction of justice. That too should be included as it is in the news. Aviartm (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC).
- Comment with alternative blurb offered - Looking at what is quite possibly the longest blurb in Wikipedia history. With that in mind I offer the following just-the-peg blurb (apparent limitation of four at top). A Special Counsel investigation finds no evidence of collusion between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russia. CoatCheck (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment this really needs to be pulled until a factually accurate, NPOV blurb is agreed upon. Right now there's not even a consensus to post it at all, let alone in its current state. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- That could be avoided by citing verbatim what the report states, without paraphrasing. Then the onus would lie solely on Barr, not on us. Brandmeistertalk 18:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support Good job! Wording is as accurate as can be (until the day we all can read the report ourselves). -SusanLesch (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the point many of the detractors seem to be missing: Barr is AG, it is his report and he can summarize the conclusions as he sees fit. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- SusanLesch I agree! LaserLegs Exactly, it is only proper if we highlight the only 2 critical things of the report fairly. Aviartm (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the point many of the detractors seem to be missing: Barr is AG, it is his report and he can summarize the conclusions as he sees fit. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Just a friendly reminder... – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Dan Rather via Twitter @danrather I've covered enough big news stories to know that sometimes the headlines from the first day can evolve considerably as more information comes to light.
24 Mar 2019[1]
- Support with alternative blurb IV, otherwise pull the inaccurate blurb. Gamaliel (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Gamaliel If you would like to explain why it is inaccurate, please explain. However, so far, no one that has objected the Current Blurb has any grounds as the Current Blurb contains both 2 focal points of the report best as possible. Trump IS exonerated of collusion with his Campaign, not with obstruction of justice. As clear as day and night. Aviartm (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support alt blurb 6. I think we should stick as close to what the we know the Mueller report says, that the investigation "
did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
" FallingGravity 20:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- FallingGravity Already says that. Here is the full quote: "The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” The Special Counsel did not find any link of the Trump Campaign colluding with Russia. Aviartm (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- That's using WP:OR to change "conspired or coordinated" into "colluded", which isn't a legal term, just a buzzword. FallingGravity 20:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- There is no need to play semantics when either of those words convey the message effectively. Since, "conspire" is a synonym to "collude". Aviartm (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- I think we should prioritize legal terms over buzzwords. This is an encyclopedia, not a political blog. FallingGravity 21:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Playing semantics in this regard I find counterproductive. The integrity of the message is not compromised to begin with. And if using "collusion" is such an issue, we better start taking on Donald Trump, Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019), Dismissal of James Comey, Trump-Russia Investigation, Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, because these pages use collusion much more often than conspire(d) or coordinate(d). The importance that should matter is whether the message is getting articulated in a fashion of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which the Current Blurb does greatly. Aviartm (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter how many times these articles mention "collusion". What matters is that the official report says "conspired" and "coordinated", and it does not (as far as we know) say "collusion". This is backed up by multiple WP:RS. FallingGravity 22:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- I think we should prioritize legal terms over buzzwords. This is an encyclopedia, not a political blog. FallingGravity 21:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- There is no need to play semantics when either of those words convey the message effectively. Since, "conspire" is a synonym to "collude". Aviartm (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- That's using WP:OR to change "conspired or coordinated" into "colluded", which isn't a legal term, just a buzzword. FallingGravity 20:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- REPEAT there is currently scant consensus to even post this at all, let alone in its current state. Please, this isn't Brexit, remove the story until a consensus can form around what to post and whether to actually post it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man There has been 13 Supports in any fashion of the ITN being posted and only 4 Opposed. Even include the 3 Pulls and that is only 7. Essentially twice as many people support it being posted. Please stop Wikipedia:FILIBUSTER. Aviartm (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- TRM, I am sincerely having a hard time understanding what "
Please, this isn't Brexit...
" is supposed to mean.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)- It means that just because someone posted it, it doesn't mean we have to go through with it, no matter how stupid it is. It's highly embarrassing that this blurb has been allowed to stand during all these adjustments, and despite there being no clear consensus for any proposed blurb. And that's not filibustering, obviously, because the item has already been posted. Please. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- TRM, I am sincerely having a hard time understanding what "
- Support as is. Wording is accurate and neutral, story is very significant. Nice4What (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support current version. The wording works and it is a significant story in the news. ZettaComposer (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I want to simply reaffirm my continued support for this blurb. In most cases, prosecutorial declinations are not ITN-worthy. This is not the case here. This is a major international story drawing comments and responses from leaders in several regions of the world. The current blurb is a neutral summary of the consensus among the overwhelming majority of the RS. Everything else reeks of IDONTLIKEIT. This issue has been raised and consider by many admins, here and at ERRORS. Their inaction could be interpreted as Silence and consensus. I ask anyone reading this to add their Support/Oppose !votes to close this discussion so we can move on.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{u|Coffeeandcrumbs) Thank you Coffee for your position on the matter. I agree with you 100%. Ad Orientem was the first to discuss about IDONTLIKEIT and it drove him to leave the conversation, which I think should not happen. The Current Blurb is the best one in accordance to current news and the conclusion synopsis by the DOJ. If this is what the DOJ finds and concludes, then that is what we will publish here like we did. I Support closing the discussion. This circus has gone long enough. Aviartm (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- I made a minor change to the wording in response to main-page errors but am in no way qualified to judge the wider issue. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I have stricken my support, as I no longer feel the current blurb captures the situation without bias, after reading the opinion expressed by an editor above that the current blurb is neutral and impartial while the other suggestions are not. This is clearly incorrect; the current blurb asserts that Barr's summary accurately represents Mueller's findings, while blurb 4 makes no such assertion. Therefore, I support one of three things:
- 1. Adding an attribution (e.g., "according to U.S. Attorney General William Barr") to the current blurb
- 2. Alt blurb 4
- 3. Ongoing
- Of these three, I prefer alt blurb 4. Apologies for clarifying my support so late; I initially added my support when the pertinent question was whether the story is significant enough, not which blurb to use. Davey2116 (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Davey2116 Sounds like you are talking about me and that's alright. The Current Blurb is neutral and impartial because the Current Blurb is entirely dependent on the findings of the DOJ. How is this bias? Can you please explain how using the official government's conclusions for the Current Blurb is bias? Because it would be nefarious to come up with our own conclusions to fit some narrative that we think the DOJ got wrong. It is not Wikipedia nor its participants space to conclude what the Department of Justice concludes. Aviartm (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- I already did. The current blurb is asserting that Barr is accurately representing Mueller's findings. Alt blurb 4 is not making any determination on whether Barr is or is not, and neither does the article. Many RS do not state definitively that Barr is accurately representing Mueller. So I think we should go with alt blurb 4, or add an attribution to Barr to the blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Davey2116 To clear up the confusion for you, this is what the letter says. If the Department of Justice, which the Special Counsel is/was part of, finds that Trump did not collude with Russia (As it states here: The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities...the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference." <----- This is Barr's words and Mueller's words on the matter. On Obstruction of Justice, " After making a “thorough factual investigation” into these matters, the Special Counsel considered whether to evaluate the conduct under Department standards governing prosecution and declination decisions but ultimately determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion - one way or the other – as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction...The Special Counsel's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime...Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense." If the Attorney General concludes on these matters, then these are the matters in which we should put into ITN, which we did. Aviartm (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- For the record, I oppose closing this discussion. By my count there are at least twelve !votes against the current blurb, and a similar number in favor; no consensus either way. Davey2116 (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- No, there are 14+ Support votes in favor of the uploading of the Blurb. There are only 5 Oppose votes. Add the Pulls, that makes it 8 total votes that in some way oppose the Nomination. I have already rehashed this detail earlier with my conversation with The Rambling Man. Soooo many IDONTLIKEIT and Wikipedia:FILIBUSTER violations to contort the truth. Aviartm (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Then I suggest you count again. I've counted three times and I see 10 supports for the current blurb, and 12 opposing it (either supporting alt blurb 4 or ongoing). I don't see how this is IDONTLIKEIT or FILIBUSTER. I simply want an accurate blurb posted, with consensus, neither of which is demonstrated by the current blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, I will do it a third time. I counted 14 Supports and 5 Opposes. Aviartm (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- 5? You must have left out all conditional votes where the condition has not been met, pulls, ongoings, etc. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 02:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. For the record, I'm leaning altblurb4 / ongoing, but I don't feel too strongly about either way anymore. If the lead on that article summarized the results in an actually concise way, I don't think anyone would have a problem with altblurb4. But here is what I counted: Unambiguous Support: 7, Conditional Support (opposing specific blurbs / supporting only specific blurbs / some mix of specific blurbs / ongoing / pull): 8, Ongoing: 3, Oppose: 5. -- Ununseti (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- WP:Too many altblurbs! -- Ununseti (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ununseti Thank you for your inquiry. The Current Blurb suffices the current public knowings of the special counsel's findings. Since we already have Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:NPOV, as the Current Blurb is 100% dependent on the four-page letter sent to Congress yesterday, the Current Blurb suffices. Every news outlet has reported the facts in the Current Blurb. Aviartm (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- To elaborate on my initial impressions, when I first saw this blurb earlier today, it just seemed hilariously long. 'America-centric much?' I thought. But I've been staring at this for too long and I just have no idea how long sentences are supposed to be anymore... I still would prefer a change to altblurb4, but I'm neutral about the current blurb now (which I note isn't actually any of the like 7 currently proposed altblurbs). I don't contest its correctness or neutrality, I just thought it seemed like a bit much to stuff into a blurb. But I think it's gotten slightly shorter since I last looked at it this morning. Or I'm just hallucinating. -- Ununseti (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ununseti Thank you for clarifying. It is long for a ITN item. The longest I have actually ever seen one. And about it becoming "shorter" I think it did. If you click here, to the ERRORS discussion about the Current Blurb, appears that one of the mods made a slight adjustment but I too am not totally for sure. Would have to check the History edits to see for sure. Check between when Stephen posted and see if there was a slight adjustment. I think the Current Blurb is fine as it encapsulates the 2 most important details of the synopsis: no collusion was found and a non-conclusion on obstruction of justice. Aviartm (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- To elaborate on my initial impressions, when I first saw this blurb earlier today, it just seemed hilariously long. 'America-centric much?' I thought. But I've been staring at this for too long and I just have no idea how long sentences are supposed to be anymore... I still would prefer a change to altblurb4, but I'm neutral about the current blurb now (which I note isn't actually any of the like 7 currently proposed altblurbs). I don't contest its correctness or neutrality, I just thought it seemed like a bit much to stuff into a blurb. But I think it's gotten slightly shorter since I last looked at it this morning. Or I'm just hallucinating. -- Ununseti (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- The !votes against the blurb as-is do seem to be the majority. Though Wikipedia is not a vote, and polling is not a substitute for discussion, I don't think there's a consensus for the blurb. This is the longest thread I've seen on ITN since the McCain death, and that discussion had a 2:1 support:oppose ratio. As it becomes increasingly unlikely that we'll reach a consensus on which altblurb to use, or whether or not to post a blurb at all, and certainly no consensus for the specific blurb that's currently posted, I think it's time to pull and close. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 02:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- BrendonTheWizard There are a lot of Supports but for other Blurbs but I counted at least 9 Supports for the Current Blurb. And there is only 4 Opposes. I think since there is so many Supports for slight variants of the Blurb, I think the Current Blurb will stand. I do also agree that it will be difficult to achieve a "definite" consensus but I think the time for that has passed so the Current Blurb won't be changed most likely. Aviartm (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Only 4 opposes? What? How did you come up with an even smaller number than the last time you counted? You're not counting pulls (which advocate taking it off), ongoings (which advocate taking it off and listing it as ongoing instead), altblurb requests (which advocate replacing the blurb with a better one), etc.
Let's see where individuals stand so we don't accidentally count any !votes twice or forget anyone (which I probably did):
Support Altblurb2 (current): 1. Ad Orientem 2. Aviartm 3. Capitalistroadster 4. SusanLesch 5. Nice4What 6. ZettaComposer 7. Hrodvarsson
Ongoing: 1. Davey2116 2. Muboshgu 3. Sca 4. Ununseti
Oppose: 1. Masem 2. Juxlos 3. Nilhus
Pull:1. GreatCaesarsGhost, 2. TheRamblingMan, 3. WaitClip, 4. (myself)
Modify or replace the blurb: 1. Laserlegs 2. Wumbolo 3. Falling Gravity 4. Gamaliel
Total in favor of leaving it as-is: 7,
Total in favor of removing the blurb: 11,
Total against the as-is version: 15
At the very least, someone ought to replace the blurb immediately, barely anyone still supports the current state, but the opposition to it being on the page at all is still overwhelming. It should be pulled and this discussion should be closed so we can move on. A consensus has not developed to post. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 03:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Only 4 opposes? What? How did you come up with an even smaller number than the last time you counted? You're not counting pulls (which advocate taking it off), ongoings (which advocate taking it off and listing it as ongoing instead), altblurb requests (which advocate replacing the blurb with a better one), etc.
- Post-posting support A conclusion to a long-running and high-profile investigation. Headline news. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: Shouldn't this say …allegations of obstruction of justice instead of allegations of obstructed justice? —Hugh (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hl That would work but the Current Blurb conveys the best. And people are already griping and questioning the Current Blurb's length. So I think it is best to keep the Current Blurb the way it is but I would have no issue if it got changed for this slight modification. Aviartm (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: WaPo has an article on Barr's letter that's of interest to this discussion. The article notes that "collusion" is a meaningless term from a legal perspective, which is why the letter mentioned conspiracy and coordination. Also:
When a prosecutor says “the investigation did not establish” an offense, that is not to say the crime wasn’t committed or that there was not evidence supporting it. It means that there was not sufficient proof of conspiracy or coordination to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Based on this article I think we should change the poorly crafted Current Blurb wording to some variation "establish conspiracy" or "establish conspiracy or coordination", which is less ambiguous than the current "find collusion". FallingGravity 04:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment still no consensus for this blurb. Getting beyond stupid now. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Pulled for lack of consensus. Looking at the conversation above, there is too much opposition to having this in ITN at the moment. — Amakuru (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Repost I don't see good reasons to oppose this. One could argue that the blurb is inaccurate, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean this should be pulled. In the meantime the oppose reasons seem mostly to be based on "we can't trust these conclusions" which comes down to personal opinion. I'd point out that a decade ago, there was another group of people who said "we can't trust Barrack Obama's birth certificate, give us the full version!" which sounds disturbingly similar. Absent strong reasons to believe otherwise, one must believe what's in authoritative sources, and while it's conceivable that Barr's summary isn't a fair summary, it's still what we've got. Banedon (talk) 11:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Repost consensus to post was obvious, this is IDONTLIKEIT writ large. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Endorse the pull. I don't see a consensus one way or the other as of right now. 331dot (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment this is always the problem when we've got a big news story, but full information isn't in the public domain. There's obviously consensus to post something here, but perhaps it simply needs to be very neutral, i.e. that Barr has sent the report to Congress, without the semantics on what it actually says - until things are clearer. Black Kite (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Repost. This story will always be contested, but it is without a doubt major news and the blurb was the most neutral wording. I hope to see this story back on ITN. Nice4What (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Repost. Major news story. There was consensus to post at the time of first posting. 4 opposes by one person (TRM, no offense intended) shouldn't govern this decision. Alt blurb 4 is easy and less controversial. There's no future event on the horizon when posting would make more sense. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Repost with Altblurb 4 per SusanLesch and Hrodvarsson. I know getting the exact wording is problematic, but it belongs on the main page in one form or another, even if it's just "Robert Mueller submits his report to the Justice Dept" pbp 14:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose reposting until a clear consensus on an factually accurate and NPOV blurb has been achieved. Can't believe it took this long to remove given the clear and obvious lack of consensus. Systemic bias at its finest. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Dude, you've made 3-4 bold bulleted comments in the past couple of days. We get it. You were warned yesterday about trying to talk this to death. Consider yourself warned again. pbp 15:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm afraid, as always, your warning carries precisely zero weight with me. Good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Dude, you've made 3-4 bold bulleted comments in the past couple of days. We get it. You were warned yesterday about trying to talk this to death. Consider yourself warned again. pbp 15:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment With all due respect the fact that those who supported posting wish to repost doesn't change whether or not there was consensus from the discussion. There are far too many question marks raised above, including amongst ITN regulars, for this to have stayed posted. I've often said that ITN doesn't have robust enough criteria for assessing particular stories, and it's something I'd like to see improved, but that's the way it is. Even items that feature in all the newspapers around the world sometimes don't make it due to not satisfying the encyclopedic requirements. If a number of new voices come in with firm support for reposting or those in dispute can coalesce around a particular way forward then it can be reposted, but for now this has probably run its course. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Repost the original. Several of the original Oppose votes were weak at best. Not trusting the DOJ's conclusions, House Democrats still investigating that somehow "contests" the DOJ's findings and somehow impedes us from posting what the DOJ found?, among other things. And the Pulls reeked of Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT.
- So, I think what is best is to go back to the original posted Blurb and if anyone has a gripe about it, post below as normal and go from there.
- "The U.S. Special Counsel investigation, headed by Robert Mueller (pictured), does not find collusion between President Donald Trump's election campaign and Russian election interference, and does not reach a conclusion regarding allegations of obstructed justice." Aviartm (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- I endorse the pull (though I think all of these endorse vs repost comments, including this one I am posting, are redundancies of our original !votes and do not affect the consensus). I truly mean no ill will towards any of the users that wanted this posted; I just don't think that ITN has a chance at agreeing on whether to post the original, post the concise altblurb IV, move it to Ongoing instead of posting a blurb at all, not post a blurb at all, etc. I support the pull not because I think the story lacks significance (it doesn't), and not because I think the article is in too bad of a shape (it isn't), but because I don't believe there is (or will be) any solid consensus for any option. Even if we were to repost as Altblurb IV, which I personally endorsed, I foresee still many objections both from the users that prefer the original and users that preferred to post to ongoing. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 16:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- REPEAT There was strong, obvious consensus to post this item with the blurb, and no consensus for a changed blurb. That in no way justifies a pull. This should be returned to the main page immediately. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well I read this whole exchange, plus the one at ERRORS and there's clearly no obvious consensus on a blurb yet, and borderline consensus on the thing being posted in the first place. We shouldn't be using the main page as a sandbox where we keep tinkering with an obese blurb that has little agreement. Do that here, get a consensus for the blurb, then by all means opt for re-posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- There was consensus at the time it was posted, and disagreement since then on the wording of the blurb but I don't see how that equates to a pull. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- It's straightforward enough - the blurb that was posted has had vehement disagreement over the wording, both in terms of fact and POV, so until that gets resolved, it should remain off the main page. In the meantime, plenty of others have opined that they don't even really deem the story to be of real significance. Either way, or both ways, like Brexit, consensus has changed, but unlike Brexit, we don't have to plough on with dubious material on the mainpage. We can pull it, discuss it, gather a consensus on a blurb, and then re-post it. Simples (as Terry May would say). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man At the time, the Oppose votes were about inconsequential things to the Special Counsel's findings. There were legitimate objections but the contemporary Support votes outweighed those that opposed, that is why it was posted in the first place. Then as time went on as the Blurb was up, the Pulls and Opposes were heavily violating Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT with little groundings of legitimate concern, aggregately. Then Supports for the Current Blurb at the time came in from some people. Then some people voted Pull for "lack of consensus", yet some Admin or Admins concluded that there was enough consensus for it to be posted. So where we are now is because changes were not made to please the Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT people and then other people found that since no changes, or very few came to fruition, they objected for a pull. This is the current state of affairs. Even after my comment about starting over with the previously posted Blurb, not a single person has said anything about it whether it is wrong or not. This inaction alone can be interpreted as that the Blurb was fine to begin with. If we want to reach a consensus with the people participating, the Blurb needs to be changed or we will be going back to Step 3 of "no clear consensus reached due to no substantial changes done to please the Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT people." Aviartm (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- We are where we are. You need to get a consensus to post a factual and NPOV blurb. Sorry if you don't like the way it's gone, but that's life. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Not saying what is needed is bad or flawed, it should be that way. But the amount of Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT which caused others to conclude that since changes were not happening, "no consensus" is just a bad way. There was more griping than consensing either way you voted. Aviartm (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Close and replace the blurb with a poor quality article about European copyright law. The consensus was established, has been summarized time and again, and doesn't matter. We all know this one won't be going back up. May it rest in peace. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- It might go back up if people proposed a blurb and sought consensus for it. Your (once again) pointed comment is unhelpful, the consensus to post the original blurb may have existed, but times changed that and it was deemed unsuitable. I'm sorry you are so sad about it. If it was me, I'd look to find a new blurb if I cared as much as you seem to do. But yes, if no-one is prepared to do that, close it out as a non-event. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- TRM, it's been discussed to death, everyone who wanted to pitch a blurb (I've suggested one, it went nowhere) has done so, it's finished. Disagreement over a blurb is grounds to pull, so that's a known feature now. This is a sincere suggestion to just close this and move on. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- It might go back up if people proposed a blurb and sought consensus for it. Your (once again) pointed comment is unhelpful, the consensus to post the original blurb may have existed, but times changed that and it was deemed unsuitable. I'm sorry you are so sad about it. If it was me, I'd look to find a new blurb if I cared as much as you seem to do. But yes, if no-one is prepared to do that, close it out as a non-event. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- There was nothing wrong or notably POV in:
- "The Special Counsel investigation does not find collusion between President Donald Trump's election campaign and Russian election interference, and does not reach a conclusion regarding allegations of obstructed justice."
- Thus, there was no egregious error or slant that warranted pulling this sober, even-handed blurb. Nice going, guys. – Sca (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Before we close, we should acknowledge that no option gained a consensus here because there were too many options to choose from: the posted blurb, alt blurb 4, some other blurb, ongoing, and not posting. (For instance, I am fine with the middle three options myself.) So, inspired by the Brexit indicative votes, I suggest that we let folks !vote again by approval (i.e., people list all options they approve of) and act on the option, if any, which is approved of by a consensus. Davey2116 (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Question Is it possible to restart this discussion with the new proposed blurb? Please? The decision to pull is a great disservice to the people who for two years maintained excellent articles on Mueller's investigation and the Russian intrusion. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have reposted, using altblurb number four, because I believe it adequately summarizes the main point - it's over - and eliminates the need to succinctly and impartially present the results of the report, which requires a level of nuance that is hard to achieve in blurb format. I trust this makes everyone happy, and we can put this matter to rest. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- As so many people complained earlier and probably will too now, no consensus was reached for this Blurb to be posted. And the Blurb was that originally posted cover the two concluding findings of the report best we could. Aviartm (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- The current blurb shouldn't be set in stone. It can be hard to find agreement when there are a lot of blurb options, and personally I don't think I had an issue with the version that was pulled. But simple works too, sometimes. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- As so many people complained earlier and probably will too now, no consensus was reached for this Blurb to be posted. And the Blurb was that originally posted cover the two concluding findings of the report best we could. Aviartm (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment thank you Bongwarrior for some common sense here. Much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man Just saying but you were one of the largest proponents of "no consensus reached". Aviartm (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Just saying?? Seriously. If I need to repeat myself a sixth time, no consensus for the blurb that was posted, barely a consensus for it to posted at all. I asked for a NPOV factual blurb, and that's what we have. Just saying. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well, according to the Admins, there was a consensus, that is why it was posted to begin with. Yes, the Current Blurb is a NPOV factual Blurb but so was the one originally posted. Aviartm (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sure thing, whatever you say. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- A perfectly reasonable compromise has been reached.There is no reason to rehash these arguments and vent your frustrations with the process. Administrators post and pull according to consensus; there was no shortage of objections after the initial posting, and the user that pulled it from the main page was also an administrator. That's in the past now; this story is back on the main page, albeit with a more concise and less disputed blurb. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well, according to the Admins, there was a consensus, that is why it was posted to begin with. Yes, the Current Blurb is a NPOV factual Blurb but so was the one originally posted. Aviartm (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- I greatly appreciate that Altblurb IV was the selected blurb when reposting. As it was the most popular of the proposed replacement blurbs, this is a perfectly reasonable compromise between having a blurb & not having the previous one. This altblurb contains nothing that could conceivably be viewed as problematic. I think we can finally put to rest what may have been a record for the most heavily discussed ITN blurb, and all peacefully move on to other stories. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Just saying?? Seriously. If I need to repeat myself a sixth time, no consensus for the blurb that was posted, barely a consensus for it to posted at all. I asked for a NPOV factual blurb, and that's what we have. Just saying. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment This compromise solution is agreeable to the vast majority here; it posts something (thus giving a link to an excellent article on the investigation), while avoiding the NPOV concerns raised by many here. Thank you to Bongwarrior, and all involved; hopefully we can get it done in fewer than 10,000 words next time. Davey2116 (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment No issues here with the reposted blurb. The original one was a bit long after some more thought. ZettaComposer (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. Excellent short and informative blurb. If there are further updates to Trump–Russia e.g. in Congress, that can be posted as well. wumbolo ^^^ 11:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Post-posting Comment – I object to whoever oversimplified my original Alt1, which I have reinstated above for the record. Proposed blurbs should not be unilaterally modified except in collaboration with the blurb's author. – Sca (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2019 (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.
March 23
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Politics and elections
|
RD: Rafi Eitan
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYT
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: Israeli intelligence officer and politician, who was instrumental in the capture of Adolf Eichmann, dies at age 92. Article needs lots of work. Davey2116 (talk) 03:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - Several paragraphs with a single reference.--SirEdimon (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per above, some large paragraphs need to be broken and clearly have citations as there are exceptional claims and the article is still under BLP policy. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per the above. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - why nominate an article nowhere near ready to be posted.BabbaQ (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
RD: Victor Hochhauser
Recent deaths nomination
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: He died today, and any RD is assumed to be a suitable ITN candidate. He and his wife Lilian have been called "Britain's foremost independent promoters of classical music and ballet". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardx (talk • contribs) 11:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- COMMENT – Article is quite stubby. – Sca (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. Currently a poorly referenced stub. The bit I checked was not covered by the source given. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Weak oppose basically a stub, what's there is fine, but it doesn't feel enough to justify the "Britain's foremost independent promoters of classical music and ballet" tag given the lack of detail in the article... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
(Closed) MV Viking Sky
- Non-admin non-editorial update: consensus strongly against posting this event. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2019 (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.
Blurb: More than 1,300 passengers and crew are evacuted from the cruise ship Viking Sky (pictured), which suffered an engine failure off the coast of Norway.
News source(s): (De Telegraaf) (in Dutch), BBC, AP, Reuters, Guardian
- Oppose The engines stalled and while there was a potential threat of it running into some rocks, they have it at stablized. It is not sinking or in danger of that, but its also not going anywhere fast for a while. Evacuating a stalled ship is not ITN worthy. (Add that there is no update on the target article). --Masem (t) 20:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment – AP, Reuters describe evacuation of some passengers, of whom there are more than 1,000, by helicopter in stormy weather. Seems quite dramatic. – Sca (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose The precautionary evacuation of a ship at sea is not really something that warrants a blurb. Yes, there are some maritime incidents that should, or would have, merited attention from ITN. But not this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Weak support the disabling and evacuation of a modern ship with 1300 PAX on it isn't exactly routine -- CCL Triumph was stranded at sea 5 or 6 years ago I don't know if there was another one since. The operator has 11 more orders of identical hulls being built by Fincantieri. Y'all let me know how this is somehow more routine than people being killed by tropical storms in under-developed tropical countries. Outside the incident, the article is really thin, some could be ported from MV Viking Star since they're identical hulls (or really a spinoff article is needed for the class). All-in an interesting and dramatic story. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Wait – Developing. Potentially a top int'l. story. Sca (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. It is good news for the passengers evacuated but doesn't cut the mustard as an ITN story. If a major ocean liner sank, that would be an ITN story providing the article was up to scratch. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose It looks to me like the blurb could ultimately say "Ship doesn't sink. Nobody hurt". HiLo48 (talk) 02:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment It looks like some passengers were injured by furniture and debris due to the rough waves, and about 300 have been evacuated by helicopter. The rest are just sat there waiting for another boat. Not sure where I stand, but it's certainly big in the news. Kingsif (talk) 08:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose might make a suitable quirky story for another part of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
SupportWithdraw support – All the opposes notwithstanding, this is still the No. 1 story, and for good reason: A 47,000-ton cruise ship with nearly 1,000 people still on board is under tow in stormy seas. It may all end well, but still we can't ignore this high drama. – Sca (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)- Comment Now arrived safely in port. Boat will be repaired, everyone fine. Drama but also Oppose this isn't a major impact on anything. Oh no, there was a really bad storm but everything is fine. Kingsif (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2019 (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) Battle of Baghuz Fawqani
- 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.
Blurb: The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant loses all of its territory in Syria following its defeat by the Syrian Democratic Forces and the US-led coalition.
Alternative blurb: The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant loses all of its territory in Syria following its defeat by the Syrian Democratic Forces, US, France, and UK.
Alternative blurb II: The Syrian Democratic Forces, supported by the U.S., France and the UK, defeat and capture the last territories controlled by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in Syria.
News source(s): DW BBC
- Support - I think this is pretty conclusive. WaltCip (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Weak Support - Unlike Waltcip above, I don't think this is pretty conclusive, since IS has already largely transformed itself into a guerrilla force quite some time ago, and will probably be around as such for quite some time to come. But it does mark at least the symbolic end of one particular phase of the conflict, and, incidentally, also seems likely to have some practical consequences, especially on the coalition side (possible withdrawal of at least some Western troops, possible reanimation of conflicts involving Kurds, Shias, Syrians, Turks, Russians, etc), even if it would be WP:CRYSTAL to try to predict precisely what those consequences might be (tho it would also be WP:CRYSTAL to oppose it on the basis of some claim that it is unlikely to have any significant consequences, which is why I'm mentioning some such possible consequences here). Tlhslobus (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support The ISIL's defeat in Syria was recently announced by the US, as I remember. Brandmeistertalk 19:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support clearly newsworthy and important. Very good article quality and comprehensiveness, and properly updated. The battle wasn't in Ongoing for nothing – ISIS is gone 🦀 🇸🇾. wumbolo ^^^ 20:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support per above. Clearly notable, and article is of excellent quality. Davey2116 (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Question is it "over"? Has ISIL surrendered and accepted defeat? A peace treaty signed? Unicorns and flowers blooming in Syria? We're not going to have another "very important final battle against ISIL in Syria" in some other bombed out city stuck in the box for a month? Trump announced ISIL is 100% defeated in Syria but that guy isn't exactly trustworthy. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Are you opposing, @LaserLegs:? Espresso Addict (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ambivalent re blurb, but totally oppose both alternative blurbs.There were 30 countries involved, not just "The Syrian Democratic Forces, supported by the U.S., France and the UK,.... ". Moriori (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support The article is long and well referenced, but irrelevant factoids like "One YPG commander stated that some desperate ISIL militants would resort to wearing women's clothing when fleeing." or "civilian truck drivers said 18 foreigners were among the dozens of civilians fleeing with them" but that doesn't really matter. The good news is we'll never post another ISIL bombing or shooting in Syria because this is 'the decisive, "final battle" against the Islamic State'. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support blurb According to this Al Jazeera segment with a discussion among regional scholars, this does indeed mean the end of ISIL as a territorial entity even if it may not mean the end of the organization's ideology and existence online.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Posted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- @King of Hearts: We usually do not post maps per Wikipedia:In the news#Pictures.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- If you are tired of the former
dictatorpresident, may I suggest a photo of Karen Uhlenbeck who never got her true day in the sun.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment The blurb is misleading. ISIL lost all of their territory as a result of defeats inflicted by the Russia-led and the US-led forces separately. The fact that the final defeat was in the Battle of Baghuz Fawqani does not credit only the US-led forces for the overall victory, which is unfortunately indicated in the current wording of the posted blurb. So, either the blurb will focus on the defeat in the Battle of Baghuz Fawqani, which is not even mentioned explicitly, and only consequentially mention ISIL's ultimate defeat or the part with the allied belligerents will be removed to make the blurb clear and neutral. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Misleading? Is this a joke..? Simply change it to "The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant loses all of its territory in Syria following its defeat at Baghuz Fawqani by the Syrian Democratic Forces and the US-led coalition." if it's that much of an issue. Rather do that than list every belligerent who has fought against ISIL. Nice4What (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, it's an issue and I proposed two solutions. I'm not an administrator to make the change myself.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Nice4What: Translated into a better blurb, I prefer a simple one like "The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant lose all of their territory in Syria following their defeat in the Battle of Baghuz Fawqani.".--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- No, we cannot bold link to an article not vetted by this project.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:01, 24 March 2019 (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.
March 22
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
RD: Frans Andriessen
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [6]
- Nominated by Coffeeandcrumbs (talk • )
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: Wholly inadequate but perhaps there are Dutchophiles out there that may help. The subject seems like a highly notable figure. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
(Closed) Special Counsel investigation
- 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.
Blurb: Robert Mueller concludes his Special Counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election.
News source(s): CNBC, New York Times
- Oppose simply, in one word...: so? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose It's concluded but we have no idea what it says and what actions will happen. I would think that when the report's conclusions are given out, that's a blurb, but not the mere conclusion. --Masem (t) 22:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Wait until the results are disclosed, which could happen within the next few days. Spengouli (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. Significance is unclear. This nomination, while expected, is premature. I suggest withdrawing pending developments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Wait What are the results? Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ongoing as it has been for two years, getting regular updates and certainly "in the news" lets just pop this down into ongoing like another zombie link that'll never come out. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Nah, too pointy that. There are no other "zombie link"s which will never come out. This, on the other hand, may have no more detail ever to be released. So it's utterly pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose no details yet, wait. --Bohbye (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment The details are here. Count Iblis (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- You seem to have forgotten to put a after your comment. Tlhslobus (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment The details are here. Davey2116 (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Wait The Attorney General is reportedly expected to release a summary for Congressional leaders over the weekend or early next week, which is then reportedly expected to promptly become public knowledge, so we can probably wait until then (on the other hand much of the detail may never be released). Tlhslobus (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Wait Seems like more details are to come over the weekend, and this is definitely the leading story on most RS so it's definitely already getting the requisite coverage for ITN. I wouldn't oppose putting this in ongoing now, but I think we should wait. Davey2116 (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - The longest headline seen on ITN. Yup just wanted to say that. Sherenk1 (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose The blurb made assumption that everyone is aware of or following the now concluded investigation. Also it's said to be concluded, but we don't know what is in the conclusion or what will happen after the 'conclusion'. – Ammarpad (talk)
- Oppose – In the U.S. speculation is rife over the contents of the report, but until it's released its delivery to the attorney general is of scant import. Sca (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Perhaps when there is something to report instead of "something done". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.161.250 (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2019 (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) Ongoing removal Brexit negotiations
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: EU granted an extension, April 12th maybe else end of May. The extension itself might be a good thing to blurb and pop this out of the ongoing box as there is nothing but British legislative maneuvering for the next few weeks. LaserLegs (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose there will need to be votes in the House of Commons imminently to agree to May's deal in order to secure any extension. This is live news and ongoing, and there seems to be absolutely no good reason at all to remove it from Ongoing as it impacts hundreds of millions of people, just not in the US directly. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Commons has to vote on it before April 12 so this is "ongoing" while May fakes her vote twice and loses again? Brexit impacts the UK, the EU and the entire world .. but it's going dark until MV3 (or lack thereof) finally sets a Brexit date. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, and that vote will take place next week, so it's hardly "going dark". Deary me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Are we just leaving this in until it happens, or it's postponed indefinitely? If so, fine, I'll stop asking. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- There will be plenty of time to revisit that question soon, but now is definitely the wrong time.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ok I'll drop it. FWIW I want to see this as blurbs, not buried as ongoing. I'm not challenging the significance of this item in any way. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- No problem with that, but if you want a blurb then nominate one.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- This scenario is precisely what Ongoing is all about. The next blurb should be when we finally do leave (or Article 50 is revoked). Until then, everything else is fundamentally incremental yet of high significance. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ok I'll drop it. FWIW I want to see this as blurbs, not buried as ongoing. I'm not challenging the significance of this item in any way. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- There will be plenty of time to revisit that question soon, but now is definitely the wrong time.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Are we just leaving this in until it happens, or it's postponed indefinitely? If so, fine, I'll stop asking. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, and that vote will take place next week, so it's hardly "going dark". Deary me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Commons has to vote on it before April 12 so this is "ongoing" while May fakes her vote twice and loses again? Brexit impacts the UK, the EU and the entire world .. but it's going dark until MV3 (or lack thereof) finally sets a Brexit date. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per TRM. Tlhslobus (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Next week is probably the most important week in this whole
complete and utter shamblesprocess. Black Kite (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Are the world's currency speculators giddy with excitement? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose – It ain't over 'til it's over. – Sca (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support - This saga has become too long to still be in our News. HiLo48 (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose until March 29, then revisit. It should remain as long as there is a nonzero chance of crashing out. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose as the page is undergoing significant updates and is still in the news. I would even support a blurb about today's Brexit protests [7] if someone created the page.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- People's Vote march, 2019. Looks like someone did it.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per TRM.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Time to Close? (per WP:SNOW and/or no realistic chance of reaching a consensus for removal). Tlhslobus (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2019 (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) 2019 Yancheng chemical plant explosion
Blurb: An explosion at a chemical plant in Xiangshui, Jiangsu province, China, kills at least 64 people and injures more than 90 others.
News source(s): BBC, AP, AFP
Nominator's comments: Article just created. Notable deaths. Sherenk1 (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose at the moment. Article is a stub. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Improve highly significant, but not ready to post just yet. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 13:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support – in principle, pending article expansion. AFP puts death toll at 67. – Sca (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support – in principle, after expansion. --Leiem (talk) 08:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support. I have expanded this a little and I think it now meets the minimum. The death toll is likely to go up with 28 still missing and some of the critically injured expected to die. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support — article has been expanded (more content, sources, subheadings) and is now more appropriate for ITN. SamHolt6 (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support a major industrial accident and mass casualty event. Article is still a bit thin but it is not a stub and appears adequately referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Posted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
(Closed) Ongoing removal Cyclone Idai
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Article says it's dissipated, time to come down. The effects of natural disasters are felt for weeks, months, years -- can't leave them in the ongoing box forever. LaserLegs (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support removal. – Sca (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose removal. We actually just bumped it to ongoing. This is a currently unfolding humanitarian disaster, likely the deadliest cyclone in the Southern Hemisphere within historical memory. Beira, a large city of more than half a million, has been 90% damaged or destroyed according to IFRC. Some areas have yet to be reached by rescue operations. Over 200 people in Zimbabwe are still missing. This is comparable to the 2000 Mozambique flood, which made international headlines and whose scale remained unknown for weeks. Despite being semi-protected, the article is receiving constant updates, having been edited 30+ time since the last 24 hours. 67.69.69.63 (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Not sure why a storm that was already a remnant low got put into the box in the first place, but the storm is over. The impact of Hurricane Maria is still ongoing. Time to move on. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hurricane Maria was only edited 4 times in the past week. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- CA, you're making the same mistake I made opposing the nom (see below). GreatCaesarsGhost 18:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Not sure why a storm that was already a remnant low got put into the box in the first place, but the storm is over. The impact of Hurricane Maria is still ongoing. Time to move on. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose removal Still undergoing significant updates. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- The storm is over --LaserLegs (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- "
The purpose of the ongoing section is to maintain a link to a continuously updated Wikipedia article about a story which is itself also frequently in the news.
" Italics as found at WP:ITN#Ongoing section.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- "
- The storm is over --LaserLegs (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. Still receiving significant updates and still in the news internationally. (A fresh item was on the BBC index page when I got in this evening, despite the Brexit fever we're all suffering over here.) Espresso Addict (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment @LaserLegs: The body count is still going up. It has been steadily increasing by about 35-75 per day. Not to mention disease outbreaks of chlorea, dysentary, and malaria are starting. I hardly consider that as over. This has been a major news headline and still continues to be. The article is being updated frequently as well. I see no reason to remove this yet. NoahTalk 02:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose removal Re comparison with Maria: Difference here is that direct effects are still ongoing with floodwaters encompassing hundreds of square miles of land including a city of 200,000 people (readily visible from space). As mentioned by Coffeeandcrumbs, it still meets criteria for WP:ITN ongoing with regular article updates and global news headlines. Would be fine with this being removed once the flooding subsides or if it falls out of major headlines. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:12, 23 March 2019 (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.
March 21
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
(Posted) RD: Mike Cofer (linebacker)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [8]
- Nominated by Coffeeandcrumbs (talk • )
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: Appears ready at least superficially. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support satisfactory. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support good to go. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
(Closed) Kazakhstan capital renamed
- 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.
Blurb: The capital of Kazakhstan, Astana, is renamed to Nursultan
News source(s): See article
- Nominated by Banedon (talk • )
- Updated by Johndavies837 (talk • )
Article updated
- Question: Should this be a separate nom, or an amendment to the already posted blurb about his resignation (and if the latter, where should it be discussed, given that its omission is not technically an error, and may thus not be accepted at WP:ERRORS)? Tlhslobus (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose This is trivial. The renaming of cities is a usual procedure in many countries following the end of a political era and this is not an exception. Also note that this is the fourth renaming of the city since 1961.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment To everyone commenting how this city has changed names many times before, you do realize they were literally all from when the Russians/Soviets ruled the area, Almaty was the Kazakh capital, and the land that is today the capital was then totally undeveloped, right? The only other time that Astana's name, as the capital of the independent country, changed its name was when "Astana" was established to begin with. Let's put a stop to this flood of uninformed comments. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 12:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- And you do realise that most of the people commenting here know considerably more about the topic than you and are actually aware that Tselinograd was a major showpiece Soviet city (I still remember being bussed around by an unnervingly enthusiastic Intourist guide), not "totally undeveloped", and that if you don't know the most basic facts about the place you're probably not best placed to accuse others of making "uninformed comments"? ‑ Iridescent 12:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- All of the city's iconic landmarks were nonexistent; Kazakhstan rapidly developed the area in the process of building a new capital city. More importantly, Tselinograd was neither the capital nor renamed by Kazakhstan itself. Kazakhstan wasn't even a country in 1961. The comments here make it sound like they just can't stop renaming the capital, but in reality it was only recently that it even became a capital and only recently did Kazakhstan have the ability to call the shots. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 13:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- I think the point is well and truly missed, this isn't really about the status of the city, it's more about the continual name-changing, which isn't commonplace with London or Paris etc. If London had changed its name as frequently as Astana then I guarantee most of us would be voting against it. Just as we are voting against this trivial change. P.S. your signature is a real overhead. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Kiril. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. As Kiril says, this is trivial; particular in post-Soviet states, towns, cities and other administrative districts are renamed all the time, and Akmoly/Akmolinsk/Tselinograd/Akmola/Astana/Nursultan is a particularly extreme example. (Plus, it doesn't take an extreme amount of crystal-ballgazing to guess that in a fairly short time Nursultan's dictatorship will be reappraised and the name will be changed yet again.) ‑ Iridescent 10:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? The reason why it was renamed was because Nursultan isn't president anymore. To say that "in a fairly short time" the dictatorship will be overthrown entirely is very, very much WP:CRYSTALballing. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 12:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support on importance - how often are national capitals renamed? Not very often. But oppose based on the article quality, too many unsourced sections. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- "How often are national capitals renamed?" Apparently, if you check the article of the city in question, it's been renamed at least three or four times within the past 100 years. So for this particular city, quite often.--WaltCip (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- You might want to check the dates on when the city was renamed. The city was neither 1) a capital city 2) developed land nor 3) in an independent country. Just because the Soviets couldn't stop playing with the name doesn't mean this is unimportant. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 12:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- "How often are national capitals renamed?" Apparently, if you check the article of the city in question, it's been renamed at least three or four times within the past 100 years. So for this particular city, quite often.--WaltCip (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support Renaming a capital city is exactly the notable information an encyclopedia should put on its front page doktorb wordsdeeds 12:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - Renaming this particular capital city is not notable due to the underlying circumstances.--WaltCip (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support Just because the Soviets couldn't figure out what to call it doesn't mean that it's unimportant when a sovereign state changes the capital city's name. It's the capital city of a sovereign country, and note that this is the only time that Astana as the capital of independent Kazakhstan was renamed, with the only exception being the establishment of "Astana" as "Astana." Note that the capital used to be Almaty before Astana was built by the independent Kazakhstan. Before the city 90s when the country was sovereign, this area was very undeveloped. If we were talking about any well-known country's capital, whether Washington or Tokyo or London or Beijing, I guarantee that there would be unanimous support. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 12:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose quality. Tags added. Even with refs, Geography, Economy and Demographics woefully undersized. Update is a single sentence. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose on both quality and importance. Name changes are not uncommon, it's not ITN worthy.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Although it was an entirely different set of circumstances, we have posted locations being renamed on ITN, such as here: Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/February_2019#(Posted)_North_Macedonia and Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/August_2015 (Mount McKinley renaming). SpencerT•C 15:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support per BrendonTheWizard, when article is in shape. Notable story. Most of the !opposes aren't really convincing. Davey2116 (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support per BrendonTheWizard and Spencer, in particular stressing this is the only renaming since the move of the capital from Almaty in the 1990s. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support on notability, per BrendonTheWizard among others (I'll leave others to judge quality). This is the only time in my lifetime of over 60 years that I can remember being aware of a country renaming its existing capital, tho I suspect there may be other instances of which I was unaware at the time (or have since forgotten), tho I'd have to check (if I knew how to do that). Note that I'm not talking about naming of new capitals (such as Brasilia, Islamabad, perhaps Astana itself) nor of just changing the English translation of an unchanged non-English capital (such as from Peking to Beijing, and possibly from Rangoon to Yangon - tho our article seems ambiguous about its local name in that instance). But even if I'm unaware of some such changes, I'd expect they're pretty rare (and also changes, if any, in tiny states would be less significant than changes in a mid-size state like Kazakhstan). Incidentally, even if quality were to remain an issue, there would still be a case for adding the name-change (presumably without bolding) to our existing blurb about Nursultan Nazarbayev's retirement. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: Should all Support !votes (such as mine) be disallowed on grounds that they are obviously violating WP:RGW by secretly trying to treat Kazakhstan with more respect than Sacha Baron Cohen does by posting an item about it, or should all Oppose !votes be disallowed on grounds that they are obviously violating WP:RGW by secretly trying to treat Kazakhstan with more respect than Sacha Baron Cohen does by censoring this instance of
Kazakhs behaving ridiculouslysome Kazakhs seemingly behaving ridiculously, at least in my foolish eyes, until I noticed non-Kazakh behaviour in places like Mount Rushmore, Alexandria, and Harare, formerly named after the then-British PM Lord Salisbury in a country formerly named after the guy who organised its then-conquest, Cecil Rhodes; of course in my native Dublin, to get a street or train station named after you, the smart move used to be to have got yourself executed by the British in 1916 . Or should both sets of !votes be disallowed on grounds that they are obviously violating WP:RGW as explained above? Tlhslobus (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)- Most people in Kazakhstan would be far more interested in the fact they beat Scotland 3-0 in the Euro qualifiers last night, not yet another name change... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Not sure about that (perhaps because reading of Kazakh minds is not one of my telepathic gifts). But the only reason that result was a shock is because Kazakhstan are normally rubbish at soccer despite having a much larger population than Scotland, and most people tend not to be interested in sports where their country is rubbish (indeed arguably most people aren't all that interested in many sports where their country is rather good). But in any case our article is not primarily for the benefit of our Kazakh readers - I suspect it may be of more interest to readers who like to know their capitals because they enjoy quizzes and Trivial Pursuits, etc, even if I'm not quite sure where it says that pleasing Trivial Pursuits addicts is one of the major purposes of ITN Tlhslobus (talk) 04:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Most people in Kazakhstan would be far more interested in the fact they beat Scotland 3-0 in the Euro qualifiers last night, not yet another name change... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality This article is a hot mess. Even the claim that this city has been renamed has [citation needed] tag.
It contains clearly anachronistic statements like "--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Nursultan became the capital city of Kazakhstan in 1997
". - Support as amendment to blurb already on the front page. Yes, Astana has been renamed on a number of occasions, but that was before it became an important city. The last time a national capital city has been renamed was in 2000, when Santa Fe de Bogota was renamed Bogota. The last time a city was renamed significantly fashion rather was when Frunze was renamed Bishkek in 1991. Furthermore, the renaming of important cities is encyclopedic knowledge and exactly the kind of information Wikipedia should feature more prominently than news media would. (NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC))
- Oppose
"Also note that this is the fourth renaming of the city since 1961."
+Astana#Etymology – Ammarpad (talk) 08:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC) - Oppose – I never accepted the renaming of Nieuw Amsterdam in 1664, and I don't accept this one either. – Sca (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2019 (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) European Wikipedia blackouts
- 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.
Blurb: Four European Wikipedias undergo a blackout to protest against controversial internet legislation
News source(s): https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/21/18275462/eu-copyright-directive-protest-wikipedia-twitch-pornhub-final-vote
I hope it's okay to link to a specific article section. The (sub)article itself could use some love, but I'm afraid that I don't feel very confident yet in editing Wikipedia. Confiks (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment At least the target article is in relatively good shape. A few citations needed. The only thing I think that is worthy of discussion will be whether this is a truly significant event or just some navel gazing. I think I would be more OK with this if we included Reddit and Twitch.tv. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose navel gazing. If it had been Amazon or Google or Apple or something, sure, but not a handful of our own encyclopedias. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- I can see how this can be seen as navel gazing. Still, more than 91 million internet-connected users [9] in those four countries didn't have access to Wikipedia. Also, for example, Wikipedia is the 7th most visited site in Germany [10]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Confiks (talk • contribs) 22:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Navel gazing.--174.64.100.70 (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose – Navel. – Sca (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- The website blackouts are symbolic at best. If the protests on the 23rd amount to anything, that would be the time to post. —Cryptic 23:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose the article is still crap (though eventually this POS will be fisted onto the main page because "significant"). "Article 13 would require use of content-matching technologies" oh that sounds interesting, what would the requirements be, what parties would implement it and how would royalties be paid? I have no idea, the article doesn't explain it, instead going into endless detail on special interests complaining about the rules. This is what, the fifth time this piece of shit article has washed up at ITN/C? --LaserLegs (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Wikipedia-related news in every case so far has not been ITN-worthy content, and this is no different. SpencerT•C 01:41, 22 March 2019 (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.
March 20
Business and economy
International relations
Politics and elections
Sports
|
(Posted) RD: Eunetta T. Boone
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [11], [12]
- Nominated by Coffeeandcrumbs (talk • )
- Created by CAWylie (talk • )
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: Short but no sourcing issues. This may be all that is currently available from RS. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Weak support very light on details but what's there is adequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Small article, but no referencing issues.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 00:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Mary Warnock, Baroness Warnock
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian
- Nominated by Coffeeandcrumbs (talk • )
- Updated by Tom Morris (talk • )
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: Almost there. Just needs some TLC. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose for now, too many [citations needed]. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support. I have covered all the citations requested or hidden the text. (I am not willing to buy into the Telegraph/Times access model so someone who is will probably be able to add more from their obituaries.) Espresso Addict (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment The works listed under "As author:" are unsourced. The article seems fine otherwise. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Done.----- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 04:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
(Closed) Google Stadia
- 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.
Blurb: Google announces development of a cloud gaming service (logo pictured) called Google Stadia.
News source(s): BBC
- Nominated by GeographyAholic (talk • )
- Created by Koavf (talk • )
- Oppose - Good faith nom. But even if this were notable, there's no metrics to measure the impact that this product may have until it's been released.--WaltCip (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note I edited it but User:Czar created it and added some actual content to start the thing. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose a good candidate for another section of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose posting product announcements. As TRM says, there are other Main Page places this might be suitable. 331dot (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose – Absolutely no free advertising on the Main Page, please. Or anywhere else. Sca (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - Good faith, and perhaps it can be posted elsewhere as others have noted, but it's not exactly ITN. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 21:27, 20 March 2019 (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 to Ongoing) Cyclone Idai
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): BBC, Aljazeera, The Washington Post, The Guardian, AP
- Nominated by Cyclonebiskit (talk • )
- Created by Hurricane Noah (talk • )
Nominator's comments: Major humanitarian crisis unfolding in Mozambique and Zimbabwe with flood waters continuing to rise. Idai is being called one of the worst tropical cyclones on record in the entire Southern Hemisphere (indeed there is only one or two other known cyclones that have caused greater loss of life in the hemisphere: the 1892 Mauritius cyclone and possibly Cyclone Leon-Eline). Hundreds of people remain missing in both countries and the death toll is expected to exceed 1,300 between the two. Remains a big story in global media outlets. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- I was going to oppose on the basis that it is clearly NOT ongoing, and we don't post to ongoing just because an event has ongoing effects (or we feel the blurb wasn't up long enough). However, it appears an admin has now unilaterally posted this. So...nevermind, I guess. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- The ITN guidelines say, "Older stories which are scheduled to roll off the bottom of the list may be added to ongoing at admins' discretion, provided that the linked article is receiving continuous updates with new information on a regular basis." This is clearly happening here, just see how much has been added today by Cyclonebiskit.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed it does. Big-time mea culpa there. I've been misinterpreting "articles are NOT posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening" as requiring that the events themselves be ongoing. No such requirement exists. My apologies, Espresso Addict. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- I added it to Ongoing when I saw it had rolled off without seeing this entry, as the event clearly meets the guidelines quoted above for the reasons given by Cyclonebiskit. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Good call. I've amended it to aftermath as the Cyclone itself has dissipated, but moving to ongoing can definitely be at a sole admin's discretion. Stephen 21:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, that's a good solution. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
References
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:
- ^ Dan Rather [@danrather] (24 Mar 2019). "I've covered enough big news stories to know that sometimes the headlines from the first day can evolve considerably as more information comes to light" (Tweet) – via Twitter.