Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/September 2022

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

September 30

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Rick Redman

[edit]
Article: Rick Redman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [1]
Credits:

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.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Marvin Powell

[edit]
Article: Marvin Powell (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [2]
Credits:

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.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support good to go.
_-_Alsor (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Dan Wieden

[edit]
Article: Dan Wieden (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Ad Week
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: American advertising executive - Dumelow (talk) 08:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Antonio Inoki

[edit]
Article: Antonio Inoki (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): F4W Online;
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: Professional Wrestling Icon, Japanese Politician, probably deserves a blurb for being a transcendent figure in both Pro Wrestling and MMA Spman (talk)Spman (talk) 02:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Robin Marlar

[edit]
Article: Robin Marlar (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN; Sussex County CC
Credits:

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.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) September 2022 Burkina Faso coup d'état

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: September 2022 Burkina Faso coup d'état (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Burkina Faso, a coup d'état led by Ibrahim Traoré deposes Interim President Paul-Henri Sandaogo Damiba (pictured). (Post)
News source(s): Reuters Al Jazeera
Credits:

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: Junta leader of Burkina Faso removed in coup. Johndavies837 (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

[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: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)
Nominator's comments: Remove the ongoing link, which is excessive while there is a posted blurb on Russia's annexation of Ukrainian regions. Those bolded links lead to pages which are navigable to other invasion-related info. —Bagumba (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine this is why many didn't want to post a one-off story on the conflict. Do you propose readding it to ongoing when that blurb falls off? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably it would still be ongoing. —Bagumba (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2022 (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.

(Posted) RD: Héctor López

[edit]
Article: Héctor López (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): MLB.com
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: Death announced today. Date of death not given. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kabul bombing

[edit]
Article: September 2022 Kabul school bombing (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: A suicide attack on a training center kills at least 23 people and injured 27 in Kabul, Afghanistan. (Post)
Alternative blurb: A suicide attack on an education center kills at least 23 people and injures 27 in Kabul, Afghanistan.
News source(s): CNN, BBC, The Guardian, DAWN, Al Jazeera, AP, DW, France24
Credits:

 Ainty Painty (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support once expanded - This one seems to be getting more news coverage than the others, and just passes the notability test in my opinion. That being said, it would be laughable to post an article with only a single sentence, as this one currently is. Quantum XYZ (talk) 10:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - Obvious reasons Prodrummer619 (talk)(@ when responding) 10:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 29

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD:Akissi Kouamé

[edit]
Article: Akissi Kouamé (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Press Ivoire (in French)
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: First Ivorian female army officer. An article I wrote a few years ago to improve our coverage of female military figures. Dumelow (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Al Primo

[edit]
Article: Al Primo (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Philadelphia Inquirer; Pittsburgh Tribune-Review; WABC-TV
Credits:

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.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The 2 sentences related to Marie Torre in the intro seem out of place and Torre isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article. Otherwise, good depth of coverage, and conditional support when that is addressed. SpencerT•C 03:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Leonard A. Cole

[edit]
Article: Leonard A. Cole (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: First reported in a reliable source today (September 29); died on September 18. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine

[edit]
Articles: 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine (talk · history · tag) and Annexation of Southern and Eastern Ukraine (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Putin declares four occupied Ukrainian territories as part of Russia. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The four Ukrainian Oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson are formally annexed by Russia after widely condemned referendums.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Four districts (Oblasts) of Russian-occupied Ukraine – Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson – are formally annexed by Russia after so-called referendums are condemned by the international community.
Alternative blurb III: ​ Four Oblasts of Ukraine are annexed by Russia after referendums are held within the territories.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ Russia annexes the occupied Ukrainian oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson.
Alternative blurb V: ​ Russia announces the annexation of the occupied Ukrainian oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson after widely-condemned referendums.
Alternative blurb VI: ​ Russia announces the annexation of the partially occupied Ukrainian oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson after widely-condemned referendums.
News source(s): CNN Reuters

Nominator's comments: This WILL happen and it's the most aggressive geopolitical/territorial change in the Western World since the end of the Cold War. Needs a better blurb. I posted this a bit early because the articles need a bit of cleanup and updates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:2f0e:d619:3d00:417c:3eac:70d0:f5cd (talkcontribs)

  • My apologies for not realizing this wouldn't actually be completed until tomorrow in my first comment above. The article should probably make this clearer. Right now it's only listing all of the results. I agree that this discussion should be temporarily closed until the correct date. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt4 is the one to use, when this actually happens. But that bolded article needs major work and is currently the subject of a move discussion. Modest Genius talk 15:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We should not be trying to characterize the referendums, though we can mention something like "widely considered illegitimate" Masem (t) 22:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I introduced my son to you as "widely considered illegitimate", wouldn't that characterize him as a bastard? Well, it should. Same deal here, approximately enough (if a reader looks even slightly into the lead, they'll know what "we" want them to think). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the alt blurbs. Mentioning the referendum requires us to characterize it, and that opens a can of worms. The news is the declaration itself. The original blurb is somewhat inaccurate in calling them "occupied" as the annexation also applies to unoccupied areas. Perhaps "portions of Eastern Ukraine" threads the needle. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt4 - Annexation is the main focus, and the occupation regimes are hyperlinked. No need to hyperlink Russia, Ukraine or oblast, that's not usually done. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ) 15:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - until it actually happens, when it does it should be Alt 3. Alt 1 & 2 violate WP:NPOV so theres no way those can be posted (though Alt2 would be ok without the "so-called"); the original and alt 4 lack context.✨  4 🧚‍♂am KING  15:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll have what he's having. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt4. We shouldn't mention the fake referendums where people were forced to vote at gunpoint and did not include the population that fled the Russian advance- or if we do mention them, it should be made clear that they are generally not recognized as free and fair(some say they are illegal under the UN charter). 331dot (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the intent is to annex the entire territory of the four oblasts so that the Ukrainian control of some parts could be considered aggression on Russian soil and the use of nuclear weapon would be justified. If they controlled the entire oblasts, they would've not rushed with these referenda.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose ALT5 based off above comment from Gust Justice and synthesis of other blurbs. We must be careful not to imply that Russia is doing this legally, nor that they control all of what they are claiming. The Kip (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering that some of the "annexed" regions are only partially occupied by Russia (e.g. the capital/largest city of Zaporizhzhia is still Ukranian, and has been throughout this war), we shouldn't state that these are "Russian-occupied" without qualifiers (partially-occupied?). Something like "Russia declares to have annexed four Ukrainian oblasts"? Fram (talk) 07:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest problem with the current blurb, is legally the territories haven't been annexed yet, the Russian State Duma still has to rubber stamp the "treaties" before they can be officially incorporated into Russia... Expected to happen sometime between October 4-5. ✨  4 🧚‍♂am KING  21:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose pulling – The existing blurb may not satisfy everyone, but pulling what continues to be a very prominent story would be amateurish and puzzling to readers. Suggestions for blurb changes may be made at ERRORS. – Sca (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 28

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: John Rowe (Exelon)

[edit]
Article: John Rowe (Exelon) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Chicago Tribune; Chicago Sun-Times (Legacy.com)
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: First reported in a reliable source today (September 28); died on September 24. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: David Gottesman

[edit]
Article: David Gottesman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times; Jewish Telegraphic Agency; The Wall Street Journal
Credits:

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.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Andrew van der Bijl

[edit]
Article: Andrew van der Bijl (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Telegraph, The Times
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: Dutch Christian missionary, Bible smuggler and evangelist, announced 9/28. Content considerably revised for neutrality/removal of commentary, expanded with additional detail, and added third-party refs (instead of relying on his autobiography), and article is in much better shape now. SpencerT•C 01:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Tom Urbani

[edit]
Article: Tom Urbani (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Santa Cruz Sentinel
Credits:

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.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Gavin Escobar

[edit]
Article: Gavin Escobar (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian (Associated Press); ESPN; The San Diego Union-Tribune
Credits:

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.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 06:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Coolio

[edit]
Article: Coolio (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NBC News, Variety
Credits:

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.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Well established and well known QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 01:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bill Plante

[edit]
Article: Bill Plante (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Washington Post
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: American journalist. Worked for CBS News from 1964 - 2016. Thriley (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Hurricane Ian

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Hurricane Ian (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Hurricane Ian makes landfall in Florida, United States, after knocking out power to the entirety of Cuba. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Hurricane Ian makes landfall in Cuba, knocking out power to the entirety of the island.
Alternative blurb II: ​ At least sixteen people are killed after Hurricane Ian makes landfall in Cuba and Florida, and leaves millions without power.
News source(s): [10][11][12]
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Category 4 hurricane hitting Florida today. Mandatory evacuations have already been called for. Cuba has lost all power as a result. Blurb can be updated with damage estimates. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I added an alt blurb because currently, the impacts to Cuba are much more significant that Florida at the present time with the entirety of Cuba losing power. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just making that the blurb for now because it's better than what I wrote. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per Elijahandskip. Landfall not expected just yet. Sarrail (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, call it underway, if that makes you feel better. Semantics. But reports indicate the storm's biggest impact on people is likely to be in Florida. That Fla. happens to be in the U.S. is circumstantial, and not a factor in terms of news value. -- Sca (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We don't post weather forecasts. We post what HAS happened. And surely what happens in Cuba matters? HiLo48 (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sca: Are people in Cuba not people? :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Idiotic comment. -- Sca (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because the blurb would be misinformation saying “makes landfall in Florida”. That is why we are waiting Muboshgu and The ed17. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elijahandskip: Re-read what I wrote. I was calling for a different, Cuba-focused blurb to be posted. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Damage to Cuba is significant too, and we can say "approaches Florida" if it's posted before it makes landfall and update the hook as it does. Landfall in Florida appears to be imminent at the moment. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricanes in the mid Atlantic during the summer-fall months making landfall and doing some damage or forcing evacuations is a routine news item. Its why Fiona wasn't posted. We're looking for the magnitude of damage which likely would be based on how bad Florida is hit. Masem (t) 17:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fiona could still use revisiting, even if it's trending stale. 27 deaths at last check. This is why these hurricane noms getting posted too early is a problem - they get buried before the storm's full impacts are known. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why not bump them to the top if the death toll is at least 10-20 higher than the last time it was bumped off the top? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
”actually make an informed decision about the notability”…Guess 2 fatalities and an entire nation without power doesn’t make something notable enough for ITN. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DarkSide830: Would like to point out, we have confirmed two fatalities and 11 million without power in Cuba alone. That alone should be enough to post a blurb, that then can be changed in the future (probably tomorrow) with the information about Florida. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't enough with Fiona. 2 is not minimum deaths material and we don't have any tangible number on damages yet. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A hurricane knocking out power to all of Puerto Rico isn’t uncommon (happened with Hurricane Maria in 2017 for example). But as far as I am aware, it is extremely rare for all of Cuba to be without power. Also, Puerto Rico was 1.2 million without power while Cuba is 11 million. Equivalent to all of a single US state (like Florida) losing power from a hurricane. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, it was a struggle to get a consensus to post the 2019 South American blackout which left nearly 50 million without power, though we eventually posted it. We don't know enough about the damage to Cuba yet. I don't believe in "WP:MINIMUMDEATHS", but there is a line somewhere, and there's not a chance of a consensus forming when only two casualties are confirmed.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Loss of power is an inconvenience (yes, critical infrastructure like hospitals need it, but that exists everywhere) from such a major storm, so its not worth posting on that alone. Masem (t) 18:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: It's not just a loss of power from this storm, it's a loss of power for an entire country. That's unusual and worth posting. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well I do fully disagree with Masem and Vanilla Wizard about wanting to wait to post Hurricane Ian until it becomes more notable. For all intents and purposes, I feel like you guys just don’t want to post it because Fiona wasn’t posted. That’s your opinion and I am saying my opinion that I fully disagree with that assessment. Slightly funny. I originally !vote “Wait” for US landfall, get told it is notable enough to post based on Cuba alone, switch !vote to support on an alt blurb about Cuba alone, then get told to wait again for notability (aka US stuff). ITN nominations are always fun… Elijahandskip (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
you guys just don’t want to post it because Fiona wasn’t posted. That’s your opinion No, that's certainly not my opinion, and I ask you to strike that. I haven't even !voted, I just read the winds and came to the conclusion that nominating this when there are only two confirmed casualties was not the best idea.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ITN is not the place to post unusual events like a country losing power. This is why we want something most definitive in terms of impact, like loss of life or scale of destruction. Masem (t) 21:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By that interpretation, even if Hurricane Ian became a category 5 at landfall, it would not be ITN worthy until either the death toll is higher OR NWS does initial damage estimates (after it dissipates). Sounds like ITN needs to have a long RfC to determine what "In The News" means. International coverage and hundreds to thousands of articles covering the hurricane, with a large portion commenting on the complete power loss to Cuba is clearly "In The News", however, from the def you just described, practically no storm could ever make ITN, unless a dozen+ people are killed. I do foresee myself starting an RfC in a few days on this topic. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ITN is about good quality encyclopedia articles that happen to be in the news. We are not a news ticker, regurgitating what are headlines, And since most weather events like hurricanes can really only be judged on quality based on the scale of their impact, that limits every such storm being on the front page. Masem (t) 22:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. We will be seeing the impact of Ian's devastation in the coming days and weeks.
— That Coptic Guy (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the principle, however, I personally know many ITN’s that were posted with less than what this article has. Yesterday alone, it got 22,000 views. I am betting nearly 100k or more today. If that truly is the ITN principle, then this RfC in the next coming days will be extremely interesting and possible precedent setting. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to play the “good quality encyclopedia articles” route, then Hurricane Ian 100% passes every possible ITN “good quality” checklist. An article I started, Zamfara kidnapping made ITN. Hurricane Ian as more international coverage, more article views, more bytes in size, more images, and is basically “more” or “better” in every possible way (even more deaths) than that kidnapping article, which made ITN. Stop stalling because you haven’t said a single reason that can’t be pushed back on why Hurricane Ian shouldn’t be posted to ITN. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Also, based on that def, once NWS posts Ian's initial damage total, would that make it ITN (even if it ain't in the news anymore)? "Scale of destruction" cannot be judged during a storm that is ongoing, meaning you are considering only fatalities for ITN worthiness on a storm. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, you know as well as anyone there is no WP:MINIMUMDEATHS threshold here. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By tomorrow you will be wondering why we hadn't posted this sooner. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 22:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale is similar to what Noah points out below. The landfall in Florida is expected to have as much if not more of an impact, so it makes sense to post when there's actual destruction to talk about. And on the hypothetic, if Ian turned north and later made significant damage in New England or Canada (to add to death toll perhaps) then we can update it if it was posted. But as it is with Ian, the "damage" that we have documented is mostly just the power failure which, in a hurricane, is not remarkable. Masem (t) 02:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it made landfall in Cuba long ago. I hope that's what you're talking about. HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, my support is based on knocking out power to an entire country. I dont really get how that isnt notable enough. An entire country's power grid was knocked out. Is it not important because it isnt the US or in Europe? nableezy - 16:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until the impact is known. Will reconsider if significant fatalities and/or damage occurs.
NoahTalk 22:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So re-nominate in like 2-3 days (after it ain’t a Hurricane anymore)? Elijahandskip (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is normal, yes. Like any weather event, it'll probably be over by the time we know how devastating it was. That doesn't make it stale. "After it ain't a hurricane anymore" is the perfect time to post a hurricane blurb.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elijahandskip:It's still a fresh news story for a whole week after it dissipates. People shouldn't nominate here until fatalities have been confirmed. Even then, they shouldn't nominate for low numbers (ie 1,2,3,etc) since that's typical of any tropical storm. The Rambling Man is right that too many storms either get shitty nominations when they aren't really all that impactful to society like what happened with Fiona for the record or have premature nominations when we have no idea what's happening in the affected regions like what's happening here right now. This makes it harder for those actually deserving to be posted. NoahTalk 22:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The recent Pacific typhoon (Typhoon Nanmadol) also wasn't posted; the death toll there was lower, but Ian is still a lot lower than Fiona - and unlike Fiona I don't see what records it broke. The only difference I see here is that Ian hit the continental USA. We have long since recognized there is massive BIAS in Wikipedia - but we do little to change it. Another example is the Gimbi massacre of over 500 people. Why that war isn't an ongoing I don't know. Perhaps we should rename In the News to In the American News. Nfitz (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
lol wut? Do you not recall the tribute to some old rich white lady that was the Main Page for a day last week? What does Cuba have to do with that anyway? nableezy - 23:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you know she was the most powerful woman in the world? Doesn't Nfitz know Fiona soaked the Maine part of America, too? Won't somebody think of just posting these? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - these ITN conversations and arguement are so ridiculous sometimes. Obviously notable (but how can we post it if we don't know how many people died???) and the article is good. --TorsodogTalk 04:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure your point - did you see how much coverage there was on USA television about her majesty; are you suggesting that this was posted (despite being ITNR) proves there is no BIAS? Cuba would be a stronger point if the nomination preceded landfall on the continental USA. Nfitz (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As suggested by multiple editors, can we get an admin to close this nomination as “no consensus” so it can be renominated in a day or two once the fatality total is higher? (WP:OR - As daylight is breaking, storm chasers are reporting multiple new fatalities and authorities said “fatalities in the hundreds”). Waiting until the fatality count is higher for renomination is the best.) Elijahandskip (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you kidding? The nomination has only been up for a day. It's completely disingenuous to close this thread as "no consensus" especially when you yourself proposed an alt-blurb. And on top of all that, in the same breath mentioning that authorities are reporting "fatalities in the hundreds". If WP:MINIMUMDEATHS existed (which it doesn't) this would blow that threshold out of the water. Absolutely no to closing this as no consensus. God damn, let the process run a bit longer. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Calm yourself, mon ami – it's just weather. – Sca (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am perfectly calm. Please don't ascribe demeanor to me based on written text. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. We're not renominating this after the storm has passed. The storm hit yesterday. There were days of mandatory evacuations and yesterday was wall-to-wall coverage of the hurricane here in the U.S. Number of fatalities, total financial cost of the damage, will be figured out in due time. Is this not a newsworthy event with a high quality article? What are we even doing here? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with previous two. No reason to close this now as the storm heads out to sea -- but is predicted to make a second U.S. landfall Friday. -- Sca (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously…I get told the opposite thing EVERY TIME I write a new !vote comment. Not a good blurb, let’s wait until fatality count, its notable on Cuba only, 11 million power outages ain’t notable enough, 1 fatality ain’t notable, its notable. Dear God. I’m actually wishing I NEVER commented ever. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is why you don't change your opinion based on what other people say. This is not a hivemind. Everyone comes to ITN with diverse differences of opinion on how this system should work. Speak for yourself and let an admin worry about interpreting consensus. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Support Alt Blurb for immediate posting. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+1, one of the best pieces of advice I've seen here in a while. News is subjective and messy. We all have our own views on when a story becomes notable, and that's okay. There's always a lot of peer pressure to use whatever metrics everyone else is using to determine notability, but everyone should always feel welcomed to think differently.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's NOT what I said. HiLo48 (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I failed to notice the If this is justified now qualifier, which does change the meaning of what I thought I read. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I advocated for posting this when it hit Cuba from the very beginning. I still advocate posting it. ITN is a slow mover at times, and the storm doesn't discriminate as to which country or nationality it brings misery to. Your attempt to make this an issue of ethnic bias is in astoundingly poor taste. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 21:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mention ethnicity. HiLo48 (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The subtext in your message is about as bright as a neon billboard. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 22:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ongoing would be short-sighted. September is the peak of Atlantic hurricane season, but there are no other active cyclones in the Atlantic right now. The closest one is Post-tropical cyclone 11, which is just going to dissipate in the subtropical ridge without doing anything.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not routine for an entire countries power grid to be taken down by a storm. This isnt a neighborhood blackout. And it is likewise not merely an inconvenience. nableezy - 23:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's unclear to me if you are opposing or supporting User:Nableezy. Over 3 million people in Puerto Rico alone lost power with Fiona. A quarter of a million STILL don't have power. In Canada over 100,000 lost power in Nova Scotia (many still don't have it back) - and probably about another 100,000 in the other 4 impacted provinces. If those aren't notable, then neither is this. Nfitz (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I supported up above. Would have supported Fiona too. nableezy - 23:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If all that really happened (which I know isn't the case) was just the power outage, that's the equivalent of a tree falling in the woods and noone around to hear it - it impacts a large number of people but just as other storm systems can impact wide number of people like heat waves or cold fronts - which would encourage editors to want to post these non-events. And until today, we really had no information on actual damages out of Cuba, in addition to the growing tallys from Florida. Now there's enough to start assessing this as a long term, enduring effect. ITN is reactive not proactive to news. Masem (t) 00:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Fiona has been renominated on September 24, meaning it is not archived until 00:00, 2 October UTC. Until that time, unless the nomination is closed, Fiona can still be posted. The original nomination was when Fiona’s death toll was 6. 47.21.202.18 (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So confused by all the recent “Oppose” !votes. Here is my opinion. Anyone who voted against the Cuba only blurb prior to US landfall made a wrong choice. Anyone voting against it because Fiona wasn’t posted is making a wrong choice. Anyone voting against it because it is US centric is making a wrong choice (but still right that some !votes appeared US centric). Basically, this is a waste of time and those who 100% opposed a quick closure of “no consensus” earlier, you basically just doomed this discussion automatically to a no consensus without a good prayer of being renominated/posted. God job y’all. (Even I am at fault for saying wait in the first place and not instantly adding a Cuba only blurb). Feels like everyone in this discussion has legit made some wrong choice which is dooming it to no consensus. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There's already a consensus to post. It's 15:5 support:oppose. Even taking into consideration that Wikipedia is not a vote, it's hard to deny that there is a consensus, and an overwhelming one at that.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There seemed to be consensus at Fiona as well, and I don't see that posted either. Here's a thought - why not a single headline for both storms, which were near simultaneous. Nfitz (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, since Fiona is now posted on ITN. Sarrail (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My thought exactly. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- can an admin please post this? There is quite obvious consensus. --RockstoneSend me a message! 01:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, and this fiasco is a good example of why we should reform ITN and get rid of blurbs altogether. It doesn't matter if we say on the main page that Ian knocked out power to Cuba, or made landfall in Florida, or both, or neither. People aren't coming to the Wikipedia main page to find out the latest news about Ian or anything else. What does matter is that we have a link to Hurricane Ian on the main page, so that if people come here looking for that article, they get there faster, without having to search for it. All of ITN should be like RD: just links, no blurbs, no explanatory text, just links. Levivich (talk) 01:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The view counts show that readers are perfectly fine in finding the Hurricane Ian page without it being in ITN. This reenforces our standard that we want to feature quality articles that happen to be in the news, and most of the opposes here were based on the fact that the full extent of the hurricane couldn't be documented until it passed over Florida, that is, the article quality wasn't going to be there until that happened. Masem (t) 12:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Hilaree Nelson

[edit]
Article: Hilaree Nelson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
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.

Nominator's comments: Missing September 26; Body found on September 28 बडा काजी (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, Article is fine for a notable person. Alex-h (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Prime Minister of Saudi Arabia

[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.


 Ainty Painty (talk) 06:55, 28 September 2022 (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.

September 27

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Sue Mingus

[edit]
Article: Sue Mingus (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Washington Post; JazzTimes
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: First reported today (September 27); died on September 24. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Joe Bussard

[edit]
Article: Joe Bussard (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Pitchfork, WaPo, NYT, NPR, KTUL, Boing Boing
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: Notable collector of pre-war American roots music. yorkshiresky (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nord Stream leaks

[edit]
Article: 2022 Nord Stream gas leaks (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Nord Stream gas pipelines between Russia and Germany experience multiple simultaneous unexplained explosions and leaks. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Nord Stream gas pipelines between Russia and Germany experience three unexplained explosions and leaks off the coast of Bornholm.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Multiple underwater leaks spring in the Nord Stream gas pipelines between Russia and Western Europe in what several countries term an apparent act of [state] sabotage.
News source(s): NY Times, Reuters, Guardian, AP, BBC, DW. AlJazeera
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Sabotage is widely suspected (the NS1 gas pipeline was, pre-invasion, one of the main routes for gas imports to Europe) by reliable sources, but probably not confirmed enough for a blurb Smurrayinchester 15:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a troll post or are you just childish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:675:8D00:C059:841D:C8C4:4089 (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither; are you the long IP who removed it, the short one or both? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Both PM of Sweden and Denmark has held press briefings where they claim it's been an act of sabotage and not an accident. From a Global Politics perspective, this is a major geopolitical event. Swedish PM has spoken to the German Chancellor, Secretary General of NATO, Danish PM and EU commission. Manvswow (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: NS2 never got final approval, and NS1 has been winding down for four months now. This just conforms to the trend, and needs greater significance for a post. 213.233.108.179 (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Pipelines not in use get damaged, cause unknown" is not a notable enough item for ITN (Russia had stopped deliveries over NS1 weeks ago and NS2 was never in use). If (and only if) there are any further major developments because of these defects, we can then post those developments. Regards SoWhy 19:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Major event with large environmental consequences, all over the news. The Article featured should be 2022 Nord Stream gas leaks which I added in the Alt blurb.✨  4 🧚‍♂am KING  21:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Much improved, Your Majesty! If I may implore just one thing more, might ye see that "multiple" be "three"? And yes, I'm being childish here, not trollish and entirely serious about the whole specification request part of this. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. As already noted, neither pipeline is in operation so political/economic impacts are likely off the table as things stand, and environmental impacts do not seem as great as suggested judging by the article. Probably worth waiting a few days to see if any of this changes but as is I don't see this as significant enough to post (save for the fact that this is getting a lot of coverage, but a lot of the buzz is just individuals playing the blame game. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Iffy.Sca (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Norway's drone alert seems significant too. Reminds me of the time in the Spanish Civil War when mysterious submarines started sinking ships in the Med. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless proven to be an act of sabotage not related to the current war. Quantum XYZ (talk) 12:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – No longer iffy. Very widely covered, with several Baltic-bordering countries, plus the EU, condemning an apparent act of (state) sabotage. Favor Alt2 or something similar. – Sca (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Suggest we avoid the verb "experience" as anthropomorphic. Inanimate objects don't 'experience' things, only sentient beings do. – Sca (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not much volume going thru the pipeline even before this incident. So this is just another event in the slow death of the pipeline. Not important enough at this point to be its own ITN item independant from the ongoing Ukraine war item... Tradediatalk 12:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – In Alt2, the word "state" would be optional. – Sca (talk) 13:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • support unique, unusual, interesting, ACTUALLY IN THE NEWS. I'm kinda baffled by the responses of some of the other editors who oppose this on importance grounds (even though its the presence in mainstream news feeds that should be the actual criterion), but who then routinely vote for posting parliamentary elections in Nauru and similar exceedingly important news pieces.
Preceding posted by IP user 5.44.170.26. – Sca (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, who gives a flip what's going on in Nauru! But on a more serious note, what is the exact significance you speak of that you believe is being overlooked? DarkSide830 (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The pipelines were not used, but the attack does have an economic impact. The expectation was that in the future they would again be used, and that kept the gas price on the futures market in check. Since the attack the price has risen. There is a lack of production capacity for gas, and even if Europe can import all the gas it needs, LNG is way more expensive than gas from Russia was even under normal conditions. Another reason for the rise in the gas price as a result of the attack, is that there is now the possibility that Russia will deal a truly devastating blow to Europe by taking out the gas pipeline from Norway, attack LNG terminals etc. Count Iblis (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When you speak of the rise in the gas price, are you speaking of LNG, or the stuff Americans call gas? HiLo48 (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 26

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


(Posted) RD: Wong Phui Nam

[edit]
Article: Wong Phui Nam (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [19]
Credits:

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.

 CMD (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mark Souder

[edit]
Article: Mark Souder (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Journal Gazette
Credits:

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.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Naoero parliamentary election

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2022 Nauruan parliamentary election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Nauru elects all 19 members of its parliament (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ After the general election in Nauru, Russ Kun (pictured) is sworn in as President.
News source(s): Pina, Naoero Electoral Commission, RNZ
Credits:

Article needs updating
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: It is quite difficult to write a blurb for a country with only 10000 inhabitants and no political parties. Article needs tons of work, nominating to draw attention to it. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support once expanded: Even if this isn't a very significant country, national election results should be included. I wouldn't have known about this if I hadn't happened to check WikipediaFR yesterday. I use Wikipedia daily to make sure I'm up to date on every world leader, as I have them all committed to memory. Moncoposig (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Tom Reed (American football)

[edit]
Article: Tom Reed (American football) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The News & Observer; North Carolina State University; Miami University
Credits:

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.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Cuban Family Code referendum

[edit]
Article: 2022 Cuban Family Code referendum (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A referendum on legalizing same-sex marriage in Cuba passes. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Cuba legalizes same-sex marriage and adoption following the passage of the Family Code referendum.
Alternative blurb II: ​ A referendum on recognizing same-sex marriages and other family matters in Cuba passes.
News source(s): BBC, Reuters
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Important referendum for the LGBT community in Cuba. I might have to rewrite the blurb. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 22:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's also the first Marxist-Leninist or communist state to legalize it. I would say both factors push it to notability. @TenorTwelve: @Vanilla Wizard:. KlayCax (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added an alt-blurb that also links to LGBT rights in Cuba, since pages of this type are typically ran whenever a country adopts same-sex marriage (and the article itself is in good shape from a cursory glance). Anyway, weak support as it's the first Caribbean nation and first authoritarian country to adopt same-sex marriage. However, the Family Code page needs to make its summary beefier and fix some citation needed tags. Mount Patagonia (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose there are more than thirty countries that have legalised same sex marriage. Not notable. Stephen 23:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's the first Marxist-Leninist and communist state to recognize same-sex marriage. That's what makes it notable. KlayCax (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The early Soviet Union deregulated such matters – see free love, for example. That was really progressive whereas the Cuban thing seems to be a huge bureaucratic list of regulations about numerous family matters. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't the Soviet Union do so on accident via a technicality? Lenin (who opposed free love) declared all imperial-era laws null and void, which technically deregulated homosexuality for a short time, and then Stalin cracked down on it and the USSR would remain very hostile to gay civil liberties for the rest of its existence. It was certainly not an example of a Marxist-Leninist state intentionally granting rights to gay couples.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Mount Patagonia stating that it was the first Caribbean nation to legalize it. Barring islands owned by Western powers, the Caribbean has some very poor LGBT rights. This is a remarkable first for the region.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In other news the sun is expected to rise in the east tomorrow. From my perspective, this has become routine. If Saudi Arabia or Russia legalize it, I might consider supporting a blurb. But otherwise, this has become an endless run of "this or that country legalizes SSM" nominations. If someone wants to propose that legalization of SSM should be added to ITNR, that discussion belongs on the talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cuba is the first communist and Marxist-Leninist state to legalize same-sex marriage. That's what makes it notable. It's not like Italy hypothetically legalizing it. KlayCax (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not. Wikipedia did the same with Taiwan in 2019. It's entirely in line with previous, established precedent on the issue. I'm perplexed by your claim that this is "political activism". News coverage isn't the same as an endorsement (for or against). KlayCax (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Strong support' = support. – Sca (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Stephen, Orientem, Tradedia, etc. Nothing new. Just routine. Same-sex marriages are legal in several countries around the world.--Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 20:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Kacamata. I don't think we need to blurb every time this happens. If this happened in Saudi Arabia I'd say blurb it. Thriley (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not voting on this because of how charged the conversation has become, but I think it does not make sense for us to use region as context for posting such a blurb. Yes, Cuba may be the first Caribbean country that has legalized same-sex marriage, but that fact alone does not make this blurb-worthy in the sense that the Caribbean isn't some homogeneous group of nations, and we have no proof that the legalization of same-sex marriage in one Caribbean country will have any effect on similar legislation in another. I think if this nom were to pass it should be in the Marxist-Leninist context, not the regional one. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality I expect prose explaining the impact of its passing, justifying its posting to readers.—Bagumba (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. First in the region, sweeping effects for the country, huge milestone for LGBT rights. Davey2116 (talk) 07:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - elections are typically posted for every country in the world. The result is historic since it is the first Communist country to legalize gay marriage. Shwcz (talk) 13:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – After 38+ hours, consensus appears unlikely to develop. – Sca (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, the !votes aren't that close (by my count 14:9 including the nom), but Wikipedia is not a vote and the longer this goes without posting the more stale it'll be. Not stale just yet IMO, I still see people talk about it outside of Wikipedia, but I agree it is slowly but surely getting stale.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Double Asteroid Redirection Test

[edit]
Article: Double Asteroid Redirection Test (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: NASA's DART spacecraft successfully collides with the asteroid Dimorphos (pictured immediately before collision) in a demonstration of asteroid impact avoidance. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Double Asteroid Redirection Test deliberately collides a spacecraft with asteroid Dimorphos (pictured) to test asteroid deflection.
News source(s): CNN NYT JPL press release
Credits:

Article needs updating
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: Impact of DART spacecraft on asteroid Dimorphos expected to take place in about an hour from time of writing, nominating ahead of time since it is not only ITN/R (arrival of interplanetary spacecraft at destination) but also has received significant press coverage as the first spacecraft to alter the trajectory of an asteroid. [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 22:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Didymos and Dimorphos are a binary asteroid system. Dimorphos is the "moon" in the system but is still an asteroid in its own right. Polyamorph (talk) 06:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Yusuf al-Qaradawi

[edit]
Article: Yusuf al-Qaradawi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Al Qaradawi's website, The National
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: Muslim scholar from Egypt, affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Article in good shape, except for 9 "citation needed" tags. Quantum XYZ (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the uncited quotes as both uncited and mostly OR on primary sources, leaving the expand tag. Id say just remove that too, anybody can expand it without the tag. nableezy - 17:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There still remain a number of cn tags, as well as a few major works lacking ISBN identifiers. DatGuyTalkContribs 17:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Izhevsk school shooting

[edit]
Article: Izhevsk school shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: A school shooting in Izhevsk, Russia, leaves 18 people dead (Post)
News source(s): BBC, AP, Guardian, Reuters, France24, DW
Credits:

Nominator's comments: At least 14 dead and 21 injured. There seems to have been a few in Russia in recent years but I think still comparatively rare compared, say, to the US. So worth a discussion on significance here. The article will need expansion before it is suitable for posting - Dumelow (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 25

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Meredith Tax

[edit]
Article: Meredith Tax (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Washington Post
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: A pioneer of the American women's liberation movement. Thriley (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Nikolai Kirtok

[edit]
Article: Nikolai Kirtok (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): всегерои.рф
Credits:

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.

 BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jonathan Beaulieu-Richard

[edit]
Article: Jonathan Beaulieu-Richard (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [21]
Credits:

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.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: James Florio

[edit]
Article: James Florio (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New Jersey Globe
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: Former Governor of New Jersey Thriley (talk) 11:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2022 Italian general election

[edit]
Proposed image
Giorgia Meloni
Article: 2022 Italian general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The centre-right coalition led by Giorgia Meloni (pictured) wins the 2022 Italian general election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The centre-right coalition wins a majority of seats in the 2022 Italian general election. (Brothers of Italy leader Giorgia Meloni pictured).
News source(s): Sky News, Reuters, BBC News, AP, DW, CNN
Credits:

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: Comfortable win according to exit polls for Meloni just as opinion polls predicited, results are watched in the whole world as Italy is a major country. BastianMAT (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Obviously notable and article looks fine. According to the centre-right coalition, the coalition is led by the three main party leaders (Meloni, Salvini, and Berlusconi). As such saying that Meloni is the leader of the coalition would appear inaccurate, even if it is likely she will be elected Prime Minister after the election. I would instead rephrase the blurb as: "The Centre-right coalition wins the 2022 Italian general election. (Brothers of Italy leader Giorgia Meloni pictured)." Gust Justice (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not "look fine" when the "Results" section only contains empty tables and no prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I would only post once at least initial results are part of the article. I wouldn't immediately post the blurb right now. Gust Justice (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this is ITN/R, there is no need to support on importance, only when the item is ready based on quality. Your initial comment made no mention of waiting for it to be ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per agreement in the centre-right coalition, largest party gets the PM role, and that is Meloni, so she has obviously been crowned the winner by RS but we can use the other blurb too. [22] BastianMAT (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have added an aftermath and exit polls result section now. BastianMAT (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Main opposition, Democratic Party has conceded, Meloni has announced victory and several politicians such as Le Pen and Polish PM have congratulated her. We can of course wait, but it is not likely to change anything. [23] [24] BastianMAT (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, and then support Alternative. Wait for the table to have a reliable set of results, of course, but this is fairly conclusive. JackWilfred (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We need to wait for the dust to settle but note that Melini would be Italy's first female PM. She seems to be in the mould of Britain's first female PM – big on traditional values and handbagging the EU. But coalition politics are messy. Note that we are still blurbing the Swedish election, which was two weeks ago, but they don't seem to have formed a government yet. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a Swede that have lived in Italy, there is a clear difference here. The centre-right coalition is an actual coalition with all agreements made, and Meloni already being finalized as the PM candidate as her party is the biggest. Sweden’s right-bloc was an ”informal” coalition with no agreements made except ousting the sitting government, and that is why the negotiations is taking a while. BastianMAT (talk) 09:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nsk92:, 98% of the actual results counted now, lol. [25] [26] BastianMAT (talk) 09:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The results table in the article is still empty. Nsk92 (talk) 10:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I think the article is ready for ITN. Yakme (talk) 10:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS: FWIW, German Wiki's ITN blurbs this as follows: "In the parliamentary elections in Italy, the far-right Fratelli d'Italia under its leader Giorgia Meloni emerge[s] as the strongest force." – Sca (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I think now the lead is a bit more on point. Yakme (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's in the second graf. Somewhat better, but ideally it should be in the first, the true 'lede' paragraph. -- Sca (talk) 14:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, as the first paragraph should first state why there was a snap election in the first place, then the results. I think at the moment the results are quite clear by reading the first few lines. Yakme (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sca, I followed your latest suggestion, which one is better?12 Davide King (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Found a middle-ground agreement with Davide King which IMO improved the intro. Should now make everyone happy. Yakme (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The WP:COMMON name of the winning coalition is Centre-right coalition, it's a historical name in Italian politics. It does not matter that it is right-wing, or far-right, that's its name. Yakme (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Semantics, IMO. Let's follow the RS usage. – Sca (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Small c, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about: "The coalition led by Giorgia Meloni (pictured) wins a majority of seats in the 2022 Italian general election"? Yakme (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a link to coalition. We may as well say the prime minister won the election. I insist you were right the first time. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Aïcha Chenna

[edit]
Article: Aïcha Chenna (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Iconic Moroccan Activist Aicha Chenna Dies at 82
Credits:

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.

 gobonobo + c 14:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Oleksii Zhuravko

[edit]
Article: Oleksii Zhuravko (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Ukrainska Pravda (in Ukrainian), Euromaiden Press
Credits:

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.

 TJMSmith (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2022 Berlin Marathon

[edit]
Proposed image
Eliud Kipchoge about 14.5 km (9.0 mi) into the race
Article: 2022 Berlin Marathon (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At the Berlin Marathon, Eliud Kipchoge (pictured) wins with a new world record and Tigist Assefa wins with a new course record. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ At the Berlin Marathon, Kenyan runner Eliud Kipchoge (pictured) sets a new marathon world record with a time of 2:01:09.
Alternative blurb II: ​ At the Berlin Marathon, Kenyan Eliud Kipchoge (pictured) and Ethiopian Tigist Assefa win the men's and women's races with new world and course records respectively.
News source(s): BBC · CNA · DW · The Guardian · The New York Times · Olympics · Reuters · Runner's World
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: i will be updating the article shortly. any suggestions would be appreciated. note: the berlin marathon is not in itn/r, though i am not sure why. however, i figured that a new world record would be worthy of itn. dying (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC) [updated. dying (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)][reply]

Eliud Kipchoge during the record run
Eliud Kipchoge during the record run
note that there is now an interesting discussion on the talk page about marathons on itn/r. also, i've provided another photo of kipchoge during the race, as this one may be less busy, and therefore perhaps more appropriate on the main page as a small thumbnail. many thanks to Thryduulf who helped crop the original image, which i am now using as the infobox image. dying (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This should probably be posted in terms of the ludicrous breaking of the world record, rather than the event itself. In which case the target article should probably be Eliud Kipchoge. His article appears to be mostly fine apart from the second paragraph of the "2021" section, which is unsourced. Black Kite (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    this is a good point. i was unsure of which to bold (or whether to bold both) since the article on kipchoge himself was already pretty good, so i decided to follow the pattern used by recent marathon blurbs, which bolded the race, not the runners. i now see that the 2018 berlin blurb has the runner in bold, but not the marathon. i would support any decision, though if it gets posted without the marathon article in bold, i would also request that the associated article creation credit be removed from my nomination. dying (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've drafted another altblurb that I think is clearer if we want to post a blurb mentioning both winners. Thryduulf (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • World Record Only A lesser concurrent announcement waters it down (and as the record, the runner and the race completely coincide in this recent event, none can rightly stand bolder). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not important enough for ITN. Too many sports news. Tradediatalk 05:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. -- Sca (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perplexed I remember that among last year's Nobel Prizes in science, one was omitted here but of course, any sports news gets posted. This is getting ridiculous. I had never heard of Australian Rules football before and would have been glad to never hear of it. So why not for these world changing 30 seconds... Varoon2542 (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    i am similarly perplexed. i believe all of the marathon world records have been posted since the start of itn/c: 2007 (disc · diff), 2008 (disc · diff), 2011 (disc · diff), 2013 (disc · diff), 2014 (disc · diff), and 2018 (disc · diff). (also, they were all set in berlin.) i had admittedly assumed that posting marathon world records was a no-brainer. dying (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Dying Just because it was done in the past doesn't mean that it should continue. Are all practices not to be questioned? I was appalled when a Nobel Prize in Science was omitted last year. I had admittedly assumed that posting Nobel Prize winners was a no-brainer. I also assumed that marathon world records that happen very frequently (seven in less than 15 years!) as you yourself demonstrated, was not a significant subject to justify appearing on the main page. It's not a world changing event and it might pain you to learn, but most people who use wikipedia don't give a damn Varoon2542 (talk) 09:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Varoon2542, i'm sorry, i should have made myself more clear. entries on itn/c are evaluated based on quality and significance. amazing articles may not get posted due to lack of significance, and important articles may not get posted due to lack of quality. when i mentioned that i had assumed that posting marathon world records was a no-brainer, i had only meant that i had assumed that they were clearly significant. the bolded article still had to be of sufficient quality before the blurb was ready for posting, and, as nominator, i had the implicit responsibility of making sure that was the case.
    if you look through all the discussions i linked, it appears that no one has previously opposed a nomination of a marathon world record due to significance. there has been one !vote (in 2011) stating that the article was not ready, and one !vote (in 2018) preferring to wait until the result was ratified. (there was also one !vote to remove (in 2013) from an editor apparently unfamiliar with how itn/c worked.) Sca is the first editor in the past fifteen years to oppose due to significance, hence my surprise. of course, practices can be questioned, but there had been no signs that this one would be, with many previous !votes stating that these record marathon runs had obvious significance.
    the awarding of nobel prizes is also clearly significant. in fact, it is on itn/r, a list of events presumed significant enough to automatically warrant posting if the associated article passes a quality check. as a result, posting nobel prizes is a no-brainer, as long as the associated articles have no quality issues. this is why, when i nominated the nobel laureates for physiology or medicine last year, i made sure that the articles were of sufficient quality to post.
    i am assuming that you are upset about the nobel laureates for physics not being posted last year. i remember that nomination, because when i was reviewing it, it was clear that one of the articles appeared to have been edited by someone with a conflict of interest, who had made the article not fit for posting. i did not have the time to rewrite it, and sadly, it seems no one else did either. notice that no one opposed that nomination due to significance, so if you had the time and ability to improve the article of questionable quality so that it was clearly of posting standard before the nomination had become stale, it could easily have been posted.
    interestingly enough, i am actually not pained to learn that most people on wikipedia don't care about marathon world records; after all, most people in my life don't care about them either, or really about much that we post on itn. on the contrary, i was actually really happy to discover that a lot of people on itn/c do care about the records, and also care very much about the nobel prizes.
    anyhow, if you have the time, i do hope you'll stay with us for a while and help us get deserving articles up to posting quality. dying (talk) 08:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ALT only World record is notable, course record is not. The Kip (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ALT2 - widely covered new world record, but would support the bolded article being Eliud Kipchoge per Black Kite. nableezy - 20:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ALT1 as per above. We should be in the business of posting major athletic achievements. I tend to think those are more important than individual sports competitions.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ALT1 The more significant of the two, as this marathon isn't under ITNR, but the record in itself is a noteworthy achievement. Curbon7 (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Consensus to post with focus on the world record. Blurb patterned after 2018 record post.—Bagumba (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 24

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports


(Posted) RD: Bill Blaikie

[edit]
Article: Bill Blaikie (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC News; Times Colonist (Canadian Press); CTV News
Credits:

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.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 06:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Hurricane Fiona results

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Hurricane Fiona (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Hurricane Fiona hits Canadian soil being the deepest low-pressure system ever to be recorded on the country's soil after causing extensive flooding in Guadalupe, Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic" (Post)
Alternative blurb: Hurricane Fiona kills at least 27 people across the Caribbean and Canada.
News source(s): [36], [37], [38]
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Historic meteorological event affecting multiple different countries

RD: Pharoah Sanders

[edit]
Article: Pharoah Sanders (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Pitchfork, Rolling Stone, Stereogum
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: Legendary jazz saxophonist who worked with Coltrane in the 60s — Chevvin 15:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2022 AFL Grand Final

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2022 AFL Grand Final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Australian rules football, the Geelong Cats win the AFL Grand Final, defeating the Sydney Swans. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In Australian rules football, Geelong defeat the Sydney Swans to win the AFL Grand Final.
Alternative blurb II: ​ In Australian rules football, the AFL Grand Final concludes with Geelong (Jock McHale Medal winner pictured) defeating the Sydney Swans.
News source(s): [39] [40]
Credits:

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: Just happened, so article needs updating under Match Summary and Norm Smith Medal. First nomination so please let me know if I've done something wrong. -- EchidnaLives 07:38, 2022 September 24 (UTC)

Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items <- It is in the recurring items Haris920 (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:NOTPROMOTION which states "Wikipedia is not ... a vehicle for ... advertising and showcasing". The nominated article has a large Toyota brand logo at the top. The article does not otherwise mention this car company and so this seems to be gratuitous advertising. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Article has a medium sized Toyota logo at the top, which is part of the 2022 AFL Grand Final logo. I don't see how this is any worse than the countless American stadiums that have a brand name as their article name. If you really want, a sentence on the Toyota sponsorship could be added to the article, even though that would make the article more promotional than it currently is. I don't think that should preclude this being posted to ITN. Steelkamp (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We cannot do anything about official logos for events that include logos of other companies. That should be completely obvious of what we can't change from a non-free image. Masem (t) 17:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we can do something about it. We can refuse to give such intrusive advertising a free plug on our main page. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No we can't. Period. Is it advertising? Yes. Is it blatant advertising? No, it is a de minimus element of the logo. If we had a standalone logo of Toyota at the same size, with all other problems with that given (no mention in the body, etc.), that would be a problem. Masem (t) 17:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly is intrusive about it? It's part of the darn logo! DarkSide830 (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is designed to stand out and catch the eye. It was the first thing I noticed when I clicked through to the article. It distracts from the actual sport and makes me think of Toyota cars instead. This is the entire point of such logo placement – see brand awareness. The fact that such spam is all over some sports now doesn't mean that we have to facilitate and highlight it. We could, for example, just remove the logo. Or not post the item. So far as ITN is concerned, my position is unchanged. This article violates a major policy and should not be featured here. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Go get it deleted. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 22:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that's the literal official name of the season per the official website: the 2022 Toyota AFL Premiership season. It's actually in the official logo for the event itself because Toyota has naming rights. There seems to be no real way for the article to include the actual logo for the event without the massive Toyota brand. The article isn't being more gratuitous advertising than any other sports events article, though it may serve well enough to what, say, the 2018 NHL Winter Classic did? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like a massive dose of WP:RGW. What portion of professional sports isn't sponsored nowadays? Sorry, but this isn't sufficient enough of an argument to merit overturning the WP:ITNR process. There are worthy exceptions, but this is absolutely not one of them. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 22:26, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this any better? The photograph of the stadium is more prominent. --Gaois (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Said "large Toyota logo" is only one part of the competition logo. I've gone ahead and restored it, as plenty of other sporting competitions have similar logos used in their infoboxes without issue. SounderBruce 01:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those all seem to be Irish media so calling them the "Northern Hemisphere" is a stretch. I did a search in the BBC's sports and news websites and found nothing. The BBC provides pretty wide coverage of the world, such as the Canadian hurricane above, but they clearly regard this as insignificant. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, that's simply not true. The discussion about the rocket launch was a discussion about a class of ITN/R candidates, where the argument was that it was too broad. This item is specifically cited at ITN/R. If you want to remove it, start a discussion. Black Kite (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly do not understand what the issue was that prompted that item not being posted. Reread the discussion as well as that on WT:ITN regarding updating the ITNR category for failed launches. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue was the people disputed the significance. The same can be done here, although my objection is on the grounds of quality. BilledMammal (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are no quality issues with this article. You can argue about the logo (and I'm not unsympathetic to that view), but that's not per se a quality issue. Black Kite (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This incredibly harsh on that particular user. We should be encouraging people to voice their concerns and opinions on such matters even when they risk being wrong. We should not ever be criticising comments made in good faith, even if you happen to disagree. Such a heavy handed approach is in bad taste and would do much more harm than good and I think such comments needlessly escalate tensions. Abcmaxx (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the potentially heavy handed approach of the above user, but from past experience, Andrew has been vehemently opposed to sports stories making ITNR in general; I fear this may simply have been a "legitimate" justification for opposition this time. The Kip (talk) 06:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
current posted picture. Can you see the Fnord?
  • Logo comment Regarding corporate logos, the non-free use rationale for this and others says:

    The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey.

    If someone wants to challenge that this is excessive, perhaps a broader forum like WP:VP would be better suited.—Bagumba (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current posted picture (right) is not the one in the nomination. Notice that the AFL logo in this is separate and doesn't contain the Toyota logo. Instead, there's a separate logo for Ford. Is that because it's a dated picture or what? Just curious as to which car company we are advertising now and why. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ford sponsor the club Smith plays for. – Teratix 14:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The picture was taken on Grand Final Day. Note how he is wearing his premiership and Norm Smith Medals. Before he gave the Norm Smith to a cow.We should get WMF to sponsor the Grand Final. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is why we consider "de minimus" in images. A logo like that Ford logo while very visible, or the Toyota one in the original race logo, are not the part of the image that you are to focus on, and as such, they are very much fine in free images and do not impact non-free nor the promotional aspect. Heck, if you start going down the other direction, that means we shouldn't mention FIFA at all about World Cup, as they are a brand they want to promote heavily, for example. Masem (t) 03:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Smith is wearing the AFL logo, not the AFL Grand Final Series logo. He also sports the logos of the Geelong Football Club sponsors: Ford, GMHBA and Cotton On. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cotton On is on every AFL uniform. But yes. Trademarked products are functional commercials. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 23

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections


RD: Irwin Glusker

[edit]
Article: Irwin Glusker (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: NY Times obit published 23 September Thriley (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Needs slight expansion from current length (1301 characters). Joofjoof (talk) 05:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bill Fulcher

[edit]
Article: Bill Fulcher (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): AJC
Credits:

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.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Louise Fletcher

[edit]
Article: Louise Fletcher (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Deadline Hollywood
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: Best known as Nurse Ratched in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Typical problems associated with actor articles on sourcing. Masem (t) 01:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Hilary Mantel

[edit]
Article: Hilary Mantel (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Guardian, AP, NYT, SMH, ToI
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: British author, twice winner of the Booker Prize. Died on Thursday but was announced on Friday. Most of the article is in decent shape, but the early career needs more references, and some of the awards are not cited. I'm adding some {{cn}}s. Modest Genius talk 11:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Career section
  • Fludd (at the end of the first paragraph)
  • A Place of Greater Safety (third paragraph)
  • A Change of Climate (fourth paragraph)
  • An Experiment in Love (fifth paragraph)
  • The Giant, O'Brien (sixth paragraph)
  • Beyond Black (the sentence at the end of the seventh paragraph of the career section refers to details from this book)
  • The two citations needed in the "Early life" section are possibly less urgent (taking her stepfather's surname, working in a geriatric hospital and department store). Those sentences could be hidden or removed if they cannot be verified.
  • Support, An obituary published in The Dominion Post (New Zealand) says “her parents Henry, a clerk, and Margaret were English-born from Irish stock; she had two younger brothers. When she was 7, her mother’s lover, Jack Mantel, moved in with the family. He shared a bedroom with her mother while her father moved to another room. Four years later the family, except for her father, moved to Cheshire to escape the local gossip. She never saw her father again and took Mantel as her surname.” From “The Times” but I don’t know the date; probably republished in the Washington Post. The obit also mentions that after graduating (1973) she “worked as a social worker in a geriatric hospital, and also a a dress seller in a department store” . PS: surely the article is good enough to go to “Recent Deaths” now! Hugo999 (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close but not quite ready; items in the list of works either need a citation or an ISBN. SpencerT•C 18:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Well all the references to books quoted as "needing a citation" already have an article on the book in question with thedir own citations, so why do they need another citation? And all the books are listed as by her in latr books (eg Bring up the Bodies boHugo999 (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not use another Wikipedia article as reference. --PFHLai (talk) 03:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the WP:CIRCULAR policy:

    Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources since Wikipedia is considered as a user-generated source...Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly.

    Bagumba (talk) 07:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added the details about her father and stepfather from The Times obit. I did not add the book details, but would point out that the articles on her books have non-Wikipedia references! PS:I couLD quote my lOCal public library catalogue. And if you quote the ISBN number from the book itself, what do you quote as a source without being circular? THe ISBN no, title, year and publisher is all that is inquestion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugo999 (talkcontribs) 10:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{Closed} Referenda in Ukraine (Updated)

[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: 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Russian-backed authorities hold sham referendums in four Ukrainian oblasts on accession to Russia. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Russian-backed authorities hold sham referendums, widely condemned as illegitimate, in four Ukrainian oblasts on accession to Russia.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Four Ukrainian oblasts vote in favor of joining Russia in sham referendums widely condemned as illegitimate by the international community.
News source(s): The BBC, The Guardian
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Article needs updating, but the event is significant enough to be deserving of a blurb. We've already blurbed some events of this war even though it's in the Ongoing section - this is way more significant than any of them. EditMaker Me (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Is the preferred plural not referenda ? – Sca (talk) 12:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait For Results, if there's a positive result, and Russia does indeed proceed to annex the territories, that will indeed then be a blurb-worthy development imo. ✨  4 🧚‍♂am KING  13:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4iamking There is very little doubt about what the result will be; the surprise would be if it was a "no" vote in their own rigged referendum. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That may be, but until it happens, coming to any conclusions would be WP:SPECULATION. ✨  4 🧚‍♂am KING  15:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, per king. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support once the results come in. Accelerate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.44.170.26 (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but in the right context. Very few if any non-Russian media outlets are saying these votes are anything other than "so called" or fake. 331dot (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because a) it's already in ongoing and is not any more significant of a development than the capture of Mariupol or the recent Kharkiv offensive, and b) because it would be very difficult for Wikipedia to post a blurb that is neutral, because simply stating the result of the referendum without comment would be biased heavily in favour of Russia, who is using this referendum as a form of propaganda, and presenting the results without comment would legitimize it; while stating that the referendum is ignoring all democratic norms in the blurb would present a much more accurate picture, but that would be biased in favour of the Western/Ukrainian standpoint, even if they're correct. The easiest move is to avoid all the blurb neutrality arguments by not posting the referendum at all, hence my vote. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until the results are official.
DinoSoupCanada (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2022 (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.

I know this is closed, but I will point out that news this morning is that Putin will formally annex these four areas today (29 Sept) at a ceremony. [45], so that may be a call for a fresh ITNC based on the close above. --Masem (t) 12:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Cherry Valentine

[edit]
Article: Cherry Valentine (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-63006004 , https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/sep/23/cherry-valentine-rupaul-drag-race-uk-dies-drag-performer-george-ward
Credits:

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.

 174.113.161.1 (talk) 10:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed now :) XxLuckyCxX (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 22

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime


(Posted) RD: Katharine Lee Reid

[edit]
Article: Katharine Lee Reid (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Cleveland.com
Credits:

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.

 Bridget (talk) 03:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Tim Hankinson

[edit]
Article: Tim Hankinson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): National Post (Reuters); Major League Soccer; Syracuse University
Credits:

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.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Dave Barrow

[edit]
Article: Dave Barrow (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Toronto Star; CTV News
Credits:

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.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 10:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Donald M. Blinken

[edit]
Article: Donald M. Blinken (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [46], NYT, BBC, AP
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: Father of Antony Blinken – Muboshgu (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This wikibio seems a little stubby with only 319 words of prose. The Career section with merely four sentences (I moved one of the five out into the next section.) seems particularly thin. There should be more to write about this guy, right? What did he do while carrying those listed big titles? Would this be useful in some way? --PFHLai (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    PFHLai, how does one define a "stub"? WP:STUBDEF suggests 1500 characters / 300 words, and this has 1820 characters / 319 words. There's not that much to say about him from my archival searches, but perhaps that source can provide another sentence or two. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, c'mon, Muboshgu. It is technically not a stub but reads and looks like a stub! Do we want nicer things on MainPage or not? Or do we post whatever just happens to pass the minimum standard? This nom still has several days of eligibility remaining. If there are things to enrich this wikibio, please add to it. I just added a sentence to make it 355 words long now. --PFHLai (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Now it's at 2901 characters and 498 words. There's plenty there. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the expansion, Muboshgu. Looking good. Earwig has no complaints. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Khmer Rouge Tribunal ends

[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.


Proposed image
Articles: Khmer Rouge Tribunal (talk · history · tag) and Khieu Samphan (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia pronounces its final judgement on the genocide by the Khmer Rouge, as appeals by Khieu Samphan (pictured) were rejected and sentence of life in prison upheld. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, Al Jazeera
 2001:268:C1C1:BD24:31BB:C6B1:1AD7:DCD7 (talk) 04:09, 23 September 2022 (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) Breakthrough Prize in Mathematics

[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: Breakthrough Prize in Mathematics (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ American mathematician and computer scientist Daniel Spielman is awarded the Breakthrough Prize in Mathematics. (Post)
News source(s): New Scientist Nature, Scientific American
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: I'm prepared to expand the article further. Nature, Scientific American and New Scientist all have this on their front page, so it is a notable prize, even if a relatively new one. Bumbubookworm (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These are not ITNR prizes, and they are not sufficiently in the news to warrant a blurb. Sandstein 11:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality alone ITNR is not a requirement for posting anything. Most items we post are not previously approved through ITNR. In fact I can't find a single item currently listed on the ITN box which is on ITNR, nor can I find any rules that say that we cannot post items which are not on ITNR. That being said, the target article is NOT up to the quality we expect on the main page. The bolded article contains very little useful biographical information about the subject beyond their job title, a trite description of their work, and a list of awards. It's merely a CV masquerading as an article, and not even a good CV at that. --Jayron32 12:21, 23 September 2022 (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) Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics

[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.


Nominator's comments: I'm prepared to expand the articles further. Nature, Scientific American and New Scientist all have this on their front page, so it is a notable prize, even if a relatively new one. Bumbubookworm (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Might be best to merge this with the above blurb regarding the Breakthrough Prize in Mathematics, just to save some space Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These are not ITNR prizes, and they are not sufficiently in the news to warrant a blurb. Sandstein 11:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose though I would not have an issue if we covered all three Breakthrough Awards in one nomination (yes we're not going to name winners), given that while there's no mainstream coverage of these, I'm seeing SciAm and Nature coverage. We may need to do something like "The Breakthrough Awards are named, including in Life Sciences to Demis Hassabis and John Jumper for developing DeepMind." (the one that is leading the reports I'm seeing). --Masem (t) 01:08, 24 September 2022 (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.

September 21

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


(Closed) RD: John Train (investment advisor)

[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: John Train (investment advisor) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

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.
Nominator's comments: Founding editor of the The Paris Review. NY Times obit published 21 September. Thriley (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not use The NY Times to determine the date of eligibility. It is based on the date when news of a death was first published in a reliable source (this can be the NYT, but most of the time it is not, since they tend to publish obits significantly later than the date of death, sometimes months after). In any case, Train's obit was published in the PenBay Pilot on September 15, 2022, so this is stale. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:16, 27 September 2022 (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: Saul Kripke

[edit]
Article: Saul Kripke (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: Influential philosopher. NY Times obit published 21 September. Thriley (talk) 06:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Dean Caswell

[edit]
Article: Dean Caswell (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [47][48]
Credits:

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.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Kapil Narayan Tiwari

[edit]
Article: Kapil Narayan Tiwari (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Pioneer Sambad
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: Indian MLA. Curbon7 (talk) 08:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Greg Lee (basketball)

[edit]
Article: Greg Lee (basketball) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Los Angeles Times
Credits:

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.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Tom Benner

[edit]
Article: Tom Benner (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC News
Credits:

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.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: John Hamblin

[edit]
Article: John Hamblin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Sydney Morning Herald; ABC News
Credits:

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.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Allan M. Siegal

[edit]
Article: Allan M. Siegal (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

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.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Mobilization in Russia

[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: 2022 Russian mobilization (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Russian president Vladimir Putin announces partial mobilization in the country. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Russian president Vladimir Putin announces partial mobilization in the country, calling 300,000 reservists to active service.
News source(s): CNN, etc
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: The first such step in Russia since WWII and front page news in some outlets which may justify blurbing in addition to ongoing invasion item. Article appears generally ok, but further copyedit is welcome. Brandmeistertalk 20:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - he mobilized troops in February didn't he, moving them to the border with Ukraine prior to the invasion? I'd have thought the blurb would need to be more specific about what's changed... as I understand it conscription may be on the cards now...  — Amakuru (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, he did not. Russia started its illegal invasion mainly with contract soldiers. The professional army. A mobilization means 'random' civilians will be conscripted and forced to fight in ukraine or face punishment of up to 15 years in prison for refusal. Your last sentence is exactly what has happened. Just that conscription will be happening now, has started today and isn't a maybe anymore. 188.118.189.42 (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait: (ec) while possibly a major development for the invasion, I'd rather wait to see how does this deploy, because this could easily be relegated to Ongoing -Gouleg🛋️ harass/hound 20:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose good faith nom. This is already at ongoing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is why we have the ongoing.
Masem (t) 21:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait This is mostly covered by ongoing, I think the 4 upcoming referendums in the LPR, DPR and two other Ukrainian regions (and potential annexation afterwards) might be the bigger story in all this. I do think this is the beginning of a major escalation which could be blurb worthy even with the war in ongoing, but it's not there yet. ✨ 4 🧚‍♂am KING  21:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (for now) – notable escalation in the war but actual implementation/effect is unknown and might not be known for some time. Ongoing remains sufficient for this imo. The referendums for LPR, DPR, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia are likely the next event that would warrant a blurb, barring massive escalations and/or discovery of further atrocities. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Russia has started mobilizing its population for military service, and it's significant independent of the invasion. 213.233.108.79 (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait to improve the article. I saw the references and then the Russian version, and it looks like it's a translation so I marked the talk page. 213.233.108.79 (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The nominated article does not seem to be reliable and perhaps that's because it's based on Russian sources. For example, it says "Previously, mobilization in Russia was announced only twice: at the beginnings of World War I and the Great Patriotic War during World War II." This is not correct as there were multiple mobilisations during the Russo-Japanese War (source). Andrew🐉(talk) 22:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The heavy use of Russian language sources is clearer now as the talk page says "This article was edited to contain a total or partial translation of Мобилизация в России (2022) from the Russian Wikipedia." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:17, 22 September 2022 (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.

(Posted) RD: Darrell Mudra

[edit]
Article: Darrell Mudra (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [52] [53]
Credits:

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.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Raju Srivastav

[edit]
Article: Raju Srivastav (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC Khaleej Times
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: Start class, well sourced Venkat TL (talk) 10:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marked ready after 3 supports including mine.--Venkat TL (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 20

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Politics and elections

Sports


RD: Émile Antonio

[edit]
Article: Émile Antonio (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): OGC Nice
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: French footballer in the 60s. Basic, but will be good enough once the few missing references are added. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 19

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Maarten Schmidt

[edit]
Article: Maarten Schmidt (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times; Caltech
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: First reported today (September 19); died on September 17. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Harry Langford

[edit]
Article: Harry Langford (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC News (Canadian Press); Calgary Stampeders
Credits:

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.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 12:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Vernon Dvorak

[edit]
Article: Vernon Dvorak (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [55]
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: Dvorak revolutionized the way we monitor tropical cyclones with the creation of the Dvorak technique. This tool enables us to assess storm intensity with great accuracy over open oceans where there is no in-situ data available. His work is regarded as invaluable to tropical cyclone forecasting and monitoring. Currently working on digging up info to expand the article but I'm having little success. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Herb Lusk

[edit]
Article: Herb Lusk (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Philadelphia Inquirer; WPVI-TV (ABC); WTXF-TV (Fox)
Credits:

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.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 03:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Looks good enough. --Vacant0 (talk) 09:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly good enough, but one part of the professional career section makes little sense to me: In the third game of his career on September 27, 1976, he fumbled the ball with 12 seconds remaining in the first half after he opted to run instead of running out the clock. This led to the Eagles' 10–3 over the Washington Redskins, with Philadelphia ultimately losing the game in sudden-death overtime. Could you reword this? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Maury Wills

[edit]
Article: Maury Wills (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN, LA Times, NY Times, AP
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: This one will need work, but he was awesome and I'll put in whatever effort is needed. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From 38 sourced cited to 60, ready for review.[56] – Muboshgu (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2022 Carlsen–Niemann controversy

[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.


Proposed image
Article: 2022 Carlsen–Niemann controversy (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Five-time reigning world chess champion Magnus Carlsen (pictured) resigns after one move in a match against Hans Niemann amid allegations of cheating against the latter. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Five-time reigning world chess champion Magnus Carlsen forfeits a match after one move to 45th-ranked Hans Niemann (pictured), who snapped his 53-win streak earlier this month.
News source(s): Guardian ABC Australia
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: A bit left field, but a big scandal in the chess world. Bumbubookworm (talk) 03:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depends The article notes Levon Aronian saying young players are often suspected of cheating and high-level players are "pretty much paranoid". Is this true? If so, what makes this episode different? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, MC is the five-time reigning WC, and walked out/forfeited a game after one move, so he basically disrupted the tournament directly in protest. Not sure if your edit summary was rhetorical, but cheating would be from getting external assistance ie looking up suggestions from a chess supercomputer during toilet breaks, or other smuggling/transmission events Bumbubookworm (talk) 04:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks. As his title wasn't on the line, and the tournament seemingly continued with him in it, I think I'll pass. The lack of any actual allegation of cheating in this game or the earlier tournament he quit also lessens the oomph, to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that it's not fit for the main page, but I want to point out that it's remarkable either way - Either it's actual cheating in over-the-board play by one of the best players in the world, or it's extreme unprofessionalism and borderline witch hunt instigation by the world champion. There isn't any concrete evidence of cheating, but it's still a major event regardless of the outcome. AviationFreak💬 05:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for sure. I do agree it's a major thing. The intangibility (for lack of a better word) created by lack of a straightforward and formal accusation is, in its own way, remarkable even if that very intangibility is a major reason for me why it isn't a good fit. I do wish it had more of a... shape (again, lack of a better word, it's late...) to it to qualify because of how fascinating and remarkable it all has been. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 05:11, 20 September 2022 (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.

(Posted) RD: Brian Binnie

[edit]
Article: Brian Binnie (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [57]
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: Died September 15, announced today – Muboshgu (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Valeri Polyakov

[edit]
Article: Valeri Polyakov (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press; The Moscow Times
Credits:

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.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks ready to go - The page is classified as a good article. Besides the categories (which could be reorganized better/organized in alphabetical order) there are no issues with the page. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 18:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) State funeral of Elizabeth II

[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.



Proposed image
Article: Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The state funeral of Queen Elizabeth II (pictured) takes place at Westminster Abbey in London. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, The Guardian
Credits:
Nominator's comments: I'd like to think it is worthy of a blurb because of the wide amount of coverage of it (similar to her actual death) XxLuckyCxX (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Largely talked about and has been long awaited Prodrummer619 (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We had the death, and the current ongoing. The ceremony is not the important matter compared to either. As established with the ongoing (in addition to TFA being about the the Queen) Masem (t) 15:19, 19 September 2022 (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.

(Removed) Ongoing Removal: QE II

[edit]
Article: Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)
News source(s): [58], [59]

Nominator's comments: Queen has been laid to rest. I suggest removal at 00:00 UTC. NoahTalk 22:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support but I would let it run one or two more days max. Its still has a small news tail. --Masem (t) 22:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for updates, there is still furious activity. For example, Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II shows 41 updates on my watchlist. That's more than 10 times the number of updates to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine in the same period.
Andrew🐉(talk) 07:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who knew someone beloved would attract more people than something despised? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 18

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

Sports


2022 Guizhou bus crash

[edit]
Article: 2022 Guizhou bus crash (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A bus carrying people from Guiyang to a quarantine facility crashes in Guizhou, China, killing 27 people and injuring 20 others. (Post)
News source(s): CNN, NBC, BBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Significant amount of deaths, yet somehow not nominated yet. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 03:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Nick Holonyak

[edit]
Article: Nick Holonyak (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [61]
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: Inventor of LED. The "Awards and honors" is a gross proseline mess, but I didn't write it and it shouldn't impede posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Hurricane Fiona

[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: Hurricane Fiona (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Hurricane Fiona makes landfall in the Dominican Republic after causing vast devastation in Puerto Rico. (Post)
News source(s): CNN, NBC News
Credits:
Nominator's comments: No word on fatalities yet, but "Puerto Rico is 100% without power due to a transmission grid failure from Hurricane Fiona." – Muboshgu (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This system is over the Turks and Caicos islands and is potentially heading for Bermuda. However, it's too early to tell. Sarrail (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be 5 people dead now. The power and water damage to Puerto Rico is starting to look significant. It just got upgraded to Category 4 - might even hit 5, though looks like it will only side-swipe Bermuda. Otherwise there's not much left to hit - though I suppose it could be a big problem if it hits Cape Breton Island as a Category 2. Though based on the Puerto Rico damage alone this might be hitting ITN. Nfitz (talk) 06:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's hitting Cape Breton Island as a category 2 - particularly the Strait of Canso; if it takes out the Causeway then this must be ITN. It's already caused the lowest observed pressure in Canada. Quite probably the most powerful storm to hit Canada. Sable Island took a direct hit - hopefully it's still there. Nfitz (talk) 06:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose – Reports from Puerto Rico speak of devastation but the effects described don't seem amount to that (at least to me). The already crippled power grid (it's been completely unstable or poorly fixed in the 5 years since Irma and Maria) was taken down again and there were extensive rescues, but nothing that sets it above routine hurricanes in an area no longer able to handle them well. Effects elsewhere in the Caribbean so far seem significant but not unusual as well. Likely worth revisiting when Fiona reaches Canada as a non-tropical entity. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fiona is heading for Nova Scotia, Canada. If the damages are enough, it may be in the In the News section. Sarrail (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Marginal notability, awful quality.144.121.66.230 (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2022 (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) Typhoon Nanmadol

[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.


Proposed image
Article: 2022_Pacific_typhoon_season#Typhoon_Nanmadol_(Josie) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Typhoon Nanmadol makes landfall in Japan. (Post)
News source(s): BBC; FT; Japan Times, AP, France24, Reuters
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Seems to be an exceptionally powerful typhoon. I'm not sure why there's not a separate article yet but the season article has a detailed entry. It is expected to move north over the Japanese mainland towards Tokyo in the coming days and so I suppose this is just the start of something big. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only as a comment, we also have Hurricane Fiona making landfall in Puerto Rico. Obviously would not combine them, but without significant death tolls, the landfall of either is not significant, and posting one w/o the other would be bias. Masem (t) 21:18, 18 September 2022 (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.

September 17

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Vlado Milunić

[edit]
Article: Vlado Milunić (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press; Radio Prague
Credits:

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.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 08:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Cal Browning

[edit]
Article: Cal Browning (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Oklahoman
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: Died on September 14, but obit posted on September 17. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Protests in Iran against Guidance Patrol

[edit]
Articles: Death of Mahsa Amini (talk · history · tag) and September 2022 Iranian protests (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Protests take place in Iran over the death of 22 year-old Mahsa Amini, due to police brutality by the Iranian Morality Police, for not wearing proper hijab. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The death of Mahsa Amini, arrested by the Guidance Patrol in Tehran for not wearing proper hijab, prompts protests in Iran.
Alternative blurb II: Protests in Iran kill at least seven people after the death of Mahsa Amini following her arrest by the Guidance Patrol in Tehran for not wearing proper hijab.
News source(s): DW, BBC, Guardian
Credits:

Nominator's comments: current event, highlights the internal situation in Iran which doesn't get a lot of coverage Ideophagous (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD - It doesn't look like there's consensus to blurb, so I guess we should put it in RD? Imposterbruh (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need a copy edit before that. Example "broadcasting various videos of the violent method of arresting women by Mortality police officers in the cyber space, indicates the violent treatment of the police against women." Also, it should be noted that qualification for an RD requires a standalone article. ITNC is free to support an RD in these cases (and usually does), but it is not automatic. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Massive protests in Iran against the theocratic government. --Bedivere (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    True as that may be, the article describes them as "protests against Mehsa's murder". Calling it a murder in Wikipedia's voice and referring to her by (misspelled) first name is bad enough, but missing the point only makes it worse. The lead is just awful. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have a problem with that particular sentence, you can simply fix it. "Mehsa" or "Mahsa" are probably both correct given that the name is non-European to begin with, but that also can easily be fixed. You opposition over these minor issues is rather puzzling.-- Ideophagous (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The synthesis of unnamed witness accounts and unspecified medical opinions into original research not stated explicitly by any of the sources (some of which have a conflict of interest) isn't a minor problem. Using that OR to side with the activists' agendas and downplay the police's provided evidence and explanation instead of presenting the information neutrally is not a minor problem. This article has serious problems, through and through, and changing another "murder" to "death" or e to a won't make them go away (though I will fix that much, if you insist). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wound up fixing considerably more, but it's still pretty bad, and will no doubt become worse again. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that there are issues of neutrality with the article, and that's to be expected in such topics, but the purpose here I believe is to highlight the event. At this rate, by the time the article had been sufficiently improved and reached an acceptable level of neutrality, the whole thing will probably be old news. What we need is more experienced editors to contribute to the improvement efforts, and supervise the edits by less experienced users. Ideophagous (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible support huge event plus people there need our help! 5.44.170.26 (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest support Very important events are taking place in Iran related to women, which are reflected in the world's important media every day. It would be an excellent work in Wikipedia to put Death of Mahsa Amini on the front page.Caravaneternity (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Time has shown that this has grown in scale and significance into worldwide news and of grave importance in Iran. I suspect sone of the earlier oppose votes may be different now. Abcmaxx (talk) 01:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 09:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The protests have a standalone article now, which would normally be more appropriate than a section, but it's also relatively shitty. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that at the time of posting this looked like a national event, within time it has become major international news. This is why most of the opposes are at the beginning and supports at the end. Consensus should be time sensitive in this case. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
race-baiting
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

(Closed) Ongoing: Inflation

[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: 2021–2022 inflation surge (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: This should have been added to ongoing many months ago. This has been getting lots of news coverage over the past few months. Interstellarity (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2022 (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) Ongoing: Floods in Pakistan

[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: 2022 Pakistan floods (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Not the dominant narrative on the web but significant and still ITN nonetheless. Jiaminglimjm (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2022 (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.

(Posted) RD: Henry Silva

[edit]
Article: Henry Silva (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: Died September 14, announced within last 24 hours. Article looks okay from a quick look but Filmography will need to be sourced. ETA - I added a strong BFI source to cover many, but not all, of the films. A few more sources will be needed just for the films listed. --SitcomyFan (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Kyrgyzstan–Tajikistan clashes

[edit]
Article: 2022 Kyrgyzstan–Tajikistan clashes (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 81 people are killed in renewed fighting between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters (Sep.16), Reuters (Sep.18), Guardian, Area News
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Similar case to border conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan., but article needs more updating. - Indefensible (talk) 06:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Should we change "are killed" to "were killed" because they two countries have signed a peace deal?
125.59.140.165 (talk) 12:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Phantom of the Opera Closing

[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.


Proposed image
Article: The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: The Phantom of the Opera, the longest running production in Broadway history, announces it is closing shortly after it's 35th anniversary. (Post)
News source(s): [66] [67] [68]
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Longest running production in Broadway history. it may be better to save this for when it actually closes on February 18, 2023, but the announcement is big news as well. Found5dollar (talk) 03:48, 17 September 2022 (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.

(Posted) Ongoing:Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II

[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: Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: The Emmys have been ready to go for 48 hours and should get posted anytime now. That would bump this, so the time has come to make a call. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Post Posting Support. I would support either option. The evnt is enormous and is a number one story in UK for a week. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:IAR Support Normally I would oppose this. ITN has never as far as I can remember covered a funeral, and I will strenuously oppose this being treated as a precedent to that end. But this is easily the biggest one of the biggest news stories of the year, with the global coverage being off the hook. So yeah, sometimes you just gotta roll with it. But I reiterate that I regard this as a one off exception, not as a green light for funerals getting covered at ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment edited to acknowledge the Russo-Ukrainian war. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The on-going item should be removed tomorrow, after the funeral today. Polyamorph (talk) 07:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My reaction too. Wikipedia has a Commonwealth bias, and it's kind of annoying. --RockstoneSend me a message! 09:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does if it should never have been posted to begin with. There were three comments when this was added, how is that consensus for ongoing? nableezy - 18:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair; but that ship has sailed. You are not going to get it pulled as a bad post before it gets pulled due to the ending of events. Intent of many was to pull Tuesday, which is 2 hours away in the UK. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:01, 19 September 2022 (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.

September 16

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

  • American computer hardware company EVGA terminates its partnership with fellow hardware manufacturer Nvidia and withdraws completely from the graphics card market, alleging that the latter forced them to sell their cards at a loss and would refuse to disclose important information, such as sales numbers. (The Verge)

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Allen Aylett

[edit]
Article: Allen Aylett (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC News; Brisbane Times; Australian Football League
Credits:

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.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 08:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Shelby Jordan

[edit]
Article: Shelby Jordan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Fox News
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: Died September 9, announced today – Muboshgu (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Izium mass graves

[edit]
Article: Izium mass graves (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Numerous mass graves are uncovered in Izium, Ukraine, evidencing further Russian war crimes. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Over 445 bodies are unearthed from mass graves in Izium, Ukraine, evidencing further Russian war crimes.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Over 445 bodies are found buried in Izium, Ukraine, after its reconquest from Russian forces.
News source(s): The Guardian, AP, BBC, Reuters, Kyiv Post
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Just started the article, but already likely even larger scale than the Bucha massacre. If someone can get this some level of protection like other topic-related articles too that would be great. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It did initially, and that's what I called the article when I created it, but someone unilaterally moved it so I amended the nomination. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - seconding this. CJ-Moki (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the discovery of the Tadamon massacre nomination too.Abcmaxx (talk) 08:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit too late for that as several months have passed since its discovery. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the archives, I'm seeing that this article wasn't nominated. Nothing forbids a similar item from being proposed to the main page, just like similar events in the future. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 15

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


(Posted) RD: Gopanarayan Das

[edit]
Article: Gopanarayan Das (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Pioneer
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: Indian former MLA. Curbon7 (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be fixed now. --PFHLai (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Liam Holden

[edit]
Article: Liam Holden (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Belfast Media
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: Last person to be sentenced to death in the United Kingdom (the sentence was later commuted) - Dumelow (talk) 06:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Maanu Paul

[edit]
Article: Maanu Paul (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Waatea News
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: Māori leader - Indefensible (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jörg Faerber

[edit]
Article: Jörg Faerber (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): SWR, Stimme.de
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: Founder, artistic director and CEO of the Württemberg Chamber Orchestra Heilbronn, leading them to international fame with well-known soloists, making more than 500 recordings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: John Stearns

[edit]
Article: John Stearns (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:

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.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Fritz Pleitgen

[edit]
Article: Fritz Pleitgen (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Der Spiegel
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: German journalist Grimes2 (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for updating! Can you give him a bit of a lead, please. WDR - East Berlin - WDR, quite a story! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Eddie Butler (rugby union)

[edit]
Article: Eddie Butler (rugby union) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: Welsh rugby player and commentator. Article's not bad but a bit light on his playing career. Will take a look at it - Dumelow (talk) 07:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Asad Rauf

[edit]
Article: Asad Rauf (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN; Associated Press; International Cricket Council
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: A bit of help required to source some text and it will be good to go. Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Roger Federer retirement

[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: Roger Federer (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Swiss tennis player Roger Federer retires from professional tennis. (Post)
News source(s): https://www.ft.com/content/15c35803-d550-467d-a87e-c7eaf6eb2c40
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Seems worth placing ITN as ostensibly one of, if not the, best players in tennis history — Ixtal ( T / C ) Non nobis solum. 14:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Was unsure of who to name as updaters, feel free to suggest. — Ixtal ( T / C ) Non nobis solum. 14:38, 15 September 2022 (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.

September 14

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime


(Posted) RD: Naresh Kumar (tennis)

[edit]
Article: Naresh Kumar (tennis) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: Indian tennis player and coach. Article needs some work. I will get to working the article, unless someone wants to get started before me. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Harry Booth (coach)

[edit]
Article: Harry Booth (coach) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Philadelphia Inquirer
Credits:

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.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Robert P. Maginnis

[edit]
Article: Robert P. Maginnis (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CatholicPhilly.com
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: American catholic prelate. I've added a short paragraph on his death - Dumelow (talk) 09:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Rommy Hunt Revson

[edit]
Article: Rommy Hunt Revson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Times
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: American inventor of the scrunchie. Died 7 September, but first reported 14 September as far as I can see - Dumelow (talk) 08:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: John Gamble (baseball)

[edit]
Article: John Gamble (baseball) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Nevada Sports Network
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: First reported today (September 14); died on September 1. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Earl J. Silbert

[edit]
Article: Earl J. Silbert (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Washington Post
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: First reported today (September 14); died on September 6. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Harry Landis

[edit]
Article: Harry Landis (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Argus Evening Standard
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: British actor with long career and numerous credits TrottieTrue (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Irene Papas

[edit]
Article: Irene Papas (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): iEdidiseis (in Greek)
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: Greek actress and singer, a Good Article - Dumelow (talk) 09:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Kazakhstan re-names capital city to Astana

[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: Astana (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Kazakhstan announces change to name of capital from Nur-sultan back to Astana (Post)
Alternative blurb: Kazakhstan announces the changing of their capital city's name from Nur-Sultan to its former name of Astana.
Alternative blurb II: Kazakhstan renames its capital city from Nur-Sultan back to Astana.
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:
Nominator's comments: This is unique and I believe encyclopedic (as well as political). The last I can think of such an event is St Petersburg > Leningrad > St Petersburg and took over decades rather than 3 years. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's back now to Astana with a WP:MOVP protection. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2022 (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.

September 13

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Fred Callaghan

[edit]
Article: Fred Callaghan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Fulham FC
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: English footballer Dumelow (talk) 09:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Susan L. Solomon

[edit]
Article: Susan L. Solomon (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: First reported today (September 13); died on September 8. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ken Starr

[edit]
Article: Ken Starr (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): KWTX
Credits:

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.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed again) Blue Origin NS-23 mission failure

[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: Blue Origin NS-23 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The 23rd flight of Blue Origin's New Shepard spacecraft results in complete mission failure following a booster failure (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The 23rd flight of Blue Origin's New Shepard spacecraft results in a booster failure and a successful execution of its launch escape system
News source(s): CNN, The Guardian SpaceNews
Credits:

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.
 BilledMammal (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oppose – A non-event. – Sca (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article almost exclusively is about the failure of the mission and only briefly mentions mission objectives. I think if we are going to post this, ITN/R or not, there must be more information in the article about the potential impacts. All we have currently is that the booster was destroyed and the mission presumably delayed. What are the the impacts of this failure that have this rise to a ITN level of concern? I do believe most readers would question the exact significance of the failure of a non-crewed sub-orbital flight such as this one. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Added some additional information, but significance is presumed through ITNR. It is also the first time that a New Shepard rocket has had complete mission failure. BilledMammal (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Perhaps if it was manned or the first mission, but neither, so unimportant. The Kip (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. BilledMammal (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:IAR -- Sca (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    IAR should only be in exceptional circumstances, where the PAG can't reasonably have accounted for the circumstances; The Kip's position appears to reject the majority of stories that would be posting under this part of ITNR, which means the circumstances aren't exceptional and IAR doesn't apply. BilledMammal (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for affirming your faithful adherence to the sacred ITN Catechism. – Sca (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If we want to be able to reject ITNR, we should note that they are subject to some discussion about significance - otherwise, the instructions are clear that Items listed there are considered exempt from having to prove their notability through discussion on the candidates page. BilledMammal (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I think this is a rare instance in which the encyclopedia is not best served by inclusion of this story.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @WaltCip: Previously, you said I think this needs to be codified somewhere: ITN/R is not a guideline and there are no exceptions. Any attempts to treat it as such by opposing an ITN/R item based on notability, usually with the accompanying argument of WP:IAR, should itself be ignored. Has your opinion changed? BilledMammal (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm never too old to learn, and in this case, I got a clue and determined that my previous opinion was wrong. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 11:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - one thing to keep in mind here, is that it was a sub-orbital rocket, not designed or planned to orbit the earth. Looking at other launch failures that were featured; Soyuz MS-10 in 2018 had a crew on board, that survived ballistic re-entry, and were recovered over 400 km from the pad. The Falcon 9 carrying AMOS-6 (satellite) in 2016 blew up on the pad in a massive explosion, all but destroying LC-40 and was felt over 60 km away! In this case we have only a sub-orbital rocket, no large explosion, and the capsule landed safe and intact. The booster didn't land successfully - but the article doesn't really say much as to it's fate, other than it hit the ground; elsewhere I've seen reports that it was providing telemetry until it's unsuccessful landing. So no humans, not orbital, payload survived, no damage to the launch pad, and no information about the booster landing zone. Nfitz (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Regrettable Support I have no idea what an unknown number of people were thinking when they agreed every launch failure with enough details to update an article is automatically good enough, but they did and the article's updated, so let's just get this subjectively bad idea over with. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- it's ITNR. Maybe it shouldn't be, but it is, so it needs to be posted, otherwise the point of ITNR is moot. --RockstoneSend me a message! 00:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ITNC entries that are based on ITNR can still be debated if that specific entry is important enough to post, just we don't want people rehashing the "is the ITNR appropriate?" here on ITNC. Masem (t) 00:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't follow. The phrase "each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post" seems to preclude any discussion about whether the event is important enough to post. --RockstoneSend me a message! 00:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Items which are listed on this page are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur. Not every second time, not every other time, just every time. All anyone who doesn't like it but wants to follow the rules can hope to accomplish is to convince the room the article isn't "appropriately" updated (whatever that means). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We have, in the past, skipped posting ITNR items for various reasons that were beyond quality issues. The point that we have this allowance to skip a singular ITNR instance, as long as we aren't wasting the effort about the base ITNR criteria. Major crashes of spacecraft can be significant, but you can see by the way the news is covering this that this crash of an unmanned commercial rocket wasn't really a major event. Masem (t) 03:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither are plenty of R things. They don't need to be, they just need to recur and constitute an appropriate update to a nominated article without orangetags. If you can think of a good reason unrelated to importance to skip this one, I'd love to get on board, seriously. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is true that we have skipped posting ITNR items for various reasons unrelated to quality or whether it actually satisfies ITNR criteria, then there's something wrong, and we should change our policies. If ITNR criteria can simply be discarded because we don't like it or think it's appropriate, then we might as well just get rid of ITNR entirely. This being said, I'd support updating ITNR criteria for launches to require that the failure occur with a manned launch. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 04:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITN/R is a guideline not a rigid rule. Right at the top it says "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". Andrew🐉(talk) 09:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then the wording needs to be changed, as that is not what it currently says. BilledMammal (talk) 09:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per ITN/R and marked ready. Update is sufficient. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm removing the ready tag, it may be technically ready to post but there isn't even a remote degree of consensus to do so. There's a grand total of six votes overall, and it's 50/50 between oppose and support. The Kip (talk) 02:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    57/43. You can assume the nominator supports. In addition, consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. BilledMammal (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Opposes which disregard the WP:ITNR guidelines are invalid. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding it back. There's no need to form consensus for notability, since it's ITN/R. I've yet to see anyone oppose on the basis that the article is not in an acceptable state. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 03:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can this really be described as "complete mission failure" if most of the payload was recoverable? - Indefensible (talk) 06:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality and also notability. Quality-wise, per DarkSide830, it lacks information on the mission beyond the details of its failure. Also oppose on notability per those above. ITN/R is not a suicide pact, and there is no part of the project where IAR doesn't apply (it's even one of the five pillars). Per above, this is one of those rare cases where something that's ITN/R nonetheless fails to reach the significance bar. It's a relatively insignificant story that won't materially affect that company's programme or anything else in the longterm, and our readers wouldn't particularly be well served by its inclusion at ITN.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I also think that ITNR is not a must. This was a failure of a rather routine mission that did not carry crew (luckily) or some particularly important equipment, like JW telescope (also luckily). We should probably amend ITNR criteria. I suggest this is sent to DYK instead, the article is decent enough. --Tone 08:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't think this falls under WP:ITNR; launch failures are listed under the "space exploration" heading but this was a suborbital launch, and thus it's dubious to what degree this counts as "space exploration". Including this only begs the question of where the line is drawn. Would a failed weather balloon launch count? I agree with the sentiment that this item would be better suited to DYK. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll buy that, this was space trucking, Oppose. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If the launch hadn't failed it terminates above Kármán line, which means that it is space exploration; weather balloons don't go anywhere near that high. BilledMammal (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Altitude aside, cargo can't explore, especially when only going somewhere its shipping company has gone 22 times before. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The cargo was experiments, intended to be run in space. Such experiments are part of space exploration. In addition, look at our article on space exploration. Reaching the Kármán line is considered part of it. BilledMammal (talk) 10:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Such experiments are part of space research, no doubt, which I guess might pass for exploration in an inner intellectual sense. And maybe that T-2 Mission Arroway could have felt some base rush of actual firsthand pioneering. Tough to say, my furred friend, but I'm not flipping twice on this. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as a note, the original discussion which led to the space rules in their present form is here, from 2011. This was a reduction in scope from a much broader "any space flight" that was there before, but it actually looks like the version that was written as a result of that discussion is not quite the one that had consensus in the discussion. The initial suggestion at the discussion was for "Orbital launch failures where sufficient details are available to update the article" (emphasis mine), with one or two users also saying that all launch failures should be left to ITN/C. Nobody suggested automatically including all launch failures, including those that weren't orbital, but that's what was inserted. I'd suggest revisiting this ASAP to be honest.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The WP:ITN/R entry is "Launch failures where sufficient details are available to update the article". This is poorly drafted as all nominations obviously require such sufficient details. And so the only meaningful bit is "launch failures". But these are commonplace – the repeated launch failures of Artemis 1 are a fresh example. We therefore have to discuss whether a particular failure is significant or not and so this shouldn't be ITN/R. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Same response as to sca above; if we want to be able to reject ITNR, we should note that they are subject to some discussion about significance - otherwise, the instructions are clear that Items listed there are considered exempt from having to prove their notability through discussion on the candidates page. BilledMammal (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITN/R is a guideline not a rigid rule. It says "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". The only way we can use our common sense and establish whether this is an exception is to discuss the details of the case. That's what we're doing here. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Except it is very unambiguous. If it is not a rigid rule, then it shouldn't say Items listed there are considered exempt from having to prove their notability through discussion on the candidates page and Items which are listed on this page are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur. BilledMammal (talk) 10:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But that applies to any guideline (or indeed policy) anywhere on the project. Most such "rules" are worded in clear language that would appear at first sight to discount exceptions, yet IAR applies if appropriate nonetheless. And the idea that IAR would be a principle applied right across the project, covering almost all of our content and conduct conventions, but somehow not apply in one single hallowed corner of the Wiki known as ITN/R, seems a bit ludicrous when you think about it. For most purposes ITN/R is a "rigid rule", but occasional exceptions apply. The bottom line is that if enough editors feel that there are special reasons why a particular item should be IARed, as appears to be the case here, then a consensus doesn't form and it doesn't get posted.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Most other guidelines aren't written with the same strength of language. In addition, IAR should only be in exceptional circumstances, where the PAG can't reasonably have accounted for the circumstances. Given that the reasons for rejecting this launch failure would apply to most launch failures, IAR can't apply. BilledMammal (talk) 10:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTLAW explains that "...it is not governed by statute ... the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already-existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. ... Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus." So, what we have here is an evolving consensus and WP:ITN/R seems to require further adjustment to reflect this. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Lets see how this closes, but if it does close against posting then you are right; ITNR (and Wikipedia:In the news#Sports and other recurring events, and the template above) would need adjustment. BilledMammal (talk) 10:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue a discussion here is not sufficient enough to override ITN/R. Per WP:CONLEVEL, this wouldn't be sufficient because the stability and consistency of guidelines are important. Any change must be made conservatively and slowly while seeking the input of others. A driveby discussion on a matter such as this is not sufficient to change the ITN/R guideline. NoahTalk 11:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's ITN/R... It has been said before. If you don't like it being on ITN/R, then start a discussion on the talkpage to remove or amend the topic. Notability is assumed for anything on the ITN/R list and thus it's notability is not a question here. The only issue we can debate on an ITN/R topic is quality, which the article meets since it has been updated. I will note that the ITN/R guideline has a broader level of consensus then any discussion here so we can't just override it. Drive by discussions are not sufficient to change the ITN/R guideline itself. Therefore, this must be posted whether we like it or not.
NoahTalk 11:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I remind you of WP:NOTBURO. Also: Do you yourself believe that this story would be significant for posting on ITN, regardless of whether or not it's a recurring item? 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose we should follow the spirit of the guideline and not blindly obey the letter of it. As it's worded at the moment some kid's science project rocket could make ITN if it didn't work properly. I'd say it's fairly clear the guideline is meant to apply to satellite launches and exploration missions, applying it to an uncrewed suborbital launch is clearly not what was intended. 2A02:C7F:2CE3:4700:C9F4:ECC4:7875:7876 (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Yet another reason why ITN/R needs to die. It can only be used to suppress consensus, as is being attempted here. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I personally believe ITN/R needs to stick around, as certain bad-faith editors have fought tooth and nail to prevent some common-sense news items from being posted; that said, considering this would normally fall under it, perhaps it does need to be pruned a bit. The Kip (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose It being significant enough for ITNR brings me in, but IAR is a thing and this should involve some common sense. ITNR shouldn’t always be automatically on, and I agree ITNR discussions tend to fizzle out. 74.101.118.197 (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Four admins have weighed in with oppose !votes for this ITNR candidate. At least two of them can be said to be 'posting admins' in that they have assessed consensus for at least one item on ITN/C; Tone, in particular, is a regular participant in this space. At any time they could have chosen to close the discussion and posted this item. If this is a candidate that we "post whether we like it or not", then why are our entrusted admins not posting it whether we like it or not? The answer lies in our five pillars, and it's the reason we entrust them to make decisions.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 20:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- this is ITNR, so it should be posted, and I have no idea why it hasn't yet, beyond simple I don't like it. This being said, the criteria should change so that only failures of beyond sub-orbital or crewed missions should be posted. That'd solve this problem. --RockstoneSend me a message! 22:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a bunch of discussions on the talk page about this and ITN/R right now, it would not be right to post this because of ITN/R and then change ITN/R so that this nom would no longer qualify under ITN/R. Better to wait rather than rush and immediately have a posting that is no longer supported by an outdated guideline. - Indefensible (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remind me of this ITN/R ambivalence for the next singing contest or soccer tournament nomination plz. But also, this doesnt merit being posted as ITN. nableezy - 23:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree with taking a look at some of these awards ceremonies for axing next. Seems less and less people care about them anymore and they certainly aren't as impactful as natural disasters, elections, or the deaths of globally important individuals. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support – The article looks solid, so we have nothing to lose in featuring this. I agree with the sentiment that the ITN/R item is poorly constructed and I would like to see it amended. This launch being a sub-orbital flight with on-board science cargo makes it more comparable to an unmanned zero-gravity flight. But hey, we got a proper crash here and it's of wider interest, so I don't mind seeing it featured. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ready this ITN/R item is ready to be posted. The notability opposes are invalid. Removal of the ready tag is vandalism. Post it already. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Several ITN active admins disagree with you. Please stop. WP:IAR. 47.16.96.33 (talk) 10:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Post-closure edit: Striking comment of a now blocked sock. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2022 (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.

(Re-posted as blurb) Blurb/RD: Jean-Luc Godard

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Jean-Luc Godard (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  French filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard (pictured) dies at the age of 91. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ French filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard (pictured) commits assisted suicide at the age of 91.
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: Pioneering filmmaker. Quite a few references missing, as there are completely unsourced sections. Filmography page poorly sourced. Mooonswimmer 09:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reposted as blurb. Kudos to the efforts of editors with this over the past two days, it looks to me like everything's resolved so I've reposted. Notifying @Dumelow: too, who first raised issues, hopefully this is satisfactory for you.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not got any more time now but I've tagged a couple more paragraphs. The article suffered from whole chunks of opinion sourced to "boxofficemojo" which was little more than a earnings list. Seems some good work has been done on the other tagged sections so hopefully this can be resolved quickly. If someone has time it's worth casting an eye over looking for similar paragraphs. There's a lot of paragraphs cited entirely to Brody (2008) that I can't do much more than take on good faith as I don't have the source - Dumelow (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How long will the blurb last now? Not that I don't think Godard was important in his field but the headlines of his death have left the front pages of all news sites, even film-centric ones, and we're not Filmopedia. DigitalIceAge (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It’ll take a few more headlines to knock off Godard’s blurb. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jack Charles (actor)

[edit]
Article: Jack Charles (actor) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: Australian Aboriginal actor. I've done a pass through to add missing refs - Dumelow (talk) 06:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Emmys

[edit]
Article: 74th Primetime Emmy Awards (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In television, Ted Lasso wins best comedy and Succession wins best drama at the Emmy Awards. (Post)
News source(s): NBC News
Credits:

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: There still need to be a few parts about the ceremony (In Memorandum) that needs to be updated but there is prose. Also probably a few firsts to document as well. Masem (t) 03:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Armenia - Azerbaijan war

[edit]
Articles: 2021–2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis (talk · history · tag) and September 2022 Armenian-Azerbaijani clashes (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Large-scale conflict breaks out between between Armenia and Azerbaijan (Post)
Alternative blurb: Large-scale clashes erupt after an uneasy ceasefire and tensions regarding an ongoing conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Alternative blurb II: Large-scale clashes along the Armenia and Azerbaijan border kill 99 people.
Alternative blurb III: At least 99 soldiers die from renewed fighting in the border crisis between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
News source(s): Gulf News, Reuters, Israel National News, Daily Sabah, Malay Mail Jerusalem Post, DW
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Probably too early to tell if this is full on war or should we be ready to create 2022 Nagorno-Karabakh war article but certainly a huge escalation. Updated at 2021–2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis#September 2022 with multiple references there for now. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox says that this has been going on for a year and four months. What about the recent "escalation" merits posting? That proposed blurb is uninformative. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The scale, not just skirmishes this is full on shelling and combat. It's breaking news so I didn't know whether to start a new article or just add it to an existing one. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be very supportive when someone nominates a high-quality updated article on a current major conflict that isn't seeing quite as much news coverage as this. You're sadly right that a lot of major wars are hardly reported upon. However, such an otherstuffexists argument is unconvincing to me here. This too is a war with hundreds of deaths, and when someone writes a solid up-to-date article about it, we'll feature it. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That particular article is not at all special or unusual. For example, I drilled down on another minor conflict – Anglophone Crisis. That seems quite similar in scale and we have a detailed timeline for 2022, with daily updates this month. These all have sources and one can easily find more. But such conflicts rumble on for years and so, if we cover them at all, they should be in Ongoing.
But another issue with such conflicts is that the information about them is far from reliable because it usually comes from the warring parties and so is distorted by fog of war and deliberate disinformation. For example, the recent Ukraine success was due to misleading reports about their southern offensive, which was designed to distract the other side. See disinformation in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis for much more. So, as we're an encyclopedia with a historical perspective we should be waiting until the dust has settled and the truth emerges. See also WP:NOTNEWS.
Andrew🐉(talk) 10:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would absolutely love to be able to feature Anglophone Crisis on the front page. It's a solid article on a major current event. If a particularly noteworthy clash happens this month, the article gets expanded significantly, that would be a great inclusion for ITN in my opinion. But I recognize the issue of misinformation and lack of reporting. There's definitely issues with our setup. You may also notice that I'm not entirely ideologically aligned with other commenters here on ITN/C, so this might be a better topic for discussion on the general talk page. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 12

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Law and crime

Science and technology


(Posted) RD: Michael DeGroote

[edit]
Article: Michael DeGroote (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Globe & Mail, 3 Down Nation
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: Canadian businessman and philanthropist. Wikibio very much under-sourced but has potential. --PFHLai (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Lowry Mays

[edit]
Article: Lowry Mays (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press; San Antonio Express-News; Texas A&M University
Credits:

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.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 07:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ramsey Lewis

[edit]
Article: Ramsey Lewis (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: Prolific musician. Article isn't in bad shape, but needs plenty references. Mooonswimmer 00:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: PnB Rock

[edit]
Article: PnB Rock (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): LA Times
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: American rapper. Career section missing some references. Mooonswimmer 00:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: William Klein

[edit]
Article: William Klein (photographer) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: Died Sep. 10th, reported on today. Article needs some work. Mooonswimmer 18:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strike my oppose out of respect to nominator; did mention article needs work. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Gwyneth Powell

[edit]
Article: Gwyneth Powell (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: English actress Cowmilla (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2022 Swedish general election

[edit]
Article: 2022 Swedish general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: The 2022 Swedish general election results in no overall majority (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Social Democrats gain the most votes in the 2022 Swedish general election but their left-wing bloc lose majority to a right-wing Sweden Democrats-Moderate-Christian Democrats-Liberals bloc.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The Social Democrats gain the most votes in the 2022 Swedish general election but no party or coalition gains an overall majority.
Alternative blurb III: ​ The right-wing opposition wins a majority of seats in the 2022 Swedish general election.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ In the 2022 Swedish general election, the Sweden DemocratsModerateChristian DemocratsLiberals bloc wins a majority of seats in Riksdag.
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

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: 94% votes counted, it's pretty much all even, question is whether the other right wing parties will continue to/form a new electoral pact with the very controversial Swedish Democrats party. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The source cited in the nom (The Guardian) says something different: The current headline of that Guardian article is "Rightwing bloc heading to victory in Swedish election, 90% of vote count suggests". In the text of the article itself it says: "With 90% of the vote counted, the right bloc of four parties had a share of the vote corresponding to a majority of three in the 349-seat parliament." Similarly, WaPo says that the right bloc appears to have won a narrow majority of seats. Nsk92 (talk) 00:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but that bloc is yet to form an official alliance. Technically Social Democrats won with the most votes but nowhere near enough to form government. Even when 100% is counted it will be by the narrowest of margins and if Swedish Democrats turn out to provide the PM as the biggest right-bloc party I can guarantee you there'll be a huge uproar.Abcmaxx (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's an explicitly WP:OR argument. If and when we do post something to the ITN, the blurb should correspond to what WP:RS say. And right now most sources say that the the right bloc appears to have won the majority of seats. Nsk92 (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. The blurb is very much unhelpful. Most media reports group M, SD, KD and L together, and by the current count they do indeed have a majority. Such a blurb would be much better. Second, the count is still ongoing. It's not confirmed who will win before the remaining votes are counted. As such, posting a blurb at this moment is absolutely premature. Gust Justice (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Social Democrats will win a pyrrhic victory. Those 6% left will not change that. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a win at all for the Social Democrats. Sure they are the largest party, but that doesn't mean anything in the Swedish parliamentary system, where a majority in parliament must elect the Prime Minister. I don't think the outcome will change once the last votes are counted, but we need reliable sources to say so, not conclude it ourselves. Gust Justice (talk) 00:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The last votes remaining to be counted are the postal votes not the in-person votes. They may sway a different way albeit only slightly. Haris920 (talk) 04:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If we are going by that blurb, it clearly is against the WP:RS which therefore should not be posted. If the blurb reflects WP:RS, i’m for it but this nomination is too early and is all in all wrong.[78] BastianMAT (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. I agree with Abcmaxx on this - the blurb can't be posted as is. If nothing else it may be worth waiting until we hear about coalitions or such, and if this does not come to pass we could at least say that the Social Democrats won the most seats (which may not tell the whole story but tells a bit more). DarkSide830 (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait This election is very close although the right-wing bloc currently has a slight majority of 175 seats. Vote counting is still ongoing and will continue until Wednesday. Social Democrats have been the largest party for the past 100 years and it should be noted that Sweden Democrats are now the second-largest party. I'd recommend to change the blurb.
Vacant0 (talk) 09:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Guardian now reports a one seat majority at 95% count. I agree with waiting. Regards SoWhy 12:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Social Democrats likely will win in terms of individual party performance, but right bloc may win by a small margin against the left-bloc.AP News Abcmaxx (talk) 11:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added altblurb and withdrawn blurb per above comments. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait ... for official, final results. For obvious reasons. – Sca (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. The final results will not be in for a few days yet. It is likely that the liberal-conservative-far right bloc will win a majority, and the left-green-liberal bloc will lose power. It is, however, not clear yet. Furthermore, while it is likely that the Moderates and the Christian Democrats, or the Moderates, the Christian Democrats and the Liberals, can form government if these parties together with the Sweden Democrats can form government, they have yet to actually agree, complicated by the fact that the Sweden Democrats are the biggest party among the four but the Liberals have stated they will not to agree to any government the Sweden Democrats are part of. In short, it's far too early to make any statements around where this will lead – we don't present the probable as fact. /Julle (talk) 12:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on quality Whilst the consensus is to wait for the final results and what the coalitions will look like in terms of forming a majority government, I believe that so far the quality of the article of is very good; in terms of length, quality and referencing alike. If anyone disagrees please comment and/or improve the article. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be really nice if we had a stand-alone article on the conservative bloc/coalition. (But the current election article is easily looking good enough for blurbing of course!) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know whether they will form an official one yet and what the composition will be to be fair. So far it has been an informal alliance on a local level. Having said that we may need an article on the left bloc coalition equally as well. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's likely we won't get all the parties involved together in a coalition government – it's a very uneasy alliance, with the Liberals agreeing to talk to the Sweden Democrats to negotiate a government but stating they will not support a government including the Sweden Democrats; likewise, in the opposite bloc, the Centre Party can't imagine forming government with the Left Party. We're looking at minority governments with reluctant support from parties who don't exactly like each other but consider the alternatives worse. I'm not sure we should create articles for these uneasy alliances unless there is very good sourcing to do so specifically. They are in no way as strong as for example Alliance (Sweden), which was a real coalition, used to be. /Julle (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's exactly why I had the initial blurb as it was; no-one won really. Also, worth adding that the Red-Greens have an article regarding the left bloc which may need updating and inclusion in the election article. It may even needs to be split as it technically refers to 2x coalitions. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added altblurb2 in case there is a minority government.Abcmaxx (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Julle: am I right in saying that there's a chance of a hung parliament and another election or are we likely to see another minority government? Abcmaxx (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Abcmaxx I think a hung parliament would be far too speculative for us. All sources assume someone will form government based on the result we'll see on Wednesday or Thursday. /Julle (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

South African dam collapse

[edit]
Article: 2022 Jagersfontein dam collapse (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: A dam collapse in Jagersfontein, Free State, South Africa leaves thousands displaced and hundreds injured. (Post)
News source(s): Bloomberg, News24, Daily Maverick, Sowetan, Eyewitness News, eNCA (eNews Channel Africa), SABC News, Reuters
Credits:

 TapticInfo (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty in the sources tab? Abcmaxx (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 11

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Mavis Nicholson

[edit]
Article: Mavis Nicholson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Daily Telegraph; The Guardian; The Times
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: First reported today (September 11); died on September 8. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Joyce Reynolds (classicist)

[edit]
Article: Joyce Reynolds (classicist) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Newnham College, Telegraph
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: Reynolds was a pioneering woman in the world of classical scholarship and a centenarian. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2022 Papua New Guinea earthquake

[edit]
Article: 2022 Papua New Guinea earthquake (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: A magnitude 7.6 or 7.7 earthquake strikes Papua New Guinea, leaving at least seven people dead. (Post)
News source(s): Barrons, CBS, CNN, Reuters, Time
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Greater magnitude than recent Sichuan earthquake which is currently blurbed, fewer casualties. - Indefensible (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are still almighty big earthquakes though, each notable in its own right. Abcmaxx (talk)
Please let's not go down the rabbit hole of WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Anthony Varvaro

[edit]
Article: Anthony Varvaro (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): AJC
Credits:

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.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Javier Marías

[edit]
Article: Javier Marías (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:
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.

Nominator's comments: Spanish novelist. Other updaters include: Jkaharper, Ira Leviton, Goszei, Asqueladd, Normantas Bataitis, Unknown artist, Alexcalamaro, and more. --SitcomyFan (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is sure notable enough. Seems to have been quite a writer. But I agree with Black Kite that there are several unsourced phrases, to which I believe the sources can be found easily as I have come across a quite a good source on him. The literary mind/thought of Javier Marías is quite promising. I'll try to add some sources and come back with the result.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I am taking a break. For anyone interested to source the Kingdom of Redonda part, it's a fun section with Kings, Duchies and a a charming diplomatic spat with the Government of the United Kingdom.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2022 Ukrainian Kharkiv counteroffensive

[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: 2022 Ukrainian Kharkiv counteroffensive (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Ukraine retakes the key logistical hubs of Izyum and Kupyansk, following a surprise counteroffensive in Kharkiv oblast (Post)
News source(s): Financial Times, The Guardian, Washington Post
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: A significant event; the fall of the city and the surrounding area is a major strategic victory for Ukraine, and the biggest setback for Russia since they retreated from Kyiv; commenters have described it as a "stunning rout" that has the potential to change the course of the war. BilledMammal (talk) 09:26, 11 September 2022 (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.

(Posted) RD: Margrith Bigler-Eggenberger

[edit]
Article: Margrith Bigler-Eggenberger (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/switzerland-s-first-female-federal-judge-dies-aged-89/47890508
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: She became the first women judge of the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland, the supreme court on Switzerland in 1974. She died on the 10 September. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 10

[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Jack Ging

[edit]
Article: Jack Ging (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): KMIR-TV (NBC)
Credits:

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.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Kurt Gottfried

[edit]
Article: Kurt Gottfried (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: Austrian American physicist. co-founder of the Union of Concerned Scientists. NY Times obit published 10 September. Thriley (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Frank Cignetti Sr.

[edit]
Article: Frank Cignetti Sr. (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Credits:

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.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: B. B. Lal

[edit]
Article: B. B. Lal (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Indian Express
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: Indian archaeologist Dumelow (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Marsha Hunt

[edit]
Article: Marsha_Hunt_(actress,_born_1917) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Hollywood Reporter article
Credits:

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.

 --SitcomyFan (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 9

[edit]

(Posted) RD: James Polshek

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Ray Rippelmeyer

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Closed) New High Commissioner for Human Rights

[edit]

Template:Atop


Template:ITN candidate

Template:Abot

September 8

[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2022 September 8 Template:Cob


RD:Sonny West

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: LaDeva Davis

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

RD: Marciano Cantero

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) Death of Queen Elizabeth II

[edit]

Template:Archive top Template:ITN candidate

So it happened. The article needs proper updates, but because of protection will take a bit longer than for unprotected articles. Shall we use the picture from the article? Tone 17:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support once article is sufficiently updated Jbvann05 17:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
support blurb Not much to say, this is a major event.  4🧚‍♂am KING  17:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support and post immediately No question about the notability of a Queen who has been Britain's anchor for almost three quarters of a century. aeromachinator (talk to me here) 17:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The image has been protected on commons, can be replaced here now by an admin I think. nableezy - 17:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Tone 17:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth waiting at least a few hours to see if a regnal name is announced. The official announcement so far just referred to him as the King'. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably wait until crowned. He can still turn round and refuse it until then. Black Kite (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He is already king though.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both BBC and CNN say that Charles immediately became King upon the Queen's death Scaramouche33 (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And the Royal Family too.[79] – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Legally he is king whether he likes it or not. If he doesn't want to be king then Parliament would have to pass a law saying that he isn't king, as they did for Edward VIII (who was never crowned). Hut 8.5 18:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True but in this case I would suggest leaving him out of the blurb for now since the news coverage almost completely focuses on her death and not on his ascension. If and when news coverage becomes mainly about him, we can change it accordingly. Regards SoWhy 18:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, and if the name changes can update the blurb then. Think this can be closed though, blurb and photo are up with obvious consensus for it. Any further changes can happen at WP:ERRORS. nableezy - 18:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'll do it now. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archive bottom

I previously posted this at Talk:Main Page#Upcoming Elizabeth II TFA and it was suggested that I come here instead. As is mentioned on that page in the previous discussion, Elizabeth II is scheduled TFA for 19 September to coincide with the funeral. By then, it's very likely that her ITN item will still be live. I suggest that for the time that the TFA is up, we change the ITN item so that the death and state funeral of Elizabeth II is in bold font. I say this for a variety of reasons:

  • that article is in good shape
  • it would appear strange to have a TFA and an ITM main item point to the same article
  • to point to the funeral article on the day of the funeral would seem appropriate

Thoughts? Schwede66 05:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wanna nominate the funeral wikipage on the day of the funeral? God knows what newsworthy calamities await us over the next few days, bumping the current blurb off ITN soon. No doubt the funeral wikipage will get lots of support !votes then. --PFHLai (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is an excellent idea, and would support this as proposed. What should the ITN situation be on September 20? Should we return the ITN setup to the death and ascendance, or should we keep it on the funeral after the TFA has ended? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind whether it reverts to the current blurb or stays like that. Schwede66 21:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That somebody is buried after they die is not news, and if this gets bumped by other events then it shouldnt artificially be returned. nableezy - 21:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 7

[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2022 September 7 Template:Cob


(Posted) RD: James L. Fisher

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Dagmar Schipanski

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

RD: Lance Mackey

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

  • Oppose: Most of the improvement to this article in recent times was a result of your typical WikiEd trainwreck, a group of editors eager to collaborate amongst themselves so long as they pass a class, and not the least bit interested in collaborating with the community at large. Here's what I came up with right off the top of my head:
  1. The order is extremely disjointed for a biography, as if to suggest that it was intended to be a fanboy exercise first and foremost.
  2. Too many primary sources. The sourcing in general resembles detritus found in incidental Google searches, missing a number of higher-quality sources (several books, for starters)
  3. Higher-quality sources have given significant weight to his pre-mushing career as a commercial fisherman and his resultant bouts of addiction. The article appears to gloss that over in favor of giving weight to fanboy trivia and recentism. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That WikiEd assignment ended in April 2021. Pretty sure the recent 40 or so edits in 2022 have nothing to do with that. --PFHLai (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the article and topic as a whole, not in a bubble driven by news of his death ("the sum total of human knowledge", right?). The Anchorage Daily News, the source cited above, is a pitiful shell of its former self. Early versions of that story began with repeating the family's Facebook post, followed by repeating large portions of our article. Work commitments prevented me from following it further to see if it actually turned into a respectable journalistic piece. I'm sure none of that matters to those who believe RS is solely a matter of "Why, I found it on this website and not that website, so therefore...". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I threw in some {cn} tags.... but, wait! game? sitting back and waiting for others to do work? Hmmm... look, RadioKAOS, if I am too involved in the writing, I should not help with reviewing and posting on MainPage. Kind of a conflict of interest there. Admins should not be showcasing one's own work on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bernard Shaw

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Anne Garrels

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Closed) Surgical amputation of a limb 31,000 years ago in Borneo

[edit]

Template:Atop


Template:ITN candidate

Weak Oppose Doesn't seem too notable for the news, but is an amazing accomplishment regardless. InvadingInvader (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abot

(Closed) Brazil celebrates its 200th anniversary of independence

[edit]

Template:Atop


Template:ITN candidate Neutral This seems like something that would be a bit more of a domestic event, but the 200th anniversary is generally notable for a country.
However, I'm searching through archives of ITN, and I can't find anything on ITN celebrating China's 70th anniversary, so I don't think Consensus is in favor of these anniversaries. I don't know what to think; 200 years is a BIG milestone, and Brazil is a BIG country, but do milestones generally get inserted into here? InvadingInvader (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this is something that we'd normally handle through WP:OTD or as a WP:TFA. Something really significant and actually newsworthy would need to occur at the celebrations for them to be nominated at ITN. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abot

(Closed) Record women's football transfer

[edit]

Template:Archivetop Template:ITN candidate

  • Comment posting the Neymar transfer was a mistake, but if it's a thing we're going to do, then doing so for womens soccer as well as mens makes sense to me. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - I also don't agree with posting the Neymar transfer. But the rationale of the consensus was that it was not just an important sports story, but also a major global event with extensive news coverage, in such a manner that made it almost sui generis. I'm not sure if we're seeing quite the same impact with the Walsh transfer.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may be the detriment to nominating early to generate discussion; the transfer window closed five minutes ago, and it got a breaking news bulletin on the BBC. Perhaps the story will be bigger, perhaps it won't, but we can only see that over the next day or so. Kingsif (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This will open the floodgates if this gets posted. Record men's basketball player, then women's basketball player? What about volleyball? Rugby? Handball? Baseball? It will cause all sort of conundrums, and whilst an interesting story even if two non-sporting businesses did a record deal in a particular sector it wouldn't get posted. Neymar was slightly different in that it was a world record across all sports and received much more coverage, but if for example another men's player breaks the record again I'm not sure that would get posted now, especially when salary and bonuses are much more at play than transfer fee alone.Abcmaxx (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose even considering the record amount. One previous posting should not be taken as consensus to post more like it. Masem (t) 15:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, This topic is journalistic and not suitable for wikipedia. Alex-h (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is ITN... Kingsif (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ITN's purpose is to feature articles that happen to be in the news, and not itself to be a news source. Hence why we always go on about not being a new ticker. Masem (t) 19:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this is really something that pertains to sports, which based on consensus on Serena Williams' retirement, doesn't usually belong here. InvadingInvader (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archivebottom

Ugandan landslides disaster

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

I did say why that is at the moment in the nomination... Abcmaxx (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now per Muboshgu. It's been three days, still a stub. 208.92.242.44 (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Albania and Iran cut ties

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

According to the sources its due to Iran's recent cyberattack on Albania. The article needs updating, bear with me. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This might belong on the article 2022, but I'm not sure about here. I'll say Weak Oppose unless this turns into a war and tensions further escalate. InvadingInvader (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For argument's sake I made sure to consider "would we post this if this was two large countries", but the reality is this isn't horribly rare. There are about 200 countries on Earth with some change likely in that number over time. I think it's hard to justify posting the cutting of ties between two countries unless there is a lot of highly-publicized and impactful conflict that precedes it. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Err Albania is home to a disproportionately large number of Iranian dissidents and severing ties completely is very rare. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Irish Times, DW, ABC News. The US has just officially responded to this as well. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected, then. I hadn't come across this on Der Spiegel and a few other German newspapers, The Guardian, the FT or Figaro, which are the ones I regularly check - if a news appears in one or more of them, it's usually a sign for me that it's been picked up and will be viewed by many readers in Europe. But maybe the news hasn't made its way into them yet, or I've overlooked it. I still feel it's not major news. Khuft (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Give it a few hours. Albania in anglophone news is usually woefully underreported though in general. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, I last heard this much about it in The Crepes of Wrath. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"... and the main export is furious political thought" Abcmaxx (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose Breaking diplomatic relations is indeed a fairly rare event and normally I would support. However the incident doesn't appear significant enough to justify its own article, which is a customary requirement for most noms at ITN, and the target article has only two sentences dedicated to the matter. Sorry, but that's not enough for ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping this did cross my mind however my thought process was that this is a culmination of about 45 years worth of tensions, and any new article would probably not have all the background that's central to this. As for the length, this is breaking news essentially, please let it have a chance to expand. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Abcmaxx Perfectly open to reconsideration if the article can be adequately expanded. Ideally it should have its own page that begins with the cyber-attack and any relevant background. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First of all, thanks for having added the additional sources. While for now I'd tend to keep my oppose !vote, I would suggest modifying the blurb to reflect that Albania unilaterally cut its diplomatic relations with Iran, accusing it of cyberattacks. Khuft (talk) 21:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Albania did not have an embassy in Iran, while Iran had an embassy in Tirana. So ultimately it was never on equal footing. Also I don't know what Teheran's reaction is/will be. It's such a long, tense and complex relationship im not sure we should be making such an assertion just yet. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually very few countries cut ties with either Taiwan or Israel as those that oppose their statehood never form diplomatic relations in the first place as doing so would legitimise their status which they oppose. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think a non-involved person should make a judgement on this. Not sure there is anything more to add. Quality issues have been fixed although it is a section not a stand-alone article in itself. Few opposes on notability, several supports.Abcmaxx (talk) 00:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 6

[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2022 September 6 Template:Cob


2022 Vietnam karaoke bar fire

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Pulled) RD: Herman (Swaiko)

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate Comment, Text does not say anything about his death. Alex-h (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Black Kite (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, two uncited paragraphs in the "Election to Metropolitan" section. I also couldn't find what in the cited source supported the statement: "Aware of this coming recommendation, Metropolitan Herman retired in September 2008" - Dumelow (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Dan Schachte

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Peter Straub

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

September 5

[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2022 September 5 Template:Cob


(Posted) RD: Mariella Mehr

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Guy Morriss

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Mark Littell

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Helen Potrebenko

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Lars Vogt

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

  • Thank you for nominating. The last time I looked (last night) the recordings were not referenced, nor some other facts. I will begin work right now, was planned anyway. He was an internationally known and playing classical pianist who died too soon. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we have the basics, but still no refs for all recordings, and there should be more about his way of playing. I need a break. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Done Recordings. Grimes2 (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
you are great! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Moon Landrieu

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) UK conservative party election / new PM

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

Comment - Better wait...until everything's done and ready, as usual for such events. PenangLion (talk) 11:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agree with nominator's comments; best to wait until Truss is sworn in tomorrow (Sept 6). Compusolus (talk) 11:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We don't usually wait for the formal assumption of office, we post when the winner is determined(i.e. we posted Biden winning when RS determined him to be the winner, not when he took office). Should be posted when ready. 331dot (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two separate qualifiers in play. A) We post general elections results, which indicate an individual will become leader. B) We post succession when A does not apply. We do not generally post party election wins, and would do well not to create a special exception just for the UK. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't so much about posting the leadership party win, but providing some context for the manner in which Truss will become Prime Minister. There is a greater than 99% chance that she will become Prime Minister tomorrow, so it seems pointless to wait until then to post the altblurb. In the event that she does not become Prime Minister tomorrow (the two most obvious reasons being that Truss dies and/or the Queen dies), then this will be a blurb in itself. Chrisclear (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree with PenangLion and Compusolus - there is no need to wait. I agree with 331dot, the leadership ballot has taken place. Therefore the time to post is now. However, the proposed blurb "becomes Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" is wrong because she is not yet the Prime Minister. Therefore I have proposed an altblurb which says that she is set to become Prime Minister. Chrisclear (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, fair enough. That blurb makes sense if it's posted today. If the item goes up today and is still around tomorrow after she takes office, then the headline can be adjusted accordingly.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree with the view of Chrisclear above that the time to post is now, and withdraw the views expressed in my comment above. Compusolus (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait – BBC and AP note she will become PM when formally appointed by the queen on Tuesday. Widely expected and not breaking news. As a hybrid news/encyclopedia fixture, ITN should post this when Ms. Truss actually is PM. – Sca (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Suggested pic. looks a bit dark. – Sca (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's just Trussy. Bit dark. Kingsif (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, her dress and the backdrop seem dark, too. – Sca (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Funnilly enough I bet those same 150k were probably up in arms when Gordon Brown took office. And if you think that's bizzare wait till you hear about how the House of Lords functions. Unfortunately there isn't a Democratic deficit in the United Kingdom article we can link this to, because criticism of the system isn't new at all, especially recently. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is a major change to world leadership. My personal threshold is if it's a country covered in the media (like Ukraine, North Korea, or Afghanistan), or if its a G20 nation/major world power, include their leadership changes here by default. Everything else should be on a case by case basis. Wait if needed.

Possible alternative blurb: Liz Truss succeeds Boris Johnson as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. If you don't think leader of the Conservative party needs to be mentioned in the blurb, this could work as well. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure we even need to mention BoJo. His era is over. -- Sca (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's the only way you can become PM in the UK and who leads the party differs depending on the party in question. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe for simplicity's sake, only mention Truss has become PM and not party leadership elections et all that? InvadingInvader (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why becoming party leader is important, but not why it's necessary for the blurb. -- Kicking222 (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We usually post the link to the election article, so same applies here? Becoming PM is almost a side effect to becoming party leader in this instance. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping I understand this may be WP:ERRORS but I did mention this above; she did not succeed as leader, only as PM, there was an internal election she won in her party. That blurb is misleading. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First Johnson was leader, now it is Truss, which means that she succeeds him in the office, irrespective of the means by which she does so. Sandstein 16:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2022 Luding earthquake

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

Updated to "more than 30" killed per Reuters Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral This is an unfortunate, sad, and notable event. I'm a little concerned, however, on including it when compared to other events, like Pakistan floods, the Uyghurs, Gorbachev, and Liz Truss.
InvadingInvader (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 4

[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2022 September 4 Template:Cob


(Posted) RD: John Till

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Wes Freed

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate Support, just reviewed this at DYK and it looks good to me - Dumelow (talk) 08:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Klyuchevskaya Sopka deaths

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Coroebus (horse)

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

Good spot, I've cited this - Dumelow (talk) 07:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Chilean national plebiscite

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

Support notability, but the article needs to be expanded first ibid above arguments.InvadingInvader (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, uhh, has any progress been made in terms of article quality? Seems like everyone wants to post due to good notability. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2022 Saskatchewan stabbings

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

Article is now adequately expanded. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hat

Template:Hab

RD: Cyrus Mistry

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

September 3

[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2022 September 3 Template:Cob


RD: Jeff German

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

I think his article should be expanded first, but once that's done, I wouldn't be opposed to it. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Herbert Kohler Jr.

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

No more time to work on this at the moment but citations needed only for the first paragraph of "Business career" - Dumelow (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a couple cites needed. Beyond that this reads like a PR release. Not so grossly promotional that it's obvious. But the general tone is what I would expect from a flack. Not sure it's enough to justify an oppose. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've now cited this section (and the first paragraph on golf courses), stripping out some PR-sounding material in each - Dumelow (talk) 08:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Sterling Lord

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

Posted - Dumelow (talk) 08:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Serena Williams retires

[edit]

Template:Atop Template:ITN candidate

Template:Abot

September 2

[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2022 September 2 Template:Cob


(Posted) RD: Drummie Zeb

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

Oppose I don't think he's notable enough. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An AfD candidate, @InvadingInvader? --PFHLai (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure as of writing, but I won't contest his AfD. I'd try a PROD first if I wanted to delete it. InvadingInvader (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that "Recent 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." --PFHLai (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understood; regardless, I'm not sure if his article's of a sufficient quality. InvadingInvader (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping "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." Cheers. WimePocy 16:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Peter Eckersley (computer scientist)

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Zenno Rob Roy

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Frank Drake

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

Template:Yo Can you please give everyone DYK credits? Thank you, Thriley (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 1

[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2022 September 1 Template:Cob


(Posted) RD: Yang Yongsong

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

I have expanded a little but exhausted the sources available - Dumelow (talk) 08:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Attempted assassination of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner

[edit]

Template:Atop Template:ITN candidate

  • I'm not sure about this one. I feel like an attempted assassination should meet a certain threshold in order to be approved for the main page—specifically, that it results in actual injury for the targeted individual. I'm not sure that there is anything significant enough about this particular attack that merits a full blurb, seeing as the shooter didn't even manage to fire a single bullet. Kurtis (talk) 01:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incorrect. (Also—and I mean this in the nicest way possible—you were the story's nominator and you don't remember how it closed? 🤨) I'm still undecided as to whether or not I support putting this on the main page. Obviously, an attempted assassination of a former world leader (and actually the current Argentine VP) is newsworthy, but I just don't know that it's ITN blurb-worthy. Kurtis (talk) 06:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh... alright, support. The subsequent supporters have swayed me, and the only reason I was hesitant to begin with is the fact that the assassination was unsuccessful. If failed attempts can still be blurb-worthy, why should I stand against this one? Kurtis (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Template:Ping which unsuccessful ones have been posted? Generally we don't post if it's unsuccessful, per the Maduro example cited below. The given list List of heads of state and government who survived assassination attempts, has numerous recent examples, almost none of which were posted.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Template:Ping I will confess, here and now, that I don't feel strongly about this one either way. My support is mostly "if everyone else thinks failed assassination attempts are blurb-worthy, I won't stand in their way." I personally feel like an attempted assassination of a current or former world leader should at least result in an injury before it is given its own blurb (barring exceptional circumstances), but because it seemed more and more like a minority opinion and it's not something I feel particularly strongly about, I decided to support. I was deferring to what seemed like community consensus the last time I checked in. Kurtis (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Template:U, a discussion back in November 2021 said the exact opposite. The attempted assassination of the Iraqi Prime Minister was not posted to ITN and part of the reasoning was because attempted assassinations were not posted at ITN. Elijahandskip (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per User:TompaDompa. Curious to know whether this is a copycat of Shinzo Abe's assassination or for what other reason(s). - Indefensible (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as it was a clear non-event. She was not killed, right, but she was not injured either, nobody else was killed or injured by collateral damage. There are no consequences in the larger political world either, beyond the criticisms that were to be expected. The government blames the "hate speech" (AKA criticism) from the press and the other political parties, but that's what they have been doing since 2019. They may try to make bills to silence the "hate speech" (AKA criticism), but they won't get them approved because they lack the numbers in both houses of the Congress... as it has been since 2019. And so far, those seem to be the actions of just a lone guy, not an organization (new or old) starting a spree of terrorist attacks. Cambalachero (talk) 23:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There's no there there.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 23:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose: In the past, it was determined attempted assassinations are NEVER posted. Only assassinations (meaning they were killed) are posted. This discussion occurred back in November 2021 with the attempted assassination of the Iraqi Prime Minister from a drone strike.[86] Elijahandskip (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"attempted assassinations are NEVER posted" couldn't be further from the truth - if you look at the past few months alone Salman Rushdie was posted despite only being hospitalised in critical condition and Shinzo Abe was posted on the notability of the event alone, before he was confirmed to have not survived. I'll admit there is a difference that these two examples actually sustained injuries, but it's just plain misleading to say attempted assassinations are not posted. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 06:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting. So now we have what appears to be two different discussions that per se, set a the precedent in the opposite way. One saying they are never posted and one showing they have been posted. Maybe a RfC talk page discussion should be used to sort that out because it seemed fairly clear back in November 2021 that attempted assassinations aren’t ITN worthy. Elijahandskip (talk) 06:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think some commonsense needs to be applied here. There have been comparisons made to the attack on President Reagan in 1981. In that incident, four people were shot, two critically, one of those being Mr. Reagan. If Ms. de Kirchner and/or others had been seriously injured, I'd probably have supported. But this really is a bit of a non-event. A close call to be sure. But in the end, nobody was hurt, and the long-term impact seems unlikely to be significant. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    “the long-term impact seems unlikely to be significant”. That’s just a speculation. RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is. But I believe it is a reasonable speculation based on what we know at the moment. And since we are not discussing the notability of the event at AfD, but rather whether or not to promote the article at ITN, it is a perfectly permissible criteria to look at. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. Argentina is not a strong democracy. This may have further consequences to the country as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RodRabelo7 (talkcontribs) 02:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose She wasn’t killed or seriously injured. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Assassination attempt on former president and current VP of a G20 country. If this is not worth posting, I don't know what is. For those saying it's a non-event: the crowds gathering on Plaza de Mayo surely disagreed. Article is in good shape. Khuft (talk) 08:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Template:Xt - lots of stories are worth posting, but as evidenced above, we've established that attempted assassinations (especially where no injuries sustained) are not in general worth posting. They are simply too commonplace, and it's silly to make value judgements about which are more important than others, without a WP:CRYSTALBALL.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, making judgments of which events are more notable than others is the bread and butter of ITN, isn't it? I would argue as follows: notability springs from the fact that we're talking about a former leader and current major political figure of a G20 country, not any country. (Yes, G20 is arbitrary, but is at least broader than the very Western-focused G7, while not too broad). It has made top headlines in major publications around the world (an assassination attempt in a minor country would likely not generate such amount of coverage). It has lead to protests in the nation's capital city. Yes, thankfully Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner was not injured - though I'm not sure how this really matters in this instance (nor to what extent it has been "established" than an injury was needed for an assassination attempt to be posted - I would rather have argued that the resonance it gets in the press makes it notable or not, not whether Ms Kirchner's little toe was hurt during the assassination attempt). Anyway, my two cents on the matter. Khuft (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s exactly the point. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because she wasn't injured & there's no indication of a conspiracy or the suspect being part of a terrorist group or having acted on the orders of any government or political party. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it's actually a good thing there is nothing to post here. Polyamorph (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As other users pointed out, we posted the assassination attempt on Salman Rushdie and Shinzo Abe's assassination when it initially looked like he was just in critical condition. As there is now precedent to posting assassination attempt on public figures, I don't see why not. Mount Patagonia (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a full precedent as there have been instances where attempted assassinations were not posted. One back in November 2021 was the Attempted assassination of Mustafa Al-Kadhimi (Iraqi PM), which was not posted with one reason being attempted assassinations aren’t posted to ITN. ITN unfortunately does not have any precedents for this topic, but rather conflicting discussions and decisions. Honestly, posted or not, we need an RfC to set a precedent on that topic just because we have very conflicting discussions. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not one drop of blood (nor enough fear to effect a resignation). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – A gun in her face, trigger pulled, that must've been extremely traumatic. But more important for our purposes, the article is looking very good! Would be a great article to feature with a blurb. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest Close This discussion has now been open for going on three days. I think we can safely state that a consensus to post is not going to develop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose If Kamala Harris we’re to have an assassinaion attempt, I’m not so sure it would be posted. This isn’t really breaking headlines either. 74.101.118.197 (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is a lot more to this than an anglophone perspective can give, and anyone who is going "It's the VP" doesn't understand how the power really lies with her, not the president. This is a big deal, not a simple attempted assassination of some do-nothing VP. Hi, I'm Frederal Say Hi 17:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I just don't understand why we have a "rule" that an assassination attempt must be successful in order to be posted. This is in the news, internationally, and it's of interest to readers per the page views, and the quality is sufficient. I see no reason not to post. Levivich 17:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am sad I found some of the arguments above really offensive and US-centric. What a shame. 7szz (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a lot of people not understanding Argentine politics, and who is really in charge. As I said above, this is not a do-nothing VP, like most people think of when they thing of "Vice President". Frederal Say Hi 21:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a similar situation when Néstor Kirchner died (ex-president, and formally just a deputy at the time), but people understood he was the "real power" just fine, and the article was posted without much problem. But there is a key difference here: as Cristina has not died, the political landscape of Argentina right now is exactly the same as some days ago, before this guy did this. If a similar situation took place with Joe Biden (some nuthead places a gun at gunpoint, fails to shoot, and is immediately subdued and captured without any harm done to anyone) the same criteria would be used. Cambalachero (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope so. 7szz (talk) 01:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone were to do what happened to CFK, to Biden, we wouldn't be having a discussion about whether or not this would be ITN because it would be a WP:SNOW support. No one would question that. The fact that a gun was pointed directly in her face would immediately tip the scales if this were Biden. I think we all agree that assassination plots that don't get carried out wouldn't warrant inclusion, but this is not that. She's only alive because something went wrong on the assassin's side. It wasn't stopped, it failed. If anything, to me, the fact that the gun was held directly in her face and nothing happened raises the significance of this as well. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is precisely an assassination plot that didn't get carried out. It wasn't stopped, it failed. Same as Biden's repeated attempts to disarm hate criminals without touching them. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you see the gun in her face? The plot was carried out, the assassination itself failed. The Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot is "plot" that wasn't carried out. But I think "bringing the gun and pointing it in the face of the target, and pulling the trigger" is executing the plot, even if the gun then fails to fire. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - non-event. nableezy - 18:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abot

(Posted) RD: Barbara Ehrenreich

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

What is "IBN" Alsoriano97 mentions? WP:IBN? How is an author's biography supposed to be sourced" (WP:BIOGRAPHY), ISBN only? Critical acclaim? Self-published website OK [87]? -DePiep (talk) 08:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a little something to help verify the info in each bullet-point, at least that the book exists and the title is correct. Template:Tl works. Footnotes with a link to a book review work, too. --PFHLai (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Esther Cooper Jackson

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

RD: Ravil Maganov

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

P.S. the Russian language article (Template:Interlanguage link) has more biographical information which could help with expansion. Polyamorph (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I added everything I could find in English-language newspapers. Hopefully, somebody who speaks better Russian than me can add something from Russian sources. Scaramouche33 (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mary Roy

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) RD: Bill Turnbull

[edit]

Template:ITN candidate

(Posted) UN report on Uyghur genocide

[edit]

Template:Atop Template:ITN candidate

Maybe simply "OHCHR Assessment of the status of human rights in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region"? Still a mouthful... --RockstoneSend me a message! 06:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe something as "2022 OHCHR Assessment on the Uyghur in China"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.29.136.173 (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose in relation to notability and timeframe.The conclusion of the report explicitly states that the cited actions are in relation to the application of counter-terrorism and counter-extremism strategies, within the timeframe of "2017 to 2019". Given that events should be "current, and not stale relative to other events", such a timeframe would preclude it's inclusion in ITN.
In terms of general notability, the report itself also does not present any new information which has not been previously alleged by other entities.
The scope and tone of the report is also mild, with OCHR only raising the possibility of continued issues outside of counterterrorism operations, with no firm allegations outside of this scope ("available information at this stage does not allow OHCHR to draw firm conclusions regarding the exact extent...").
Carter00000 (talk) 06:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have used the phrase "human rights violations" which appears frequently in the report, omitting the phrase "crimes against humanity", as the phrase only appears a single time in relation to the subject in the report, so inclusion of the phrase would be WP:UNDUE and WP:SENSATIONALISM. It should also be noted that the usage of the phrase is presented as a possibility, rather than a direct allegation. Carter00000 (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "crimes against humanity" only appears once, but as the conclusion, arguably the most important part of the report. It certainly doesn't constitute sensationalism, and if anything, a blurb downplaying both that and the targeting of the Uyghur people as outlined in the report is fundamentally lacking. The Kip (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, for the record it appears twice, in the introduction as well. The Kip (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the phrase "crimes against humanity" appears twice in the report, but only once "in relation to the subject in the report" as I mentioned in my original comment. In the introduction, it only appears as part of a description for a criteria used for assessment, and is not directly applied to the subject in question. Carter00000 (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As has been the case since its inception, the Uyghur genocide article is the article that describes the human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang. The article title reflects consensus that has been re-affirmed in multiple requested move discussions. If the objection at ITN is simply about the article title, it is extremely misguided. Any appropriate blurb will link to the article that describes the extremely well-documented human rights abuses in the region.
Altblurb 3 takes the affirmative stance that all of the abuses mentioned in the report are actually just counter-terrorism operations, which would be risible if it weren't so morose. Moreover, altblurb 3 doesn't appear to link to any article that actually meets this report. And that the U.N. has come out and said something for which there exists broad scholarly consensus is in no way sensationalist nor undue weight. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware that the report explicitly states its findings are "in the context of the Government’s application of counter-terrorism and counter-extremism strategies" (Pg.45, Paragraph 143). Furthermore, I would like to reiterate that the report makes no references to genocide, or the include word "genocide" at all. Hence, my intention with my previous proposal was to suggest a blurbed article which more accurately reflects this scope, rather then link to a article which may of potentially less relevance. Carter00000 (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two things:
  1. There is a difference between counter-extremism and counter-terrorism, especially when having a large family is considered to be "religious extremism".
  2. At the risk of repeating myself, the article titled Uyghur genocide is about—and has always been about—the series of ongoing human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang; there is no article that is possibly more relevant to an ITN blurb relating to the wanton abuses taken against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, broadly construed. If you look back at the earliest versions of the page after I moved it to the mainspace, this is painfully evident. What you are fundamentally objecting to is the title of that article, but that title has been repeatedly affirmed by the community across several move discussions and is the current community consensus.
Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, my concern is with the scope of the report matching the article within the blurb. I have not mentioned or stated any views on the title of the original article. Carter00000 (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
our article likely extends well past the bounds of the report, but not by much...while the report is entirely bounded by the article. the UN report is clearly using careful language but it is absolutely focused on the same accusations made by others documented at the genocide article. Masem (t) 16:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, your comment summarizes my concerns. If you look at the article which I suggested (Terrorism_in_China#Xinjiang), the scope of it extends less from the bounds of the report, and does not allege wrongdoing not mentioned in the report (genocide). I understand that the UN is using careful language, but the principles of WP is to reflect a source as accurately and precisely as possible. Carter00000 (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
but that article is far too broad... the report only is for events from 2014 to 2017, which every other RS pretty much refers to as the Uyghur genocide. We know the UN is goodies on contentious language but as others have said here, it would be wrong to soften what the topic is about. Masem (t) 16:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please only have one bolded !vote at once; it's confusing to read when there are multiple. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As per my comment at ITN:ERRORS, the scope defined in the report focuses exclusively on counter-terrorism & extremism related operations of the government, making no references to genocide, or include the word "genocide" at all. The most serious action presented in the report is "crimes against humanity", which only appears a single time in relation to the subject in the report. The action is carefully presented as a possibility by the UN, rather than a direct allegation. Given the above, it seem to be a significant exaggeration of the facts for the link featured in the blurb to be "Uyghur genocide".Carter00000 (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Alt blurb IV is not really suitable, as Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights is very clearly not the article which conveys this news - indeed, as far as I can tell it doesn't mention this story at all. It seems to me that the article relating to the actual story we're reporting is clearly UN Human Rights Office Assessment of human rights concerns in Xinjiang. It seems like quality issues with that which existed earlier have been addressed, so at a bare minimum I suggest we switch the bolded article away from Uyghur genocide and instead have that one bold.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There does not appear to be any quality issues with the Uyghur genocide article. I find no banners, no cn tags, the sourcing looks good, the article is comprehensive, and relevant to the story at hand. --Jayron32 15:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a general article about the genocide itself, covering all events over several years. ITN typically links an article dedicated specifically about the news item which is being reported, if there is one, rather than a more general article for that story. For example, if someone is elected president we link the election article, not the individual who's been elected. If there's a major sporting final, such as UEFA Euro 2020 Final then we bold that, which covers the immediate thing we're reporting, we don't bold the UEFA Euro 2020 tournament article. In this case, the report seems to be the individual article about the newsworthy event as far as I can tell.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the article UN_Human_Rights_Office_Assessment_of_human_rights_concerns_in_Xinjiang#Background has a background section on the existing issues. Inserting an additional background article/line in the blurb makes the blurb quite long compared to the other blurbs on ITN. Carter00000 (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that the report should be the bolded article - at the moment it's hidden away in a SEAOFBLUE blurb. I don't think we need to link the OHCHR article at all; just "a United Nations report" should be enough.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I realise there are a lot of blurbs in play already, but I've added ALT5, which isn't too much of a change from what's up there now, but changes the bolded article and includes the concision implied by PK3 above...  — Amakuru (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted that you have made the post more concise, which is good. Given that background information already exists in the report article as previously noted, suggest to remove the link to the now redundant Uyghur genocide article, as per my previous concerns on the accurate reflection and the fact that genocide is not alleged or mentioned in the report. Carter00000 (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt5: Less wording and WP:SEAOFBLUE, bolded link should be the UN report instead of the Xinjiang genocide -Gouleg🛋️ harass/hound 16:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt5 per above.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ALT5 per above. Coming here from the main page because the current blurb has SEAOFBLUE problems and bolds the wrong article (it should be report that's bolded). Levivich 17:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support, with preference for ALT5. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 17:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blurb switched to ALT5. There has been a rough consensus amongst five participants above since I proposed ALT5, and it seems to satisfy some of the concerns already raised with the blurb, while also preserving the main thrust of what was already there, so I've WP:BOLDly switched to it. Obviously I am WP:INVOLVED, but I think there's a consensus to switch. If anyone really objects to this then let me know, and I can self-revert and await an independent admin re-assessment.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that Alt5 states the situation better than any previous blurb proposal did. -- Sca (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't love any of them, but of them think alt5 is the best. I'm not loving that we are supporting the concept of "may have done something" type reports (ala an indictment vs a conviction), but understand from above that this is an extraordinary type of finding from the UN. — xaosflux Talk 00:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Xaosflux. I'm also dubious about posting "may have" findings, but this type of report from the UN about one of its five permanent Security Council members is a pretty big deal. Kurtis (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose blurb change per Mx. Granger. The metonymical 'China' should be replaced with the 'Chinese government' - some might argue this is inferred, but it doesn't hurt to be specific and avoid accusing 1.4 billion Chinese for the heinous crimes of their government. JMonkey2006 (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Support "Chinese government" instead of "China" per the report itself, which uses "Government of China" or "Government". For example, Section VIII. "Overall assessment and recommendations", on page 43 of the report: "Serious human rights violations have been committed in XUAR in the context of the Government’s application of counter-terrorism and counter-“extremism” strategies ... the Government’s stated drive against terrorism and “extremism” in XUAR ... raises concerns from the perspective of international criminal law ... The Government holds the primary duty to ensure that all laws and policies are brought into compliance with international human rights law ..." and the Recommendations section on the next page begins, "OHCHR recommends to the Government of China that it: (i) Takes prompt steps to release all individuals arbitrarily deprived of their liberty in XUAR ...". I think WP:NPOV means we use "government" as well; a subtle but meaningful distinction. Levivich 03:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In case it's not obvious from my comment above, I support this too. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm no longer concerned about length given how much the length blurb has been cut down, so I support changing "China" to "Chinese government" for reasons of precision. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose blurb change. Given that background information exists in the bolded article, the link to the Uyghur genocide article is now redundant. Per my previous concerns on accurate reflection of the report contents, and the fact that no genocide is alleged or mentioned in the report, the link to the article makes the blurb WP:SYNTH, as it combines material in a way which is not reflected by the report. Furthermore the blurb is WP:SENSATIONALISM, as it effectively presents allgations of potential actions as a genocide, which is a very large escalation in magnitude. Given that its already quite unusual to post a blurb on simply allegations (as noted above by Sca, Xaosflux & Kurtis), this seems to be even more of an escalation. Based on this, propose that the link to the article be removed. Carter00000 (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Enough already. This is approaching WP:HORSEMEAT territory. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then. – Sca (talk)

Template:-

  • This seems encyclopedic but a conclusion of "may have committed" or "may constitute" is not very definitive and seems a bit weak for posting a blurb; the main subject is Uyghur genocide which should probably be treated similarly to the climate crisis and listed as a disaster on Portal:Current events. When something more impactful from climate change (e.g. the European heatwaves this summer) or a similar report comes out though, it tends not to get blurbed. This appears to be a troubling inconsistency. - Indefensible (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I mentioned thus above, in that while the UN statement is not a strong one, it is the first official statement critical of China's actions re Uyghur, after most other countries have derided China already for that. That is the news, not the conclusions of the report. And we have definitely posted major climate change reports before, as well as when the heatwaves first hit Europe. Masem (t) 12:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If the notability is based simply on being the 1st UN report on the subject and not its conclusions as you wrote, the blurb should be quite different and something along the lines of simply "The UN released its 1st report on Uyghur genocide in Xinjiang, China" or something like that. And it probably would not meet notability for posting then in my opinion, because I bet there are tons of 1st reports issued by the UN which pass by without notice. - Indefensible (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request further discussion, given the concerns that have been raised during throughout this ITN nomination. In addition to being discussed at ITN, the nomination was also discussed at ITN:ERRORS, with the target article also being discussed at the same time at DYK.
Similar to the previous comment by Indefensible, a number of editors have raised concerns on the validity of posting this blurb and whether it meets the standards for notability for posting at ITN. In general, concerns has been raised (with some remaining unresolved) on (1) The fact that language used in the report only represents allegations and not firm facts (Brandmeister, Sca, xaosflux, Martindo), (2) That the intent behind the posting may constitute WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or bias (Sca, Kiril Simeonovski, Brandmeister) and (3) The labeling of "China' vs "Chinese Government" (Kiril Simeonovski, Mx. Granger, Chaosquo, Red-tailed hawk, Andrew).
On procedural matters, it should be noted that Sandstein who posted the blurb suggested that consensus had not been reached on the content of the blurb, but were posting the blurb anyway in spite of the incomplete consensus, which seems to clearly be against standard ITN procedure. Usually, consensus on the content of the blurb is required to be posted, not being first and amended after. Given that there are time limits associated the "staleness" of a blurb, this abnormally expedited posting and disregarding of common practice is especially concerning.
Furthermore, Waltcip's closure of the nomination after the blurb posting, while discussion on the blurb content was still ongoing is also of concern, especially since it was something suggested to continue by Sandstein. The closure caused the discussion to become fragmented, having to continue at ITN:ERRORS. The close was later reversed by Waltcip after objections from multiple editors (Sca, Kiril Simeonovski, Chaosquo, Pawnkingthree), further validating that the nomination should not have been closed.
Given the amount of objections to the exact content and the procedural flaws, I feel further discussion on the issues would be of benefit. Carter00000 (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you continue to bludgeon this discussion, I will go see what an independent admin has to say about your conduct. This is becoming disruptive. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Jim Michael 2, InvadingInvader, 4me689, Red-tailed hawk & JeffUK to request their comment as they are concurrently discussing the report on an ITN related page. Carter00000 (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
read above... you've well explained your position, consensus is against it, further arguing at this leave is beating a dead horse, particular as the blurb had been up for a few days. Masem (t) 12:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion; I think it's necessary to include. The media and organizations in support of the Uyghurs do say that this report had months of unexpected delays and this was widely anticipated. (see WashPost, Amnesty International, Reuters, the Canadian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, BBC News, an article from CNN about the report before its release, and ABC News.
I'm generally indifferent on how the blurb is written, but I can understand arguments that say the term "Chinese Government" should be used instead of "China" as it could pose that anyone of Chinese descent would be viable. Other than that, any of the six blurbs would work, so I'll say Support whichever blurb is most commonly agreed on. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Massacre Posting a controversial blurb while simultaneously saying that there's no consensus for it seems a remarkably rogue action but so it goes. What I notice is that not many people are reading the article in question. That's because ITN doesn't actually drive much traffic. Compare with the Nanjing Massacre, for example – the readership yesterday was 13K and 173K respectively. The latter seems to have gotten over ten times the readership because it was featured on TikTok recently. TikTok is run by a Chinese company and it's effective in drawing viewers. ITN not so much... Andrew🐉(talk) 15:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Uyghun genocide article saw a bump from 1k to 20k due to that report, so yes likely ITN is working. what's popular on Tik Tok is not what is in the news, and we don't use popularity as a metric. Masem (t) 15:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Nanjing Massacre story is in the news too – see China Daily; Rolling Stone; Newsweek. And it's drawing more attention on Wikipedia, let alone TikTok. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if we focus on the photos, that becomes a question of their legitimacy, which would require an academic source as with any other scientific story. That type of reporting is stuff WP should not be including anywhere as it is sensationalist. Masem (t) 16:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abot