• edit
• history
• watch

• Syrian Civil War
  • Aleppo offensive (May 2016)
    • More than 72 are killed in clashes between Al-Nusra Front and Syrian government forces in Khan Tuman south of Aleppo, Syria. (i24 News) (VOA News)

• A man is killed, and two others are injured (a man in critical condition and a woman with non-life-threatening injuries), in the parking lot of Westfield Montgomery Mall in Potomac in Montgomery County, Maryland, near Washington, D.C. Soon after, a woman is killed at a grocery store some miles away. Police suspect that the same shooter may be behind both crime scene incidents. Police in both Montgomery County and neighboring Prince George's County are also examining whether this person is the same as the male involved in the fatal shooting the previous day of a woman, Gladys Tordil, who was allegedly shot (a bystander who tried to help was also wounded) by her estranged abusive husband, tentatively identified as Eulalio Tordil, 62, a former Federal Protective Service officer. (MSN) (CNN)

• 2016 Philippine presidential election
  • The supporters of presidential candidates Grace Poe and Mar Roxas post petitions and counter-petitions on Change.org urging either candidate to drop-out and give way for the other. (The Manila Standard)
  • Vice presidential candidate Leni Robredo thanks supporters for the "Poe-Robredo tandem" pairing her with presidential candidate Grace Poe but insists she is loyal to her running-mate Mar Roxas. (Philippine Daily Inquirer) (GMA News)
  • Mar Roxas and current President Benigno Aquino III call on political rivals Jejomar Binay, Miriam Defensor Santiago, and Grace Poe to unite and form a unity coalition in the upcoming elections. (CNN Philippines) (Channel NewsAsia)
  • Grace Poe rejects Mar Roxas' offer saying she is not willing to withdraw. Jejomar Binay also rejects calls for him to withdraw. (Rappler) (The Philippine Star) (ABC News Go)
  • Leni Robredo thanks a group of activist-farmers from Sumilao, Bukidnon, for their support promising to continue their reforms. (Rappler)
• Head of Australia's Department of Immigration Mike Pezzullo denies that the detention centre for asylum seekers on Manus Island must be closed. He said there was no crisis that required any closure of the centre despite Papua New Guinea's Supreme Court ruling it to be unconstitutional and ordering the release of the detainees. (Radio New Zealand)
• The Workers' Party of Korea, the ruling party of North Korea, holds its first party congress in nearly 40 years. The meeting comes as the country is facing tougher sanctions for its recent missile launches. (BBC)
• 2016 United Kingdom local elections
  • London votes Sadiq Khan to succeed Boris Johnson as Mayor of London; Khan is the first Muslim to be elected London's Mayor. (BBC)
  • In Scotland, the Scottish National Party win a historic third term in government with Nicola Sturgeon re-elected First Minister, but fall two seats short of an overall majority. (BBC)

• SpaceX successfully lands another Falcon 9 First stage onto a floating barge for the second time. It was carrying a Japanese communications satellite JCSAT-14, which was successfully put into geostationary orbit. (Wired)

• Cameroonian footballer Patrick Ekeng of Romanian club FC Dinamo București dies after collapsing during a match. (Guardian)

RD:Chris Mitchell

• Nominated by The Almightey Drill (talk · give credit)

• Oppose I for one oppose the trial run, but can't vote as the discussion has been closed. Similar to Ekeng or Piermario Morosini. Unfortunate death, but career-wise hardly RD-able. Brandmeister 08:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose because a situation where the death is the story instead of the death of a notable person(which the nominator concedes) should be a blurb, and this does not warrant a blurb. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment The above arguments are of course valid positions, but don't take into account whether or not the quality is sufficient. I deliberately chose this figure to trial the trial as trials should be trialled. '''tAD''' (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

RD: Patrick Ekeng

• Nominated by The Almightey Drill (talk · give credit)

• Comment agreed, if it's not posted before I wake up, I'll work on the article tomorrow morning to ensure it gets up to the standard required during this trial. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you TRM '''tAD''' (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support This death is interesting enough that I'd probably support it even without the trial. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support I've added a couple more refs and there's nothing unreferenced that's remotely controversial, marked as ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support Article in good shape and his death is receiving media coverage. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support, died while playing, and—it seems—might have been saved if not for poor medical treatment. Abductive (reasoning) 21:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• Posted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

RD: Reg Grundy

• Nominated by JuneGloom07 (talk · give credit)

• Neutral/Weak support - Boy am I torn on this one. We don't get much of an opportunity to nominate RDs or events from Australia. However, it's hard to say whether or not this lives up to RD's objective criteria for posting. I am inclined to let this one go through as a litmus test.--WaltCip (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment he died on 6 May. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Weak support Article quality is not terrible. Everything is referenced, and the article isn't a stub, which is usually the minimum necessary. It would be nice if someone so important were to have a more extensive biography, which is why this is "weak" for now. --Jayron32 16:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• FYI Note the new, temporary criteria described in the ambox here: Misplaced Pages:In the news#Recent deaths section. For the next month, ITN/C won't be evaluating the "importance" of someone when deciding whether to include them in RD or not, just on (a) being in the news, and (b) article quality. Please evaluate this nomination based on this new criteria. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose until orange tag is resolved. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I've taken care of that and everything should now be sourced. - JuneGloom07 Talk 22:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 02:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

RD: Margot Honecker

• Nominated by Presidentman (talk · give credit)

• Weak oppose Unless they did something spectacularly radical, I don't see how a former education minister is ever going to rise to the level of justifying inclusion at ITN, since every country will have dozens. With the possible exception of Prince Philip when he finally drops off, "married to famous person" has never been considered grounds for notability on Misplaced Pages, by very longstanding consensus; we made an exception for Nancy Reagan but that was very much a special case, since she was an internationally famous and influential person in her own right. ‑ Iridescent 21:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
• Weak oppose following Iridescent's rational above. There's a hint that her role as ministry of education and forcing military training is a significant (if possibly negative) contribution, but what's described in the article towards that is non-existent. I'd also beg that with the Controversy section with two maintenance tags, that absolutely would have to be resolved (and not just by blanking) before considering this for posting. --MASEM (t) 23:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – Although Frau Honecker did hold an official position in the DDR, she was known mainly for being the wife of that last drudge of Stalinism, Erich Honecker. Thus she fails on notability. Sca (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
• FYI Note the new, temporary criteria described in the ambox here: Misplaced Pages:In the news#Recent deaths section. For the next month, ITN/C won't be evaluating the "importance" of someone when deciding whether to include them in RD or not, just on (a) being in the news, and (b) article quality. Please evaluate this nomination based on this new criteria. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't taken note of the 'trial.' Sca (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose until orange tags are resolved. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CSECTION, I've incorporated well-cited text from the "Controversies" section into the main biography where it would have chronologically belonged. That should resolve any issues; everything is well-cited and the article is comprehensive enough for the main page. --Jayron32 12:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Request: in view of "the new, temporary criteria described in the ambox", explained by Floquenbeam, can you explain how this was posted (as part of the new month-long trial)? Presumably on the basis that the orange tags mentioned in the one oppose vote were removed and in the light of one support vote? Why should one bother voting at all? You can judge article quality yourself? 217.38.119.164 (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Quite so. I assessed the updated article and decided that it was of sufficient quality for the main page. You can vote, or not vote, that's up to you. You may spot some quality issues, or holes in articles, that would be helpful to an assessing admin prior to posting. Thanks for your interest in the trial. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Irish government formation/election of Taoiseach

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 Kwekubo (talk · give credit)
• Updated by PolOTuathail (talk · give credit)

• Support articles look to be in good shape. The blurbs are a bit wordy; I'm wondering if there is a way to condense it a bit. --Jayron32 17:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support on improvements - Importance clear. The government formation article is fine, but Kenny's has several CNs and a handful of unsourced paragraph, including one under the Vatican part that includes unsourced quotes, which absolutely must be fixed. --MASEM (t) 17:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support - but please make the blurb a little shorter and less "specialized" for people not so well versed in politics. Maybe a simply "Enda Kenny is re-elected Taoiseach of Ireland and forms a minority government." is just fine. Colipon+(Talk) 23:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support – Yes, but make it "Taoiseach (prime minister)" for English-speaking readers, please. Sca (talk)
• Support alt II, without the "(prime minister)". The English term for Taoiseach is Taoiseach; the mention of "prime minister" in the article is an explanation of what the role entails, not a job title. ‑ Iridescent 09:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Taoiseach: "The words Taoiseach and Tánaiste are both from the Irish language and of ancient origin."

Oxford: "Taoiseach – The prime minister of the Republic of Ireland. – Origin: Irish, literally 'chief, leader'."

– Why not write in a manner that is readily understood by most readers? Sca (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

For the same reason we don't call Angela Merkel "Chancellor (prime minister)", or Li Keqiang "Premier (prime minister)"; because "Prime Minister" is never used WRT Ireland, even when writing in English. Note that the term doesn't appear once on even the English version of his website. ‑ Iridescent 14:46, 7 May 2016

Chancellor and premier are in general English-language use; taoiseach is not. The term taoiseach would never be applied in English to any government leader except the Irish one, and won't be comprehended by most of the world's 1.2 billion speakers of English as a first or second language.

This is not British Misplaced Pages, it's the English-language Misplaced Pages. Sca (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Nor is it American Misplaced Pages, so we stop using terms like "plurality" then, yes? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree it's not American Wiki. It's the English-language Misplaced Pages.

Is plurality unknown in British English? Sca (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, as you're told every single time the issue arises here; the British equivalent would be "largest share of the vote". Incidentally, since it appears to have escaped your attention, Ireland is not in fact in Britain. ‑ Iridescent 18:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

"Escaped my attention"? I know that, and I strongly suspect that you know I know that.

However, for historical and geographic reasons, I believe Ireland is – or traditionally was – considered part of the British Isles, and that the English spoken in the Republic of Ireland is a variant of British English. Correct me if I'm wrong. Now, how about having a civil discussion of the issue, without snarky asides? Sca (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Nothing further to discuss here, the hook is accurate, the terms are linked where appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

PS: I don't believe I've ever used the word plurality here, and I'm not fond of it for ITN purposes since it may not be readily understood by many readers. Sca (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
• Post-posting support of the term taoiseach. That's what the office is called, just because some Yanks don't know the term, doesn't mean we can use it. If we applied this in reverse, half the politcal stuff on here wouldn't be posted. Fgf10 (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

More like "no Yanks." Sca (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

And no Brits know the term 'plurality'. Your point is? Fgf10 (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Boaty McBoatface

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)

• As much as I would love to support this – it's a story that pretty much everyone saw and had a small chuckle about – oppose as an entirely forgettable blip in the grand scheme of things. I do wish we had something like the German Misplaced Pages, where they put a few links to interesting articles that are in the news but don't deserve full blurbs. This would fit nicely there. Smurrayinchester 15:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
• DYK. Isn't this pretty much tailor made for DYK? Did you know ... that an online poll to name RRS Sir David Attenborough recommended the name Boaty McBoatface? Dragons flight (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as trivial. Modest Genius 16:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose but strongly support a DYK on this since the article was just created. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - How dare they did not go with the most publicly favored option Boaty McBoatface.--WaltCip (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Quite easily, it's a ship, not a boat. Shippy McShipface would have been a more accurate name. Mjroots (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose but what Masem said. This should definitely be on DYK. Nice article. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  17:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as a form of protest. I refuse to recognize the boat as anything but Boaty McBoatface — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.148.250 (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Mayor of London election

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 Smurrayinchester (talk · give credit)

• Weak support for the 'first Muslim' angle. de Blasio was not a groundbreaking candidate. That said, I understand not posting mayoral elections in general. 331dot (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support both bolded articles are in decent enough shape for the main page, fully referenced and extensive enough. --Jayron32 13:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

  Also, I added another altblurb, the formulation "Muslim Mayor of London" has some grammatical/parsing issues (makes it sound like there's a singular position called "Muslim Mayor" and he's the first person to hold it.) I've rephrased to avoid the ambiguity. --Jayron32 13:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. Still only a mayor, even if London is a top-25 metro area. Unless he is somehow promising to promote an Islamic agenda, his personal religion is a rather trivial matter (as is race, gender, family's national origin, what college he attended, etc.). For me, that bit of trivia doesn't overcome the fact he is a still only running for mayor. Dragons flight (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Disagree that his religion is a trivial matter when David Cameron comments on it: 331dot (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

How does that change anything about the event? Sca (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

If you feel it doesn't change anything, I respect that, but it is not trivial when the head of government of a country basically states that a mayoral candidate in the country's largest city is associated with 'extremists'. 331dot (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It's part of the (domestic) news of the day, all right, but IMO not up to ITN standards. Sca (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe trivia is not quite the right word, but in our world of identity politics it is hardly uncommon for politicians to comment on personal characteristics that have little or no obvious connection to a candidate's capabilities and policy. We often see religion, race, gender being brought up in contentious campaigns. Just because it is a part of the political rhetoric does not necessarily mean we should also give a lot of significance to someone being the first X to be elected Y, if we wouldn't ordinarily regard being elected Y as a sufficient reason to post. Incidentally, due to a quirk of London politics, he is also only the third person to be directly elected Mayor as no such elected office existed before 2000.

(edit conflict)

• Oppose – Per Dragons. And, note that posting the election of de Blasio was unanimously opposed by five ITN regulars in 2013. – Sca (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - This type of nom (the first X to be Y) is one we have to be really careful about because it has the possibility to propagate out of control. If we would normally post Y, then mentioning X is fine (eg mentioning Obama as the first African American US President) but going out of our way to post Y to feature X is a problem. But that does make for a good DYK... --MASEM (t) 13:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
• We should make a decision if we want to fight bias or embrace it - we did not post Donald Trump winning Indiana, but every now and then some people will argue that so-and-so article gets so many page views which means people find it interesting, and if we're not here to serve our readers what are we doing? If that argument is acceptable, then since page views arise because of bias, we should embrace it. If we elect to fight bias then I would oppose this; if we elect to embrace bias then I would support. With all that said I personally think we should fight bias and therefore I oppose this per arguments raised by Dragons flight. Banedon (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
• Weak something or other I don't really mind either way, it's one of those stories that is interesting but possibly not notable enough. Would be a good hook for DYK (and we certainly need more of those). Laura Jamieson (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Masem's comment re the first X to be Y. Sca (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose mentioning religion, if posted I don't mind either way if this is posted, but if it is I would oppose mentioning Kahn's as it's not relevant to the position or his politics, despite the Conservative campaign going out of it's way to promote racism. Thryduulf (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
• Weak support I have seen this among the leading news items in France and Spain, no idea about elsewhere. On the subject of religion, it is true that this is not a defining part of his platform (he has spoken of the retribution he has faced for supporting equal marriage) but it has been the main cause of muck thrown at him by opponents. I see in the lead of John F. Kennedy he is mentioned as the first Catholic president, and that is notable in a historical context because of bigotry in the campaign against him, despite him obviously not turning America into a theocracy. '''tAD''' (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sub-national election of an official with limited powers. Yes this is important for London (and for me personally, as a recent Londoner and frequent visitor) but ITN avoids posting local elections for very good reasons. Khan's religion is neither here nor there; the UK has long had elected officials from minority religions. The fact that this is the first time an elected London mayor has been a Muslim becomes even less impressive when you remember that he's only the third person to hold the position (after Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson). Modest Genius 16:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Interestingly, of those two, Livingstone has said in interviews that based on her name and lack of records, his grandmother may have been a Jewish refugee, and Johnson has Jewish and Muslim ancestors. There aren't too many Londoners who can trace their roots to the same city over centuries. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
    • @The Almightey Drill: And Zac Goldsmith, who came second, has Jewish ancestry (although is not himself Jewish). London is indeed a multicultural city. Modest Genius 10:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is pretty unremarkable, it's a mayoral election, I don't ever really recall seeing mayors of NYC, Paris, Tokyo being posted on here – so it's mundane unless we mention that he's a muslim. In this case, it may seem remarkable to an outsider who has the idea that we Brits live in some kind of Mary Poppins land, but it's really not. London is a multicultural city, which has elected plenty of non-white British MPs over the last decades, and Sadiq is in fact only the third person to ever be elected Mayor of London. So it's really nothing special, and posting it this way will just serve to legitimise the divisive campaign played out by his opponent. So not feeling it qualifies as world news. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  17:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Legitimizing it or not is irrelevant; we don't make judgment calls like that here; it is what it is and will be discussed as such. While you might not feel that it qualifies as world news, many news outlets would disagree with you. 331dot (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Extremely weak support on the grounds of him being elected as mayor to one of the largest cities in the world. I do not think the religion is relevant. JFK's Catholicism would not have been emphasized were ITN existent around this time.--WaltCip (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
• Extremely strong support: Alternative blurb as first choice, its historical and significant. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Do the above comments represent the Extremist Vote? Sca (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Change of leadership of countries is one thing, leadership of a city is another. If this is posted, then the results of the Welsh and Scottish assemblies/parliament elections should be announced as well. Optimist on the run (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
• Weak oppose the only real shaft of interest is the muslim angle, and since we're not in the game for righting wrongs, this isn't really a story of any interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
• Conditional support: the only thing really a story here is that he's the first Muslim mayor of a major western city, though this also has problems no matter how you phrase it. I propose the following blurb:

Sadiq Khan becomes the first Muslim Mayor of a major western city after being elected Mayor of London. Nub Cake (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose – Local level elections are not posted barring something exceptionally contentious and posting this would set a highly unwanted precedent. The only angle being pushed here is Khan's religion, and it's not our place to highlight that as the most important aspect (it's decent trivia material, though). If you take out the religion, all you're left with is a routine election of a mayor, a story no one would consider posting. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose a quote from his article "Tabloid sources reported that the imam of a Bradford mosque issued a fatwa in which he declared him to no longer be a Muslim; and police subsequently advised him to review his security" which alludes to him being a Muslim only in name. Nergaal (talk) 04:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment, the key issue here is how Khan himself identifies himself. That 1 local mosque imam disowns him should not be given disproportionate importance. --Soman (talk) 07:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Anyone can issue a fatwa. Khan isn't even from Bradford and has no links to this mosque - it's just a radical trying to cause trouble (if you read the sentence before, it was a protest against him voting for same-sex marriage). Khan doesn't drink and fasts at Ramadan, so I don't think there's much reason to doubt that he's a Muslim! Smurrayinchester 08:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose; parochial election of a local official to a largely symbolic post with few actual powers; the mayor of London isn't equivalent to the mayors of Paris, New York etc who actually exert significant control over their cities. Also strongly oppose the "Muslim" angle if this does run; "city which is 15% Muslim elects a Muslim candidate one time out of five" is totally non-surprising except for some (mainly American) media outlets who appear to think London is populated entirely by cheery Cockneys and loveable toffs. ‑ Iridescent 08:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

May 5