Revision as of 20:31, 2 October 2017

In the news toolbox
Error reports Nominations History (Posts · Nominations) Discussion General criteria Death criteria Recurring items Admin guide Image protection Current events portal
v t e

• WP:ITN/C

This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.

Grand Kartal Hotel in 2007 A fire at a ski resort hotel (pictured) in Kartalkaya, Turkey, leaves at least 79 people dead and 51 others injured. A series of attacks by the National Liberation Army in the Catatumbo region of Colombia leaves more than a hundred people dead. A ceasefire agreement suspends the Israel–Hamas war, involving the release of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners. Two Supreme Court judges are assassinated in a shooting at the Supreme Court of Iran in Tehran. Ongoing: Russian invasion of Ukraine timeline Sudanese civil war timeline Recent deaths: Russell Marshall Didier Guillaume Denis Law Hans Dobida Linda Nolan Tommy Brown Nominate an article view — page history — related changes — edit

Suggestions

October 2

RD: Tom Petty

• Nominated by Everymorning (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Possibly worthy of a blurb (very well known, successful musician), but I am unsure of this and so will leave it up to others. Everymorning (talk) 20:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support would support a blurb. Highly influencial and respected artist. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support blurb per Martinevans123. Gamaliel (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose on article quality. Exceptionally poor referencing. This is going to need some work before it can be posted on the main page. I am adding a ref improve tag. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Not even close to ready. Citations needed and a close paraphrasing concern. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose on quality. As Ad Orientem points out, this isn't just a few tags, and by the time those are all fixed, a blurb might be too late. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Weakly support blurb on grounds of significance (today is unusual because the Las Vegas incident has disrupted broadcasts, but under normal circumstances he'd pass the "would television networks change their scheduled programming to run a tribute?" test). Oppose both blurb and RD on grounds of quality—there are too many uncited sections in the article, including some material that would be potentially legally problematic if it turned out to be untrue. ‑ Iridescent 20:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Governor General of Canada

• Nominated by Natural RX (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Governor General of Canada is the representative for the Monarch in Canada, and has a constitutional role in the country's federal governance. --Natural R_X 15:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Additional nominator comment: see WP:ITN for installation of preceeding GG. --Natural R_X 16:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Unless there is widespread international coverage of this, I would oppose. The Governor General's role is limited and largely dictated by convention. As stated, the GG represents the head of state, and is not head of state themselves. 331dot (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose pointless figurehead. Someone recently proposed changing ITN/R so that the actual person in charge (in Canadas case, the PM) would be the item posted but they were ruthlessly shouted down so instead we get to have these occasional good faith but ultimately doomed nominations. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

A change in Canada's PM is posted with a general election(as it was with Trudeau). 331dot (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Monarch Airlines

• Nominated by Smurrayinchester (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: The size and suddenness of the bankruptcy (oldest airline in the UK, 110,000 people stranded) and the response make this noteworthy. Smurrayinchester 12:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Given the number of people stranded, this seems notable in the business/airline world. The context of the term "administration" wasn't clear to me at first(probably my US language bias). I wonder if it would be clearer to state simply the agency now operating the airline is doing so. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Administration (law) (linked in the proposed blurbs) is the normal way of reporting this in the UK and noting the name of the administrators without the context of it being "in administration" would be very confusing to British readers as who the administrators are specifically is almost never very important (certainly at this stage) unless there has been recent controversy about them (which I'm not aware of in this instance). I'm not sure there is going to be a better way than linking, but someone with more experience of business stories may have a good suggestion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Could use the term "bankrupt" or "insolvent" instead, although I'm not sure if these are 100% accurate. Smurrayinchester 13:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
      • We could just note that it's ceased trading/operating. The legal status isn't that important. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) "Bankrupt" is not quite correct as administration is usually a way to avoid declaring bankruptcy and insolvency is functionally correct but slightly misleading. The administrators will (by law) try to maintain the business as a going concern if they can and try to get as much money to creditors as they can. It's similar to (but not the same as) Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the US. Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I recognize the sizeness is what makes this notable, but I would argue that this falls under a "first world problem", in that 100,000+ people are inconvenienced while a airline basically closed up shop on them, and then need to find alternate arrangements to get home. Also, I would avoid the term "airlift" (I don't see it used in either Guardian or BBC), as the aircraft being used for this are just planes chartered from other airlines (commercial), not military. --MASEM (t) 13:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think an airlift has to be military (eg 1990 airlift of Indians from Kuwait). Anyway, here are some reliable sources that use the word: Independent, Mirror, Record. Smurrayinchester 13:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
    • When I read "airlift" even in the Kuwait article, it implies "for military reasons", and there it was for evacuation of civilians. I do see a quote in the BBC article that is "biggest peacetime repatriation", which makes a lot more sense for this, however. --MASEM (t) 13:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support in principle, but all three blurbs are misleading. Nobody has been left stranded anywhere outside UK. CAA have arranged alternative flights for all passengers affected. Mjroots (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose If this was a slow news day, maybe. But we've got a lot going on in the world from Catalonia to Iraq to Las Vegas. Can't see that it meets the high significance required for ITN. We have no idea whether the business will be able to restructure and continue operating. In addition, 10 other airlines have ceased operating this year (see Category:Airlines disestablished in 2017); did we post any of them? AusLondonder (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@AusLondonder: We can't post what isn't nominated, and off the top of my head I don't believe any of those were. That isn't reflective of its newsworthiness. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support article is good, top of business news. This is, after all, "in the news" not "what I think SHOULD BE in the news". --CosmicAdventure (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Query. Can someone explain the "airlift" part of this? I would have assumed that if your flight is cancelled then it is mostly a matter of arranging travel of another airline covering the same route (ideally at around the same time as you planned to travel anyway). Are they actually sending special planes to pick people up? Is that happening at times other than when the people would have been expected to fly anyway? I am trying to understand the degree to which this story is about an "airlift" as opposed to being about a bankruptcy. Dragons flight (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I presume that these 110,000 people had paid for tickets back home, which they now can't use if the airline is not operating. They also don't want to(or can't) purchase new tickets. The BBC states that the CAA is sending 30 planes to take these people home. 331dot (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

30 planes making how many trips? Even with the world's largest passenger planes, 30 trips would amount to no more than about 10% of the people said to be affected. By itself 30 planes actually doesn't sound that impressive, especially given that Monarch ordinarily operated 35 planes. And how is it different from just flying the routes Monarch was supposed to fly anyway, except with no outbound passengers? Also, if all you want to do is get people home, wouldn't it usually still be more cost-effective to pay to buy them a ticket on a different airline. The article seems to suggest they are doing some of that as well. Dragons flight (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Well 1, I think it's not Monarch doing the flights, but that's the interesting part of the story. Some airline here in the US went bust a few years ago with 3 days notice, they didn't leave people stranded. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Basically the CAA of the UK had to create a "ad hoc" airline from the 30 planes they got from other carries. However, they are definitely not "rushing" as one would an evacuation: they are telling vacationers, for example, to keep to their schedules if they are already out of the country. And its likely not all 100,000 ppl need to be transported on these, only those that cannot make easy alternate arrangements with other carriers. It does sound like the CAA is encouraging this other carriers to be as helpful as possible to reduce the load they have to take. --MASEM (t) 17:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Dragons flight, my reading of it is that a total of 110,000 currently have no means to get home. But these holiday-makers' return journeys will be spread over the next two weeks or so (whatever the length of the average Monarch holiday is) - they won't all be trying to come home at once. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support Seems significant on the sheer numbers. The Guardian is calling it "the UK’s biggest peacetime repatriation".--Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment If this is posted, I think altblurb II should be there, as "go into administration" is vague to an average reader compared to "declared insolvent" which is more precise. Brandmeister 16:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per AusLondonder. Gamaliel (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Masem, its a 'first world problem'. Not significant enough to receiving global coverage. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Nobel Prize (Medicine)

• Nominated by KTC (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Articles need improvement first. KTC (talk) 10:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk about the devil, just mentioned it in ITNT. Week has begun. Anyhoo, no nonsense posting IFF there is a relevant update.Lihaas (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support I spot one or two statements that could use sourcing in Rosbash's article but otherwise pretty much there, and both Hall's and Young's are fine. --MASEM (t) 13:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support. One citation required in Hall's article but that's it (and it doesn't seem like a controversial one). Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Articles are mostly good to go and topic is notable. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Las Vegas shooting

• Nominated by Dragons flight (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Major mass shooting at a Las Vegas concert with at least 20 killed and 100 injured. Dragons flight (talk) 08:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support: If early reports are accurate, this is one of the worst mass shootings of all time. Article is fairly short but will almost certainly be expanded in the coming hours and days. Notability is clear and the article is well-referenced. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• At the moment, article is still a stub. Will support once expanded. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support now that article has been expanded. Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support, no question. He had a goddamn machine gun, for Christ's sake. This is likely going to be among the worst shootings in US history. The only barrier to posting this quickly should be a reasonably informative article. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Too soon.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Wait for now, but clear support when ready. Big international news story already. ansh666 09:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Ooh, ooh, what did trump bloviate? ;0Lihaas (talk) 10:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Too soon. There has to be some data about the shooter, the motive (such as terrorism), a reasonably accurate casualty count (whether he indeed made the high score list) and so on. Wnt (talk) 09:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

  LVPD says he killed at least 20 people, which would already put this event 8th on the global list of deadliest mass shootings. That's still likely to rise. Dragons flight (talk) 10:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

neutral but the article is crap. needs to be expanded better to be notable.Lihaas (talk) 09:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• 'Support subject to article quality. The empty section needs to be either removed or populated. Mjroots (talk) 09:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support for inclusion without further delay because of its magnitude. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support International coverage, mass shooting at a well known international destination. NYT how reporting shooters name . --CosmicAdventure (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support 20 is already quite a lot for a mass shooting outside trouble spots, and most sources are now saying the death toll is at least 50 which means this may have exceeded even the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting (I'm not sure if 50 includes the shooter, and early death tolls even widely repored ones can sometimes drop slightly). Nil Einne (talk) 10:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

the article says 20 not 50 though. else that will make the Mumbai article below as notable.Lihaas (talk) 10:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no Mumbai mass shooting below. The closest I'm aware of is the 2008 Mumbai attacks, which had far more casulties but was non a simple mass shooting and in any case IIRC was posted. Please note a stampede is not a mass shooting. (It's possible for people to be killed by a stampede as a result of a mass shooting, but it wasn't the case for the example below.) By the same token, we may or may not post a natural disaster with a 20 people death toll but 20 people isn't a big death toll for a natural disaster. Nil Einne (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Marked as ready. Mjroots (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Posted. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support The number of casualties seems high even for a country like the United States where such incidents are fairly frequent.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed; it is the deadliest mass shooting in US history.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Post-posting support – The well-regulated militia strikes again. Sca (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Post-posting support A senseless and unthinkable act of violence. Perhaps we should indicate that this is the deadliest mass shooting in modern US history (which has been reported by many reliable sources)? EternalNomad (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Post-posting support and agree that we need to emphasize that this is the deadliest mass shooting in modern US history. Ancora e ancora.--WaltCip (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• I would be very concerned about the POVness if adding "deadliest mass shooting" to the existing blurb. I have zero doubts that the stories this week from the US will be gun control related, and we know there's going to be an infinite amount of finger pointing of how this guy got a machine gun and the rifles they found in his room. We know this is going to be reason to ask why we have such lax gun control laws, but as an encyclopedia, we should not being trying to engage in how bad our control laws we have, and pointing out how bad this was leans in that direction. --MASEM (t) 14:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Considering that even you evidently assumed there was a machine gun involved (no article I've read, including our own, mentions automatic weapons, nevermind that actual machine guns are not generally portable and operable by a single individual) and for some reason our own article goes into a tangent about American gun laws, ingeniously pointing out that semi-automatic weapons are legal in Nevada as they are everywhere else in the country (there's no legal distinction made and it's completely unclear why semi-automatic action as opposed to various other types of firearm action was important here), I'd say you are very, very correct that we should be wary of bias. The article as it stands clearly wants to appear neutral while being not-so-subtly antigun, which is not our duty here. Just the facts will suffice. - Lvthn13 (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
    • FYI, while I haven't read any official word as to what the weapons were, witnesses have described it as a machine gun . 331dot (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
      • The fact that this was the most serious mass-shooting in U.S. history, if accurate and reliably sourced, is a neutrally stated fact and need not be omitted merely because someone might draw a conclusion from it or cite it in support of a position. Misplaced Pages does not take positions on social or political issues itself, but presents facts—but one of the values of presenting neutrally worded, reliably sourced facts is to help people become better-informed. If there is non-neutral language in the article, that should be discussed and if necessary remedied there, but it is a separate issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
        • The issue is principally with the brevity of space we have at ITN, not the fact itself. In context of a full article, it absolutely deserves mention, as there is more than enough space to into any necessary qualifiers or comparisons. In an ITN, the short space we have for it to highlight that one fact makes it stand out as pro-strong gun control because we don't have any other context we can give in 25-some words. It creates sensationalism that we should be avoiding. Note though that under-riding this concern is the implicit "knowledge" that the US has lax gun control laws. If it were, say, Canada, or Europe, or the like, that implicit idea of those countries having lax gun control laws is not there, and therefore it wouldn't raise the same issue, and thus may be reasonable to include if that were the case. Here, though, the fact it is a gun crime in the US immediately slants the issue. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I scanned a few articles but never saw this one. I can see why someone might read this and, knowing no more, take that at face value, but there almost certainly was not a machine gun involved, which is exactly why I emphasize that we should exercise caution. There doesn't appear to be many details available right now, and the temptation to fill in some of the blanks with lurid and unlikely descriptions of menacing weapons should be avoided. As for mentioning that this may be the most deadly mass shooting in US history, that is a neutral fact and one I myself am neutral on, but I question the real importance of such narrowly defined trivia - it uses criteria for specific type of mass murder and a single country. Singling out American mass shootings seems to me very much akin to systemic bias. - Lvthn13 (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

  As a footnote, should the death toll climb about 67, this event will have a potential claim as the deadliest mass shooting ever anywhere. 67 is the number of victims shot in the 2011 Norway attacks which currently holds that unfortunate distinction (not counting the additional 10 deaths during those attacks that were not caused by gunfire). Dragons flight (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

October 1

RD: Edmond Maire

• Nominated by Zigzig20s (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: French labour union leader; dismissed strikes as "old labour mythology"... Zigzig20s (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support article is in good shape. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

First same-sex marriage in Germany

• Nominated by C.Suthorn (talk · give credit)

 C.Suthorn (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose primarily because we already decided that Germany being the Nth country to allow same-sex marriages in EU is not news. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Added altblurb. I'm not sure what the original blurb is trying to say exactly since I can't seem to find it all in the article, but I'm leaning oppose because I don't think ITN was meant to be a generic timeline listing when same-sex marriage happens in (many) different countries. If I wanted that, I'd go here. Fuebaey (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. If we were going to post this, it should have been when it was decided originally(and we rightfully decided not to then). 331dot (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Why did we post the United States legalising same-sex marriage, with all editors in favour, if the idea of posting Germany is so ludicrous? Not to mention countries before we have posted. AusLondonder (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

There was still full ban on same-sex marriage in some US states. Contrary there were same-sex unions in whole Germany since 2001. So difference is not so big as in the US case. --Jenda H. (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment The blurb is too long. A better hook would be, "Germany is the th EU nation-state to legalize same-sex marriage, years after .Zigzig20s (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Germany became the 12th EU country to pass a law recognising same-sex marriage in July. Today it became the 13th EU country in which same-sex marriage is legal (Malta passed a law 5 days after Germany did, which came into effect on 1 September). The Netherlands became the first country in the EU (and the world) to legalise same-sex marriage in December 2000. There are now 24 countries worldwide that perform or recognise same-sex marriage in all or part of their territory. I'm not aware of any criterion by which Germany can claim to be the first. Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment We could post that Germany is the last Western European country to legalize gay marriage. Count Iblis (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  Oops, Italy has not legalized gay marriage yet. Count Iblis (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. There were official same-sex unions in Germany from 2001 as pointed out above, couples even able to adopt children, - it's not as big a change as it sounds. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose As Masem has pointed out, we discussed this already in June.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Catalonia

• Nominated by Lihaas (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Today is the day. Regardless of what happens it is going to be news. Madrid will try to suppress, the Catalan govt and mayors will support, students vowed to hold tertiary institutions to hold a vote. Hopefully no violence, but news is there, for sure. Lihaas (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Catalan_independence_referendum,_2017 is scheduled for today. Probably together with 2017_Spanish_constitutional_crisis in Ongoing? --Tscherpownik (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done

• Support for ongoing. Lugnuts 08:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Rubber bullets now being fired. Lugnuts 11:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Wait - need to see how this plays out over the course of the day. Mjroots (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support blurb only strong oppose ongoing. This is actually "in the news" now and a blurb is appropriate. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 11:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support blurb only later today when this has all shaked out. Blurb should mention Spanish attempts to physically prevent voting and/or the fact the referendum is illegal. 331dot (talk) 11:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Wait − A significant story beyond Spain in view of minority separatist strains elsewhere, but posting should come after events or effects become more clear. Sca (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support This is major international news, especially in light of the violent actions of the Spanish authorities. Federal police attacking regional police and firefighters in a European democracy is unprecedented in modern times. AusLondonder (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support Not sure what we're waiting for. Two substantial and well-written articles here. Both deserve a front page link. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support for blurb that indicates the result from the referendum and mentions the violence that has already resulted in several hundreds injured.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support blurb, this needs to be up. Ambivalent about ongoing – I can see the arguments for waiting a bit (perhaps until the blurb is pushed off the recent events list if it's still ongoing). Leaning towards support for ongoing though just because I am sure it will still be in the news then, but, WP:CRYSTAL. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  17:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support blurb only but Wait – the referendum only lasts 24 hours, which is not enough time for such an event to be posted as ongoing. As usual we should wait for the results before officially posting the blurb. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Posted as blurb only. There appears to be consensus to post this, and whilst we usually wait for results, this is somewhat moot in this case as the Spanish authorities have already declared that it is invalid anyway (Rajoy has just said "no referendum has been held in Catalonia today") and the news reports are mostly based round the unrest during the process. Obviously editors may wish to tweak the blurb to reflect such unrest and as such I leave the discussion open for that. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Black Kite: I think the blurb that you posted is far from what you're saying. If the news reports are mostly based on the unrest during the process, then this must be included in the blurb regardless of whether the referendum is legit or not.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Suggested alt blurb, mentioning the unrest and the fact that the vote is illegal. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• @331dot: I think the word "illegal" is completely inappropriate when we already have the referendum in Iraqi Kurdistan on the main page with different wording.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• I don't mind wording like that which you cite but I felt it would make the blurb too unwieldy. This vote is considered illegal by the legal system which Catalonia is currently subject to, that's just a fact. They can go and attempt to do it anyway, but that doesn't change the fact it is illegal. 331dot (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see how it's more "illegal" than the one we already have on the main page about Iraqi Kurdistan. Doubling standards will not help Misplaced Pages be neutral.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• I've never said anything was more illegal than anything else. I was simply going for a simpler blurb. I would accept a similar wording to the Kurdistan blurb(or that one could be changed). 331dot (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• I think the current wording is sufficiently neutral. - Floydian  _¢ 02:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Should the blurb be updated to reflect the "yes" vote? Mjroots (talk) 05:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

hmmm..good question. I would support but leve it to the community to decide.Lihaas (talk) 09:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

If the blurb is going to mention the result, it should also mention that the vote was non-binding and unconstitutional. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Jagmeet Singh

• Nominated by Jon Kolbert (talk · give credit)

 Jon Kolbert (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Interesting first, but not the type of thing for ITN (only a political party, so no immediate effects on any type of gov't policy). --MASEM (t) 14:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose We don't post the results of intraparty leadership elections. This isn't an exception. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment good candidate for DYK. The NDP hasn't been a "major party" for a generation. --2001:420:2713:1250:D6C:B250:ADE2:DA5E (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

September 30

RD: Monty Hall

• Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: There are about 4-5 CNs noted on the article but beyond that it seems fine (those CNs have to be resolved first obviously). MASEM (t) 16:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support Article fixed and well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support Referenced.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support. The article is in good shape. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Posted Bencherlite 23:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

September 29

RD: Tom Alter

• Nominated by Sherenk1 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Rashkeqamar (talk · give credit), Editor5454 (talk · give credit) and Samyamoy (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Citation issues, Indian actor of American descent Sherenk1 (talk) 12:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

support was gonna nominate myself (but Catalan took precedence). One of two regular foreign/whites in the second biggest film industry. Lihaas (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Unreferenced content.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

2017 Mumbai stampede

• Nominated by Mfarazbaig (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Elton-Rodrigues (talk · give credit), Mfarazbaig (talk · give credit) and 65.95.136.96 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: A significant no. of deaths and the incident received global news coverage. Mfarazbaig (talk) 05:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose article is (rightly) tagged for deletion. Way down the list of top stories by the aggregators. Nothing here except the tragic death of 22 people. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Unfortunately, such incidents are common in overcrowded areas like Mumbai. It was an unfortunate situation. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Tragic yes, but a low fatality count. In addition, the stampede occurred in an area prone to such disasters. Kirliator (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Good article which should not be at AfD. Twenty-two is not a low fatality count. If it was in London or New York it would dominate news coverage. Do we have different standards for third world countries. Capitalistroadster (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • We don't post domestic gun crimes in the US because that happens too frequently here. Similarly, in countries that do suffer from overpopulation, stampedes are a common danger and we don't regularly post those. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • We have posted shootings where death toll is 22. The Columbine High School Massacre had 12 victims. Indeed it would be rare for a US shooting with 22 victims not to have an article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    • It's not about the death toll, it's the uniqueness of the incident in the country where it happened. Stampedes are unfortunately common in that part of the world List of human stampedes lists 8 this year. --MASEM (t) 05:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose– per Kirliator, low fatality count. And as Masem states, we don’t post disasters that are virtually common in a nation that obviously suffers from overpopulation. If this did reach the triple digits in fatalities, then I would reconsider. 2600:1015:B10D:BDC3:6842:9203:F789:B5F (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose tempted to snow close, the smallest stampede we have posted had 77 casualties if I remember correctly. Horrific, but not out of the ordinary, unfortunately. μηδείς (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support A shooting or terrorist attack that kills 22 people would definitely be posted. 208.54.86.142 (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, stampedes routinely kill more than shootings (even in the US) and this is not a huge one. I would not be offended if it were posted, but don't see it as newsworthy enough to support. μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Mass shootings are pretty common in the US. There would be one a week. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that mass shootings causing 22 deaths and 39 injuries are all that common. We have a number of articles on shootings in the US but none have a death toll of 22. Admittedly, one involved a senior figure of the US Congress namely Steve Scalise, the House Majority Whip. Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support reasons for opposing look pretty unfair to me. Low coverage is because of geographic bias. Death count @ 22 is not low (comparable to 2017 Manchester Arena bombing which killed 23 people, and we posted that without question). As for this being common, I'd like some evidence: how many stampedes have there been in Mumbai this year? Banedon (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – both sides have legitimate points, however I favor the Opposition, largely because this is a small, not so serious disaster compared to to similar incidents in contemporary history (e.g the 2015 Hajj had a much bigger stampede which easily reached several hundred deaths compared to this). Also, while the Manchester bombing had a similar death toll, that was a terrorist attack compared to this, and was thus more serious in nature. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose; this isn't unusual by Indian standards (Patna, Mumbai, Datia, Allahabad, Deoghar, Sabarimala, Kunda, Jodhpur, Bilaspur in India alone in the last decade). It certainly warrants an article, but doesn't rise to the level of ITN. ‑ Iridescent 10:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

There've been 12 terrorist incidents in the UK in the last decade, too, and we still posted the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing. Heck, there've been five in this year alone. I hope we don't get to the point where we oppose these nominations because "yawn yet another terrorist attack, those are dime a dozen in the UK". Banedon (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I also hope we don't get to that point, but only because I hope that terrorist attacks in the UK, as with anywhere in the world, become a very rare event again. However if we were to get to that point, I would hope that we would be treat the UK as we treat other countries. As it stands, a terrorist attack in Afghanistan or Iraq killing 3 people isn't likely to be on ITN barring something special beyond the death toll and it would be patently offensive if we treat the UK as special. Nil Einne (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Sun Zhengcai investigation concluded

• Updated and nominated by Colipon (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: I nominated this item in July but received resistance from some quarters that we should "wait for the results of the investigation." Now that the results are out, I am relisting this for nomination. To be clear, this is the most senior sitting Communist Party official to be expelled from the party since Bo Xilai (which was posted on ITN). The expulsion of a sitting Politburo member is a momentous political event - having happened only four times since Tiananmen Square in 1989. Colipon+(Talk) 04:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC) Colipon+(Talk) 04:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose This is not important enough to be on the main page.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support upon update. I do believe this disposition of this investigation is notable, given the person investigated. This is rare in China. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support upon update per 331dot. Davey2116 (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It is updated under heading "expulsion".Colipon+(Talk) 22:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• Who? I can't imagine we would post the expulsion from Congress (which they can do) of a US Representative. Has Sun been sentenced to be hanged? Otherwise this is an internal, and rather banal political matter. μηδείς (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I would probably support posting an expulsion from either house of Congress; you can literally count on one hand the number of expulsions from the House(three of which were related to the Civil War) and every Senator who was expelled was so because of the Civil War as well. Expulsion is even more noteworthy in a single-party system like China where the party is expelling its own members. 331dot (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

It is somewhat disheartening to have to explain repeatedly the significance of an event such as this in the face of systemic bias. Sun is a member of the 25-seat Politburo. An expulsion of a Politburo member for any reason, especially if they are still in office, is exceptionally rare. By the way, this story was already posted on Chinese Misplaced Pages's main page as a 'no-brainer'. Colipon+(Talk) 19:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support. This is the equivalent of a cabinet minister being expelled from the ruling party in a Western democracy. Sources also indicate that like Bo Xilai, he was a leading contender to be a future leader of China. ---- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 03:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• That argument makes a better case for opposing. A cabinet minister being kicked out? The US has had several in the last few months. Abductive (reasoning) 04:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• A cabinet minister (and state governor - Sun Zhengcai was in charge of Chongqing) widely touted as the frontrunner to be the next leader of the country purged months before they were expected to step into a leadership-in-waiting position and then arrested and charged for corruption, nepotism, sexual deviancy? I guess the proper American equivalent would be Barack Obama kicking Hillary Clinton out of the Democratic Party and having her charged with everything the fringe-right think she's actually done when she was still Secretary of State. ---- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 15:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Support, from what I understand this is really big news. Also, the opposers don't have as strong arguments. Davey2116 (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Please don't vote more than once, thanks. Alex Shih 17:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support. The "really big news" came when the investigation was announced, the CCP practice being not publicly announcing such investigations until they know what the result will be, but this will do. T. Canens (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Although like what Colipon said, emphasis should be put on the Politburo in the blurb. Alex Shih 17:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I've added an altblurb that mentions the Politburo. ---- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 19:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

September 28

Russia and WMD

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.

• Nominated by Banedon (talk · give credit)
• Updated by YantarCoast (talk · give credit)

• Oppose Has this been verified, or just reported? And who needs sarin when you've got Polonium and the Satan 2 Missile "powerful enough to take out The UK, Texas or France? μηδείς (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose A single sentence in our article, tied to a single source, being Putin and Putin alone, reported by Russian State Media (Russia Today), who's not exactly a reliable source for these things. When neutral international inspectors come out with a report, come back at us. This is blather. --Jayron32 01:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Err Medeis & Jayron32, see sources in the nomination. Banedon (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

  OK. Oppose on quality: the only source cited in the article is unreliable, and the updated content is too short on details. --Jayron32 01:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I think Chemical Weapons Convention needs to be linked in the blurb, but which to that point, the US and Russia are but 2 of the 190some signing nations bound by it and both are waaaaaaaaaay late to complete. I would also say that if Russia is actually stating this, we shouldn't be playing the "but did they really?" line here. --MASEM (t) 01:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I think it is not a notable issue by itself.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – The update to the article is one line, "On 27 September 2017, Russia announced that it had destroyed its entire chemical weapons stockpile." Surely, the conclusion of such a massive and important endeavour should have some strings attached to it? I don't believe this article is a "howcase quality Misplaced Pages content on current events," that it "emphasize Misplaced Pages as a dynamic resource", or that it helps readers find the exact content they were looking for. There just isn't enough prose. Of course, the thing I am wondering the most is if this has been confirmed in any way. Our article doesn't really comment on it, so I'm just assuming we are taking Russia's word for it while writing this blurb? ~Mable (chat) 09:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose whether this is genuine or just an exaggeration is unclear. We don’t have solid evidence that suggest Russia is being honest. As far as we know, they could still have stockpile hidden from the public eye. Kirliator (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

September 27

RD: Hugh Hefner

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.

• Nominated by SounderBruce (talk · give credit)

• Blurbs shouldn't be fore "immense cultural presence", but the reaction to the death becoming a story in and of itself beyond the death. Too soon to know about that. This needs a few more citations before I can support. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support RD, oppose blurb. He apparently died of old age, so the blurb doesn't have anything to add beyond the fact of the death. While I'll agree that he had a large cultural presence, I am skeptical that he rises to the very high level of someone who deserves a blurb to report the mere fact of his death. Dragons flight (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• There's a 30-year gap in the career section from going to court and appearing on The Simpsons. Stephen 03:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support blurb in principle Obviously not usual ITN blurb material, but then again, Hefner was not a normal person. He had a massive cultural influence in founding and running Playboy, which (under his direction) was the highest-circulated magazine in the world at a time when magazines were actually a thing many people bought. It and the various spin-offs helped fuel the sexual revolution in the western world; normalize pornography and homosexuality; booked African-American artists despite segregation laws; and more. Esquire once called him "the most famous magazine editor in the history of the world"; Hollywood Reporter says "Hefner became the unofficial spokesman for the sexual revolution that permeated the 1960s and '70s ..."; The Los Angeles Times says " redefined status for a generation of men, replacing lawn mowers and fishing gear with new symbols: martini glasses, a cashmere sweater and a voluptuous girlfriend, the necessary components of a new lifestyle that melded sex and materialism." That said, the article needs some help. Ed  03:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support blurb Hefner is an intrumental figure in the business world perhaps on the global scale. He was very influencial in the American business sector.Article does need a bit of a face lift so I'll get to is tomorrow. Fixed and added citations. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Very well known publishing icon. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Blurb not a personal fan, but how many magazine publishers can you name? Highly influential, before RD would definitely have been posted as blurbworthy. μηδείς (talk) 04:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support blurb. He was an iconic figure and the article is in good shape. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb Being "iconic" doesn't mean he should get a blurb. IF the reaction to the death was so massive that it was a story beyond the death, it'd deserve a blurb. A man in his 90s dying isn't likely to meet that. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, being iconic is the exact reason why someone would be featured on the Main Page when they die. How distinguished or notable do you have to be than 'iconic'? This certainly isn't the case of just being a "man in his 90s". Regards, — Moe Epsilon 05:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• His death is receiving widespread media coverage; see for exmaple The New York Times, NPR, the LA Times, and many others. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• This kind of news coverage is typical of many RD noms. Doesn't make this one different. And no, it's the specific response to the death, the outpouring after Bowie, Michael Jackson, Carrie Fisher that made it a story beyond the death. That went beyond obituaries. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support RD only I see the article has been improved when this first was nom'd, so the quality is fine and ready for RD. I don't think this is the type of blurb worthy death, as he was 91 (was a matter of when, not if), and was far outside prime of life. --MASEM (t) 05:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb - Uncontroversial death at 91. Not a world transforming leader. If a blurb is posted it would amount to WP:BIAS. Also death section needs expansion before posting. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 05:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support blurb – article looks decent. Hefner has had an incredible cultural impact in North America and Europe and I think a blurb is aprropriate. ~Mable (chat) 07:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support RD - No real opinion either way on the blurb. Miyagawa (talk) 08:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support full blurb Mainly for the juxtaposition with the Saudi Arabia story. Lugnuts 08:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb I'm not convinced he is quite at the very high level of significance we require for a blurb. RD will suffice. Neljack (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support blurb. He was tops in his field. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support RD only unless a media circus erupts around this (doubtful) RD is appropriate. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support full blurb. This guy actually changed the world. That's what the ITN blurbs are for. Nsk92 (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support RD only Old man dies. Although it is amazing given his lifestyle he wasn't dead 20 years ago, the fact he lived to his 90's is pretty impressive. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support RD, strong oppose blurb. Why do we keep having this debate every time a minor celebrity dies of old age? This is not a world-changing event with major repercussions. The standard for a blurb is Nelson Mandela or Margaret Thatcher, and Hefner is nowhere near that level. RD is fine. Modest Genius 10:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support blurb. An RD mention alone might not make a connection with readers of the man's legacy, entrepreneurship, and philanthropy. It's not like Playboy was a local rag. — Wyliepedia 10:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

No, it was a national rag. Sca (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

This map says it was an international rag. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

•  Administrator note Posted to RD, leaving open for evaluation if "upgrade" to blurb is warranted. — xaosflux 11:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support blurb Massive cultural influence. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support blurb. Although the digital age really swept him under the rug, Hefner had a significant cultural impact back in the day. ZettaComposer (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support RD, oppose blurb. Per Modest Genius above. Given that we have limited lines available for "In the news", and Hefner would instead be appearing in RD, I would prefer us to be able to highlight another story. Jheald (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support RD, maybe tinker with the blurb a bit pbp 13:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  What should be changed? ~Mable (chat) 13:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb 91 year-olds dying of natural causes is what RD is for. Unless his death is leading TV bulletins worldwide, it should not be a blurb. "Widespread coverage" is not enough; it needs to be exceptional.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• RD only: It's arbitrary, but this comes on that side of the line for me. --LukeSurl 13:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb – Support RD only. Hefner, an inveterate self-promoter, is an interesting footnote to U.S. cultural history but not significant in any broader sense. Sca (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Quality of Support if we just count ivotes, the tally is about 12 to 12 with two undecided/unclear supports for posting. But the criterion for a blurb is the nominee's influence in his field, and I think User:The ed17's post in favor of a blurb is determinative. Opposes based on "just because he was iconic doesn't..." Contradict the guidelines--iconicity has always been a reason for a full blurb. Likewise "he was old" is entirely irrelevant. An unexpected death at a young age is one reason to support a blurb. But a long successful life has never been a reason to oppose a blurb. Most of the opposes can be discounted as not relevant reasons to prevent a blurb. Again, had he died before the establishment of RD, we wouldn't be having this discussion--he'd already have had a blurb yesterday. μηδείς (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

That's not my reading of WP:ITNRD. Look at those three bullet points. (1) The news is mostly obituaries and the article update is just a statement of his death. (2) The cause of death is not a major story. (3) Is he a "major transformative world leader"? He was transformative for the sector of pornography, and to an extent free speech, but was he truly a "major transformative world leader"? I don't think so. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

See the full bullet point, there's a problem with your argument. "In rare cases, the death of major transformative world leaders in their field may merit a blurb." As you just said, "He was transformative for the sector of pornography, and to an extent free speech ..." 174.193.128.139 (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay you're right, I did leave off the "in their field" qualifier which is important. However, it starts with "in rare cases" and I don't see how this meets the "rare case" standard of a Bowie, Mandela, or Fisher. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment As I type this, it's on the front page of CNN (US), BBC News (UK) and news.com.au (Australia), and the New Zealand Herald - just to name a few. In fact, this isn't just on the front page, CNN has 3 front page stories on Hefner, BBC News has 3 front page stories and news.com.au has 2 front page stories and the New Zealand Herald has 2 front page stories on Hefner. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

  Most news websites tailor the stories on their front page to the geolocation of the IP used to access them. They're showing you more stories about Hefner because they don't have many other articles related to your country right now. For comparison, as UK reader I see only one story about Hefner on the BBC front page, and it's well below the fold. Modest Genius 10:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb I think that he's just another person known because of the success of his product sold to a specialist group of consumers, which puts his notability in line with that of Mikhail Kalashnikov because of AK-47 or Liliane Bettencourt because of L'Oréal whose deaths we didn't post. Importantly, we have never posted the death of an actor/actress because of a single movie or the death of a singer because of a single album. After all, it's not Hugh Hefner who has exerted any tremendous influence to the field but the Playboy magazine.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

As I stated above, it's more than just a magazine. — Wyliepedia 18:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, it's the brand, not himself. And he's not Steve Jobs, nor is Playboy comparable to Apple to make me reconsider my vote.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Well it helped to inspire the creation of the web - and without killing child workers or strip mining in Africa, so its got one up on Apple for me. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb, as others have stated, RD, not a blurb, is suitable for the death of a 91-year-old. --AmaryllisGardener 19:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• RD only, oppose blurb famous but not famous enough for a blurb, with coverage simply not dominating the news as it did for e.g. Bowie, Thatcher. It was the "and finally" item on BBC Radio 5 news this morning, not even the lead story. A Quest for Knowledge counted 3 stories about this a few hours ago on the main page of the BBC news website, but it's now just the one, and that is way "below the fold" rather than being anything approaching an ongoing lead story. Saying that "pornography" is a "field" for the purpose of being a "transformative world leader in their field" sets the bar too low. Bencherlite 20:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb To warrant a blurb on a global encyclopedia an individual must have enormous significance. That would mean in my view someone such as a long-serving or transformative national leader or an artist of international renown, such as Michael Jackson. I just cannot see that Hefner meets that very high bar. While it has been mentioned by outlets globally (as with Liliane Bettencourt), it certainly has not led stories - and we didn't post Bettencourt. AusLondonder (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• For those who are interested: the Hugh Hefner article had 3,371,095 page views yesterday, Sept 28. I know that we don't care what our readers want to read because we here know better what's good for them, but still... Nsk92 (talk) 09:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

  You DO know there is currently, and before you wrote this, already a link on the main page directing our readers to Hugh Hefner's article, right? Because there had been, for some many hours, already been so. --Jayron32 16:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, of course I do know that. But that's an RD link for which we have the lowest possible notability threshold: just the existence of a Misplaced Pages article, and that article being in a well-referenced state. My point is, that for the ITN blurbs (if ITN should exists at all) we should be more respectful of what pages Misplaced Pages readers are in fact reading and take some cues from that in terms of what stories they consider important. For example, the story about the New Zealand general election, 2017 has been an ITN blurb for quite a while. But, despite being given this highest degree of visibility in the ITN section of the main page, New Zealand general election, 2017 the most page views that the article generated was 41,207, which was on Sept 23, 2017, two days before the story was posted to ITN. The fact that over 3 million people on September 28 viewed the Misplaced Pages page about Hugh Hefner shows that he was much more than just another 91-year-old celebrity finally dying of old age. If that's all he was, several million people would not be reading a Misplaced Pages article about him in a single day... Nsk92 (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

RD: Zuzana Růžičková

• Nominated by Sherenk1 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk · give credit), JezGrove (talk · give credit) and JackofOz (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Harpsichordist and Holocaust survivor. Lots of citation issues Sherenk1 (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Article needs a lot more sourcing. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Article has several maintenance tags and unsourced paragraphs. However, should these be rectified, then hit me up and I'll switch this to a support. Miyagawa (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The article can not go to the first page due to its tags.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too many orange tags and woefully under-sourced. Article really needs attention and cleanup. Challenger l (talk) 03:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Deep Space Gateway

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.

• Nominated by Banedon (talk · give credit)

• Weak Oppose NASA has been talking about this since March/April, but the only thing changed today is that they secured that Russia's agency will also help build it; the way it reads is the if Russia didn't join, it was still a long-term plan to be built but would take many more years to get going. And since we're looking to something that won't launch until 2020, this is just a bit premature. (Also regardless, the article does not have a discussion of these agencies' actions, which it needs to reflect this update) --MASEM (t) 00:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• That's not really fair, is it? Earlier this month we posted blurbs on the host city for the 2024/2028 Olympics being selected, and those events won't happen for even longer. Banedon (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• The Olympics are pretty much sure things (within a scope of NOT#CRYSTAL), the announcements of host cities sets committments in motion to build and prepare the cities. This is very preliminary stages without any immediate set schedule or commitment of funds. It's not a sure thing that it will happen. --MASEM (t) 03:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose while a lunar space station being built is a major step to space exploration, an ITN for such would make more sense once the actual space station is completed. As Masem notes, there's been talk about this thing for roughly 6 months now, posting a message stating that the U.S. and Russia have agreed to build the station is Current News worthy, but not ITN worthy. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Weak oppose primarily because the article is still a stub. The article hasn't even been updated in accordance to this news. I agree that running a blurb on this topic when the only news is that the two countries have agreed to work on it together is pretty weak as well. ~Mable (chat) 08:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. They've agreed to combine expertise in a study and to come up with some joint standards so their spacecraft can work together. Nothing is even being built yet, and the recent history of planning manned space missions only to cancel them before getting close to launch means it could very well never happen. We can post this if/when a mission actually launches. Modest Genius 10:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Wait. The idea of the Soviet Union Russia and the United States collaborating on a space project is significant, given past history and current events, but I think we should wait and see if something concrete actually comes out of this. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Wait this is like all those announced mergers we post that never actually happen. Post this when the first modules land on Luna. μηδείς (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing: Hurricane Maria

• Nominated by Cyclonebiskit (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Ongoing humanitarian crisis in Puerto Rico with aid not reaching people fast enough. Today is one week since the storm and many have yet to even see aid workers. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Weak oppose This has the potential of being a 4-6 month long ongoing at minimum (due to power restoration issues), and that's well outside the nature of what we consider ongoing usually. Also, with the story becoming more a political mudslinging ("is Trump doing enough?" type questions) it seems more sensationalist news. I'm not entirely against it if we say that it is kept ongoing for one or two weeks, and then pulled unless there's a new angle to the story that comes up. --MASEM (t) 21:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Trump stuff aside, take a read through this article by NBC. "This is a big S.O.S for anybody out there" - San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulin Cruz. Hospitals are running out of fuel for generators, bedridden elderly don't have access to water, supplies not being moved. The bigger story is the suffering going on. Mudslinging will be present as someone is at fault for how slow things are moving, but the is indeed a massive crisis unfolding. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• I agree there's a crisis, but there's a crisis after any major storm disaster like this (Houston had there's a month ago). This is more severe in that because it is an island territory and that their power infrastructure is down, it is making relief efforts much more difficult as something like Houston, but this is a common story to any major disaster. Hence why I'm not against a short-term ongoing as long we recognize that once they can secure regular flights into the country and get the Comfort there for hospital care, its going to have a long, long tail. (Hence I would even anticipate that when the power infrastructure is restored, that itself would be a potential ITN). --MASEM (t) 21:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not certain Hurricane Maria is the best title here as it implies Hurricane Maria is currently an ongoing threat. Current projections have it dying out out in the Atlantic Ocean. I'd suggest adding something like Aftermath or Rebuilding Efforts to show that the focus is on rebuilding and/or the problems in Puerto Rico after the storm. I think a short-term ongoing is ok as long as the scope is clear. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Weak oppose only because this kind of situation is not uncommon. Similar situations in Syria led to the European migrant crisis, for example, and the humanitarian issues there have persisted for years as opposed to weeks in Puerto Rico. Banedon (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

September 26

Women driving in Saudi Arabia

• Nominated by Anarcho-authoritarian (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Quite a no-brainer for notability, the end of a dinosaur rule that was unique around the whole world. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Generally support, oppose on quality of update I think it's fair this is a drastic shift in women's rights in the Arab world, and significant in that fashion. Unfortunately, the section of the target article about mobility has all but a one line update (I just reordered it in an edit) and should have a bit more to explain any reasoning or if there are any major reactions to this. --MASEM (t) 19:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Note that I've expanded and also did a bit of narrative ordering for that section, but there's still glaring CN tags right before this new news. The rest of the target article is nearly there. --MASEM (t) 20:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• News only recently came out. I'd give it at least a few more hours for until more news is out. Master of Time (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Misplaced Pages has a very dedicated team of editors who address the balance by editing on topics relating to women's history and women's rights, so it will not take too long Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - has only taken four years since the mass protests. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support this major news in women's rights. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 20:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support no-brainer. EternalNomad (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support it's a historic decision, and I saw enough coverage of this to support. Banedon (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support when the CN tags in the Driving section are addressed. There are only three left as of right now, but I don't have time to source them myself. Thryduulf (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support it's a landmark decision. Sources are somewhat weak on the page, but that can be easily fixed. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Big Support and Comment This is very historic for women's rights. Is there any way we could indicate that Saudi Arabia is still a major violator of women's rights? TenorTwelve (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • We can recognize this, but it would be POV-ish to call SA as a major violator of women's rights in this manner - that's a controversial statement that would need attribtion that would not be possible for ITN. --MASEM (t) 02:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
    • People would see that if they were to click the bold link in the blurb. The fact that the country legalized women driving in 2017 may also tell people that women's rights in this country are still limited. Either way, I think the blurb is fine. ~Mable (chat) 06:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Very historic and remarkable event for women's rights in the middle east. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Historic event. Like when the company I worked in the US for allowed women to wear slacks. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • A great look under a hijab, I always find. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support/Ready - I'm marking it ready, after having provided citations to above mentioned CN tags in the article. Posting admin is requested to review my edits. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 10:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Looks good. Posted Smurrayinchester 14:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Question - is "women drivers" good enough? The article does say "women drivers" a few times, but it's mostly not written like that in the reliable source. RS also don't tend to say "women drivers", and "female drivers" for that matter. I wonder if it should be reformulated. Wumbolo (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
    •  Done Wumbolo (talk) 08:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support I know that it's already been posted but I just want to voice my support. This is a significant break through for women's rights in a very oppressive kingdom. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Nice to know they've decided to join the 20th century. Sca (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

September 25

RD: Tony Booth

• Nominated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Article has been updated and is well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support, looks in good shape. Bencherlite 22:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Article is much improved from when I looked at it this morning pre-nomination. Good work.Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Article looks ready to post. Mamyles (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Posted Ed  03:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
• @The ed17:: The Tony Booth article right now is linked to a disambiguation page. The article article is Tony Booth (actor). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Fixed, thank you! Ed  04:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

RD: Elizabeth Dawn

• Nominated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Article has been updated and is well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support looks sufficient cited. Bencherlite 22:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - no issues. Mjroots (talk) 06:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Aiken D 06:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Article looks ready to post. Mamyles (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
• Posted Ed  03:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

RD: Eman Ahmed Abd El Aty

• Nominated by Sherenk1 (talk · give credit)

 Sherenk1 (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. A couple of uncited claims (I've tagged them), but I don't expect they'll be too difficult to source. Other than that, the article is basic but there are no obvious missing gaps. Thryduulf (talk) 08:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing: 2017 North Korea crisis

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.

• Nominated by Banedon (talk · give credit)

• Oppose Because there's WP:SNOW chance of this being posted, and the closers are WP:UNINVOLVED. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I'm slightly more tolerate towards an ongoing nomination, however like I said before, the source used in this nomination (as well as the previous one) is misleading, De Telegraaf mistranslated the report, stating that North Korea or the U.s. has declared war, however in actuality neither side officially made a declaration, as mentioned by other major news such as the New York Times, BBC, and Fox News, all of which covered this event but did not say it was a true declaration of war. I suggest changing the source to a more reliable source such as one of the ones I mentioned. SamaranEmerald (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the nomination. I don't own it, and don't mind you changing it. Banedon (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, that's better, at least that issue's resolved. SamaranEmerald (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose until someone makes a Celebrity Deathmatch involving Kim Jung-Un and the orange warmonger. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Tweets and insults do not an ongoing make. Missile launches and the like can be evaluated on their own. Warmonger? As in against the NFL? The bigotry is stale. μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose It is not really a crisis per se, it is heightened tensions between the US, NK, and other countries. It's a war of words, which happens all the time. --MASEM (t) 00:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Masem. No official declaration of war has been made and no significant actions have occurred aside from a lot of grandstanding. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - fits all the criteria for ongoing. Regular updates to the article, recurrent topic in the news, serious, real-world impact as evidenced by diplomatic efforts. And please, next time a) the closer should determine consensus based on the merits of the oppose/suppose and b) editors like Ramblingman or Muboshgu should provide a rationale instead of just posting some juvenile nonsense.

Preceding posted by IP user 81.204.120.137, who arbitrarily reopened discussion. Sca (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

And closed again, as there is no consensus, notwithstanding the grumblings of an anon user.--WaltCip (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

As I provided reasons, this is hardly arbitrary. This should run its course, not be closed prematurely. The nomination deserves a serious discussion, not the nonsense posted by the likes of Waltcip, Muboshgu or RamblingMan. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 09:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I've attempted to reclose this, but have been reverted by the above IP user. Given this discussion and the prior discussion, there seems little chance this will be posted as it stands now, and I believe this should remain closed. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 North Korea crisis

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.

• Nominated by Mjroots (talk · give credit)

• Misleading - North Korea has claimed that the U.S. has declared war on North Korea. Nothing has actually happened. NYT--WaltCip (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, suggest close - the reality is that Norea Korea is saying that the US has declared war on it, not the other way around, and it "will have every right to make countermeasures." --Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - War of words, it looks like. 42.109.130.44 (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• ALT Blurb added. Mjroots (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose at this point. X saying Y went to war with it without Y actually formally declaring it is not "going to war". Yes, there are things to watch for but let's not jump at a misleading statement here. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Still a Trump/Kim dick measuring contest. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support pbp 17:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support, but would strongly prefer ongoing. The crisis is clearly ongoing and significant, given that this war of words has clear real-world ramifications. Unrelated, the quality of some of the oppose votes here is shocking. Fly-by graffitis. 81.204.120.137 (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

This screed right underneath another support vote which doesn't even provide a rationale. But forget about that; those opposes are "fly-by graffitis".--WaltCip (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Strongest Oppose this is 100% misleading, other sources have stated that North Korea has only 'accused' the US of declaring war. Besides North Korea does this regularly during the annual military exercises conducted by the U.S. and South Korea. SamaranEmerald (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Der Telegraaf really screwed up and misinterpreted the actual statement, this is what happens when you translate a foreign language into English, you get poor...well...translations. Besides the BBC report on the CE page states that North Korea is accusing the flyby of U.S aircrafts as a declaration of war, however no official declarations have been made by either side. Kirliator (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• De Telegraaf is fairly tabloid-y as far as Dutch newspapers go, but regardless, this incident is in the news at plenty of places. A quick Google search brings up NBC News and The New York Times, among others. The quality of the source listed in the template shouldn't be too big an issue. ~Mable (chat) 18:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose When North Korea actually shoots down an airplane we can reconsider. For now this is just tough-talk. EternalNomad (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Iraqi Kurdistan independence referendum, 2017

• Nominated by Sherenk1 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Ahmedo Semsurî (talk · give credit) and Koopinator (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: World news. Landmark decision by the Kurds. Sherenk1 (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• At least wait until the results are in ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 18:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Wait. The results, either way, will be ITN-worthy and any significant violence or other events during the polling might be, but that the vote is happening is not. Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Most of the article is fine, but the "reactions" section is misleading in that it mixes reactions from before and after the results. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support as a notable, important news story. Wait till results. It'll be important to note in the blurb that the referendum is not considered legal by Baghdad. The probable "yes" vote shouldn't be reported in a way that makes it seem like a new, de jure, internationally recognized, sovereign state is to be created. --LukeSurl 20:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - now there are results, I've tweaked the blurb to match the Scottish referendum blurb. Smurrayinchester 12:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Important story, and article looks ready bar the final results. Although votes are still being counted a big "yes" is expected.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Major development covered by the global media houses. Albert Dawkins (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support once official results are declared. Important poll, even though it's unlikely to come into effect. The article looks sufficient on a brief look. Modest Genius 11:04, 27 September 2017 (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 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:

• Misplaced Pages In the news
• Main Page discussions