Welcome to In The News. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here.

In the news toolbox
Error reports (WP:ERRORS) Nominations (WP:ITN/C) Image protection (WP:CMP) Discussion (WT:ITN) Admin guide (WP:ITN/A) General criteria (WP:ITN) Death criteria (WP:ITN/DC) Recurring items (WP:ITNR) Awards · Sports · Discussion Current events portal (P:CE) Archives (2008–11)
v t e

This page provides a forum for ors 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.

Robert Mueller 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. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant loses its last territory in Syria following a defeat by the Syrian Democratic Forces and the US-led coalition. An explosion at a chemical plant in Xiangshui, Jiangsu, China, kills at least 78 people and injures more than 90 others. Nursultan Nazarbayev resigns as President of Kazakhstan after a 29-year tenure, appointing Kassym-Jomart Tokayev as interim president. Ongoing: Brexit negotiations Venezuelan presidential crisis Recent deaths: Mike Cofer Eunetta T. Boone Mary Warnock Wolfgang Meyer Nominate an article view - page history - related changes -

Suggestions[]

March 26[]

March 25[]

Blurb: Proclamation on Recognizing the Golan Heights as Part of the State of Israel[]

Article: Proclamation on Recognizing the Golan Heights as Part of the State of Israel (talk, history)
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.
News source(s): BBC Proclamation text

• Nominated by Nice4What (talk • give cr)

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)

RD: Fred Malek[]

 – 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)

RD: Scott Walker (singer)[]

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)

March 24[]

(Posted) Special Counsel investigation conclusion[]

Nominator's comments: Main conclusions of the Special Counsel's findings have been released. Aviartm (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• 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)
• Support Agreed, this is the time to post. Davey2116 (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• I would also support Ongoing, as it appears this story might develop over the next week. Davey2116 (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• See comment below. Davey2116 (talk) 23:58, 25 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)

  Aviartm, "did not establish ... collusion" =/= "exonerated on collusion". The letter doesn't say Mueller concluded there was no collusion, he just didn't conclude that there was. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:55, 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)

  Aviartm, "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime" is also not the same thing as an exoneration. Especially since we don't yet know what the evidence is. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:20, 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 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)

• 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)
• Support Great, 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.[1] – Muboshgu (talk) 02:43, 25 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)
  • House Benghazi rules demand five investigations, none of which turn up any evidence but are insinuated to have found a "smoking gun". The thing is, the DOJ special counsel investigation has concluded. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:43, 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 s conflicted but I ensured your s 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.[2]

• 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 s conflicted with your article pice.)

• 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)

Yup. The Fat Lady hasn't sung yet. – Sca (talk) 01:58, 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)
• 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 orial 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)

I have no doubt this will continue in the house, but the DOJ investigation is done and as AG it's Barrs summary to write. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:18, 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)

Edit: To clarify, I weakly oppose all the other blurbs for being too long / WP:UNDUE-y. I would support Ongoing. -- Ununseti (talk) 00:06, 26 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)

Another reason to stick it in Ongoing for now, rather than just ignore it. – Sca (talk) 14:42, 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 covfefe coverage, 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)

• 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)
  • The AG singled out two key findings in his letter to congress: collusion and obstruction. Include both, or neither, but do not cherry-pick. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• Exactly, include both. It is the only proper thing to do in the first place. Aviartm (talk) 16:57, 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. Brandmeister^talk 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)
• 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)

• Well the summary from Barr doesn't say "exonerated" it says no evidence, let's just use the AG wording and be done with it. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:17, 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." ^Falling_Gravity 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. ^Falling_Gravity 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. ^Falling_Gravity 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. ^Falling_Gravity 22:56, 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)

• 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 or 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)

• 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)

March 23[]

RD: Rafi Eitan[]

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)

RD: Victor Hochhauser[]

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)

(Closed) MV Viking Sky[]

Non-admin closure. Fails to meet WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:25, 24 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 s should be made to this discussion.

---

Article: MV Viking Sky (talk, history)
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

• Nominated by Mjroots (talk • give cr)
• Updated by BIL (talk • give cr)

Nominator's comments: Breaking atm, not all passengers rescued yet, but expected to be. Blurb can be altered if situation changes but this could be a good news story to put on MP for a change. Mjroots (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• 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)
  • Evacuation continuing all night, article is updated to state this. Mjroots (talk) 20:53, 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)
• Support Withdraw 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)

Well, it was a whale of a story while it lasted. – Sca (talk) 17:01, 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 s should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) Battle of Baghuz Fawqani[]

March 22[]

RD: Frans Andriessen[]

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[]

(Closed) Ongoing removal Brexit negotiations[]

(Posted) 2019 Yancheng chemical plant explosion[]

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[]

March 21[]

(Posted) RD: Mike Cofer (linebacker)[]

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[]

(Closed) European Wikipedia blackouts[]

March 20[]

(Posted) RD: Eunetta T. Boone[]

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[]

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[]

Consensus will not develop to post a commercial announcement. Stephen 21:45, 20 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 s should be made to this discussion.

---

Article: Google Stadia (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Google announces development of a cloud gaming service (logo pictured) called Google Stadia.
News source(s): BBC

• Nominated by GeographyAholic (talk • give cr)
• Created by Koavf (talk • give cr)

 GeographyAholic talk 18:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• 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 ed 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 s should be made to this discussion.

(Posted to Ongoing) Cyclone Idai[]

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)

March 19[]

(Posted) Nursultan Nazarbayev's resignation[]

Nominator's comments: After almost 30 years in office. Article updated. Brandmeister^talk 14:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support WP:ITN/R and article seems reasonably well-sourced and does not have an excessive number of tags. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ITN/R .BabbaQ (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support WP:ITN/R & good-shape articles. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 19:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose on quality and malformed blurb. Many more citations needed in the target article (eg. Personal life and Honours sections unreferenced). I don't think this is ITN/R. ITNR says nothing about resignations. Perhaps the target should be the new president. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. A change in head of state is ITNR- though I believe(could be wrong) we don't typically post interim/acting leaders, it seems the Acting President will be so until the end of the term. 331dot (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • ITNR does mention "succession of a head of state", but only "where head of state is not an elected position" (although the article says that all Nazarbayev's elections have been considered sham). Brandmeister^talk 20:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    • That has usually been interpreted to mean any change in head of state. We also don't judge the validity or fairness of a country's elections(some would argue the last US presidential election was a sham because the person with the most votes did not win). 331dot (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    • As Banedon said below, if a head of state resigning isn't ITNR, it should be. To your point about "where head of state is not an elected position" though: Nazarbayev was widely regarded by reliable sources to have been a dictator. We would very likely post if Kim Jong Un resigned and appointed a new head of state. Technically, they have elections in the DPRK, just as Nursultan Nazarbayev technically "won his election" with 97.7 percent of the "vote", but transfers of power are extremely rare in Kazakhstan (so rare that this is the only time it's ever happened) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I would further add that if the argument is that the elections shouldn't count as elections because they were just show elections, then the ITNR would apply after all(since the position is not really 'elected') 331dot (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support if a head of state resigning isn't ITNR, it should be. Banedon (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support, but add context: "resigns as President of Kazakhstan after 29 years in power, appointing.." Johndavies837 (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• I also support the inclusion of more contextual information. It is very significant how lengthy Nazarbayev's tenure was (nearly three decades) as the first and (until now) only President of independent Kazakhstan. I've proposed an altblurb, but if someone can produce a more concise version that still includes the significant details, I'd support it. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 23:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support: Given WP:INT/R the suddenness of his resignation and the impact it will have on Kazakhstan, I think that this event is worthy of being on the main page. 20Infernix04 (talk) 00:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

The whole point of ITNR is that it presumes the event is notable enough for posting on the merits; we are only waiting for agreement on the blurb and adequate article quality. 331dot (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. Some citations are needed and the article could do with updating in places. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I have no problem with this going up as a blurb (pending a quality review) but to be ITNR there would need to be a standalone article about the change in leadership. I don't recall ever using the article about an elected official as the target of a change of leadership blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Please point out where that requirement is. 331dot (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Hrm, you're right, no such requirement exists. Thanks 331dot. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Nazarbayev did not state any reason for his resignation (much to the shock of Russian officials which viewed him as a key ally). As a result, it would be very difficult to produce an article specifically about the change in leadership which was uniquely sudden and unexplained, but that certainly shouldn't prevent a blurb about the only change in power the country has ever seen. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support altblurb. Clearly notable; this should be made ITN/R if it isn't. The presidency section and the resignation subsection are now sourced, but the remainder of the article still has a few cn tags. Davey2116 (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support: WP:ITN/R and certainly a notable event. Article also looks to be updated and minimally comprehensive about the resignation, although details about the protests would be nice. Altblurb better shows the significance of the event. — MarkH21 (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Change of head of state is notable but the article needs more infomation about what is going on, two paragraphs is not going to cut it. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 02:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Posting. There are some citing issues across the article but the updated paragraph is ok. More content is always welcome but it covers the basics. I commented out the honors section since it has serious referencing issues. --Tone 08:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pull This article has many sourcing and NPOV issues that were ignored. I do not doubt the significance of the event but my issue was with the quality of the article.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Should we note that the capital city Astana has officially been renamed to "Nursultan" effective immediately, or would this make the blurb far too cluttered? Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I briefly thought about this, as the renaming of any country's capital is newsworthy. But perhaps it should be considered on its own merits. Brandmeister^talk 20:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) Karen Uhlenbeck first woman to receive Abel Prize in mathematics[]

Article: Karen Uhlenbeck (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Karen Uhlenbeck becomes the first woman to receive the Abel Prize in mathematics.
Alternative blurb: ​Karen Uhlenbeck becomes the first woman to receive the Abel Prize in mathematics for "her pioneering achievements in geometric partial differential equations, gauge theory and integrable systems."
Alternative blurb II: ​Karen Uhlenbeck becomes the first woman to receive the Abel Prize in mathematics for "her pioneering achievements in geometric partial differential equations, gauge theory and integrable systems, and for the fundamental impact of her work on analysis, geometry and mathematical physics."
News source(s): NY Times

• Updated and nominated by I enjoy sandwiches (talk • give cr)
• Created by RG2 (talk • give cr)
• Updated by MarkH21 (talk • give cr) and David Eppstein (talk • give cr)

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: Karen Uhlenbeck is the first woman to win this exceptionally prestigious award. I think this remarkable accomplishment is newsworthy. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 11:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Abel is actually ITNR, so we needn't consider the gender aspect. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

In any case, the story is not appearing in the front page at the moment, so I thought I'd nominate it. The blurb can be re-worked to down weight gender, if that's what people prefer. I just included this angle because it's the angle that most of the news sources are featuring. OtterAM (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

She certainly is a noteworthy academic, though I would posit that being the first woman is a notable detail of her achievement. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose on quality - only a short paragraph for what her work actually is is not sufficient. I realize reading the selected works this is very esoteric math but we still need more discussion of it. --Masem (t) 13:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a fair point. I will try to expand this section later today. If any other math aficionados want to give it a whirl, feel free. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The expanded content works for me. I don't think that needs to be in the blurb but primary concern is met. --Masem (t) 01:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support Interesting story that is getting a lot of press. (I accidentally created a second nomination above, but have removed that one.) I think the article is sufficient for a short biography. OtterAM (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I have added a reference to the New York Times article. OtterAM (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Please crop the watermark before posting. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Or remove protection so I can do it.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)c

• Support - I will support this because of win of prestigious award, article and sources looks decent.BabbaQ (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. There is a problem with an article that is so unbalanced between the trivial details of her career and any information beyond the bald topic areas of her research. This does not inform readers about what her breakthroughs are and why they are important. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Support. Now much improved. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Bit list-heavy but sufficient sources and quality. First female winner of "Nobel prize for mathematics" is certainly notable. Per sources, maybe a blurb can be used that includes said commonly made comparison to the Nobel prizes? Regards SoWhy 20:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support This article has come a long way in the last hour.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support This is (arguably) the highest recognition in mathematics. Absolutely ITN-worthy. Would prefer either the altblurb or altblurb2. — MarkH21 (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree, though may favor the first altblurb 2/2 space constrictions. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support About time for a good news story. Two mass shootings, a natural disaster, and an air crash. Run it! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose not at all "minimally comprehensive". She got the award " for "her pioneering achievements in geometric partial differential equations, gauge theory and integrable systems, and for the fundamental impact of her work on analysis, geometry and mathematical physics." and the achievements section has basically one sentence about each. "She has also contributed to topological quantum field theory and integrable systems" This is one of the reasons she won the award for crying out loud give the WP:READERs something to go on. The article is not suitable for posting to MP for this. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

What would "minimally comprehensive" entail? An in-depth description of her technical work would be more than minimal. There's a reason that the New York Times, CNN, etc. don't say much on her contributions, it's hard to suitably summarize them for a general audience.

Her work on singularities of harmonic maps in geometric analysis (aka geometric PDEs) really was foundational and simultaneously applicable to gauge theory, Yang–Mills theory, and integrable systems. In some sense, the three sentences in the latter two paragraphs are really about those contributions in simultaneity (she did not really work on those independently of each other). In any case, it would take more work to provide more in-depth technical descriptions as a non-specialist but I would argue that it is minimally comprehensive. — MarkH21 (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what "minimally comprehensive" is for this subject, that's sort of the point though. I read it, the whole "Research" section is little more than a bullet point list of what she won the award for, it doesn't tell me anything about her contributions to those areas. Honestly all the Able Prize winner articles are poor, except Nash but that's not really fair. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Some of the others are quite a bit more comprehensive, e.g. Jean-Pierre Serre, Michael Atiyah, John Tate. However, Uhlenbeck is not as famous or well-known as some past winners and there is relatively less information on her and her work. In general though, descriptive writing of technical mathematical work is a rare and valuable art. — MarkH21 (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support alt blurb 1 or 2. Article is sufficient. Davey2116 (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support alt blurb 2. Article is good to go. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 02:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support Finally something that doesn't involve people dying :P Kaldari (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Posted --Tone 08:49, 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: