• edit
• history
• watch

• Syria–United States relations, Turkey–United States relations
  • Despite opposition from Turkey, President Donald Trump authorizes an arms deal with the Syrian Kurds to assist the Syrian Democratic Forces in their fight against Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). (CNN)

• Former Jakarta Governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, popularly known as "Ahok", is found guilty of blasphemy and sentenced to two years in prison. The accusation that he insulted the Quran sparked large protests last November. (The Guardian)

• South Korean presidential election, 2017
  • South Koreans vote in a presidential election, with Moon Jae-in of the Democratic Party of Korea winning the election. (TIME) (The Hill)
  • Moon Jae-in pledges to make South Korea "a just, united country." (Reuters)
• Dismissal of James Comey
  • U.S. President Donald Trump removes James Comey as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with Andrew G. McCabe stepping in as acting director. (BBC)
• The Assembly of California votes in favor of ending a ban which barred members of the Communist Party USA from holding positions in the state government. (NPR), (AP via Fox News)
• Georgia's 6th congressional district special election, 2017
  • The election between Democrat Jon Ossoff and Republican Karen Handel to replace the seat vacated by Tom Price becomes the most expensive congressional race in United States history. (CNN)

RD: Qian Qichen

• Updated and nominated by Zanhe (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Med Nyin (talk · give credit)

• Support good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support No problem here.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 02:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

RD: Christopher Boykin

• Nominated by Andise1 (talk · give credit)

• Oppose until GNG tag is resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Almost all the sources are about his death, so even though the GNG tag was removed, I'm not convinced it would survive AfD. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

  Indeed, I hadn't thought of that until I read the sources, 95% of which relate to his death. Borderline insignificant and probably AFD-worthy unless proven otherwise. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

James Comey firing

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 Yorkshiresky (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Cwobeel (talk · give credit)

• Oppose unless Trump is impeached over this matter. The head of the FBI serves at the pleasure of the President and the official reason isn't nefarious(even if the timing and unsaid reasons might be). I've nevertheless suggested a blurb with "fired" as that's the typical American term. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose it's big news because of all the conspiracy theories. This is an encyclopedia so I think we should avoid promoting this kind of thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think this is a very minor event, magnified by the sensationalist media. We are not USApedia. Someone lost their job, but who cares? If something significant comes out of the investigation, perhaps we could post something about it, but it is too early to tell.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, and additionally because this is unsurprising. This guy was on thin ice with every player in the 2016 election; with Clinton for going public about classified emails on her personal server and failing to pass on espionage cases against Trump to the prosecutor, and with Trump for failing to pass on cases for the former and for making ambiguous statements regarding the latter. It's almost like he wanted to get fired.128.214.53.104 (talk) 08:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support This is currently the lead story on the major English-language news websites outside the US, with unusual levels of coverage (eg, banner headlines, multiple follow up stories, etc). I'd usually not support an item like this given the risk of being US-centric, but the level of coverage is very significant. Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support because of the international interest as noted by nomninator and Nick-D (not that this has any chance of being posted as any story with a connection to US politics is shot down by the "USApedia" crowd.)--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel this way. Please assume good faith. We do post US stories when they seem significant, which does not appear to be the case here.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Let's be honest; if Clinton were President, he'd be fired anyway.--WaltCip (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - Every analysis agrees this is saber-rattling, and certainly not a "final" result of the prior Russian hacking claims and the Hillary Clinton email controversy alongside other partisan politics. At the same time, while we can factually report on the firing, there is no way under RECENTISM we can write a neutral article on this (everyone is throwing a zillion reasons for the firing into the ring), which is why we are exactly not a newspaper for this very reason, and why we have to look past "its front page headlines in every newspaper" for ITN posting. --MASEM (t) 13:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Domestic politics story not of interest to most people outside the USA. Gfcvoice (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment The blurb doesn't really explain what a "FBI" is, and what country it relates to. Gfcvoice (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure the wording on the blurb ("sacked") or the alternative blurb ("fired") could easily be understood if that person reads English as a secondary, or even tertiary language. Emphrase - 💬 | 📝 13:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Proposed a more neutral blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• And added another as while I don't think this should be posted, a significant part of this story is that this was Trump's decision. --MASEM (t) 13:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• At the Justice Department's recommendation. There's too much nuance to just attribute this firing to Trump's whim.--WaltCip (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• I was trying to be clear that this came from the executive branch; as I understand it, Congress through checks & balances can also impeach/remove the FBI director. --MASEM (t) 17:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support This has been the lead story on the television (local & national) news, & has been widely considered not only to be a surprise but to have ominous timing as this firing came as Comey was leading an investigation into Trump/Russian connections. (Note how the letter firing Comey mentions the former head of the FBI denied Trump did anything wrong three times. The lady protesteth too much.) -- llywrch (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The latest in the endless series of "Trump did..." nominations. And again, we don't post ordinary political stories from any country other than elections. If he is impeached I think that would have to be posted, but as of right now there is not even a credible claim that he has done anything illegal. I would point out that we avoided posts about the former South Korean President's troubles until she was actually impeached. What we have here is a media firestorm, largely manufactured by a nakedly hostile press. And I say that as someone who detests Donald Trump and (almost) everything he represents. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I really think you are downplaying the significance of this. The FBI director being fired whilst actively investigating the US President is unprecedented. It is not an ordinary political story, nor is it manufactured by the media.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – This event is getting widespread coverage, but it doesn't pack the significance requisite for ITN, and outside the U.S. this story will fade quickly. (For some Americans of a certain age, it does smack of 'Trick' Nixon's infamous firing of Archibald Cox (1973), which led to his downfall, but the circumstances are quite different.) Suggest close. Sca (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose and suggest we WP:SNOW close this. It's an internal political post with no major international consequences. Yes it's making headlines, but we can't go posting blurbs for every comparable post around the world. Modest Genius 16:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "International consequences" are not a requirement for posting. Besides, Russia. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose We're not going to post every step of Trumpgate. Wait for the impeachment of Donald Trump. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Changing to neutral. This is majorly "in the news", even though sometimes ITN doesn't post news. Dismissal of FBI Director James Comey is also a pretty decent article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support This is obviously a pivotal moment in the Trump story, reminiscent of Nixons Saturday Night Massacre. This is the top story of my local non-US media. I have sympathy for the people who say we should not post *everything* from internal US politics, but this is the make-or-break point, and we should post this. Thue (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

To draw comparisons to the Saturday Night Massacre is pure partisanship. For one thing, it's not even the same thing. An FBI director firing is not unprecedented; Bill Clinton did this in 1992.--WaltCip (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes but Clinton was not under investigation at the time so there was no suggestion of a conflict of interest.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Trump is not under investigation now, per the letter. Or are you suggesting Trump lied? Can't imagine. *snicker*--WaltCip (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support. ITN is becoming one of the worst WP:IDLI and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS venues on the encyclopedia these days. I hear the thing about us not being a celebrity news ticker, and the value in covering less well known stories from around the world, but when something hits the headlines of all the major outlets around the world, and is new and unexpected, we should generally always be posting it.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Not really: There are primarily two reasons that this is not an appropriate story to post. First is that it is the type of story that we as an encyclopedia are not equipped to or don't cover well in the immediate time frame due to issues outlined at WP:RECENTISM. It is a fact he was removed, and we have brief reasoning in the dismissal letter, but every news and political analysis is throwing speculation at the true reason, which is something that, if we ever know, it won't be for months or years from this point. As such, we have to be aware of the media spectacle on this situation and how that impacts neutrality and permanence of information from an encyclopedic view. Second is that we really strive to avoid posting the same topic multiple times over, and this is just a long string of stories tied to Trump's election. We expect many many more, and this is a case of we must be necessarily selective to avoid ITN becoming the Trump-ticker. If this were to follow the pattern set by Nixon, then the larger story would be the potential impeachment proceedings, which clearly is much more of a world-changing event. But we don't know that, CRYSTALBALL and all. Hence its better not to focus on a midpoint of unknown consequences that has a very limited effect on the world; coupled with the first point about RECENTISM, we need to stay out of this day-to-day. If you want news, don't use Misplaced Pages for it. --MASEM (t) 18:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose We don't usually post government managers being fired. This is not even a cabinet-level post, so I do not believe it reaches the significance level required for an ITN blurb. We would, of course, post a successful impeachment if it comes to that. Mamyles (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • This oppose seems unconsidered. This is Trump firing the person investigating Trump, which is an obvious conflict of interest. Yout "oppose" only cites "government managers being fired", which suggests you are entirely missing the point. Thue (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • That's a disingenuous objection. Were the head of MI6 or the Russian Federal Security Service fired without warning in the middle of investigating a high-level government official, that would make international news, even here in the rather insular USA. And last time a high-level official was fired during a similar investigation was during Watergate, which led the impeachment & resignation of the US President. This is a significant step towards that event. -- llywrch (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I do not think it is unreasonable or disingenuous to advocate that we refrain from posting until or unless an individual is convicted of wrongdoing. Leadership changes occur often in government agencies. The significance of this story is not that the FBI director was fired, it is the accusation that the president fired him in retaliation. Mamyles (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Posting any one of the proposed blurbs, which only mentions the FBI firing but not that accusation, is only telling half of the story. And it would be premature and possibly a BLP violation to accuse the president of corruption in a blurb, given that no one has been charged. Mamyles (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Fake news! Lugnuts 18:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose After reading the other comments here and watching the press briefing and the justifications of the firing I really don't see the legitimacy of the conspiracy that would make this event worth posting.75.73.150.255 (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

RD: Robert Miles

• Nominated by Thryduulf (talk · give credit)

• Note a fair-use image has been added to the infobox of this article. I have disputed that fair use rationale. Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose on abuse of non-free image alone. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • You mean the seven citation needed tags and specifically marked weasel words aren't worthy of opposition? You're getting soft ;) Thryduulf (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I'll get on to that once the image is excised! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The image is gone, but the article is clearly in no state to be posted. This is one of those I'd have a go at, but it's past midnight here - sorry. Black Kite (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The image is back. It has been nominated for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2017 May 11#File:Robert miles photo.jpg, but seems likely to remain in the article until that concludes, by which time this nomination will be stale. I wont withdraw it just though. Thryduulf (talk) 09:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

South Korea election

• Nominated by Sherenk1 (talk · give credit)

• Note this is WP:ITN/R - I've adjusted the template to note that. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment The "Registered candidates" section needs referencing and it will need some prose about the results when they are in (the polls don't close until 11:00 UTC). The "Nominations" section would benefit from improved formatting and some prose in the "Opinion polling" section would be welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
• Official results still coming in, but reported exit polls are showing that, as expected, Moon has won by a substantial margin. I've suggested a blurb. --LukeSurl 13:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

As we are in the Fake News Era, I think we ought to wait until the official results come in before posting.--WaltCip (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• I think that each "Candidate" subsection needs expansion for this, at least a paragraph or two establishing a short BG on the candidate and the platform/party/whatever they ran under. Just supplying a picture looks like a lack of effort here. --MASEM (t) 13:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I will note again: while this is ITNR and the results are well sourced and established, there is very little about the candidates or the issues (outside of this resulting from the impeachment). Stats are great, but we need context too. --MASEM (t) 01:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support Given the recent international coverage of North Korean activities and the impeachment of South Korea's previous incumbent, I think this is appropriate. From what I see, the article looks substantial enough as well. South Nashua (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support Added image and altblurb for consideration. Neegzistuoja (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment: Included image is now nominated for deletion on Commons, as cropped from an image that belongs to Yonhap and is not freely licensed. Revent 23:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
• The electoral commission has confirmed the result (CNN). There are numbers in the results table in the article, but no reference for these. CNN cite their two-decimal place percentages to the National Election Commission but it doesn't look like these numbers have been published yet on the English language Electoral Commission site.

Also the article suffers from the "opinion polling bloat" (a term I've just coined) that afflicts many election articles. It contains inordinate quantities of data on opinion polls, which may have been interesting for persons trying to prognosticate the result over the past few months, but are much less interesting now the actual results are in. Much of this could be split off into a new article or even simply removed. --LukeSurl 09:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• With some WP:BOLD use of collapsed tables I've tidied up the opinion polling section. --LukeSurl 14:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support given the international attention about the impeachment of the former president. Emphrase - 💬 | 📝 13:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• File:Moon Jae-In.jpg is CC0 and should be adequate for illustration here. --LukeSurl 14:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

  @LukeSurl: Sorry, but due to a request made to me by someone else to look at it, that image is now also at DR. There CC-0 license is not evidenced by the source of the image, and appears invalid. Revent 22:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment It is certainly notable, especially as today's e-mail newsletter from the Council on Foreign Relations suggests he is 'Open to Visiting Pyongyang,' which could change many things. But Moon Jae-in has too many "citation needed" tags for now. Feel free to ping me when they have been fixed, and I will probably support this nomination.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Conditional support for alternate blurb, which is IMO more readable. High profile election on the heels of a presidential scandal and under the shadow of (yearly) nuclear threats from the north. Conditional on others deeming the article worthy of linking, though it seems ok to me. ansh666 05:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support. This is an important election with enormous consequences for the world. I don't understand why this wasn't on the front page ages ago. --Bowlhover (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
• So, is this good to go? It seems there has been quite an improvement since I've last checked. --Tone 01:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - The article is outdated, claiming votes are still being tallied.--WaltCip (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support. This is a national election for a head of state and satisfies WP:ITN/R requirement. I updated the summary and the results sections to make the information more reflective of the present status including the final vote tally. I will try to update the vote tallies for candidates from 'minor parties' over next few hours, but I believe this page is of satisfactory status to go onto the front page. Sydneyphoenix (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I see that most of "citation needed" tag on ] page have been addressed. The official results will likely take weeks or longer to be updated on English version of the electoral commission website; if desired we can organize a full breakdown of results from the Korean version of the electoral commission website. I see that the opinion poll section has already been tied up, thanks to User:LukeSurl. There are paragraphs for major parties' primaries including the credentials of the candidates that ran in the primaries; I arranged the list of the candidates in these primaries sections to make them easier to read. I would argue that the detailed information regarding the candidates can be deferred to the pages dedicated to these individuals. Sydneyphoenix (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support, election article seems good to go but the article on Moon himself is still littered with tags. Any chance that native Korean speakers/editors might be able to help resolve some of these issues? Mélencron (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
• Posted with the syntax of the alt blurb (so it doesn't look just like the French blurb right under it), but without his party as I don't think it is typically included for presidential election postings. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Basuki Tjahaja Purnama

• Nominated by Banedon (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Ricdowiki95 (talk · give credit)

• Support as well-covered, encyclopedic, and an actually well-written and -referenced BLP. There's an article for November 2016 Jakarta protests. It might have a non-bold place in the blurb. That this has happened in the nominally secular Indonesia has given this a special kind of saliency.128.214.53.104 (talk) 10:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose BLP is written in odd mixture of tenses, several unreferenced claims, the sentence will be appealed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

An "appeal" is ex post facto in Indonesia. Subject is in custody and serving the sentence as of now. This isn't a case where he gets to lounge around on leave and groups of lawyers have at it; he's been sentenced and is serving that right now.128.214.53.104 (talk) 11:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fully aware of how appeals work, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose I didn't get a sense of the larger international context from reading the article on him. Also just removed some POV language, which isn't a deal breaker, but is a concern. South Nashua (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose In the lead paragraph is "Basuki is recognized to be a clean politician, with a strong stance against corruption and his straight-talking style" - sourced to ... an Australian student newspaper. Large amounts of poor English and grammar. "Awards and Achievements section" mostly unsourced. A number of other statements unsourced too. In no way fit to be linked at the Main Page. Black Kite (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

  Not to mention that this is simply an individual being found guilty of a crime which is written into law in his country. The longest sentence he could have received was five years. This is unremarkable, perhaps another DYK possibility. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, purely on article quality. It needs some general cleanup and a little more sourcing. However this is significant news. Appeals are almost routine in major criminal cases and have never stopped us from posting convictions in the past. If the article can be brought up to scratch this should be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose While it's very tragic that he has to go to jail for this, I'm not convinced that this is internationally-significant enough for a ITN blurb. I guess the reason it's in the news is the sensational aspect of a Muslim country jailing a Christian governor for blasphemy.. but that's not good enough for Misplaced Pages's ITN. He's a governor, not a head of state, and I'm sure more than a few governors are being convicted around the world. He's also a lame duck at his point, having lost the election and with a few months before his term ends. And in the grand scheme of things two years—while really tragic—is a relatively short prison term (I hope I don't sound cold-hearted when saying that!). HaEr48 (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Homo naledi

• Nominated by MarcMyWords (talk · give credit)

• This dating is extremely sketchy, and if it is true, it means that Homo naledi had no input into our DNA. Abductive (reasoning) 00:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support This is a fascinating discovery, and the article gives a pretty good overview. The researchers used six different methods to establish the dates. TimidGuy (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support interesting discovery. definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Okay, so you guys never listen. This "news" is of a previous scientific dating being disputed. What makes you think this new date is correct? Scientists reported the previous date, and you would have breathlessly said, "fascinating", "interesting discovery. definitely for ITN" like little parrots. This story is an embarrassment to science. Putting it on the Front Page of Misplaced Pages is likely to turn out to be an embarrassment too. Keep in mind that the original discovery was posted to ITN in 2015. Abductive (reasoning) 22:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Making ad hominem attacks really bolsters your argument. Killiondude (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed, but I can see his point. This is only a new dating, and only "suggests" coexistence with homo sap - it doesn't look like front page news to me. Black Kite (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• This is the first and only dating of Homo naledi. Previously, what we had were just age estimates based on the morphology of the fossils. The dating just reported was obtained using 5 different techniques carried out in multiple laboratories, with all the results being fairly consistent. The most critical datings were based on blind duplicate samples dated in different labs. It doesn't represent an ideal situation with easily datable volcanic deposits or coexisting fauna, but it is definitely not "extremely sketchy". WolfmanSF (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• From what I've found, this is the first time the actual team doing the research has published their dating results in serious academic journals. I'm not sure what previous dating you are referring to... maybe you can give a reference because the research team has specifically stated that they've taken this many years to publish their results because they wanted to be extremely thorough. Regardless, thanks for everyone's consideration. Marc Mywords (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• Opppose per Abductive. This is a debate that will not be settled over night, and has not been settled by this one paper. μηδείς (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• Given the extensive and careful work by multiple labs that has gone into the reported dating, there is little likelihood of the general conclusion being greatly modified by future reports. WolfmanSF (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• The blurb is wrong: the reported date (about 235,000 years old) is Middle Pleistocene, not Late Pleistocene. Ucucha (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks and feel free to edit/update. Marc Mywords (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support This is a fascinating finding because it shows an archaic-looking small-brained Homo species coexisting with much more modern human relatives and possibly modern human ancestors as recently as a quarter of a million years ago, not long before the time our own species first appeared. How they thus coexisted is a mystery. It indicates the diversity of recent hominins is considerably greater than most suspected. The only other indication we have of such a small-brained Homo species being alive so recently is the finding of Homo floresiensis in Indonesia, and these creatures went extinct when modern humans arrived, so there is no indication of prolonged coexistence in that case. WolfmanSF (talk) 03:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support. As far as I can tell, Abductive is just wrong here. This is the first time any physically derived date for these samples has been published. Previously, there had been speculation based on their anatomical resemblance to other species that these samples were likely to be a couple million years old, but there was no measured date to support or refute that assertion. Now that we actually have information about their age, the result is surprising and important for what it suggests about the history of early human relatives in Africa. As with any science, it is possible the authors may be wrong, but I don't see that as reason to withhold this. The evidence presented is reasonable, credible, and not disputed by any similar measurements. As important, the article seems to be in good shape and this seems like a story that would be of interest to ITN readers. Dragons flight (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
• Added shortened altblurb. Fuebaey (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support for blurb. Very significant discovery and the article is in good shape (although it probably needs to be expanded further). This is the type of notable global news that this section is made for. --Fixuture (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

• I did expand it a bit. To summarize, the arguments of the two opposing votes reflect a misunderstanding of the situation. The newly reported dates are the very first dates reported for this fossil find and there is no major controversy around them. The late dates for such a small-brained member of our genus represent a truly stunning finding that is "at odds with previous thinking about human evolution." WolfmanSF (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• Posted alrblurb. Thryduulf (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hanford tunnel collapse

• Nominated by Hawkeye7 (talk · give credit)

• Oppose Interesting, but not a big news story. Black Kite (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support in principle. It's a featured article, plus the tunnel is one used to store radioactive plutonium, a leak of which is not reported often. Admittedly, it's not a very big spill. 183.184.157.140 (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
• Added altblurb. It's a FA, but would personally like to see more news references and a more detailed update on this event in the article. Fuebaey (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Black Kite. Yes, they had to rush to take steps to fill in the collapse and minimize radioactivity leakage, but as it was already a site isolated from the public, it posed very little threat to anyone beyond workers already there and who were evacuated immediately. A cautionary tale but not a major event. --MASEM (t) 23:45, 12 May 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: