This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;
any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Born in Prague, persecuted by the Nazis, to Germany in 1949 to escape Communism, new studies in the U.S., Professor of German studies at Yale University, also literature critic for leading papers German papers and book author. Had an article of two sentences. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article could use additional depth about his role as a German literature scholar, maybe 2-4 sentences of detail for any additional scholarly work he did at Yale. SpencerT•C05:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just found ref name="Herčík" with a detailed record of which position he had exactly when, also much more detailed lists of publications and awards. I haven't checked the speeches, and am busy this weekend. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Former priest who was defrocked for marrying his daughter to another woman. Article could use more citations. Kansfield died on January 27th but as The New York Times noted, "His death was not widely reported, and The New York Times was only recently informed of it." Ed[talk][OMT]20:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm missing something, those two deaths weren't previously reported at all. A death going from reported to more widely reported is different, in that the article update remains stale. Again, that's unless I'm missing something. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RD (READY)/Blurb (consensus is oppose): Paul Auster[edit]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support RDOppose - until it meets quality standards. Too many {cn} tags, and the “Reception” section has at least 3 long and unwieldy quotes from Michael Dirda, Donna Seaman, and James Wood (undue weight to these 3 book reviewers). Also have a question: Do we need ISBN’s for the bibliography section? I will Support Blurb when the article meets the quality standards. Trauma Novitiate (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC) Moving my next comment here showing that I’m not voting twice, but pointing out that Auster is not considered to be a “niche” writer in Europe. He’s only unknown in the United States, where he was born and lived most of his life. Auster’s influence and popularity is mostly in Europe, where he is actually revered. Keep in mind that the day-after-death (dad) on April 30 the following facts from May 01 happened:[reply]
Paul Auster Wikipedia (WP) page receives 137,000 pageviews the day after death (dad) on this site (English WP)
Anyhow, I hope we can at least get the Paul Auster article up to quality standards and y’all will consider a blurb or at least a picture. Thank you. Trauma Novitiate (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose RD on current quality. Those are some high ass quotes which are not appropriate for a start. Oppose blurb as no sign he was consider a great figure.. Having numerous works or having several awards is not meeting the high bar we expect for blurbs. Did his writing or films massively change either industry? I'm not seeing any indication of that. Masem (t) 19:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being featured as a RD on other Wikipedia languages doesn't mean we should consider him for a blurb. We don't decide what to feature on the mainpage based on pageviews. Also, please don't !vote twice, you can reply to your earlier comment instead to not give the impression that more people are supporting than what is actually the case. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 12:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot about him. Either way, the two write in such disparate areas with such different audiences that pageview comparison between Toriyama and Auster would be meaningless. Sincerely, Dilettante21:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurb: I've been reading his novels since The New York Trilogy. He has most certainly been one of our contemporary literary greats. But his influence has been merely respectable. As mentioned above, his work has been and remains very niche. 128.91.40.237 (talk) 15:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurb - As noted above, we don't use page views (or postings on other wikis, or any other metric considerations) when deciding what to post. And while Auster was influential, I don't see him as being such a towering figure as to merit a blurb. Also, please note that Trauma Novitiate has effectively !voted twice. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose RD I count "citation needed" five times, but there is tons more that could be tagged. Needs major work. Schwede6610:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need for a new one, just update the existing blurb. Also his page may be created like the petit fellow in andorra was made quickly, if not jsut the same link as the current headline with a different name.37.252.81.135 (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I created the page for Edgard LeBlanc Fils over a month ago, but the bigger story will be the nomination of a new prime minister. When Le Moniteur officialises Boisvert's replacement by Fritz Bélizaire the main page should indeed include that info. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥11:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose although all sources and information is now on the article but it would be better if the article is divided into various section such early life, career etc. rather than a single biography section. PrinceofPunjabTALK03:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
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.
The floods themselves are technically stale as they began on the 18th, but the dam burst occurred yesterday. Article needs a lot of work, however. TheKip23:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.Support on notability, oppose on quality This is a large and highly covered event. Article is getting there, but not quite ready to be posted. I can try to add more when I can. Guadeterre (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. It should probably be redirected to 2024 Kenya floods, although that also says, incorrectly that it was a dam failure. Oppose in its current form at the moment btw, since there doesn't appear to have been one. Black Kite (talk)10:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(Closed) Changpeng Zhao (CZ) sentenced to prison[edit]
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.
Article:Changpeng Zhao (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Changpeng Zhao (pictured), the founder of the crypto-exchange platform Binance, is sentenced to 4 months in prison and becomes the richest man to be sent to prison. (Post) News source(s):BBC Credits:
Oppose he's being sent to prison based on allowing illegal behavior on his platform but nothing that he did illegally himself or in the company ... Four months is a slap on the wrist here (compare to the FTX founder's conviction) . And the aspect of being the richest person sent to jail is trivia, not news. Masem (t) 23:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Is there a REF for the date and place of birth, please? This should be mentioned in the main prose with a footnote or two. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Two police officers are killed and four more injured during a shooting at a checkpoint in Karachay-Cherkessia, Russia. The five gunmen are also killed in the ensuing shootout. The group also attacked another checkpoint a week ago in the same region, killing two officers and wounding another. (AP)
The Philippines announces that it will close all schools on Monday and Tuesday, due to an extreme heat wave currently affecting the country. (The Straits Times)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support I have done an overhaul and added references where they were missing in the poetry, plays, and librettos sections. I also addressed the cn tag in the background section. The article is now ready for RD IMHO, but further feedback is welcomed. FlipandFlopped ツ03:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I note I'm still expanding the article as I have time, but am making sure that any additions are properly referenced. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Canadian singer and songwriter. — Roncanada (talk) 2:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Authorities in Russia arrest a fifth suspect in last month's attack on a music venue in Krasnogorsk, Moscow Oblast, Russia, a Tajik man accused of providing the attackers with financing and communication. (AP)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
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.
WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Warning: active arbitration remedies
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. Parts of this page relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
You must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this page (except in limited circumstances)
If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.
Oppose Part of ongoing, and while there has been a lot of questionable actions, it has yet risen to where it should be its own blurb. --Masem (t) 00:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unlike the mass graves nom below, these are definitively covered by ongoing, and not particularly materially different than any of the other protests during the war. TheKip03:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I echo the above. What makes a protest in the USA more significant than every other protest all over the world? HiLo48 (talk) 03:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, the article does cover protests in other countries too. I would also say that the way the article is structured is poorly done - there are some of these protests that need to be called out in their own section like the UT Austin one, but most of the others just happened without any confrontation, and thus we don't need separate sections on each one - but as it is done now, it is the equivalent of a PROSELINE offense but applied to space and not time. That is, it is nowhere close to our best work. --Masem (t) 04:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, for now Although I would like to note that I disagree with the above statements that something like this could never be notable. There is evidence that this thing is expanding globally to other Universities outside of the United States. If it continues to grow in scale and pace to rival the Vietnam anti-war movement, then we should revisit. FlipandFlopped ツ02:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
These actions have become a widespread part of the news and public psyche, especially in America - from being half the talks of Congress to being constantly in the news everywhere... Amyipdev (talk) 06:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nor does that imply cultural significance or that it has to be ITN-worthy. It happens, it is reported in the news and that's it, like so many things. This is not a ticket news. _-_Alsor (talk) 07:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support the only change I would make is that if there becomes a generalized article on the student intifada instead of a US-specific one, it should be changed to that. I wouldn't say that Israel–Hamas war protests is the correct one to put here, to be clear.
As for blurb versus ongoing, I'm fine with either. I understand the concerns about doing a blurb and to be honest mostly agree with them, despite my belief that it's a significant enough event to deserve a blurb. I think what's more important is that it gets in ITN at all as soon as possible, and if putting it in ongoing is the way to do that, then I'd recommend that. Amyipdev (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That feels like an unnecessary bit of speculation, to put it mildly. Such an event would be its own story, but as yet (and hopefully throughout) no such thing has happened. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it wasn't on 'every news site now' in the way the OP claims. But while this is an important story, I agree with other posters who point out that this is covered by ongoing. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's a side-story to the war itself, we don't need to list every side-story to the war as well as the actual ongoing item for the war itself. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Every single item aside from Haduh Aku di-Follow and the three-in-one Celana Pacarkecilku di Bawah Kibaran Sarung was already covered by the immediately preceding Kompas source. MI has been cited for Haduh, Kompas for everything else, and the tri-omnibus has been commented out (referencing the book itself is also an option, but given its status as a collection of previously published collections, it's not of the same prominence. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492: Somehow, if I go to translate.google.com and enter the Kompas url, it only shows two translated paragraphs. But if I look at the original, there's more paragraphs. I'll trust you that it's there. Sorry about that. —Bagumba (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the way they've set up their paywall, it loads only the two paragraphs to start, checks if you meet certain criteria, and if you are allowed to read the whole thing it loads the remainder. Detik.com has a list, which I'll reference in the article. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
There are still multiple footnote-free paragraphs. Stats table at the bottom also lack sources. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Mostly Support I'd like to see a source realer than RLS Media citing anonymous "law enforcement sources" if I was found suddenly dead at home after not really being that much of a public figure in the first place, but others' WP:BDP mileage may vary. Saw a few relatively minor issues and fixed them. Short, but covers what you'd expect. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support article is adequately sourced, do not think we should add anything else about the death per above (no official cause has been stated yet by the police). FlipandFlopped ツ18:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Wasn't posted when originally nominated upon deal's announcement; however, he's now formally resigned, and the TPC has taken power. As a result, it's technically an ITNR item, as it's a change in who administers the government. TheKip22:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Ariel Henry was replaced by Michel Patrick Boisvert . It's good to see Haiti on the front page even if the basic info there is wrong. Boisvert signed the decree enacting the TPC in his role of acting prime minister (a position he's held since 25 Feb). This position as acting PM was reaffirmed prior to the swearing-in of the TPC. Henry did indeed resign, though. That much is right. 😁Though a few sloppy foreign sources (e. g. Forbes) referred to AH as acting president, most serious sources (NYT, Wapo, Le Nouvelliste) use the term de facto leader or sidestep the question (see the AP news source cited in the nomination which does *not* refer to AH as acting president) . -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥20:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the lengthy OR about acting president in the current PMs entry and have cross-posted at WP:Errors. Please fix this as suggested over there so folks aren't misled into thinking there has been a change of government. The council of ministers and the PM remain the same. Sorry for being a pain, but being rigorous is better. Best, -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥21:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting revise or pull: Hate to nitpicky but the blurb is not exactly accurate. The articles on Wikipedia are poorly phrased/wrong. The outgoing Council of Ministers of outgoing acting PM Ariel Henry has selected Michel Patrick Boisvert to be the current interim PM until the TPC has selected a new interim PM. The TPC is also tasked with selecting the next cabinet and preparing the next presidential elections.VOA source
Here are two (admittedly not great) proposals to replace the current blurb:
More than 11 hours after the errors were reported this still has not been fixed. Any other country would have the name of the new PM on the front page. Also, the entries do not say what the blurb does. Only the blurb is wrong.
In most coups, "resignation" is not the most important word. :) Note also that first Henry and now Boisvert are referred to as the PM a.i. (interim PM), which is how Boisvert signed the decree creating the TPC. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥07:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
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.
Hasn't the conviction been overturned though? Usually media outlets have to post false information that was publically announced for libel reasons. CheetasOnMission (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support As we posted the original conviction, it's only fair to post its overturning. However, we should keep in mind that he is currently still serving a concurrent 16-year sentence in Los Angeles since 2023, which has not been overturned. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 15:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support per Chaotic Entity. While I recall posting the original case in California, I am not sure we posted the New York case. But if we did, then we need to post this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unlike Cosby, weinstein still has other convictions that weren't part of that that will keep him in jail. Masem (t) 15:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To add, a new trial has been ordered, so this is only vacating the ruling dye to a mistrial, so he may still be guilty of this conviction. — Masem (t) 16:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Comment firstly welcome and congrats on 1st nomination, hope it's one of many to come! On the article: That failed verification tag in the lead needs to be fixed. Also career as an ombudsman needs to be integrated into the biography somehow (as a subsection maybe?) otherwise this just looks weird. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The union representing air traffic controllers in France cancels a planned 24-hour strike on Thursday, although a majority of flights have already been cancelled. (Euronews)
Spanish Prime MinisterPedro Sánchez says that he is considering resigning from office after the launch of a judicial investigation into his wife after accusations by a right-wing legal platform. (AP)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
There's usually a section after "Results" that deals with aftermath or reactions; that's as yet missing. Otherwise, this is looking good. Schwede6621:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb as it doesn't state who will be the PM before it is confirmed. We do not need to wait for a PM announcement to post the results of the general election as it's not uncommon in parliamentary systems for government formations to take an unpredictable amount of time (days, weeks, even months), especially when no one party achieves a simple majority. As for quality, the article is looking good. Content is sourced and it has a very decent amount of prose. Vanilla Wizard 💙21:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support article is fine. We don't need to wait for a PM announcement, the blurb can be edited if that is announced whilst this is still on the front page. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Warning: active arbitration remedies
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. Parts of this page relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
You must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this page (except in limited circumstances)
If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.
Oppose as part of ongoing, hasn't changed any aspect of what's been happening there to a great degree. --Masem (t) 12:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, as tragic as it is, we can't post every human rights violation happening there or ITN would be full of them. Also, what is "Gaedgza"? Is it a variant spelling of Gaza, a spelling error, or a more specific place? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 12:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To little information at this time - we don’t know when these people were killed or the circumstances of their death. It’s possible that these were buried before Israel raided the compounds. In addition, covered by ongoing. BilledMammal (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose/Wait more or less per BilledMammal. I'm not totally convinced this would be covered in Ongoing, but the article is missing a lot of context, particularly the "who" and the "why", which is really important when we're talking about what could be a war crime. I went "oppose/wait" because this is an item worth revisiting, but any investigation will probably take some time to complete. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per DarkSide - I'm on the fence whether this supersedes the ongoing item or not, but the fog of war is still in effect around it and the article feels woefully underdeveloped. TheKip18:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability, wait for the article to be developed as more reports come out. The scale of the human rights violations is horrific. I think we should have blurbed the Flour massacre, though I don't recall that one ever being nominated. The Nasser Hospital mass graves discovered a few days ago represent a much larger tragedy with at least 310+ bodies found. The Al-Shifa Hospital mass graves reported on today contained at least 381+ bodies. Either of those mass graves individually are worth a blurb, but both of them together are most certainly blurbworthy. Two other mass graves with at least another 30 and 50 bodies were also reported on today. We rightly blurbed the Bucha massacre which had varying estimates of roughly 200-500 bodies found in mass graves (UN estimate 73–178, Ukrainian estimate 457). But just what's been reported on today is at least 771+. That's just horrid, and more than enough to supersede ongoing. I have no doubt that more information will become available in the coming hours to days to bring the article up to shape. Vanilla Wizard 💙22:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait this is definitely notable enough outside of ongoing if substantiated; however, there just isn't enough information as of now and I doubt Israel's going to allow a transparent investigation anytime soon. AryKun (talk) 08:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
LuxembourgBoy42, please note that notability is not a RD criterion. If you aren't notable, you don't have a Wiki bio. If you have a Wiki bio, you qualify for a recent death entry if the bio is up to scratch. Schwede6603:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Added a bit more about the details of the deal, including protests in Armenia in response to territories being handed over. Sadly, it is not yet clear where the first boundary markers were placed. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 11:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose an important start, but this doesn't read as any formalized treaty or equivalent, only they're starting to survey what the boundary likely should be which they will then be the basis of the peace agreement. --Masem (t) 12:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do think this could be ITN worthy, but what would go a long way to facilitating such a nom is a page on the demarcation itself, which should be feasible given the scope of this event. Not voting either way at this current moment though. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait(?) per Darkside. ITN-worthy topic IMO, given the prior intensity and long-lasting nature of the conflict, but needs a better target article. TheKip18:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - On the basis that this is only one small step in a long staircase and there would be a valid claim to post numerous steps of that staircase. It's better to just wait until the border has been settled.
Support on notability, oppose on quality This is an important development, but the quality of each of the proposed target articles isn’t good enough. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for a permanent agreement or peace treaty. Interesting topic and a sign of progress towards a solution, but this is near the start of the process not its end. Modest Geniustalk12:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
No it doesn't. A bibliography is a list of sources and, if that's a list of books, as in this case, it's trivially easy to verify by using the bibliographic information provided. You can also use the {{authority control}} which is there to provide similar information from the indexes of great libraries. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is an orange {shortlead} tag. Please expand the intro. --PFHLai (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC) And the Bibliography section has not yet been fully sourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 09:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The United Kingdom announces its largest ever military support package for the Ukrainian military, pledging 400 vehicles, including 162 MXT-MVs, 60 boats, 1,600 air defence missiles, 4 million rounds of firearm ammunition, and an additional £500 million in funding. (The Guardian)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
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.
Article:Voyager 1 (talk·history·tag) Blurb: NASA announces receiving decipherable data from Voyager 1 for the first time in five months. (Post) Alternative blurb: Over five months, NASA resolves a failure in Voyager 1's flight data system and resumes receiving decipherable data from the probe. Alternative blurb II: After five months of attempts, NASA resolves a failure in Voyager 1's flight data system, and receives decipherable data from the space probe again. News source(s):NASA JPLCNN Credits:
After rearranging code from a defective Voyager 1 chip, NASA is finally getting back data from the furthest probe in the Solar System! Honestly, it's a little miracle that they managed to save the half-century old probe. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 08:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support though I don't think the blurb is really sufficient. First off we don't need to say "NASA announces..." but thats minor, there's something to be said that they had been troubleshooting V1 for the last five months (over that great distance and with age of the computer) to resolve that. --Masem (t) 12:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Always nice to see more science news pop up in ITN, especially in regards to one of the most ambitious space exploration programs in history. ArkHyena (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support I thought we were witnessing the end of one of the greatest spacecrafts to ever leave this planet. Very good that it's gonna last a little longer atleast. TwistedAxe[contact]22:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I don't get why this is so important, but I see I am in the minority. But the image... is it possible to have one showing it against the black background of space? White is jarring. Abductive (reasoning)23:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting oppose. This and the recent Ichthyotitan description just don't seem important enough to slap on the front page. I get that covering deaths and genocides and election cycles is exhausting, but we shouldn't be straining to find 'positive' stuff to cover. wound theology◈04:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deaths and disasters and election cycles have direct consequences for people. That is why they are immediately newsworthy. Voyager 1 regaining contact and the description of a new species are very minor in comparison. I think that Wikipedia editors are biased here: our interests will lead us to give undue weight to events in the sciences. wound theology◈23:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The new ancient species thing does seem somewhat arbitrary and inconsequential. Now, if that lifeform were intelligent, different circumstances. However, Voyager 1 resuming communications means we get a couple more years worth of data about the universe we are temporarily a part of that we simply have no other way of obtaining, that does seem consequential. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Each time the US Supreme Court went from a 5-4 to a 4-4 to a 4-5 to a 3-6 left-right split had somewhat big consequences especially collectively some of which we've seen already and few non-Americans on ITN gave a shit. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:WHATABOUTISM, I personally think that most of Wikipedia exhibits a strong American bias, including coverage of Voyager 1 -- let's not forget the political and cultural context of the Space Race. American vanity projects, big woop. That's not really relevant here though; the nominator here explicitly mentioned wanting a counterpoint to the negativity in the news. Unfortunately, life sucks and then you die. It's a lot easier to do evil than to do good...at least, it's a lot easier to do evil things that are notable. wound theology◈ 06:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC) I misread the tone of your argument here. wound theology◈06:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Voyager 1 spacecraft wasn't really the Space Race. While it's true it was 1964 when science realized the planets briefly spiral
once per 175 yrs allowing a sane rocket to kick a small probe to Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and the stars* with enormous travel time savings but this wasn't really on White House radar till 1970. And was cancelled '71 ("resurrected" '72) and V1 would've seen Uranus+Neptune if the other V broke so the late 1970s was the only time it could gravitationally slingshot out the spiral.2 wasn't slingshotted as good as 1 to see moons & stuff, it even passed Neptune on the momentum-robbing side
*that'd take tens of millennia - it's only 4x farther than Pluto so far which is barely enough to discover some of the stuff beyond the solar-stellar wind fighting area before it dies (like interstellar sound). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[T]he nominator here explicitly mentioned wanting a counterpoint to the negativity in the news. No, I did not, and that was not the reason for this nomination. I was just pleasantly surprised that Voyager 1 was unexpectedly saved, and figured out it deserved attention. I only mentioned offsetting the negativity on the Ichthyotitan nomination, but that was as a possible consequence of the nomination rather than as a reason for it. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 06:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here -- admittedly I was too lazy to track down the Icthyotitan nom. Regardless, I struck my comment anyway. wound theology◈07:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I too was surprised it had so much support. It's the furthest human object (besides turning on outdoor lights and things like that) from 1998 to forever unless something faster is launched in the future (which has never been a serious proposal) and its power source is estimated to deplete to the point of communication and data gathering ability loss around 2025. Is that enough? I dunno, I'm not you or consensus. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support A lot of folk may expect ITN to be basically a ticker purely for big geopolitical news, but they'd miss the point that Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, isn't focused on just that, but on things of encyclopedic importance. This means covering a lot of science news, which is something that universally most mainstream news sources relegate to be buried far below the front-page headlines. And this is definitely one of those stories that, while it gets relegated on geopolitical outlets like NYT or BBC, is certainly a major news story. This reflects how Wikipedia has a different focus than sites like those. Nottheking (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia, despite being an encyclopedia, is not on a mission to prove that science news is more important or even as important as geopolitical happenings. Straining to find things that are positive to offset the dirge of negative stories is giving undue weight to relatively minor things -- geopolitics concern real human lives, which is why they are given so much attention in mainstream sources (and Wikipedia is biased towards mainstream sources.) Encyclopedias cover the entire realm of human knowledge -- not just geopolitics, but also not just geopolitics and science news. Wikipedia editors are more similar than we are different -- let's be honest here, we're all a bunch of nerds and of course new species descriptions and astronomical events are going to stand out to us. wound theology◈06:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're an encyclopedia, so we should be trying to weigh all fields of knowledge equally - space probe news is equally as important as anthropology which is equally as important as US politics which is equally as important as what's happening in Gaza - because these are all areas of knowledge that get significant coverage that we can document as a reference work. We're not a newspaper which would weight politics and wars higher than space news or discovery of ancient bones. We also work to fight the systematic bias that occurs from 24/7 media channels. Masem (t) 16:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pull how is does this possibly rise to blurb-level significance? 'Spacecraft continues operating' is not of ITN importance. If NASA had declared Voyager 1 lost, that would be worth posting as the end of its mission. Merely recovering from a glitch is not enough for me. Such temporary setbacks are common (TESS and Hubble have both had recent ones) and this one only took so long to resolve because of the great distance (hence slow communications) with Voyager. None of the !votes above convince me that this is anything more than an ephemeral hiccup in the mission. I'm generally in favour of posting scientific news but this is minor stuff. Modest Geniustalk10:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pull While I don't feel particularly strongly about it, I have to agree with Modest Genius. Voyager was never declared lost and the spacecraft continues to operate after an interruption. Also, the transparent image on the front page doesn't look very appealing. Johndavies837 (talk) 10:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pull - I don't really enjoy pulling blurbs. But the current one is misleading and implies that the spacecraft had become lost or defunct, and this is not the case. Duly signed,⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)13:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had suggested the alt blurb, that is what makes the story (and doesn't make it seem like V1 was lost) - NASA engineers fixed Voyager 1's systems which is a massive engineering achievement given the age and limited capability of the equipment, distance it is away and thus the time for communications. Masem (t) 16:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support - per supports and global significance. This and Voyager 2 are furthest-traveled probes in human history. Losing meaningful contact was big news, and reestablishing that coherent contact after months is also big news. Opposers and pullers utterly fail to convince that the consensus-posted blurb should be pulled. Jusdafax (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Weak Support. Williams' death has received very little coverage outside San Francisco; nevertheless he was a pretty relevant figure in the civil rights movement and I could see a case being made for this RD.Support I have just been informed that the above information is irrelevant to this discussion. Thank you. In that case, everything else looks good to me. Poxy4 (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Poxy4Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD. The only thing to discuss is if the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Twenty-two people are killed, including 18 children, in overnight Israeli strikes in Rafah in the Gaza Strip, according to local health officials. (AP)
A car veers off the track during the international Fox Hill Supercross motor race in Diyatalawa, Sri Lanka, and crashes into a group of spectators, killing seven people and injuring 21 others. (BBC News)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
This poet, anthologist, translator and interpreter has been a fundamental American literary voice for 60+ years. His book Technicians of the Sacred is a classic. But this article’s RD status is not ready, and has been tagged since 2012. Apparently the SOP is to list this under date of death, even if it takes a few days for a credible source to verify death.Note: this is listed under April 23 b/c that’s the earliest, credibly sourced date available in English confirming Rothenberg’s death (tho a source in Spanish was dated April 22, and social media reported it hours after his passing on April 21).Trauma Novitiate (talk) 04:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has been the news headline due to the significance of the return of the said motorsport event in Sri Lanka after five years. Abishe (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The article is short on biographical detail. The WRTI source has a lot of content that could make this a much better bio. Schwede6621:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
As WP:ITNQUALITY notes, Articles should be well referenced; one or two "citation needed" tags may not hold up an article, but any contentious statements must have a source, and having entire sections without any sources is unacceptable. Overall the article is well referenced. And I added several references to address one of them. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its only notable because it is a continuation of the rain and flooding that hit the Middle East, hence while that one system should be a single article and covered that way. Regular seasonal flooding of that area that comes from normal storm patterns may be appropriate for ongoing once that season starts, but we shouldn't be posting regular annual weather aspects otherwise. Masem (t) 19:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there's an ongoing merge discussion. If merged, then blurb should be updated, and if not merged, then this event on its own isn't ITN worthy (and the article is questionably notable on its own anyway). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Andrew, thank you for nominating. Next time, please under the day of death, and yes for updated only when done (not yet).There's a lot about contracts, and little music, and refs missing for the recordings, also there must be more, no? He held chief positions in three continents! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Actually, I've turned out to be busier than expected and I haven't had a chance to work on this. I don't think I'll be able to with the NFL Draft going on today and tomorrow. Sorry. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
An IraqiPopular Mobilization Forces command post at the Kalsu military base was hit by an explosion resulting from an air strike, killing one fighter and wounding six others. Security sources say it is not known who was responsible, and Israel and the United States both deny involvement. (Reuters)(CNN)
Indians begin voting to elect members to the 18th Lok Sabha. There are 969 million people eligible to vote, and voting will continue until June in seven phases. (AP)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose No mention of playing career in body, just unsourced details in lead and infobox, even if he is most notable as executive. Here's a source for a sentence or two,[9] which should be sufficient.—Bagumba (talk) 07:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
I've tagged a lot more unreferenced stuff. And the citation style where his works are referred to in the prose, with the citation just giving page numbers, is also not up to scratch. Schwede6620:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose there is one cn tag and the last line of death section is not sourced. It would be better if reactions section is merged with the death one and replace a tweet source with a better one. PrinceofPunjabTALK12:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Closed) Ongoing : 2024 United States presidential election[edit]
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.
Alright. There is a large scale interest in this election, not even just in the US but also in European countries and India. Elections have been posted to ongoing before and I believe this would be beneficial to Wikipedia. Lukt64 (talk)
Oppose. The general election is already WP:ITNR and I don't see how any other events would be ITN worthy (aside from a theoretical Trump conviction, which wouldn't really be covered by the election article anyway). Estreyeria (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - In India, the voting stages have begun. In a UK election, parliament would be dissolved a set time before the election. The US election just isn't 'ongoing' in either of these senses. It's many months away, and the party conferences haven't even happened. The US electoral process is absurdly protracted, but let's not get way ahead of ourselves. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(Closed) 2024 Indian general election (ongoing)[edit]
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.
Oppose we don't generally post elections onto ongoing. Also, there's about 1 election a week, so it's unlikely that there will be significant updates every 1-2 days, which is a requirement for ongoing. The article itself has no prose updates to even say election started. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - We have posted elections into ongoing before - For example we put the 2020 U.S. elections in ongoing, mainly due to the long vote count that took place. India is the most populous country in the world, nearly 1 Billion people are eligible to vote. The election is massively in the news, its organisation itself being notable as this is the largest democratic vote held in human history. Absolutely deserves to be ongoing for the duration of it. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only problem is that ongoing is massively clogged at the moment. My personal opinion is to take off Myanmar and Sudan, while merging the Red Sea Crisis into a 'Spillover' item. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's DYK, not ITN. Even then, no election candidates are in this item. How would this rule apply here? We've posted many contentious topics that were even more controversial than this PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Elections are ongoing in the UK – I'm getting leaflets and canvassing currently. And the US has its presidential election and whatever else. Politics is endlessly ongoing everywhere, it seems. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That video is four years old because this protracted process is not new; it was much the same last time. ITN posted the results at the end in the usual way. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FIFA is explicitly stated for ongoing and outcome blurb entries in WP:ITN/R, and it was perhaps by its entry in ITN/R that allowed it to be posted as ongoing despite what could had been a no consensus close in the last discussion. Going by ITN/R, only the election results will be posted. If you have issues with FIFA getting an ongoing entry, it can be discussed on the talk page. – robertsky (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With FIFA, there's ongoing results as matches are played and teams eliminated. So there is "result" news happening every week FIFA is going. With elections, the "result" news is typically when the election is over and reported, so it is normally just a singular blurb. Masem (t) 15:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew, that's disingenuous. The current UK election period is for local elections and one single parliamentary by-election. The Indian election is a general election. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have a general election coming too. That has had an article for over four years and it has averaged more than one edit every day throughout that period. It's in the news often and its readership is comparable with the South Korean election that we're currently blurbing. Such politics is ongoing all the time here. It might be nice to live a country which doesn't have party politics. But then there's the weather per our current lead blurb... Andrew🐉(talk) 15:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be noted that this is not the election campaign, but the election itself that is taking place over several months, unlike in places like the US. Also, the results progressively coming from each phase of the election mean we might have significant updates every few days. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 09:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support the world's largest democracy is holding a election that is biggest in the human history and it is regularly getting large number of page views. LiamKorda10:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't what ongoing is for. When the election results are announced, they'll certainly be notable enough for a blurb, but there are unlikely to be a sufficiently high number of updates, as per Joseph. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Putting any election into ongoing is a bad use of it. If we put India's, we clearly have to put the US's because of how important this one is, and that starts a slipperly slope for all election seasons. We will absolutely post the results (assuming the article is good). To add that adding the unknown factors in the 2020 US election after election day into ongoing made sense, since at that point the news cycle was not about campaigning any more but all the legal challenges to the vote. Should the Indian election turn that way after the campaigning is over, leaving a major question of who won, then that might also be worth ongoing. But in the pre-voting period, the bulk of the news is all about campaigns, and that's something we shouldn't give attention to at ITN. --Masem (t) 12:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is different to other countries as the voting is over a longer period of time (not one day like most other country elections, and a few days for EU elections). Nevertheless, the article doesn't meet the criteria of WP:ONGOING: In general, articles are not posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening. In order to be posted to ongoing, the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information. There are no recent regular updates on this article at present, and these regular updates would need to be maintained throughout the election period to keep it on ongoing if posted. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When will the votes be tallied? During the voting period or after its over? If they aren't being tallied over this month, then this is still in the campaigning phase, and we can wait to post the results. — Masem (t) 15:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A country having general elections in most cases isn't newsworthy unless the country is new to the democratic process, or returning from an undemocractic one (even then, this would have been events separate from the elections). India having month-long elections is a procedural one designed for its circumstances. Is it noteworthy, yes, news worthy? No. However, if there is/are (touch wood) major disruptions to the election process, we can consider them for blurb(s). Also to note that the 2019 elections generated... one nomination. – robertsky (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Regardless of the amount of people voting in this election, I don't think we should post anything about it until the winner of the election is announced (unless a major disruption occurs, per above, but we will cross that bridge if we ever come to it). Moncoposig (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Still breaking, but MSM is both reporting and mentioning israel and iran. You may remove oil prices, but i just screenshotted it on my phone and is almost 3% up. User:37.252.95.10
We should try to wait until we have confirmation what actually happened, beyond reports of explosions. That said, if we're going to have this tit-for-tat conflict here, that's probably where one page summarizing these events as a whole are needed, not individual articles for each attack. (This is a long-standing NOTNEWS problem). Masem (t) 02:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like olympics or other events, could be ongoing. Would need a chronology article. Do you thinking ongoing is better than a bump? There is going to be a counter from iran too. (speculative on my end, i admit, but chronology still adds up since its all inside a week).37.252.95.10 (talk) 02:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that the reports are that this was a single strike at a site near an Iranian nuclear facility, this is absolutely better suited for an ongoing item on the conflict than an individual article. — Masem (t) 03:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hear (not substantiated yet) there was a strike on some outpost in Syria and something in Iraq. Probs more reason for ongoing. If anyone wants to create that page.37.252.95.10 (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ongoing—The situation is evolving dramatically by the day, and has two of the most powerful countries in the Middle East at the brink of all-out war. If any conflict merits an Ongoing, it's this one. Kurtis(talk)10:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Red Sea into Spillover - Very notable event, but would be best to merge with the Red Sea Crisis item into one 'spillover' of the Hamas War. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The conflict in the Red Sea is still ongoing as long as it is having an impact on shipping and economic activities. If the ships have started to use the channel normally then the spillover link can be removed. This conflict is only more notable than the Yemen conflict because of the disruption to shipping.
Waiting until the entire conflict ends to take the item off is an arbitrary metric, conflicts often last for decades without any major events. Best to merge PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability, if we're going to post it then let's post it independently, it is not a part of red sea crisis or any other ongoing news, it's a separate event with loose connection to other ongoing wars. 3000MAX (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - both sides have said it's over. The pundits seem to agree. That seems to be the opposite of ongoing to me. And is the final volley of 3 missiles even notable? If it ever happened - Iran is saying it didn't even happen! How many different countries has Iran fired missiles at recently ... Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Isreal ... did I miss any? Nfitz (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Germany arrests two German-Russian nationals for an alleged military sabotage plot on behalf of Russia to undermine military support for Ukraine. (Reuters)
Support although, unlike Ichthyotitan, it should be noted that the length estimates overlap heavily with Titanoboa, with only the higher estimates making it the largest. Either way, this really seems to be the giant fossil season and I'm all for it! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 08:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD. This vote doesn't take that into account in any way. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: As always with these elections it'll be now coalition negotiation time, but the main news is HDZ won but maybe not as by much as they would like. A slightly bigger aftermath and commentary on the results would be nice, but it's not a bad article at all. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admin comment I'm willing to post this once meaningful prose has been added to the "Results" section. Please ping me when it's done. Schwede6619:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I’ll be out for the next 6 or 8 hours. If another admin wants to have a look in the meantime, that will be good as well. Schwede6621:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
18 people are killed and 78 others are injured in a Russian missile strike which damaged an eight-storey building in a densely populated area of Chernihiv. (BBC News)(Reuters)
What about a scientific discovery, to change a bit from the wars, politics and disasters? A new species of ichthyosaur of absolutely gigantic proportions, nearly as big as a blue whale and possibly still growing at the time of death. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 08:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Hell yeah, back to our encyclopedia roots. However, there is a lot of insecurity about whether or not it actually would be the longest ever. I don't think we can make such a certain claim in our lede. The article could use some expansion too I think. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1. Paleontology is a science where facts (especially animal size) are changing all the time with new discoveries and new analysis from other researcher. 2. It's only partial skeleton (heck, there is only jawbones), scientist speculate all the time so it's not really newsworthy Afif Brika1 (talk) 10:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the size was given with a margin of error, it's not fair to say that it is only speculation—all of science changes in light of new evidence, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have scientific news on ITN. The bones found are very much larger than those of Shastasaurus sikanniensis, its cousin and predecessor as record-holder. Plus, the news is the discovery (being formally published), not just scientists making a new length estimate. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 11:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Chaotic Enby. This is more than just a theory or hypothesis, this a scientific discovery backed by evidence. Unless someone proves otherwise, then these are the current set of facts. The earth was verifiably flat until it was proven it definitely was not and the sun revolved round it, until it was proven it was the other way round etc. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support Just wanted to say I was very happy when I went to Wikipedia today and saw this on the main page. I hope we start posting things like this more often, ITN has the potential to be so much more than just a bullet-point list of horrible tragedies. Glad to see many others feel the same way. Great idea nominating this & many thanks to the editors worked on the article! Vanilla Wizard 💙23:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support Agreeing with Vanilla Wizard. Good to see some none-tragic news hitting the headlines at Wikipedia. ITN could benefit from more stories like this getting blurbed (scientific achievements, etc.) --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Former U.S. representative from Pennsylvania. The article needs work but the linked news article reporting his death has a lot of details which can be added. Curbon7 (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article needs some ref work and there's little information about his political career, especially his tenure his congress (besides the extensive info about scandals). Nothing about committee assigns or anything other besides his scandals are mentioned. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. 10 inches of rain poured in 24 hours in parts of the UAE, highest since Emirati climate records began in 1949! Unprecedented in a normally arid part of the world. Droodkin (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, oppose on quality seeding has already been dismissed as the cause, this was just a very unusual storm pattern that caused flooding. The BG section of the article doesn't mention the weather system at all and focuses too much on the seeding part. Masem (t) 15:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability, oppose on quality some places got 2-3 times their annual rainfall in a matter of hours, and the 2nd largest airport in the world was closed. However, article is orange tagged, which needs fixing. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article still fails to explain the fundamental weather system that caused the rainfall and focuses too much if seeding and long term climate change. Our weather disaster articles nearly always dip into details about the weather systems that lead to these disasters. Masem (t) 18:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb is wrong, there have been floodings in yemen too (which is not a gulf state) and a person died there. Maybe change it to the statesof Arabian peninsula or something close to that Abo Yemen✉08:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Stephen: The blurb is incorrect. Currently, the blurb states “Flooding in the Arab Gulf states leaves at least twenty-four people dead.” This is factually incorrect as Iran has had eight casualties and is not one of the Arab states of the Persian Gulf. The blurb should instead state “Flooding in the Persian Gulf leaves at least thirty-two people dead.” --Bijanii (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the fatality in Yemen now, it could also state “Flooding in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Peninsula leaves more than thirty people dead.” The current blurb - “Flooding in the Arab Gulf states leaves more than thirty people dead.” - is still incorrect and needs to be changed. --Bijanii (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose the Ariyaratne's Buddhist Ideas section have several unsourced statements and is using just one sources numerous times. Same with Buddhist Economics section. PrinceofPunjabTALK10:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Should be good now I've fixed the 2 CN tags and have added more REFs to previously unsourced statements. Article should be ready for ITN/C. RIP to the GOAT of NCT '90s/'00s VP selections. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist800013:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
It is not comparable to the fire in the Notre-Dame de Paris. The Notre Dame is a UNESCO heritage site, Børsen is not. So ITNR-wothiness in this case is questionable. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've had plenty of fires on ITN of buildings that were not on the UNESCO heritage list, the significance for ITN is interest and the coverage in media, and this is front page stuff on what we usually refer to as significant media. Cart(talk)11:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, oppose at size of update - CNN is reporting that at least half the building has been consumed by the fire and that they're still historical art and furniture that is trying to be rescued from this. But one paragraph is far too small to cover whats happening and it may be a few more hours before we can suitably expand. --Masem (t) 11:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support when properly updated. I don't like the word "ancient" in the proposed blurb. Børsen was "only" 400 years old, "ancient" is usually reserved for stuff like the Roman Empire. "Historical" would be a better word. Thue (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article has been sufficiently updated. Support on notability, Oppose on quality This is an historic building which was previously the headquarters of the Danish Chamber of Commerce, and the fire seems to have caused significant damage. However, the article has two cn's, and the paragraph the fire is not ready yet. It doesn't actually say if the fire has ended, and doesn't indicate the full extent of the damage.Gödel2200 (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are photos of the building on fire, but they aren't so great blurb-wise since they don't include the significant spire, all the scaffolding hides the building and will only present us with an ad for Batman. I think the best alternative is the suggested pre-fire photo. Cart(talk)16:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. The article is now sufficiently fixed and as up to date with the fire as we can get it at the moment. There will be more in days to come, but I think it's ok to post. Cart(talk)17:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The inevitable 2024 Børsen fire has just been created, but it's so far just text copied from the original Børsen. So I don't think the link in the proposed blurbs should be updated. For now, I think it's good to have the background and the new article will fill its purpose later. Cart(talk)18:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The new article is mainly a copy of the text in the original, and will be more useful as the aftermath develops. Right now, the history behind the building will help readers. And as of now, the blurb is posted without photo. I think that's a good call since the Iran-Israel conflict is way more serious than this fire. Cart(talk)20:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After research, it appears that Denmark's freedom of panorama is limited to non-commercial uses for artistic works in public places (Article 24(2)), so this is a copyright violation and should, at best, be hosted locally under fair use be marked as a de minimis use, and very much not go on the main page. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which picture are you talking about? The one that we're currently using showing the building in question is fine as the building is 400 years old. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was your 'research' to read the first sentence of Danish copyright law? The second sentence on article 24(3) states that "buildings can be freely reproduced in pictorial form." Stephen23:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support given the broad coverage. Added alternative blurb 2. Now that there is an article for the fire, I suggest wikilinking to that, and bolding said text.Gust Justice (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've replaced the fire photo in the article with a cropped and perspective-corrected version of the image, where the copyrighted logos are cropped and cloned out. It's avaliable if you want to use it on ITN. Personally, I think people will recognize the "before the fire photo" easier from visits (movies, media, etc.) to Copenhagen, than just smoke and scaffolding. Cart(talk)13:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is still the logo in a couple of different places on that banner. One, on the shoe, another is in the lower right corner. Granted, it's significantly more obscure but I don't know if that matter when it comes to copyright law. (IANAL)Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those logos are so small, they fall under the de minimis rule and not a problem. I didn't want to clone more things than necessary . Cart(talk)15:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fifty-eight people have been killed in Tanzania and 13 people have been killed in Kenya in the past two weeks by flooding caused by torrential rains, with more than 125,000 people in coastal areas of East Africa affected by the flooding. Tanzania announces plans to construct fourteen dams in an attempt to reduce the damage from future floods. (AP)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support in my view, the expansion needed tags were redundant - I have now removed them. The section they were in was summarizing his record as a manager for each of the various clubs he supervised, and beyond the few sentences present, there is not much more to say. The entirety of the article is well-sourced (including those very same sections). It would be a shame for Mr. Herzog to miss out on RD with that in mind. FlipandFlopped ツ21:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
One side note, obviously topics dealing with SFR Yugoslavia and its former constituent republics can be very contentious. Vandalism would be a concern. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me.18:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose There's some cn tags in the article, but I feel like these can be fixed. I'll support RD, but I'll oppose a blurb as the article doesn't really mention his legacy/overall impact he had in Croatia. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb as nothing in the article gives a good reason he was a major figure that created an impact or estaish Ed a legacy for the country. Oppose RD on quality issues (cn's, etc) I'll also note much of the article is sourced to a single work (#6 as I type this) which begs again on how important he was in considering a blurb. Masem (t) 19:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb He was only PM of an independent Croatia for less than 1 month, I see no reason for this being majorly influential or leaving a legacy. Also Oppose RD at this time as there are too many CN tags on the article. The C of E God Save the King! (talk)05:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb given his short and apparently not very influential tenure as Prime Minister. The article only spends half a paragraph on it, and doesn't even explain what he did during his term. Oppose RD given the 5 citation needed tags still in the article. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 09:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Though he was prime minister at time of the declaration of independence, he had little role in the declaration itself and the succeeding wars were litigated moreso by President Franjo Tuđman than his prime ministers. Curbon7 (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Heavy floods in Afghanistan have killed at least 33 people and injured 27 others in three days. About 600 houses were either damaged or destroyed, and around 200 livestock died. The floods also damaged around 800 hectares of agricultural land, and more than 85 kilometers (53 miles) of roads. (AP)
International relations
Cyprus suspends Syrian asylum applications as there are increasing numbers of refugees. (Reuters)
Ready Looks ready to me (all paragraphs are cited; long article). Don't want to post it since there's a lack of support votes. Schwede6618:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Oppose the article is currently a bit of mess, IMHO. Much of it consists of large lists without clear/consistent citations - particularly the "criteria" section. The whole thing also just strikes me as somewhat oddly formatted. For example, there are italicized subheadings with no content underneath ["Thursday, April 11th"], even though content slightly further down pertains to parts of the tournament that happened on April 11th. With this being said, taking a brief glance at the 2023 Masters page, this does seems to be "par for the course" (pun intended) for past years tournaments as well - so I will defer if others don't think the formatting is an issue. FlipandFlopped ツ02:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose like a lot of golf articles that get nominated here, it has far too much detail on qualifying system, and very little prose on the actual event (2-3 sentences per round and none on the final round is too little). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the scorecard section also violates MOS:COLOUR, as it's using colours as the only way to display eagles, birdies, bogeys and double bogeys, in violation of the first bullet point of that MOS section. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opposethe article is mostly a list of players taking the part in the tournament and some daily leader tables. Not enough prose to justify posting on ITN. --Bcp67 (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jalapeño: I feel as though this was a bit of an early SNOW close. Quite a few opposes were based on the quality of the article, which can (and hopefully will) be fixed. Might have jumped the gun with this one, my friend. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist800013:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Attacks have largely stopped and situation has largely cooled down in the red sea, and the spillover is more general. Probably Israel–Hamas war (spillover) Lukt64 (talk)
Neutral, leaning support Although the Red Sea situation has calmed down significantly from the past few months, it's still far from over. Technically, the crisis itself is a result of the spillover from the war, and as the war is starting to drag in other parties other than Hamas (mainly Iran), this could be a good nom, especially after the April 13 strikes - marking a clear escalation. TwistedAxe[contact]23:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I once again oppose a stand-alone spillover item in Ongoing on account of the fact that said spillover is intrinsically linked to the war itself. However, I do think that like how we have items such as "War in Sudan (timeline)", perhaps we could do "Israel–Hamas war (spillover)". That I would be favorable to. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, didn't read the nomination comment. I'm a support to the above mentioned idea, though my comments on a distinct ongoing item still stand. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Broader scope, includes both the Red Sea Crisis which has been winding down (though still ongoing) and many other related ongoing events, including but not limited to the recent escalations between Israel and Iran. Target page receives updates any time another significant spillover event occurs. Very good suggestion. Vanilla Wizard 💙05:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Was initially against this, but having the spillover in brackets next to the item would be a good option, especially as coverage and interest in the Red Sea Crisis has slowed. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think it would be better of have something akin to Middle East crisis (Gaza, Red Sea, Iran-Israel) with better wording. I equate the OP to concluding that the Is attack in Russia was a spillover of the Syrian Civil War which seems to come across as pigeonholing. CheetasOnMission (talk) 10:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we'd jump the gun to give the series of conflicts right now a new term. That's up to future historians, not us. Perhaps in 10 years this will be known as the "Middle Eastern Wars of the 2020s" but for now as per commonname, spillover would work PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Someone already suggested the idea of formatting it as "Israel-Hamas War (spillover)", and I think I agree with that idea, as it makes every relevant conflict related to it accessible on ITN without cluttering it via individual listing. If any mentioned conflict leads to something beyond the scope of being spillover, perhaps the formatting/labeling could then be changed, but for now, this should work. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk | contribs) 11:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal The Red Sea Crisis has somewhat winded down, and the article is no longer getting sufficient updates for ongoing, so we can remove it. However, I don't see a reason as of now to replace it will Spillover of the Israel–Hamas war, as that article has nowhere near the amount of updates needed for ongoing. Instead, we should replace with the Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war (12 January 2024 – present) article, which has enough updates, but also seems to cover most of the topics in the scope of the Spillover article. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal of the Red Sea Crisis as the situation has calmed down significantly, and is lacking updates that would qualify as ITN Fileyfood500 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Attention needed Seems like the above discussion has unanimous support !votes and something should've been done by now, but this discussion is about to get archived. While there wasn't a full discussion on the merits of doing (spillover) versus doing (timeline), I think if nothing else, Red Sea Crisis should be removed. We might need a second discussion anyways to come to an agreement on the spillover/vs timeline thing, but I hope this won't turn into another situation where we have a discussion and everyone agrees on something and then nothing gets done and it gets archived. There's been too much of that lately. Vanilla Wizard 💙20:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly agree with the above - to avoid a pointless renomination when there is a clear consensus for removal + to make subsequent discussions more focused, could a passing admin please make a decision and close this accordingly? FlipandFlopped ツ21:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
@PFHLai Yes, the Spanish Wikipedia article looks good and has several sources. Unfortunately I can't help out with expanding, and it will be probably missed... Bedivere (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well... this nom still has a few more days of eligibility. Maybe someone can expand this wikibio over the weekend based on a new obituary. We shall see... --PFHLai (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gunmen abduct and kill nine people from a bus in Nushki District, Balochistan, Pakistan. All victims, whose bodies were found under a bridge, appear to have been shot at close range. (Reuters)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Spanish conductor and composer who worked in Berlin for 38 years but composed always based on Andalusian roots. The article was an unsourced stub but is better now, and I'm convinced that a composer whose songs were performed by Montserrat Caballé in Carnegie Hall is worth mentioning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support as well-sourced. Works are all cited, orange tag is addressed. One passage needs a citation, but otherwise this looks ready. gobonobo+c23:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Agreed, titling an article about something that is expected to happen as if it has happened surely violates at least some policies and guidelines. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it was for clarity, not to accuse you of making things up. Reliable sources also say it's a Portuguese ship and I think that's the part that can't be inferred from the blurb. Anything you add to this blurb will inherently be Israel/Israeli/Iran/Iranian-linked. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Until we know what their payload and targets are, and whether they actually strike (before Israel can shoot them down), this is an unclear situation. --Masem (t) 20:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Hasn't actually happened yet, so we need to wait to see if the strikes even occur in the first place. If they strike (or even if they don't hit but just get shot down) then definitely support. Gödel2200 (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also, hundreds of cruise missiles are underway, and Iran is readying many dozens of ballistic missiles for firing. Apparently, the plan is to time the drones, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles such that they arrive at roughly the same time at the targets in Israel. Count Iblis (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until the results of the impending cruise missile/drone attacks are more clear. Even if they are unsuccessful though, I still support an eventual blurb as even a failed strike of this magnitude is very likely to result in dramatic military escalations in the region. FlipandFlopped ツ21:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sufficiently significant even if the attacks are intercepted. This is, to my understanding, the first direct attack on Israel by a sovereign state since the '73 war. JDiala (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I believe once it has started, I don't see the need to wait. Future events can be added to an article as in the case of Russia invasion of Ukraine (timeline)
Strong Support, It's Happening - For the last hour hundreds of Iranian drones and missiles have been flying over Israel. Israel is in a state of emergency, huge media attention, the U.S. is increasing its military readiness, this marks the first time Iran has directly attacked Israeli soil. This is textbook breaking news, and we should post this immediately. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to draw attention to Iran-Israel relations. Like a lot of 'relations' articles, the article is really poor quality. There is no information on Iran's involvement in the Gaza conflict, plus this event urgently needs to be added PrecariousWorlds (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think any of the !votes here are saying that this may be too insignificant to be covered by ongoing, even if all the drones and other missiles laucnhed are intercepted, the attack would still be significant. We should however wait until we actually know what the attack ultimately is, and can update the article appropriaetly for this. --Masem (t) 23:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We know the nature of the attack. Iran, for the first time, launches a massive drone and missile barrage against Israel in retaliation for the embassy airstrike. Let's post this now, and any further information about loss of life, destruction, targets can be added when we have more info. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, because the article is not yet of quality until the event actually completes. We are not a news ticker, we can wait until ultimate damage occurs. Masem (t) 23:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support "This is the first direct military confrontation between the two countries since the beginning of the Iran–Israel conflict."
Wait, does everything have to be posted immediately? Nothing, in terms of impact, is clear at this moment. ITN is not IT Breaking N. ---Sluzzelintalk00:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's saying the whole tit-for-tat has concluded, not the tat. But yeah, that includes the tat. I think it was handled pretty well, all things considered, and don't think anyone's to blame for where shrapnel lands; get well soon, little girl! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article presents this as if it were WW3 with long lists of world leaders including Biden, Macron and Sunak. The reality seems to be that it was a lot of "sound and fury signifying nothing" as the Middle East has been a free fire zone for some time and this seems to be more of the same but with less impact than most. As it's just the latest round in an ongoing conflict, it would be better to have a more general entry such as Spillover of the Israel–Hamas war in Ongoing. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What? This is the Iranian response from yesterday (that was posted after a few hours once the quality issues were fixed), the earlier Israeli airstrike was already posted when it happened. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Attacks have largely stopped and situation has largely cooled down. Lukt64 (talk)
Support removal This doesn't seem to be something that has near daily widespread coverage (compared to the Gaza or Ukraine conflicts). --Masem (t) 13:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What an odd claim. There is only one functioning hospital in the capital, women are dying in childbirth, schools, universities, hospitals and ships have been looted and burned in the last week, and kidnappings are reported daily (including the entire crew of a container ship). Most international papers (Le Monde, Toronto Star, BBC, Washington Post, etc.) reported on Haiti yesterday, since the Transitional Council was just officially created by decree *yesterday*. Currently, Sudan and Haiti are two of the largest humanitarian crises in the world. See above for three stories in the last day (I did not bother reporting *all* of the dozens of different sources reporting on the transitional council). As J. Charles says the situation today is one of [...] panic. You don’t know what every day is going to bring. You wake up and you hear the gunshots. People are telling me that when they don’t hear the gunfire, that’s when they start to panic and wonder what’s wrong, because it’s become such a constant for them now. Unfortunately, with the vandalism, the burning, and the looting of hospitals, it’s very difficult to get health care.source (12 April 2024)-- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥13:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's probably too early to remove this, but if the current status quo continues for another few months, as awful as it is, I don't think it should be ongoing. So, Oppose, but we should re-evaluate the item in the next few monthsPrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as significant events are still being reported. And agree with Lukt64 that the Sudan conflict is worthy of ITN, although it's a separate discussion. One confusion I have is that we acted on this discussion (Haiti was removed) when there was a majority but no consensus, but did not add Sudan which also had a clear majority and lack of consensus. Probably a meta discussion about how we are evaluating the discussion Fileyfood500 (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal It has been ongoing for quite a long time now. Long ongoing events such as Yemen's (2014–) and Syria's (2012–) respective civil wars don't have a chance to be on the ITN template. And I agree that the Haitian crisis doesn't seem to have near daily widespread coverage compared to the situations in Ukraine or Gaza. 2604:3D08:9476:BE00:2828:34A4:A394:A86F (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal Still ongoing (and tragic), but not in the dynamic sense which gives it widespread, daily coverage and makes it ITN-worthy. Yakikaki (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal Article does seem to be having a fair amount of dates listed for the last week or so, but those updates don't seem to be that significant. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Stephen Respectfully, given that a new significant development of the crisis was just nominated as a blurb an hour ago, this might not have been the best moment to close the discussion. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly more defensible than the actions on Sudan since there was a 2:1 majority when the story about the Transitional Council first broke. Of course, the situation hadn't and hasn't cooled down, as any brief survey of the news shows. Calls for reparations have come up again and are getting significant coverage, but the main thing remains migrants being deported back, violence in the capital and many towns throughout the country, and of course the dispute over whether or not the TPC folks would be appointed directly (which they were on the 16th). (NYT, BBC, Reuters, The Guardian, etc., etc. Views dropped by 75% overnight, so the early closure helped keep the bots in the dark. :) Imagine if Charles de Gaulle Airport or Heathrow or La Guardia had been shut down for two months, I wonder if that would be in the news at en.wp. (I'll refrain from comparing it to the treatment of the mall closure at Bondi Junction just below...) -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥23:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think it's fair to compare routine gang violence to a mass murder incident targeting random civilians in a place where significant violent acts are extremely rare to begin with. Koiramainen (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a significant event. Mass casualty crime is extremely rare in Australia. Article quality is now adequate for posting and will improve as more information becomes available via ordinary editing and expansion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unfortunate event but given that there does not appear to be any tied to terrorism or other larger scheme, this is just a domestic crime. --Masem (t) 17:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support This event is rare, is currently having a major impact on the country of Australia, and is being widely reported upon across the world. It is therefore "in the news"... that's enough. The section is called "in the news" and not "articles about events that Wikipedians speculate will have a lasting impact", for a reason... FlipandFlopped ツ17:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That logic is used all the time to refuse posting stories that take place in the US. Would we post a stabbing spree if it happened there? Probably not. So no reason we should post this. -- RockstoneSend me a message!18:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A fair criticism, but for the record, if it was an American stabbing spree which was similarly rare in its nature, involved multiple deaths, and was generating global coverage, I personally would support it. FlipandFlopped ツ20:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have to remember though that this basically never happens in Australia. Mass shootings and mass stabbings are very rare in Australia because of our strict gun laws and our strict knife laws. In America there is a mass shooting every two days. The last mass stabbing in Australia was in 2017. Schestos (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is the lasting impact. We are far too quick to create articles on these types of events that ultimately fail NEVENT and only are created because of the burst of coverage. Unless there was a terrorism or similar angle to these attacks, it is unlikely to change Australian laws. — Masem (t) 20:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per this logic, unless the motive indicates something that might make it have a wider impact such as terrorism I don't believe it should be posted. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How convenient then that 90% of the sources we use to judge the "international-ness" of news are based in the US, UK, Western Europe, or Australia. AryKun (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While this does have a fairly high death count, the article as of now does not indicate this will have a lasting impact. Gödel2200 (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: this was a tragic moment and it is currently the top story in Australia. Special editions of Australian news programs are being aired and the stabbing has made international headlines since such an attack is very rare in Australia (this is the first mass stabbing in Australia since 2017).
Support I'm on the fence, but leaning toward support given the rarity of such an event in Australia and international reaction. I do agree that it may not have a lasting impact (which in itself is a WP:CRYSTALBALL discussion), but while I acknowledge that as an issue in terms of WP:GNG, this is not a deletion discussion, and I don't think that matters for ITN. Melmann00:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is an argument as to whether there should even be an article on the event due to lasting impact, then there really should be no question that it's inappropriate for ITN. -- RockstoneSend me a message!03:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rockstone35 @Chaotic Enby Why? The purpose of ITN as far as I understand is to highlight the news-related content of enwiki. As there is no significant dispute around the veracity of the facts presented in the article, and the article is not currently being considered for deletion, why is ITN the right venue to adjudicate WP:GNG concerns?
While WP:DEADLINE is an essay pertaining to more general cases, there is absolutely a deadline if we're posting news-related items on the main page. That's how news work. And ITN's purpose is to highlight encyclopedic news-related content (we're not a news ticker), so if there's a doubt about the article being encyclopedic, it shouldn't be here. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 12:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: This is a notable event with coverage from many international news sources. It is also a rareity in Australia for an event like this to happen (compared to (for example) a shooting in the US or an incident in a non-western country)). HoHo3143 (talk) 04:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rare events are significant and notable, and are likely to have long-term significance. Article is comprehensive and well-written. Happily888 (talk) 07:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because it appears to be a crime with no geopolitical significance. Very sad event, but we routinely don't post news items with this range of casualties. JehochmanTalk15:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, the fact that it took 7 days to post seems to lean heavily against posting it. But oh well. I'm sure if this happened in a non-western country, we'd totally post it just the same, right? --RockstoneSend me a message!07:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't participate in the discussion as I was too involved in editing the article to be impartial, but there absolutely was consensus to post it. None of the opposing rationales were convincing. It really went no higher than speculative "what would happen if it happened in X country" and concerns about lack of enduring notability without much explanation as to why. It was outweighed by the support rationales. The closer made the right call. Local Variable (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is reported that Israel is preparing for a direct retaliatory strike from Iran on southern or northern Israel as soon as the next 24 to 48 hours. A person briefed by the Iranian leadership says that while plans to strike are being discussed, no final decision has been made. (The Wall Street Journal)
France advises its citizens against traveling to Iran, Lebanon, Israel Palestine due to the risk of military escalation. (CNN)
Germany tells its citizens to leave Iran immediately, saying that "air, land and sea transport routes" will likely be affected by military action in the region. (Reuters)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Wait It doesn't seem like the situation regarding the council is fully clear. The article says in the lead that it was "constituted" on 12 April, but it still has not been "established through appointment of its members and is not operative." I think we should at least wait until it is officially established, which the background section explicitly says has not yet happened. Gödel2200 (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see the rationale in waiting. On the other hand, the newsworthiness of the council is merely the fact that it was constituted as even that simple step marks the culmination of nearly six months of negotiations. This is currently the leading story in all Haitian media. (Realistically, the council is probably never going to get off the ground and its eventual failure will be the fulcrum on which the further deterioration of the situation turns.) Chetsford (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, certainly the mere fact that the council is being constituted is being widely reported and is a big event. But it seems premature to post a blurb about it, when the blurb only says that Haiti "prepares" to form the council. In my mind, the main notability of this would be the council becoming the head of state. I think we should treat this like any other change in such a position, and not post until we actually know who, if anyone, will take up the new positions. Gödel2200 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta disagree here. We've known such a council was going to be created since Ariel Henry announced he was stepping down. This is no more notable than said announcement and will be less important than when it officially takes power. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. It will technically become ITNR only when the council takes power, but the formation itself is newsworthy now. The ultimate fate of the council - including whether it ever becomes "fully operative" - may take a long time to more clearly materialize; it could fall apart completely and spur another major development, or the next step after this might just be a symbolic/bureaucratic milestone that generates lesser coverage if all goes to plan. FlipandFlopped ツ02:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "As of 13 April 2024, it had yet to be established through appointment of its members and is not operative". Stephen03:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"neither entry mentions the opposition to foreign meddling" It does have six paragraphs about that, but I suppose there's always room for more. "fork should list the members" There are no members to list. The propositional council had members. The council as legally constituted has no members. Chetsford (talk) 05:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I did miss that you had included some foreign criticism (Kim Ives in Brooklyn, a Canadian activist) under domestic reaction. As you know, the Council has rejected the decree as modified by the lame duck government. The composition of the council has been reported on by multiple sources and should be included in the article. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥05:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. It sounds like you also missed domestic criticism in the domestic reaction section like Jacky Lumarque, Camille LeBlanc, etc. "The composition of the council has been reported on by multiple sources" It seems as though there's some confusion. The council as constituted (the subject of the article) has no members. The propositional council (also called Transitional Presidential Council) has nine members. The two are legally separate entities and, until the members of the latter are appointed to the former (not a sure thing) have no relational overlap other than their names are spelled the same. Chetsford (talk) 05:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The published decree does indeed include 9 members (as you correctly wrote in the entry), (all of whom reject the decree as published because it does not list the names of the representatives and adds requirements concerning accounting clearance). Will check back this evening to see if this has been updated. (I would much rather be able to support). -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥07:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I think you're being cheeky and I missed it so I'll just leave this note for the awareness of others and move on (but, if there actually is confusion, I'd be happy to discuss it at the article Talk page). The decree does not include nine members. It includes provision for nine members. The TPC that is the subject of this article is a body with no actual members that was created on April 12. The TPC to which you're referring is a legally separate body that has nine members who earnestly expect to be appointed to the former body to fill its nine vacant slots. But per CRYSTALBALL we can't list members of a board based merely on the confidence of candidates they'll be appointed to it anymore than we could list Keir Starmer as the PM of the UK because he's really confident he'll win the next election. Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should definitely not confuse "cheekiness" with rigor. There is a history to the Transitional Council which should be identified. There were nine names set out, as documented in the parent article. That they were not validated by the outgoing government is, in itself, part of the story of the TC. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥16:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I didn't mean to suggest anything untoward, I just thought you were being jocular. Again, this is an article on a body that was legally constituted three days ago, whereas the TPC to which you're referring is a body of the same name that conjured itself into existence in March to advise the creation of the regularized body (and whose members are making a political claim to also being the April TPC, which may be the source of the confusion). Not sure how better to explain it, but happy to continue discussion at the article's Talk page if there's still incertitude. Sorry again if I misinterpreted you. Chetsford (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer returning the main article on the crisis to ongoing, but I think I've fixed all the misinformation that was in the article, so I've removed my oppose vote. FWIW, errata were published in Le Moniteur Tuesday appointing the members that had been nominated by the TPC in Kingston, and specifically acknowledging that the TPC was formed from Kingston. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥23:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Oppose The article has only three sentences about this update, and doesn't actually describe the implications this will have. If this is just a ruiling, and won't actually bring about any changes, then I don't think it is significant enough (even though Iran is being labelled as a terrorist state). Gödel2200 (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gödel2200: I've expanded the article; it also declares the attack a crime against humanity, and it allows families of the victims to pursue cases against Iran in the ICC by ruling that states who finance and plan terror attacks can be held responsible for them even if the attack itself is carried out by a non-state actor. BilledMammal (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good faith nom but not really that notable in the grand scheme of things. Unless this ruling actually causes any diplomatic or geopolitical consequences then it isn't that significant (per Gödel2200). TwistedAxe[contact]23:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - little to no practical consequence here, and barely "news" given the actual event happened, checks watch, thirty years ago. nableezy - 11:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
No consensus to post. As noted regarding the DYK comments, this wouldn't quality for DYN for newness, which leaves 5× expansion.—Bagumba (talk) 07:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I missed the news about the B.O.A.T. at the time and I don't recall ITN covering it. This was off-the-scale huge, making the eclipse seem quite insignificant. A peer-reviewed analysis has been published and there seem to be two significant findings. One is that it was caused by a supernova, which wasn't established before. And, second, that there was surprising lack of heavy elements produced by this big bang. We seem to have work to do to reflect this. But, as there are often calls to wait for peer-reviewed analysis of such science, here's an opportunity to follow up. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as these results are quite inconclusive. But Rockstone is wrong: the story here is the findings, which were released recently, not the BOAT itself. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Maybe unorthodox, but I always like to see more scientific discoveries featured on ITN. The blurb should make it clear that the news is the publishing of the peer-reviewed results. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Don't see this information in question included in the target article, and even if it were, information regarding potential implications of such would be nice as well. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see this fundamentally changing the understanding of astrophysics, and Earth witnessed the event 2 years ago. I would recommend if this could be DYK to be posted there. --Masem (t) 18:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support given that 1) the information is included in the target article and 2) the absolute magnitude of the event is included within the relevant spectra. High encyclopedic value with the timeliness element, and of interest to a significant proportion of our readers. Not all ITN-newsworthy events are crimes, wars, political and sporting events, or life-threatening geological disasters. 142.117.133.114 (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are entitled to your own opinion but it is referred to as "Brightest Of All Time" in [16] scientific literature that concluded it was the "brightest ever detected by the measures of peak flux and fluence"]. And regardless, we should refer to everything by its WP:COMMONNAME. Staraction (talk | contribs) 05:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That link doesn't work. And "Brightest Of All Time" is not the same as ""brightest ever detected by the measures of peak flux and fluence". HiLo48 (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Link fixed. And what's the difference between the two? As far as I'm concerned, it's the brightest we as humans have ever been able to detect, which to me is certiainly significant... Staraction (talk | contribs) 06:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does, "Researchers find that the brightest and most energetic gamma-ray burst ever recorded was caused by a supernova, but lacks the expected heavy elements" sound? Staraction (talk | contribs) 06:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As people keep saying this, note that articles qualify for DYK by being new, expanded fivefold or passing a GA review. None of these apply and so the suggestion is irrelevant. The topic does however qualify for ITN because it’s in the news — that’s where I noticed it. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There currently aren't any mentions of this update in the article. So, without knowledge of what implications this finding might have, it seems premature to post this to ITN. Gödel2200 (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
A short wikibio with only 236 words of prose. Anything more to write about this guy? Perhaps what he did while in office (and between shuffles)? --PFHLai (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. PresidentJoe Biden warns that Iran is threatening to launch a significant attack against Israel and promises "ironclad U.S. support" for Israel in the event of an attack. (BBC News)
A search operation at a power plant on Lake Suviana, near Bologna, Italy, has recovered the bodies of three workers who were missing after an explosion two days ago. This brings the confirmed death toll to six. A seventh worker is still missing, while the five injured are still in critical conditions. (Il Resto del Carlino)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
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.
The Wikipedia consensus has been to post The Game Awards results only. However, previous discussion on The Game Awards nomination threads has suggested that the gaming BAFTA's would be more appropriate. As such, for the sake of discussion, I am nominating this item. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the BAFTAs is that while I, speaking as a WP:VG editor, would consider them more presidgious than the Game Awards, it lacks the same coverage and viewership as the Game Awards. Even in the gaming media, the number of articles covering the BAFTAs is extremely small compared to what I see for the Game Awards. Regardless of that, the article has several issues like unsourced quotes, no section on the ceremony, etc. — Masem (t) 19:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both on significance and article quality. The article has a couple of BBC sources which seem reasonably routine, and the rest are primary sources. This means the article is not good enough to meet WP:ITNQUALITY, but also helps re-affirm the position that ITN worthy levels of coverage probably isn't there for this event. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The Game Awards are fine. We don't need any more gaming awards and, to my knowledge, these awards are not in fact more noteworthy. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support in Principle - Received good coverage (I followed it on the BBC) and substantially more independent than the Game Awards. However, the article needs some work, as noted above. GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality Not sure on notability yet, but the article doesn't seem to have any prose about the event itself (though there is a good amount of prose for the leadup to it). There are also a few unsourced statements, and there are unsourced sections for games with multiple awards and nominations. Gödel2200 (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose I was going to post, but the exact death date is not in the cited source. The New York Times wrote on April 13: "Neither announcement said when or where he died or cited a cause."[18]@Muboshgu: Courtesy ping.—Bagumba (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bagumba, boy were you right on that one. Look what I just found: Peterson died of lung cancer at his home in Winona, Minnesota, on Oct. 19, according to death records from the Winona County Vital Records Department. His body was cremated. News of his death began to emerge Friday with an announcement by Northern Illinois, his alma mater, which erroneously said he was 82. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anecdotally, this seems to be something that's become more and more common (perhaps not to this extent), but news releases giving very little specific details as to when the death occurred and merely stating that the person has died. Connormah (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not singling you or anyone out, just a general observation! It is good that high-quality sources like AP, NYT, Washington Post, LA Times, Globe and Mail (and other newspapers of record), etc. are usually quite thorough. Connormah (talk) 00:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh believe me I didn't take your comment personally. It's a good reminder for everybody to read through the details. That includes "X has died" vs. "X died on Y date". – Muboshgu (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The verdict is the culmination of the trial and the article has several paragraphs about this. As for notability, note that Bernie Madoff was posted at ITN three times for a fraud on a similar scale. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, is this on ITN because of her execution? this blurb send the vibe that execution is a rare thing in Vietnam. If the "biggest fruad" in southeastern of Asia is true then we might need an altblurb. 3000MAX (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not seeing the notability in the sentencing itself. Yes, it is a death sentence, but the article does not indicate it is that notable. The event that the sentence was for happened nearly two years ago, so that is stale now. Gödel2200 (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Capital punishment in Vietnam says "Between August 6, 2013 and June 30, 2016, Vietnam executed 429 people." More recent figures are not shown. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC) p.s. I'm not sure we would want to post news about criminal activities before the trial has concluded and in many countries that can take a long time.[reply]
Support - A government sanctioned death sentence for a financial crime and the scale of the financial crime is very notable. If the crime itself wasn't on ITN when it was committed, this should be. Berry (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Have to disagree with the seemed consensus (if narrow so far). Yes, we should have covered the crime itself (though, interestingly, I can't find an article for it in spite of supposedly how large it was), but that doesn't mean we post a smaller update to compensate. Conviction is a big thing, but manner of sentencing is a very personal thing, IMO, and not really suitable for ITN. That capital punishment for white collars crimes is rare shouldn't be relevant - that seems to be bordering on trivia. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative support but oppose on article quality If this was a similar event or crime in the western world, we'd likely have a 5000-word article if not more about it. I don't expect a similar size here, but there absolutely must be more about the details of the crimes and the trial before we can post this, as otherwise right now, the article nowhere matches the intensity implied by the blurb. --Masem (t) 18:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability I don't think I have ever heard about death penalty in a fraud case so I think it is a blurb worthy item but sadly the article is not fit to be posted yet. PrinceofPunjabTALK11:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The First Gaijin Yokozuna of Any Age, that's who. But yeah, the death itself is not a story. And the article is too poorly written right now for a Photo RD (which aren't popular, anyway). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Simply being the first non-Japanese sumo champion is not really an indication of being a major figure in that field. And from reading, he was good but nowhere close to the greatest figures within Sumo history. RD is fine here. --Masem (t) 18:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to take the time to respond to what seems to be a not very well informed and poor take... Only one sumo wrestler out of 400 reaches the rank of yokozuna, and even though Akebono is not the most successful in terms of results, the simple fact that he is the first non-Japanese-born wrestler to reach that rank makes him a leading figure in the sport. The news of his death continues to generate a ton of reactions two days after the announcement, and caused a sensation in the specialised press (see Nikkan Sports, Tokyo Sports, Sports Hochi) when the international press reports the death of "a legend" or "a pioneer" (see The Japan Times, CBS Sports, The Guardian) - OtharLuin (talk) 07:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb (provisionally). I have to agree, too many ill-informed "who?" comments here. To get to the top of a sport and be the first non-native to do it is very much an achievement as well as being able to branch out into other combat sports/sports entertainment endevours I think is worthy of a blurb. However, I clarify my support is only provisional based on the article getting more sourcing but I definately think he is notable enough at the top of his field for blurb. The C of E God Save the King! (talk)09:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. Looks to me to a similar case as Sidney Poitier, who was blurbed. Article looks fine. Orange tag mainly refers to his post-sumo wrestling career - a quick fix could be to just delete the unsubstantiated parts of that. So overall worthy of a blurb, and it would be nice for once to feature a non-Western sport on ITN. Khuft (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on blurb Certainly a notable person and a unique achievement — being a yokozuna, and the first foreign-born one at that, he was definitely at the top of his field. Unfortunately, might not be enough of a household name to be blurbed, and the meaning of the achievement might not be obvious to most readers. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose blurb, support RD Although I am very sympathetic to the arguments that he is a major figure in his field and his death is objectively 'in the news', a lot of the current death articles in major sources are very brief obituaries. In the case of Sidney Poitier mentioned by Khuft above, he was continuously ITN because he appeared at the Oscars, centres were being named after him, etc, in the decade preceding his death - and there was a lot more substantive coverage of his life/legacy beyond just mere news obituaries. In the case of OJ Simpson, you can also see this greater degree of "buzz" around the major highlights of his life being discussed, as opposed to just brief obits. By contrast, I'm not seeing much of that sort of content in the article -- in fact most of the content for the past decade are just local Japanese-language sports articles and periodic updates about his health. However, if the article were updated accordingly I could change my vote. FlipandFlopped ツ20:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Needs more sources. It seems there is a good bit of unreferenced content in this bio, including (by my count) 13 paragraphs that need additional citations (even if not all are cn-tagged) and several tables that may need sources. I also don't think this is blurb-level; doesn't seem to be near as well-known a figure as O. J. Simpson, for example. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
It is nowhere close to "won"; sum of DP vote and Korea Reform vote exceeds 50%. Korea Reform's slogan is "3 years is too long", and they would do anything to elect next president earlier than 2027. Didgogns (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support and propose even shorter blurb Not sure why the two-thirds majority is even mentioned - it's rare in any democratic system for a party/alliance to achieve such a supermajority. New blurb should be sufficient. Article is fine. Khuft (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Posted It took me a while to understand why editors are voting for altblurb 2 without that blurb showing. Stephen, when you move blurbs around, it would be good to leave a note in the discussion section so that others can make sense of it all. I've posted Stephen's blurb, which above shows as the original blurb and is close to altblurb 2. Schwede6600:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support The man who "made" Biggie Smalls and Big Daddy Kane was 57; no glaring issues and the "currently unknown" cause of death has to wait. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
...as his death is not that notable is not a reason for oppose. It could be that his death was unceremonious. What do you expect? Get shot by a family member of that double murder, get beaten to death in a cell or be found hanged there. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. Football player, movie star, criminal and as the result famous all over the world. He was one of the most talked figures of 90s. The news about his death was always going to be big story in the news. BilboBeggins (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support The white bronco chase, the trial, and the result were a big deal. He's still talked about now and multiple documentaries have been released in recent years regarding the events.
It's a valid argument, but the blurb should clarify the notariety e.g. "Infamous murder suspect and convicted criminal..." Tonymetz💬17:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb but oppose on quality the article is not ready but since he is a household name, I think his death should be blurbed when the article is improved. PrinceofPunjabTALK15:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb The main thing for which he is known is being the defendant in a murder trial in which he was found not guilty. Without that, he would just be another sportsperson who did a bit of acting. So what it really comes down to is - does Wikipedia blurb people just because there was a media circus surrounding their criminal trial? My answer to that question is an emphatic "no". I note with interest that the blurb describes Simpson as "American former NFL player", but if we were to determine his merit based on his football career alone, it's doubtful he would be blurbed. A more honest blurb would refer to him being the defendant in a murder trial. Chrisclear (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is akin to saying "The main thing which Peter Higgs was known for is discovering a boson particle. If not for that, he would be just another physicist who did a bit of research" or "The main thing which Ronald Reagan is known for is being President. If not for that, he would be just another actor turned politician". You can make anyone's death sound non-notable if you phrase it in this way. Yes, his notability stems from his criminal trial. It was the trial of the century and made huge cultural shockwaves around the world. And for the record, I am actually supportive of adding a reference to his trial in the blurb itself as you specify. FlipandFlopped ツ15:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Peter Higgs comparison (or just about any other blurb) is a poor comparison. With Higgs, it's that he did something. Whereas with Simpson, it's that there was a media circus surrounding a court trial. So it's not that Simpson did something notable, (as I assume you are aware, he was found not guilty) but rather that the media turned the trial into a big spectacle. Chrisclear (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is, a death blurb being about being defendant at a murder trial, especially one where he was found not guilty (rather than, a major scientific discovery or a presidency) raises major WP:BLP concerns (or in this case WP:BDP as a recent death). Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 15:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good grief, hyperbole much. Listing his death as a blurb would be a BLP concern? Maybe tell that to the Guardian, who've led with it on their front page this afternoon, warn them that they may be sued... The bottom line is that Wikipedia doesn't decide whether people are famous or not, and we certainly don't apply "value judgements" in deciding whom to feature. It's about time we honoured our mission of taking people to articles that are in the news rather than just following the whims and preferences of the regulars here at ITN/C. — Amakuru (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need to bring legal issues into this, our BLP policy on Wikipedia has nothing to do with what the Guardian is legally allowed to do. The value judgement is in the fact that, yes, people "famous" for legal issues are afforded a certain level of privacy over them (more than in some traditional newspapers, as you observed), and we wouldn't blurb "X person, famous for being accused of a crime, is dead". Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb currently also dominating the headline outside the US, so clearly there is international significance. He is of course famous for the trial, which was a historically significant trial, in particular with regards to its impact on race relations and debates on race. 2A02:908:676:E640:EC4A:197C:9331:E949 (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose blurb He was not a transformative figure in any of his fields, plus the circumstances of his death are not out of the ordinary at all. As others have mentioned, not ready to be listed as RD. rawmustard (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support blurb per Harizotoh's comment above. A highly notable figure's death is made no less notable just because he died of disease as opposed to some freak car accident... are we seriously going to make that the standard? We routinely post people who died in "non-notable ways" all the time. Moreover, this death is garnering way more coverage than any of the other items currently listed on ITN - it would be silly, disconnected from reality, and overtly bureaucratic not to post, IMHO. FlipandFlopped ツ15:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb not anyone with an impact or legacy, and we are seeing simply based on fame and or notarity being used to elevate that, which should not be a blurb reason. Oppose RD on quality. There are a few cn around, the filmography needs sourcing, and I would see if that popular culture can be trimmed or merged around. For example, it doesn't need to list works that are documentaries of his trial, which should be actually on the trial page and part of its media coverage. - - Masem (t) 15:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admin comment This should be listed under April 10 (date he died) I'd move it but on a phone, I cant trust a clean move. Masem (t) 15:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb (when ready). Probably for the wrong reasons, but this is someone who's fame transcends the original confines of what he was famous for, such that he's now a household name the world over. His death is front page news across the globe, so this is a fairly clear blurb for me, particularly given that some other fairly routine figures not in the "Thatcher/Mandela" sphere have been blurbed of late. — Amakuru (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose blurb I don’t see any sane argument for a blurb. As an NFL player, he’s never won the Super Bowl and won only one MVP award (there are many players with much greater achievements); as an actor, there’s absolutely no indication of any significance whatsoever that would put him on top of the field. Finally, the delicts he committed don’t make him a high-profile criminal for sure. Considering that famous scientists and artists with landmark contributions to their fields were dismissed for a blurb, a nomination of a criminal whose delicts garnered media attention probably because he had been already known for his past NFL career is sheer derision of Wikipedia and its reputation as an encyclopaedia.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "sane" argument is that his death is in the news. All over the news in every country. And our purpose is to provide easy access to articles pertaining to that that news in the form of links from the main page. Your opinions of his achievements are irrelevant. — Amakuru (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not ITN's purpose, that would be the basis for a news ticker. ITN specifically ignores fame, popularity, and aspects like being a household name or have mass coverage of their death. — Masem (t) 16:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's literally point 1 of ITNPURPOSE. And fame and popularity are factors that go into reaching consensus for a death blurb whether you personally approve of that or not. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, we purpusely ignore fame and popularity - that what leads to bad blurbs like Betty White and Carrie Fisher. It makes ITNC an attempt for a popularity vote (look how many editors are here that regularly do not participate in ITN for this entry). We have to fight against the urge to post a topic just because of these types of factors when the person otherwise lacks the type of top-of-field recognition. And ignoring his legal factors, he was nowhere close to a top tier actor, and while he may be in the Hall of Fame, there are also nearly 380 ppl in there, with roughly 20 ppl per year added, there is no way every signel one of them has the level of top tier as like Jim Brown or Tom Brady. He made no lasting impact or legacy to the world, outside of the mass coverage his trial got. So he fails all importance criteria we use. — Masem (t) 00:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. Probably the only American football player I'd support because of his fame. FWIW BDP is not about legal issues. There's a reason the foundation mandates BLP but not BDP. However, the most recent RfC concerning BDP's close states that BDP should apply by default so I'd oppose any wording mentioning the trial. Sincerely, Dilettante16:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb because his career was not especially exceptional in any of the fields he worked in (no, not even crime); Oppose RD because of unresolved quality issues in the article, as discussed above. Comment - However, manner of death is not a criterion for any of this, and arguing for or against his inclusion on that basis doesn't really carry much weight. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. A very famous and well-known figure. While his football career – which itself was pretty notable – would ordinarily not be enough, the extensive coverage and notoriety he received for the murder trial adds up to being significant enough. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Neither his death is for a notorious cause nor his career is comparable to that of Higgs, Maradona, Pelé or Thatcher or other people whose death has been blurbed. It does not make sense. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose Blurb and Neutral on RD -- Subject was best well known for his criminal murder trial, civil wrongful death conviction, and conviction for O._J._Simpson_robbery_case . Overall not newsworthly, but the blurb "NFL Player...Dies" betrays the subject's notoriety. This would diminish WP:WPs stature in the same way that Washington Post calling Abu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi "Austere Religious Scholar" [20] did . Tonymetz💬17:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overall not newsworthy – even when it is a front-page feature on some of the most prominent newspapers in the world and in numerous countries? Even that Newsweek story you mention about al-Baghdadi features a big red line at the top: "BREAKING: O. J. Simpson Dead". BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I aim for a higher standard for WPs frontpage than newsweek. Other editors may argue for a lower bar and hopefully consensus meets in the middle. Tonymetz💬17:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Newsweek shouldn't be the only consideration. Numerous other major international papers, such as the NYT, BBC, Guardian, France 24, Al Jazeera, etc. – as well as many newspapers of record for individual nations I checked – should be, though. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb when ready I don't think any one of the things he is known for justifies a blurb in isolation, but together, and in particular the fact he was the subject of one of the most notable trials of the last few decades, and which has hugely influenced popular culture, I think there's a good case to run one. 2A02:C7E:30F9:A600:4DAF:47D:BA7E:157F (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of name recognition ... so RD will suffice – So you're saying blurb is only for people who don't have major notability? Huh? That doesn't make any sense. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article has lots of interesting details: that his father was a drag queen; that he had rickets as a child and so was bow-legged; that he didn't know his own name until the third grade; and that he joined a gang called the Persian Warriors. But the proposed blurb doesn't tell us any of this or any of his other claims to fame or explain the details of his death. It just says that he was a football player like the many others that are listed in the RD ticker. The proposed blurb therefore provides no added value and is not needed. Running his picture would be ok though, as we have a good one. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't think the present blurb is good enough then propose another; although I'll say that opposing on the basis that his blurb doesn't mention his father was a drag queen is patently absurd. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's some discussion of better blurbs above but there doesn't seem to be a consensus. My position remains that we can do without a blurb. There will be plenty of readers regardless. (2.4 million) Andrew🐉(talk) 21:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And this further demonstrates that a blurb is unnecessary. The readership curve follows the usual pattern for such celebrity deaths -- a big spike on the announcement and then a steady decline -- halving each day. The posting of the RD/blurb at ITN makes little difference to this. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Simpson's trial was a major global event that made him world famous, whether we think it should have been or not. It has been covered in multiple in-depth documentaries and dramatisations over the last 30 years. Consider that the British public would usually have no interest in the personal life of an NFL player, but he is the leading story on the BBC. There is extensive coverage of his death on the BBC, and a search through the archives shows extensive coverage of his release in 2017, which again, would not usually mean a row of beans in the UK. It's also top bracket news on Spain's El País and France's Le Monde, two countries where American football of the 1970s would not mean anything to the general public. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support blurb, Oppose on quality I'm a little hesitant to back a blurb, but the OJ case was a "trial of the century" moment that (unfortunately) made him a worldwide household name to this day. Like stated above, the global coverage of his death is significant. TheKip18:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb O.J. Simpson and the media circus around his trial definitely supports the idea that he should be in the recent deaths, not to mention the trial's significance on pop culture and media coverage in general. User:JRHistorical (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb The impact the trial has had on history, criminology, and the judiciary is significant enough to warrant the blurb for O.J., given his status as the defendant of a trial that we've continued discussing regularly in the public sphere for three decades. DrewieStewie (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb (upon ready) A more significant household name the world over than someone who played football and did some film work. Brought the world of criminal justice, proceedings to a larger audience. CoatCheck (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb His trial was historic. He wasn't. And frankly, do we want someone who in 90% of the world is only really known for being a serial criminal on the Main Page for weeks? I'll pass on that, thanks. Black Kite (talk)19:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even counting the double murder as a crime, a single armed robbery over a decade later hardly makes a Heisman Trophy winner a "serial" criminal when he dies at 76. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality Filmography and some sections in the media portrayal section need some ref work.Support RD Article looks good enough for posting. Neutral on blurb since he had an impact on pop culture, however I could see how an RD tag could suffice.Support blurb As Ryan Reeder pointed out, death is making significant news coverage across the world, showing he was at least notable outside of the U.S. and his article is in good shape. As mentioned earlier (don't know from who), he has also made an impact on pop culture and he was the subject to, what has been regarded to, the trial of the century. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Is anyone forgetting that, as despicable as you may find him (and no arguments to the contrary here), he is a member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame, and widely regarded as one of the greatest running backs of all time? Sizerth (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality (Still some unsupported statements) oppose blurb. Not a transformative figure in any aspect of his life and a natural death at an old age. Doesn’t tick many of the usual boxes for a blurb. - SchroCat (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's good enough for RD. The two CNs are not highly controversial claims although they should be sourced. Still opposed to a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Just a reminder to Americans that playing American football does not make one important outside that country. I say this as an Australian who would never dare to seek a blurb for a player of Australian football, using that as one of the supporting factors. This makes him a famous alleged criminal. That's not enough. HiLo48 (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
playing American football does not make one important outside that country.
Nobody’s claiming that. What people are pointing out is that his death is on the front page of the BBC (where it’s actually currently the top story), Le Monde, La Repubblica, and El Pais, among other non-American papers, which establishes that yes, he was at least somewhat notable to people outside the U.S. TheKip23:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not the case here - but keep in mind that what your computer shows you on the front page of many sites - especially BBC News, is a function of both your location, and your browser history. Nfitz (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps for BBC and the English-language versions of papers of note, but I checked the native-language sites of the above papers - it’s one of the top stories on all three. TheKip00:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sidney Poitier had won his Oscar and Bill Cosby in advertising was well on its way to becoming an encyclopedia entry while this Simpson fellow was in high school. As a black athlete, maybe he was a bit ahead of his time in endorsement deals (discounting Alice Coachman for Coke, 1952). Only a brief spell, though, till Air Jordan changed the game for dozens of sportspeople or golfers to far outsell this sellout. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb. He was a record-breaking football player over 40 years ago; his records have not stood. He wasn't actually groundbreaking as a criminal. The murder trial was sensational due to his celebrity, but was not otherwise unusual. His robbery conviction was just the culmination of selfish stupidity. BD2412T23:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"not otherwise unusual" – I mean, he's on the front page on a substantial number of major newspapers worldwide. What else could there be? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was basically a blip. A novelty. There was nothing sustained about it. The murders themselves were typical of thousands of other double murders not committed by a one-time football star. BD2412T18:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The murders themselves were typical of thousands of other double murders not committed by a one-time football star. – The manner of the murder is irrelevant. What matters is if Simpson is In The News – something that being on the front page on a substantial number of the major newspapers in the world, whether its being a headline in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Australia or Africa – which Simpson is all of – proves. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Given his pseudo-criminal status, it is highly unlikely that NFL or any other professional sports will mourn his death. Didgogns (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
pseudo-criminal? He was convicted on multiple charges, including kidnapping and armed robbery - and was sentenced to 33 years in jail. That's hardly "pseudo"? Nfitz (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb - he's not blurbable as a B-list (or maybe C-list) actor. And even his sports career was very local - and we don't blurb many gridiron player deaths. The only reason we are having this discussion is that he killed his wife - and got away with it in the civil trial; and perhaps the twist of the later decision that he had killed his wife in the civil case. And the extra twist of his turning to criminal activity and burglaries. I don't think we typically have blurbs for someone whose primary claim to fame is killing someone. Nfitz (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1 of the alt blurbs I think the combo of being a HOF football player & being the defendant in a hugely major murder trial makes O.J.'s death blurbable. His death is making worldwide headlines. I think the football portion of his blurb should mirror the blurb used for Jim Brown. I'd lean towards mentioning that he was a murder suspect in the blurb, but I think it isn't a major problem if that's omitted. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb It looks like the votes will be close on this one, so I'll throw in my two cents. His death might not reach the Thatcher/Mandela threshold of notability (very few do, and honestly, he's close), but he's definitely above the Higgs/Toriyama threshold (no disrespect intended), who were both recently blurbed Ryan Reeder (talk) 00:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb: Ryan Reeder makes a good point. OJ definitely has more notability/notoriety as some other people who were blurbed. Also major news networks across the world clearly think this is a big deal because it's front page all over the world. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls?00:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The kid is certainly hot tonight, as the guy from Loverboy once said, but where will he be tomorrow? Or in two weeks, seriously; why will readers need to remember the Juice or Boson Guy died? These delays happen. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb outsized coverage across the press, per above. Trial was a large cultural feature that has been discussed for quite some time. Ornithoptera (talk) 03:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
VOTE TALLY Since there has been a large influx of votes which has created a rather daunting wall of text, I have done the courtesy of tallying the votes. With regards purely to notability, there are currently by my count 28 votes in favour of a blurb and 27 votes opposed to a blurb. It is safe to say it is an even split. FlipandFlopped ツ05:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb - Sorry if I'm a little late to the party for this one. I believe he's notable enough to be blurbed, as news outlets from all across the world are talking about it, and he certainly exceeds some of the people we've recently blurbed in terms of general popularity, even if his cultural impact might not be as prominent. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk | contribs) 07:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if we run a blurb here based on getting attention across the world, then the blurb should reflect why he gets attention around the globe, which isn't for being a good American football player or a Naked Gun supporting actor, but because of the bizarre arrest and murder trial of a B- or C-list celebrity. The first few suggested blurbs here are not representative of this. Fram (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Firstly as noted by Fram the blurbs fail to reflect why his death attracted significant coverage in many countries. While his death has attracted coverage in many English-speaking countries, it's certainly not overwhelming. For example, in India coverage has been sparse. It's ultimately an editorial decision and as an encyclopaedia I think we should blurb people like Peter Higgs and shouldn't blurb people like Simpson. AusLondonder (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb: I think that the sheer discussion surrounding this blurb speaks for itself. For instance, even though I was formally facinated with Higgs I still did not hear about his death until the blurb, it was simply not "In the news". I heard about OJ's death 4 hours after it hit the front page of every newspaper (yes in america, but still). I understand that it might be less international than famous scientists or geopolitics, but it is still all over the news. Normalman101 (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurb. Not a transformative figure, even if notable in pop culture. Highly covered, but so are many American celebrity deaths. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb - Some of the oppose rationales are somewhat silly, like he wasn't a transformational person or that he only won one MVP award. On the other hand, he was very famous in several fields. There was football, where I would argue that becoming the first 2000 yard rusher was transformational. Not to mention his HOF, Heisman, MVP, and still holds the record for rushing yards per game 50 years later. As an actor he was not transformational, but I am sure that most people my age still remember his Hertz commercials if nothing else (and some probably remember other acting roles). And of course there was the Bronco chase and the trial of the century, which certainly impacted race relations, TV coverage of trials, and probably some aspects of subsequent US jurisprudence itself. All in all, he was far more famous, for multiple reasons, than most notable Hall of Fame football players, actors or defendants. He - and his death - has received substantial new coverage. His death ought to have a blurb. Rlendog (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a late discussion reminder, ITN specifically does not consider fame or popularity or household name status as a reason to post a blurb. It's why the oppose !votes are asking if he was a major figure in his various fields. Masem (t) 18:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb: Rlendog summed it up pretty well but I think it's important to include "murder suspect" (or something similar) in the blurb. Only mentioning a positive fact ('Hall of Fame running back') would no doubt be controversial. Johndavies837 (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb, the murder case is widely known in many countries, even if people (such as myself) know very little about American football. Sahaib (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt3 blurb. Household name, not exactly "old man dies" at only 76. Anarchyte (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC1
It's not "oldest man in the world" old. But even working under the premise that men are supposed to live to 111, he was in his last trimester. That's not young or middle-aged, whatever you want to call it. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb Outside of 1 CN tag, article detailed with depth to show importance not just in field of American football but also in American popular media. SpencerT•C22:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt II (otherwise III) blurb per "major figure" criteria of WP:ITNRDBLURB:
The death of major figures may merit a blurb. These cases are rare, and are usually posted on a sui generis basis...
His notability is a unique blend of being an accomplished athlete, prominent pitchman, and acting roles, combined with his later life ties to his ex-wife's murder, which spawned court TV and reality TV. A lot of erroneous votes that WP:ITNRD requires the actual manner of death to be notable. It does not. There's also poor arguments that if we remove the parts he's notable for that he's no longer notable, which would disqualify anyone, including politicians and academics. While he was not at the very top of any field, his death is in the headlines globally with prominent coverage nonetheless, even if it's not in your particular country. Follow the sources, and the underlying interest in race relations.—Bagumba (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose blurb. His link was on the RD line for more than 2 days already. I might be more supportive if that was on MainPage for a brief time. I prefer seeing other wikibios featured in MainPage rather than getting this again. --PFHLai (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. OJ didn't get bumped off RD because more than two days passed. He got bumped off because of RD noms got promoted. Plus, (my opinion), this discussion has been going long enough and a decision should've been made. Plus he's been dead for five days, that's not a long time for this to go stale either. There are blurbed noms that get posted days after the events occurred too. Also possible recommendation, should this get blurbed, I would also suggest closing the nom to avoid further prolonging this discussion as there's been way more than enough time to discuss/reach a consensus. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I wish we have more new blurbs coming in to displace Higgs and other old blurbs and keep ITN more fresh. (Maybe we should have only 3 bullet-points on ITN, leaving more space for SA/OTD on the right side of MainPage, but I digress...) --PFHLai (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Posted as blurb Thanks for everyone's input. I've put the above into a spreadsheet (and that shows me that the preliminary vote tally was 28 for and 30 against, not 28/27). Numerically only, this now sits at 37 for and 34 against. That's too close to call it consensus; I thus also looked whether the vote was supported by a coherent rationale (I discounted a couple of votes that were clearly irrational; there were a lot of votes that I wouldn't agree with but at least they seemed rationale). Using the latter approach, we have 36 supports for a blurb and 27 opposes. That's good enough to call it a consensus to post. Noteworthy is the comment by an IP editor who remarked that there is no chance of a neutral blurb being written. Chances are the discussion will not stop or transfer itself to Errors. Alt blurb III has most explicit support. Schwede6601:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you account for the support !votes that only discussed fame or household name factors, which are specifically not acceptable reasons for posting a blurb? I count at least ten of those. That would pull the numbers a lot closer and possibly towards favor of not posting.
Given how late this is after his death, and that this was far closer to a no consensus, this was an inappropriate action. Masem (t) 02:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you account for the support !votes that only discussed fame or household name factors, which are specifically not acceptable reasons for posting a blurb? Can you quote where it says it's "not acceptable".—Bagumba (talk) 02:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, you do seem to have specific thoughts on ITN that I'm not entirely sure are shared among ITN regulars, let alone the wider community. And indeed, I'm not seeing "fame or household name" at WP:ITNATA. I also personally don't have much sympathy for the timing argument because if we hadn't posted this there would be an even older item on the page. Ed[talk][OMT]04:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Household name" is specifically mentioned in WP:ITNRDBLURB - I also agree that this falls short of the "major figures" standard for a blurb set there. I remember when there was a heated discussion whether the death of Nelson Mandela should be posted as a blurb - the slope was always slippery, but the way we slid down it is shocking. 164.10.46.61 (talk) 08:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Household name" was only mentioned as a caution against potential puffery in obituaries. It's not forbidden as a reason for support.—Bagumba (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At one point I could have sworn we cautioned on blurbs related to fame or popularity, but I can't see if that had been there and/or recently removed. That said, since ITN is fighting systematic bias of Western culture, fame and popularity absolutely should not be used as reasons to post a blurb, since that will weigh far too heavily on Western celebrities and athletes. — Masem (t) 16:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to have that opinion. It's just not specified at WP:ITN as a generally accepted practice that might carry added weight in determining consensus. —Bagumba (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was a very bad posting based on a clear misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia as a free encyclopaedia. Such a committal decision cannot be elaborated by using a simple vote count. Considering the context that we’ve omitted famous scientists and artists with landmark contributions to their fields, posting a death blurb for a former NFL running back and a convicted criminal is a blow to the reputation of Wikipedia. This is certainly not the message that we want to send to our readers.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe what we need to do is make sure that reasons to post blurbs based solely on the idea someone being famous (or infamous) or well known, or that their death has massive coverage due to being famous, should be dismissed, explicitly adding this under the current Great Figure criterion. It's caused so many problems before (eg Betty White and Carrie Fisher) and as Black Kite points out, how actual great contributors to mankind get shunned absent article quality issues. But that's something to expire on the talk page. Masem (t) 22:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove "murder suspect" from the blurb - Even though he most likely did commit the murders, Wikipedia has standards and shouldn't put allegations that haven't been proven in court on the main page. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 11:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, but even if it's verifiable the allegations have been made, I don't think we should put allegations on the main page to begin with. To be fair, that was kinda my issue with having him blurbed to begin with—we can't really blurb him without mentioning that, so I understand why it's being kept now that there's consensus for a blurb. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 12:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Had he not killed his ex-wife, he wouldn't have been notable enough for this. So how do you not mention it. Besides - the court did find him civilly liable for the killings. A poor justice system not getting a conviction in the first trial, with the unusual restriction of not being able to appeal, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be mentioned. Especially when there aren't any BLP issues. Nfitz (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that the blurb as written is basically saying "good riddance" in WP voice, which is absolutely inappropriate. We need to adopt the same standard that DYK has about blurbs being unduly focused on overly negative (or positive) factors relating to a BLP. Masem (t) 16:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DYK hooks are mostly trivia with no respect towards WP:DUE , so it's understandable there. On the other hand, ITN blurbs need to be neutral (WP:NPOV), which might require negative points. —Bagumba (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I wrote the alt blurbs, I was trying to be as neutral as possible. For the football portion of the blurb, I based it on the blurb used for Jim Brown. I included “murder suspect” & “convicted criminal” b/c people seemed to want to have those aspects as potential options for a blurb.
Oppose blurb OJ was a tabloid celebrity. Wikipedia, in theory, doesn't care about sensationalized news coverage. If you strip away the sensationalism, OJ was not significant enough a figure for a main page blurb. Nosferattus (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Oppose on quality Academic articles should usually have a section discussing their research, and here, specifically the research they did towards the award. This has almost nothing of his academic career outside of what awards he got. --Masem (t) 03:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The largest humanitarian aidairdrop since the war began takes place over the northern Gaza Strip, with at least 14 aircraft from nine nations taking part in the operation. (BBC News)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Council of Europe states, not just EU. But agree on significance; shame that the premature nomination means that any half-decent article that may emerge 12 or 24 hrs down the line will have a starting handicap of half a dozen opposes to overcome. Moscow Mule (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have some rudimentary knowledge in this area that I am going to try to hit tonight to provide background and thus fill in the case basics but can't promise anything. — Masem (t) 20:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is titled as if the scope were to be the plaintiffs, but it has more on the case and reactions to it than the organisation. Schwede6623:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Did the reacts for You based on de.wiki. Myself I abstain from !voting but will take this opportunity to congratulate You, @User:Masem on your fine work on this and any other issues on ITNC. Kudoz! --Ouro (blah blah) 05:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The latest climate news is that March was the hottest in recent times and that sea temperatures set a new record. Switzerland is not a significant scapegoat in this and the ECHR has no enforcement powers even if it was. To see who's actually responsible, see the Carbon Majors report which has just been published. China's coal industry heads the list with 25% of global emissions (2016-2022). Andrew🐉(talk) 07:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ECHR has required the Swiss gov't efforts to rectrify the emissions target failure with oversight by govt representatives to the ECHR from other countries. Yes, its not like they put a fine (outside of legal costs) on Switzerland, but they are forcing the country to establish new laws and likely new sources of funding within a reasonable time to meet overall climate change goals. (This isn't about climate change per se but the human rights that are lost if climate change is not adequetly met, that's the story here). — Masem (t) 12:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think the blurb is imprecise and would need revision. This was a very specific ruling finding Switzerland in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 8 and 6 § 1). It essentially found that Switzerland had positive obligations to act and has not effectively done so, thus Switzerland has committed a human rights violation. The court found that Switzerland has failed to reduce its GHG emissions fast enough to meet its own targets (set by law). It found that Swiss domestic courts should provide an adequate venue to abide by the Convention. The court also found that 4 individuals represented as plantiffs did not actually fulfil the victim-status criteria under Article 34 of the Convention and declared their complaints inadmissible. It is worth noting at the same time they decided on Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz, they threw out (made inadmissible) two other climate-change cases at the same time (Carême v. France and Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others). Find the court documents here.
Of course this ruling can have large implications, especially for member states of the Council of Europe/convention signatories. The ECHR has never directly ruled on a "climate-change" before (although they have had environmental protection cases). This does pave the way for future cases (see Greenpeace Nordic and Others v. Norway) not only in the ECHR, but other venues as well. It is clearly important ruling, but I would ask other editors to assess if the court actually found that climate-change prevention is a human right. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me.07:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I put in the article, part of the reason Switzerland failed is they were putting much of their effrt by riding on the EU's emissions trading program, which throughout the EU failed to realize CO2 reduction goals anywhere close to what Kyoto/Paris asked for. Many other states also took their emissions committment in this direction and have been burnt by the failure of the program; eight other states joined Switzerland to fight off this case. This means that many states within the Council will still likely fail to meet 2020 or 2030 goals, and that if they don't take strong mitigating actions beyond the cap-and-trade system, they will likely be found in violation. — Masem (t) 12:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on importance, weak oppose on quality: the quality of the prose is very poor, and much reads like a machine translation ("her reaction was not material", "aligned with the relevant political spectrum", "instead they should seek political actions"). Sandstein 12:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Likely due to the reactions section being based off machine translation from the Swiss version ( the bulk of the rest I wrote fresh from English sources) likely needs wordsmithinh — Masem (t) 13:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Machine translation does not seem acceptable for material presented as a quotation. For example, I just spot-checked ""alienating, possibly even counterproductive". The actual quotation was "befremdlich und möglicherweise gar kontraproduktiv". "Befremdlich" would be better translated as "disturbing" or "disconcerting". But if you're going to quote someone then you should give their original text per MOS:PMC, "the wording of the quoted text must be faithfully reproduced". Andrew🐉(talk) 07:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the perspective a cynic like me (call it valid or invalid if you like), I'd love to see this article discuss more actual ramifications than it already does. Switzerland has apparently been told to "reassess and address its climate change goals". What exactly does this entail and what would be the punishment for not doing so? All the comments here claim this ruling is so terribly important, yet honestly I don't see that well substantiated in the article. DarkSide830 (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article doesn't indicate what impacts this will have, and what sort of penalties there will be for failing to abide by the ruling. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: There were two nominations at ITN already (one for Varadkar's resignation, one for Harris' nomination) and both had the consensus to wait until today. ITN/R as new executive head of state. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on qualitySimon Harris has some citation needed tags and I've added a failed verification check based on a cursory glance of the article. Taoiseach is correctly orange tagged for more sources. If Harris' article is fixed, then that could be posted. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality per Joseph. And I would remove the mention that he is the youngest Taoiseach. It is trivial and irrelevant information for practical purposes. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no real reason not to include it since we have to post the change anyways. I'd phrase it like "Simon Harris becomes the youngest Taoiseach of Ireland" though, excising the "new (and". BSMRD (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this might make it seem to unfamiliar readers that there were multiple taoisigh, of whom Varadkar was the youngest, and that his resignation makes Harris the new youngest. It's worth noting his youth as an separate feature to his newness. Perhaps "…becomes the new Taoiseach of Ireland, and the youngest ever, after Leo…" although I accept it's a bit wordy. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 07:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CommentComments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance. All these "support if fixed" votes are meaningless, because it's WP:ITNR, and so only consideration is article quality. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ALT3, Oppose on quality As per The Kip, there isn't a need to specify he is the youngest. The article currently is not ready, due to many cn's and failed verification's. Gödel2200 (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ALT3, Oppose on quality. Article is missing some sources, needless to say. I don't think it's too far off though. I think some of the tags could be removed because Harris's article seems to have been citation bombed. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been through this and some of the citation needed tags were so easy to replace (a strike being called off is a basic news story, for example), and removing extra details that weren't in sources that were tagged as "failed verification". There's now one tag left for "better source needed" (legislation cited with primary source) and one more of "failed verification" (about a "scandal" I know nothing about). I've seen worse pages posted, and this story is getting old now. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I replaced the refs at the better source and failed verification tags mentioned by Uknown Temptation above, the article would seem to me to be ready now Josey WalesParley21:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Article:XZ Utils backdoor (talk·history·tag) Blurb: A maliciously introduced backdoor in the Linux utility xz within the liblzma library is found. The issue has been assigned a CVSS score of 10.0, the highest possible score. (Post) Credits:
now we have a good enough article on the event itself. I am not much experienced with ITN, so kindly feel free to update/change the blurb as necessary. —usernamekiran (talk)16:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stale - The correct date for this nomination would had been the 29 March unfortunately so it's stale as far as ITN is concerned. -- KTC (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Longest serving lehendakari (president of the Basque Country, in Spain). Remembered for his commitment against ETA terrorism and the fight for dialogue to pacify and normalize the territory. I think the article is ready to be posted. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Posted Not much substance to the article, but she had a rather short life and what's there is appropriately referenced. Schwede6600:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Apart from his running for a seat in the US Senate in 1980 and his recent death, everything else in this wikibio is unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nobel winning physist whose namesake is part of the Higgs boson particle. Article looks in high quality shape. I am hesitant to call for a blurb for this though. Masem (t) 16:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. Higgs boson particle is worldwide known. If we are ever going to blurb a scientist, this should be just the case to do it. BilboBeggins (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Top of his field, article in good shape and his discoveries are popular/noted worldwide. Good case for a blurb (regardless of age). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pull Name any Physics conference, professional sports match or equivalent thing in other areas which mourns the death of Higgs, then I'll support. Didgogns (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb I'm fine with getting rid of death blurbs, but while they exist in their current iteration this qualifies as someone who is at the absolute top of their field. Curbon7 (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support blurb. It's very easy to see how Higgs meets the currently generally-accepted threshold of "at the top of their respective field." And for the record, I agree with this generally-accepted criteria. But the only reason why I felt the need to !vote at all was the sudden pull !votes from editors that want a different criteria. As I've said before, it bothers me how every RD-as-a-blurb discussion becomes a forum where editors debate what they think the criteria should be. No one individual blurb nomination will ever be the place where that issue gets settled once and for all. Right now, there exists an informal understanding that "the top of one's respective field" is the criteria we tend to go by these days. A very vocal minority wishing for a stricter criteria or a permanent end to posting deaths as blurbs expresses dissatisfaction with this every time one of these gets posted, but always to no avail as they're still the minority at this time. If we ever want to get a formal criteria to put the issue to bed once and for all, the only place where that's going to happen is the talk page, not here. So as Rockstone said, why even bother? Vanilla Wizard 💙01:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support although I usually do not support death blurb but he is one of the most influential people in his field therefore his death is pretty significant. PrinceofPunjabTALK03:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sure cheese makers mourn the death of a prominent cheese maker, but just because someone is prominent in their field shouldn’t qualify them for a deathblurb. The manner or direct impact of the death are not notable (e.g. a serving head of state/government’s death is notable as change of head of state for some other reason would be notable, and the assassination of a famous person is notable because it receives world headlines), and thus, it does not qualify to be on ITN in its own right This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 08:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
I'm surprised it would be on ITRN - but it's only total solar eclipses that are ITNR. On average, only about 1/3 of eclipses are ever total. On average, there's a solar eclipse every 5 months or so, but it's only total every 16 months or so. So I guess we only have to debate quality. Nfitz (talk) 02:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's happening soon and is all over the media, and live streams have already started. The orange banner tag, which was there for six years, was quite ridiculous as it's trivial to find reliable coverage of the track and we even have a nice animation (above) thanks to NASA. Everyone who complained about this without doing something about it should please read WP:JUSTDOIT. Anyway, the most important point is that it's better to report this before it happens rather than afterwards, so that readers get a reminder to take a look for themselves and so don't miss it. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. We always seem to post astronomical events well after they're over, with the snarky undertone of "and, ha ha ha, you missed it". —Cryptic09:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Add timeline as well. Continuation of last weeks discussion that had consensus but with admin opposition. Lukt64 (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support the proposal to link both the article and the timeline, e.g. "War in Sudan (timeline), that seemed to have consensus in the Mar. 31 discussion; I don't know why it wasn't posted. Consensus is not a vote, of course, but 14 in favor and 3 against seems pretty cut and dry. DecafPotato (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Again, ongoing is for a constant stream of blurb-worthy events that would clog ITN if they were all added. If we were to add this, we might as well add every armed conflict. This is not getting a sufficient amount of media attention, and a relatively updated article isn't enough. ITN is not a war ticker. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not seeing the consistent substantial updates to the timeline article that Ongoing demands. The updates are daily, but they are very short (ie RSF does x, SAF claims y, etc). DarkSide830 (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it wasn't admin opposition. The article is not being updated sufficiently for ongoing. The timeline is a ticker of trivial events. Stephen23:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot bite my tongue on this one. I acknowledge you probably did not intend it badly, but the most recent updates to the timeline talk about various massacres/battles which have killed hundreds of innocent people. Just because the victims come from a war-torn country like Sudan and there is less detail about the exact circumstances of their deaths, does not render these peoples brutal deaths a "ticker of trivial events"... I think we should be sensitive about our choice of words here, especially when talking about these sorts of global issues. FlipandFlopped ツ01:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that this is an absolutely horrifying conflict, with an immense human toll. However, without sounding like a heartless monster, there is no such policy as 'WP:MINIMUMDEATHS', and there being casualties and massacres in a war zone, as awful as it is, I don't think indicates an excessive amount of notability. There are many armed conflicts in the world; people are being tortured and kidnapped by Mexican cartels as we speak, ISIS is still committing atrocities in Syria. There are detailed and updated timeline articles for these wars. But at the end of the day, this is In The News, and I think our standards for notability go beyond just posting tragedies of a certain scale. He could have phrased it better, but I agree that there doesn't seem to be anything exceptional about Sudan compared to many other conflicts that make it fit for ongoing. Just my opinion, I don't mean to trivialise these events. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An admin thinking the timeline is a ticker of trivial events (a subjective opinion, and not one that appears to be consensus) is very much "admin opposition". Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 01:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the time it was autoarchived, a consensus of 14:2 believed the updates to the relevant target articles were sufficient to post (a couple editors implied they opposed but never !voted, even accounting for them it was near unanimous). It was 14:1 when I marked it as ready; you disagreed and unmarked it as such and allowed it to be archived. I don't think you were being malicious at all, I just think you may want to be more cautious about overriding consensus in the future. Despite you technically not !voting, it was clear throughout the discussion how you would have !voted, so it's fair to say you were an involved editor when unilaterally deciding it wasn't ready after all. Just to be clear, I'm absolutely not trying to attack your character or your judgment or dogpile on you or make you feel bad, I just think this was a misstep and I hope you'll understand why some editors feel that way. Vanilla Wizard 💙17:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the timeline per Chaotic Enby. This should have already been posted, as I believe there was already a prior consensus to post. FlipandFlopped ツ01:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that after you promoted this to (ready), @Stephen: removed the label as he did last time. Unfortunately, he does not appear to have looked at the entry (or the news) lately, as it has been massively updated since his last comment, with some of the many stories appearing about the Sudan War in recent days. It will be interesting to see if he succeeds in keeping this off the front page despite consensus again. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥03:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is disappointing. Counting the nom, the support:oppose ratio is 11:4, almost 3:1. I was optimistic that Stephen would understand why myself and several other editors thought it wasn't appropriate to un-mark it as ready the last time, but it feels much more inappropriate for them to do the same thing they were criticized for a second time. No one person decides if an ongoing entry is or is not sufficient to post. We discuss things as a group for a reason. Citing one's own !vote rationale as the reason why it's not ready despite a consensus saying otherwise is a supervote. Of course, he doesn't have to be the one to post it, Wikipedia is voluntary after all, but it would have been better to just do nothing. Vanilla Wizard 💙05:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanilla Wizard @SashiRolls @Lukt64 I agree and am respectfully disappointed that @Stephen would remove the (Ready) categorization despite clearly voiced concerns that he is supervoting down a nomination which he is involved with because he casted a minority oppose !vote.
In fact, across both ongoing nominations, 18 total editors have voted support and 5 have voiced opposition. Two of those five are admins (@Stephen and @Spencer) and one was an anonymous IP address.
At this point and with all due respect to both the above administrators, we will never agree on whether the article has substantive updates or is just "trivial". This is just going to be nominated again and the same argument will repeat itself. A completely uninvolved administrator needs to come in and review the article + both nominations and assess whether it has consensus for ITN. Is there anyone we could ping or does this need to go to AN/I? FlipandFlopped ツ18:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, too, close to 7K in substantive updates have been added since these two admins expressed their minority opinion that the main article was insufficiently updated. This is largely due to the many in-depth stories that have been published on the subject in RS in the last few days. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥19:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support with timeline - per above. The conflict is still one of the most significant wars going on right now, and the timeline article is being updated on the regular. To be brutally honest, I don't quite understand why it was even removed in the first place. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk | contribs) 07:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support with timeline - As Chaotic Enby already said, there was already clear consensus to post last time but it was supervoted down. No disrespect intended towards the admin in question, I don't think they had any malicious intentions, but this is an accurate description of what happened the way I see it. And it remains true that Timeline of the War in Sudan (2023–present) is getting frequent and significant updates. And yes, these are updates that would be individually blurbworthy had it not been for the fact that they're part of a long and protracted war: people being killed in the triple digits daily, significant offensives being started, etc. Vanilla Wizard 💙17:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. (again) Strange that this was not promoted based on the previous clear consensus. I just fixed the two big red errors among the 448 references. (§) I'm not sure that including text via an extract template is ideal, as one has to really dig to find referencing problems in the daughter article, whereas ideally there would be a summary in the section included in the parent article... -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥18:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
High support with timeline and overall status. I'm the person who has been announcing a lot of the things happening in this conflict in the last few days. It's been growing especially around Khartoum and a large battle in Wad Madani started today. Along with the dengue crisis within the capital and many other things. I don't even know why this war was taken out of current events. NYMan6 (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Timeline article is mostly single sentence updates without paragraphs or additional depth about specific events; of insufficient quality and depth to be featured at ITN/R. Only 3 of the lines since March 1 were of more than one sentence. Conversely, the War in Sudan (2023–present) does have a little more depth, however insufficient updates about recent events, with only 3 sentences in the body appearing to refer to events in April 2024 (the past 9 days). Based on the comments above, there are events going on, but just not in sufficient depth or quality for these articles to be featured in the Ongoing section. SpencerT•C04:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has a lot more depth, indeed. I've added a couple more sentences from an April 10 Reuters report and three more from a March 29 Al Jazeera report on the impending famine. I've also added a section to the talk page explaining that the in-depth article is being criticized for not having enough updates in the last 9 days, while the timeline article is being criticized for having too many short updates. My hope is that by providing actual feedback to the authors, this will lead to a better entry and a better ITN decision than was made last time (i.e. not posting when there was clear consensus to post). 10.7 million people were estimated to be displaced by January 2024, 5 million are facing famine. 18 million "acute food insecurity". -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥19:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Spencer and Stephen: I should also add that it's very likely there will be quite a number of media organizations publishing articles on the 1-year anniversary of the conflict in the next 5 days. Not sure why en.wp would not do the same given the strong majority in both the last nomination and this one for promotion. That said, I'm not a fan of the one-line updates to the timeline entry. (I didn't !vote for *its* inclusion last time either.) -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥22:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Posted with timeline I see clear consensus to add the main article to ongoing including the timeline. I suggest we all move on and go with what the consensus is. Schwede6602:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Comment: thank you for the nomination. I made a mistake thinking he died 9 April as two others (see above). Redlinks should be filled, not complained about. I have no time today, but it can't be too difficult to get recordings source. He ran a festival for more than 50 years and deserves attention. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
German conductor focused on world premiere at the great opera houses of the world. I began the article long ago, and sadly updated. Some refs were lost but replaced. There would be much more to say ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Thank you for the new source, but it doesn't support the kids' middle names and dates of birth as shown in the bullet-points there. --PFHLai (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
American politician who served for Cook County, Illinois. The article needs work, especially with several unsourced paragraphs and a couple short sections which should either be expanded or merged. ~ TailsWx (🐾, me!) 01:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shipwrecks that kill 100+ people aren't exactly run of the mill events, so I'm a little surprised this wasn't nominated. Article needs a lot of work, though. TheKip23:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability due to the large scale of the shipwreck, but oppose on quality due to the article just barely passing the threshold of a stub. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability, as much as we shouldn't be a disaster ticker, more than 100 people dying is not exactly common either. Quality seems fine, at 1900 characters right now, solidly Start-class but nothing we can't post. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support The writing that's there isn't terrible and the room for more only rightly suggests this is a developing situation under investigation, with details to potentially follow. The sort of story that was meant to be posted for a week or two, by my guess at what went through whoever started this practice's minds at the time. I could be wrong. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note Article currently states at least 100, rather than 130. Would recommend stating "at least 100" until/unless we get an official death toll. Bremps...03:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Men's championship (tomorrow night) is also ITN/R. Blurb will be updated with men's winner after that game but no reason not to go ahead and post the women. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Article looks in great shape. Obviously some "Aftermath" content is forthcoming, but what has been written looks to be well-written and sourced. Nice to see a sports article in good shape this soon after it's conclusion. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is in great shape, although it might need some small fixes, it's good enough for ITN.
Support, article is well-written and well-cited. Can post this one now and combine with the men's blurb tomorrow. TheKip03:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support in principle Not ITNR, but this election is quite significant both regionally and internationally due to the NATO-Russia conflict; Pellegrini's election gives Fico more legitimacy and cements Slovakia as a firmly pro-Russian country within NATO. The campaign section is orange-tagged for expansion. Curbon7 (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Curbon; we also have precedent from posting the Czech presidential election last year, where the opposite, but comparably significant geopolitical outcome occurred. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality campaign section is correctly orange tagged as needing expansion. Aftermath section should also be expanded, since almost all of the English-language coverage about this election is related to his pro-Russian policies, which have one sentence on them (which isn't enough of a representation). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the lack of content in the campaign section and the underdeveloped state of the article seems somewhat contradictory to the above claims that this election was particularly notable even in spite of it not being ITNR. FlipandFlopped ツ01:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some of the effects of the election are described in the aftermath section, though it only says that it is a "gain" for the government of the Prime Minister, which doesn't seem to be significant enough on its own for a blurb. The campaign section does discuss some of Pellegrini's more Russia sympathetic views, though I am not sure how significant this is considering the Prime Minister already holds similar views. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find any, you're welcome to present those sources and details. I've looked. All I see in Google searching and Newspapers.com is he lived on Munjoy Hill, had a wife named Connie, and two children. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I added some additional details to the personal life section about his children. The article is of sufficient quality. I also note the exact cause of death is not available online, likely for privacy reasons. Given he died at 89, I do not think having the exact cause of death in the article is a prerequisite for being posted to RD. FlipandFlopped ツ01:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support given that it's already a full breaking of diplomatic relationships, we can't really predict whether there will be further escalation but that enough is already notable. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose' solely due to lack of a dedicated article. The incident is quite serious and almost without modern precedent. It warrants an article, and a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is zero requirement for a standalone article, only that either we have a new article of reasonable length or that there has been a significant update to an existing article. I am on the edge of supporting this on significance, but in terms of quality there would likely need to be at least a few more paragraphs in the target article (in addition to overall article quality) to support. — Masem (t) 16:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, major international incident - like the Syria airstrike, one nation violating the diplomatic territory of another is significant. TheKip18:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as this a relatively important event given that Mexico is a regional power. Would prefer some updates to article and would like to see if this escalates but not opposed to posting it. Ion.want.uu (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree that no dedicated article is required but the section in the relations article is insufficient providing no background on Glas and almost no specifics about the raid (timing, causalities, notifications, etc). Should be an easy support if the target is improved slightly. Also LOL Mexico caring about national sovereignty after facilitating a full scale invasion of the United States for decades. --24.125.98.89 (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, Mexico refused to recognize Texan independence, nor their request for annexation by the United States, invaded a foreign country and lost half their territory for their trouble. Of course, if Polk had done his job 180 years ago we'd be in sovereign control of the entire continent and not dealing with the infestation we're dealing with today. Oh well. --24.125.98.89 (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I intended to keep these suspicions private, but with the above remarks I’ll say it: the IP in question’s behavior quite reminds me of the CBANned user LaserLegs and I’ll be taking both the above remarks and said suspicions to ANI shortly. TheKip02:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LL or not (the typing style certainly is familiar), those sorts of unhinged racist remarks make me wonder if it'd be a good idea to require autoconfirmed status to comment at ITN/C. Vanilla Wizard 💙19:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a little bit of an extreme measure, many contributions from unconfirmed editors are useful, only a minority are like this guy. Already too much gatekeeping on Wikipedia atm PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. I won't dwell on that suggestion since it's not related to the blurb nomination anyways. I'll also collapse this whole thing just to make it easier to read the real conversation. Vanilla Wizard 💙19:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New target is better but still mostly filler. Remember the five sentences rule? Too bad it's not a rule anymore. Wall of reactions flag salad looks terrible and is mostly unncessary. 24.125.98.89 (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go again with your unnecessary and political remark. You made similar remarks under the 2024 Mmamatlakala bus crash discussion here and here. Even though you later deleted your comment, it appears that you like making irrelevant comments and like to use ITN/C as a political fourm like you just did here. PrinceofPunjabTALK08:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That article is in poor shape. Half of it is reaction kudzu, and the actual events are two paragraphs total. This is why a separate article wasn't needed, just expansion in the current relations one. — Masem (t) 00:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on Quality per Ad Orientem. We now have content in the article about the actual event itself. Fantastic. The article is still over 90% cruft, but it's progress! DarkSide830 (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Awards and honours section is unsourced. There's 1 {cn} tag in the main prose, too. Please add more REFs. This stubby wikibio has only 284 words of prose. Any more to write about him? What did he do as PM? --PFHLai (talk) 11:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @Blaylockjam10, for the expansion and new REFs. I almost promoted this to MainPage, but decided against it. There seems to be too much materials in the intro not mentioned and ref'd in the main prose. --PFHLai (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Little to no damage. No casualties. Seemingly the most consequential thing to happen were the temporary closings of some important pieces of infrastructure but none of these said pieces were damaged at all. An interesting oddity, but not really ITN worthy Kosazhra (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unlike the Thailand quake, this was far weaker and there's no significant damage. May be unusual to NYC residents but not to the rest of the world. --Masem (t) 20:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add a little more details soon, but since the journalism in Iran works under direct harsh governmental surveillance, it's hard to find detailed information on the web to improve the article.
Also i would be appreciate some help I'm not sure what inbox fits the best. Is there a list of inboxes so i can find the right one? 3000MAX (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the target of this attack was Iranian security forces and individuals on either side were killed in the ensuing combat, I think military conflict might be the best. The Warrenpoint ambush seems somewhat comparable from an article standpoint. TheKip23:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on Significance, Oppose on quality the article is not in good shape. It lacks inline citations and is a bit short. But the death toll is significant therefore it should be on the main page. PrinceofPunjabTALK05:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PrinceofPunjab, @The Kip New details have been added to the article, but I couldn’t delve further due to the scarcity of new and detailed informations. Unfortunately, there hasn’t been much news since the incident occurred, primarily because of the lack of active journalism in the country. 3000MAX (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a part of a bigger conflict, but that conflict is not covered by ongoing and we have a blurb about Israeli airstrike in Damascus in which only 2 out of 16 dead were civilians. I didn't know we can only post when deaths are mostly civilians. PrinceofPunjabTALK15:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've orange-tagged the Works section as most of it has no book ID numbers/references. There's one uncited sentence as well. TheKip22:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template:ITN candidate Finnish concert organist, playing concerts at Notre-Dame, St. John the Divine, the bamboo organ in the Philippines and our local church, especially gifted to match music and instruments. I expanded his article back in 2010. Since, it was expanded by other enthusiasts, sadly resulting in a load of unsourced copyvio, and without links. Some works and universities where he gave master classes are commented out until we find a ref, - help welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has the fuga source and the French overview for all (or let's say: most) on top. The diligent match of organs and the repertoire for them that made this player unique shows there best, imho, also his way of not only playing the "grand" instruments but those of historic interest. If it helps I can list them more specifically. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, sources have been added to both Awards and Bibliography sections, and most Template:Tl tags in the article in general have been addressed. Only one remains; though that shouldn't stop this article from being posted. Looks good to go! (Update: Template:U, Template:U, Template:U) :) ~ TailsWx (🐾, me!) 02:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The tsunami warning has passed, and while there are some collapsed buildings, it looks like there's no significant fatalities or injuries based on most recent reports. Helps that the epicenter was several miles out from land. --Masem (t) 02:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding that the count has been upped to 1 death and 50+ injuries but that's rather tame for a quake of this scale, to the point I still don't think we need to post this. Masem (t) 04:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this line of thinking. Any large earthquake above 6.5 or 7.0 magnitude with its own article is "in the news" and should be worthy for posting. Natg 19 (talk) 04:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This earthquake was significant in the region and did damage buildings. Any earthquake over 7.0 where there are people nearby should qualify as a major news story. S-1-5-7 (talk) 05:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an earthquake exceeds a threshold should not be reasons to post, since that factor alone doesn't give any weight to notability or long term impacts. It's along the lines of "if a tree fell in the woods...", that simply happening may not generate the sourcing or coverage we could expect if it was a major disaster. — Masem (t) 14:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Article is reasonable now. This is not a "best article" category; it is what is in the news. More details will presumably be added. S-1-5-7 (talk) 05:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: No issues with article and seems ready to be posted. More details can be added to the article as further information is released. Tofusaurus (talk) 06:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The earthquake is already receiving extensive international coverage. Reported casualties are also increasing as time goes on. It is the most powerful earthquake in Taiwan in 25 years. This is definitely noteworthy of an ITN post. Focus should be on article quality at this point. Tofusaurus (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no minimum death toll needed to count something as a disaster. If this was an earthquake was equally sized as this one but in a remote area where there wasn’t much potential to cause any real damage, this would be a more valid point. But this happened in a somewhat populated area where the potential for damage was high. QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait This seems borderline as List of earthquakes in 2024 indicates that there's a mag 7+ earthquake every month on average and so we should focus on the ones with significant impact. The details of this one still seem to be emerging. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Although a magnitude 7+ earthquake happens every month or so on average, this is the second most powerful earthquake of the year, and it did hit a densely populated area rather than the middle of the ocean, and had secondary effects such as a landslide and a small tsunami. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HelloThereQuestionablePerson (talk • contribs) 11:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until we have more reports of the impact. Magnitude 7+ earthquakes are common, but this happened in the middle of a fairly large town and there are already several casualties reported with the possibility for many more. Estreyeria (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support The death toll and injury statistics are actively changing and disruptions to city centers and highways would impact trade/tourism/etc. Toroko (the sit of at least 4 deaths) is possibly the most visited national park in Taiwan. Ycleike (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support That over one hundred people are trapped in highway tunnels, with no outside contact established, is grim and disturbing. Rescue attempts guarantee this earthquake is ITN. 128.91.40.237 (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on account of the damage to infrastructure; and, suspension of semiconductor manufacture from some larger plants which could end up affecting the global electronics economy. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template:EcSupport. There are 'only' 10 confirmed dead so far, but that number seems bound to rise given there are currently over 100 missing and over 1000 injuries reported. Property damage appears to be extensive. I think this crosses the line into major impacts worth posting. The article is in good shape - quite impressive given the rapidly evolving situation. Modest Geniustalk18:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for a diligent look. There were four articles, all published in Theology Digest, which means picked and translated by editors. You find those four articles listed as sources in other publications, but for his biography, they seem of minor interest, - commented out. I'll try to get a bit more from what the sources say about his books into the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This guy sounds really interesting, I think the article could do with a little more on his musical career. How often do you hear of a Benedictine monk in a rockband?? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I nominated the same person: German Abbott Primate of the Benedictines until 2016, known as the rock abbott. Article was there, only one ref lost. Just added a bit, such as rock to lead. Don't miss the little video in memory at the end - so full of life. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC) Will move it now to the correct date. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we have footnotes and references in the main prose for the date and place of birth, please? And maybe some prose explaining what the photos are showing in the gallery section? (Or at least captions?) --PFHLai (talk) 11:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose barring something like this being arson or the like, thus type if low-level man made accidental disaster isn't good material fir stand alone articles as it likely will have no impact within a few years. Masem (t) 22:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I'm sorry, if this occurred in an Anglosphere country, this would be posted instantly. There is no requirement for a minimum number of deaths, but this event is nonetheless notable enough for posting, the fact that it happened in Turkey instead of the US or UK is not reason not to post. -- RockstoneSend me a message!23:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also oppose it if it was in an Anglosphere country. Accidents of this level are, sadly, pretty routine news at the world's scale, and not the kind of impactful events that should be featured on Wikipedia's main page. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tragic event but not notable enough. ITN is supposed to serve for the uttermost uncommon events, and this event itself will most likely have no impact long term per Masem. TwistedAxe[contact]23:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nearly 30 people died in a fire. Unfortunate and not really common event. Too bad systemic bias sometimes seem very evident around here. Please remember this is a global project, not an anglophone-countries one. --Bedivere (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a workplace accident or as a nightclub fire? Does your hypothetical US-based scenario automatically make this fire in Turkey notable? 24.125.98.89 (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability, but oppose on quality for now The # of deaths makes this notable enough for a blurb, but the article needs more details. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality Not enough info on the fire itself and there could be more reactions listed. Once the article has more detail it should be posted Hungry403 (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updated. I submit this is ready to go. Everything is fully sourced. No templates.
Parenthetically, the Ann Arbor Hash Bash which will probably be heavy on memorializing him is set for April 6, 2024 tomorrow. Running this soon would be fitting.
Oppose Article needs work as mentioned, also not significantly more distinctive than other people with the same or similar names so that might lead to confusion. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I added one ref as requested. Substantial article on an important woman, - let's not miss this chance because of tidbits. - Hint: I have an article under this date also in need of reviewers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{cn}} I've given it some attention and if somebody could be so kind to resolve the citation needed tag that I've just placed, I'd be happy to post this. Schwede6622:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Unlike the consulate strike below, this is covered by ongoing, and besides the non-Israeli/Palestinian nationalities of the deceased I don’t see what makes this especially different than any of the war’s unfortunately many attacks on civilians (including aid workers). TheKip21:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's unfortunate that the media/world governments care more when it's Western nationalities, but that fact is the reason why it's getting so much more coverage than any of the other killings of civilians in this war. And again, just because something is covered by ongoing doesn't mean it cannot be blurbed. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls?21:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not the first humanitarian aide deaths and likely won't be the last until Israel changes their approach to Gaza. Should be covered by ongoing. Masem (t) 21:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support this is heavily covered by major news organizations and its ramifications are far ranging; also I was just going to nominate this anyway. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just because an event is considered "ongoing" doesn't mean that all events relating to it can't be blurb, contrary to the claims of some users. It simply means that there needs to be a higher threshold of coversge/significance for something to be blurbed. For example, the Bucha massacre and the Sinking of the Moskva were both blurbed even though the Russian invasion of Ukraine is ongoing. The widespread coverage of this attack, and with the overwhelming death toll being of foreign nationals, more than meets the extended criteria for posting. Mount Patagonia (talk • contributions) 00:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I admittedly can’t come up with rationale for why Bucha was posted without potentially sounding biased, the Moskva sinking was posted as it was the largest warship to be sunk in combat in approximately 40 years (since the ARA General Belgrano during the Falklands War). That’s a special/lasting significance that goes beyond the ongoing item. TheKip18:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The event is covered by ongoing, but the fact that the World Central Kitchen is stopping its operations in Gaza due to the attack could be significant (though it is too early to tell what the impacts of it will be). Gödel2200 (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is what ongoing is for - We currently have two Israel/Gaza related blurbs nominated in the last day, posting them both is a stretch. This is exactly what the purpose of ongoing is, not just for ongoing events, but for when there is a constant flow of blurb-worthy stories like this. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Israel has struck UNRWA facilities before, this is only making headlines due to the victims not being Palestinian. Unlikely to see any long term consequence of this when compared to other individual incidents of Israel attacking aid organisations. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support As Godel2200 noted, WCK halting its operations in Gaza is uniquely significant. This attack is also unique and attracting heightened levels of coverage/reaction relative to UNRWA strikes - for example, drawing out some of the fiercest condemnations of Israel yet from former allies in the west. Because this is very potentially a major turning point in the war and is attracting more news coverage than some of the other items we have at ITN currently, I support a blurb. FlipandFlopped ツ23:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support This attack has led to a change in the policy towards Israel by the US government and several other governments (the Australian government is furious and has considerably changed its messaging on the war in response to the attack), and has been major world news. The article is also in decent shape. Nick-D (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Only a few films are missing a citation, and this wouldn't be the first article where a long list is at least temporarily separated from the biography. I trust. however, that the few refs will come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've no view on the article itself, but this IP comment appears to be calling for a blurb. I really think that's not appropriate; being present at an event, and then surviving for a long time afterwards, is not a particularly noteworthy achievement in itself. GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the new footnote. It supported that the subject was a QM, as indicated at the end of the paragraph. But we still need sources for which class of QM, and for the rest of the paragraph. -- PFHLai (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree this is a notable death, however, this is a military commander of a designated terrorist organization by multiple countries, not a diplomatic staff member, so I don't agree it's notable for that reason. It's notable due to the seniority of the individual, his leadership in a designated terrorist organization, and the manner of his death (an intentional strike). Fileyfood500 (talk) 05:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Zahedi is not the only victim. My clarification is that the intentional strike is on Zahedi, and that Zahedi's not serving in a diplomatic role. So it is not "an intentional strike on diplomatic staff", and not novel for that reason. However, it is an intentional strike on a senior official in a controversial organization, and that is notable. Fileyfood500 (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD senior IRGC general, def deserves an RD at the very least, weaker support for ITN just because these attacks also happen all the time with Hamas leadership and they aren’t reported on Ion.want.uu (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD once at quality, oppose blurb (either as news story or death blurb) Zahedi does pass notability (info about him well before today), but clearly is not a major figure that we'd give a normal out-of-respect death blurb to. The strike itself is part of the existing ongoing Red Sea crisis item, and would have just been an update to the appropriate article and considered under ongoing for this, so blurbing the event doesn't make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talk • contribs) 02:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD Zahedi's article has enough details & references to post as a RD. Support altblurb on notability, oppose on quality This is important enough for a blurb, but the quality of the airstrike article isn't good enough. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 03:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb per Blaylock, but agree we should wait to post until the airstrike article is improved after additional updates/news coverage take place. I do think Zahedi's article is fine though, even if brief. FlipandFlopped ツ03:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb in principle, significant event which is not directly part of the Gaza war (so not covered by ongoing). The bold link should be the airstrike article, which is a good start but not ready. It has a few Template:Tl tags and currently has only one sentence about the actual airstrike - most of the content is background and 'reactions'. It needs to expand the description of what actually happened before posting. Modest Geniustalk12:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: reliable sources are now reporting this as a genuine Israeli airstrike, not just 'suspected', based on private comments by Israeli sources. Modest Geniustalk16:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb As per above, this is not covered by ongoing, and I think the killing of a high ranking IRGC general is notable enough. As per Modest Genius, the bold link in the blurb should only be the airstrike itself. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support on the blurb. Event is notable and has the possibility to dramatically escalate tensions in the region, but I'm just a little hesitant to not violate WP:CRYSTALBALL. Definitely Support RD though. ✈ mike_gigstalkcontribs15:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb, happened in Syria against Iranian personnel, so neither covered by the Gaza war nor the Red Sea crisis. The uniqueness of the strike and the high rank of the person targeted make it notable enough. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the overall event itself is blurb-worthy even if none of the deceased have an article for RD. That one of those killed has an article and this is a RD/blurb nomination just sort of complicated things. -- KTC (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITNRD states that a death blurb can be invoked if the manner of death is the main story. Additionally, this may was well be his RD, since we're not going to be scheduling a seperate RD nom just for him. — Knightoftheswords03:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support original blurb – This to me feels like a very scary and direct expansion of the conflict. Article can use work but is of sufficient quality. Zahedi's article looks good. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not bothered about an RD for this but am still opposed to a blurb. It's the nominated blurbs which are obsolete as their numbers of deaths doesn't agree with the article. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose due to big mistake - the sentence writes that an Iranian consulate was struck, but this relaly doesn't makes any sense since countries have consulates in cities that are not the capital, France has an embassy in Cairo and has a consulate in Alexandria, it wouldn't have a consulate in Cairo. Also, the building also doesn't function as a consular building but sources place it within the diplomatic compound. Pictures from the place show the building is outside the fenced Iranian embassy compound. It is INCORRECT to write that it is was a strike against the Iranian embassy or against an Iranian consulate! Should be fixed to "building adjacent to the Iranian embassy building" I don't have a problem with the news piece but this is a big mistake and really should be fixed! Thanks! ElLuzDelSur (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per ElLuzDelSur's comment. Since this strike was not on the consulate, but on a building next to the consulate. It is clear the event is recent and the article requires work. The linked article is called "2024 Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus", although it's not a strike on an embassy from sources, but an adjacent building:
"Emergency and security personnel gather at the site of strikes that hit a building next to the Iranian consulate in Syria’s capital Damascus, on April 1, 2024" [5]Fileyfood500 (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Decision needed) Legalisation of recreational cannabis use in Germany[edit]
Oppose It's not that big of a deal. A lot of countries have either legalized it outright, or de facto decriminalized it. If they decriminalized recreational drug use more broadly, I'd probably support. But this is neither novel, nor an especially major development in global attitudes towards drug use. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per AO. With almost one country every 6 months doing this, it ain't news anymore, especially the Western Hemisphere. Could be more notable on the other side of the globe. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed that it was practically legal in germany. And please don't link to an article about the state of berlin or whatever. It varied wildly from basically zero tolerance to unofficial decriminilization. But it certainly wasn't 'practically legal' on the federal level. Neither was it 'practically legal' in the majority of states. 80.228.131.106 (talk) 12:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was already legal for medicinal use, consumption wasn't illegal, and police had guidelines to not prosecute for personal amounts unless it was in the public interest - which corresponded to use in public or around minors, which is still illegal under the new law. This law change is more of policy and recommendation being codified in law than any serious and major change. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consumption of no drug is illegal in germany in itself. Just how the laws work. Not aimed at consumers, allowing them to seek help and whatnot without criminalizing themselves etc. Just a different philosphical aproach. Doesn't mean opiods(as a random example) aren't highly illegal. But someone ODing can seek help without fearing criminal consequences, just as an example. That police nationwide had guidelines to not prosecute is just simply not true. In some states, sure. In others... yeah, not at all. It is a major change in most states. And as a meaningless anecdote, i live in a state which had a more liberal stance towards defacto acceptance, i still could have gotten into major trouble for what i am now legally allowed to do. And it wouldn't have been a misdemeanor but a crime that would have prevented me from getting visas in some countries and the like. Broad real life consequences that now simply vanished. But you lot do whatever. I am just happy to not be a 'criminal' anymore. 85.16.39.169 (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability I've added an altblurb that would reflect this legalization a lot better. Support on notability as this is currently making headlines in European news, but the article needs some work before it's ready. TwistedAxe[contact]13:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The most populous country that has legalised recreational cannabis use so far. While it was decriminalised before in certain parts and regions, this didn't really apply to the entire country. And it also being only the third outright legalisation in Europe, as well as it having plenty of news coverage, makes me think this is notable enough to be covered. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk | contribs) 13:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is not a new thing. That this "isn't common in Europe" (debatable) or that Germany has many people (and what of it?) shouldn't be relevant. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support this solely based on the fact that Germany's the most powerful European nation. And we've posted gay marriage legalizations in small irrelevant central american countries, why not post about Cannabis legalization in the biggest european one? Kasperquickly (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me for being blunt. But it rings a bit hollow for you, who blindly followed the untrue rationale of someone else, to be lecturing people. If someone states a 'fact' as rationale, at least check for yourself if that is actually true. And i by no means want to call anyone a liar or assume bad faith otherwise. Misunderstandings happen and all of that. But please, if you vote 'per' at least check the claim yourself. 85.16.39.169 (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support original blurb on notability per the reasoning of Lukt64 & LennBr. Oppose on quality The quality of the article isn't good enough. The article's quality is fine now. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 03:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support on notability not per the population of Germany (as this would implicitly suggest developments in smaller countries are less notable), but per the rarity of cannabis being legalized. It's not that common. I can understand ITN's increasing reluctance to post marriage equality blurbs these days, opting to only post them when there's something extraordinary about it, e.g. Taiwan being the first country in Asia to do it. The tides have already shifted on that one and it's become par for the course in the West. But I don't think the same can be said about the legal status of cannabis, at least not yet. Per Legality of cannabis, very few countries throughout the world have legalized recreational cannabis, so I don't think we're at the point where we can say this is so commonplace that it doesn't represent any significant shift in legislation. Rather, legislative changes like this are the major turning points that will eventually lead to it being commonplace. I sympathize with the counterargument that in Germany or in other parts of Europe there existed a de facto but not de jure legalization, but I feel this is also a little overstated. Vanilla Wizard 💙13:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not that big of a deal as others have mentioned, and the coverage shows it. If you type "Germany news" into google, none of the top hits mention this development at all - articles instead reference football jersey designs and a dispute over elephants between Germany and Botswana. It is not being widely covered as even these stories precisely because cannabis legalization in Europe is nothing new. FlipandFlopped ツ23:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if you post this, don't use the irrelevant photo of toxic plants it communicates nothing about the subject and doesn't help to hook readers. --24.125.98.89 (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Not the first in Europe and not the most surprising country to do it. Small amounts were defacto legal and consumption was the same so the most significant changes will be to the retailing of product. The article is decent in terms of it's completedness. Ycleike (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hardly the first European country to legalize and it barely made any headlines, quickly being relegated to 3rd page at this point, being surpassed by Botswana and 20k elephants. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is it made headlines when the Bundestag passed legislation a month ago, but consensus here was to wait until formally legalized on 4/1. Now we can’t post it because it’s not in the headlines anymore, apparently? TheKip14:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admin comment – At this point, there is relatively even support and opposition to posting this on notability, with some editors voicing article quality concerns. We'd need a surge of support before this can go anywhere. Schwede6602:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
12:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Comment: There are photos of the building on fire, but they aren't so great blurb-wise since they don't include the significant spire, all the scaffolding hides the building and will only present us with an ad for Batman. I think the best alternative is the suggested pre-fire photo. Cart (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
_Cropped.jpg)
.jpg)
_2.jpg)
.jpg)