Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/March 2023

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.

March 31[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Science and technology


(Posted) RD: Gene Derricotte[edit]

Article: Gene Derricotte (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): San Antonio Express-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.

 BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: George Nagobads[edit]

Article: George Nagobads (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NBC SportsStar 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.

Nominator's comments: Latvian-born American physician associated with the Miracle on Ice team. Flibirigit (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Support: Looks good with no unsourced claims. Not sure if notable enough, though. Octopusplushie (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone w/an article is automatically notable enough for RD if their article is good enough to post. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Sourced and RD ready.BabbaQ (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article looks good enough to post. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indore stepwell collapse[edit]

Article: Indore stepwell collapse (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ An Indian temple floor built over a stepwell collapses, killing 36 people and injuring 16 others. (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times,Reuters, The Guardian, Associated Press, CBS News and CNN.
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I am not expert in writing blurb so can any other user improve the blurb. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 07:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I have edited the blurb to make it clearer that it was the cover of the well which collapsed. It's an interesting headline as I wasn't previously familiar with stepwells. But, per WP:NEWSEVENT, it's not really an encyclopedic topic -- just another fatal accident. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Accidental mass fatalities seem to get a lot of oppose votes these days, but I disagree. And I also think that the unusual nature of this accident is noteworthy. The blurb could do with clarifying that the actual collapse was a concrete floor over the top of the well, which was not what I would have understood from the proposed blurb. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article doesn't say anything about concrete – it has "covered by grills and tiles". Andrew🐉(talk) 08:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC says 'a concrete slab'. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Associated Press says "iron grills and tiles". Per WP:NEWSEVENT, "... early coverage may lack perspective and be subject to factual errors". Andrew🐉(talk) 09:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I've revised the blurb again as it appears that the stepwell is ancient but the temple is comparatively new and was built over the well. So, I think "floor" is a better word than "cover" to explain what collapsed. Also, note that there was a similar collapse a year ago – see 13 die in village well collapse at wedding.... Such incidents don't seem to generate long-term coverage. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - good sourcing. High number of fatalities. Definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Support per all above - definitely ready for ITNRD, marking as ready. Cheers. WimePocy 11:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article is not in good condition. It's too short right now and needs expansion. Nythar (💬-🍀) 11:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality The article is too short, lacking details. Needs expansion. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 12:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support when expanded per above. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 (Talk-Contribs-Wikis) 12:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on Quality - Article is pretty stubby. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is this alluding to :)? Gotitbro (talk) 08:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Curbon7 promised to donate $5 to the Wikimedia Foundation if Editor5426387 made a vote without saying 'per the above' PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OR if Editor Prime Number make an argument that isn't a logical fallacy. Don't forget that! :-) Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe that I didn't learn about this sooner. However, @Curbon7, I will say, I look into the ITN archives out of boredom, and 5426387 did make an argument that wasn't just "per the above" on the Super Bowl nomination back in February. It didn't go anywhere since by then the Super Bowl was posted, and I don't know when this bet occurred, or if previous votes count, but, I found one. Better donate 5 bones, my guy ;) TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality. Also neutral on notability. I still think there are editors who want to turn MP into something gloomy. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They don't really have much of a choice when the nomination system here has lately been predisposed to favor disasters and a handful of other ITN/R topics. WaltClipper -(talk) 13:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. And that's a problem. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Tragic event that gained international coverage. Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support big news. I heard about this disaster yesterday. The article is a little think but it has the essential facts and seems to be verifiable. Good enough. Jehochman Talk 15:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality. Alex-h (talk) 09:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not a quality article and significance is questionable. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Haven't looked at the article yet, but on significance alone, I oppose. Haven't seen any news coverage on it as of now, but maybe that's just lack of trying looking for some on my part. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 30[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

  • New Zealand records its first case of rabies in a human. A patient who had been in hospital since early March died from the disease, which did not spread further. (News24)

International relations

Law and crime


(Posted) RD: Doug Mulray[edit]

Article: Doug Mulray (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://celebrity.nine.com.au/latest/doug-mulray-death-australian-comedian-radio-television-presenter-dies-aged-71/23064953-75c0-4595-bf8b-ec7fad3e0637
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 comedian, radio and television presenter HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I've fixed many of the article's issues, but there should be no major ones that remain. Article now looks good enough for ITNRD. Cheers. WimePocy 14:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks ok now.BabbaQ (talk) 08:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Needs some copyediting before this is fully main page ready. SpencerT•C 03:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Spencer, I've done some copy-editing, let me know if additional copy-edits are needed or not! Tails Wx 04:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Peter Usborne[edit]

Article: Peter Usborne (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
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 today, founded Usborne Publishing (which may need some work) but his article is fine.  phrogge 'sup? edits 01:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support the article before contained a lot of advertising content but is sourced now. Blythwood (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Article could use additional detail about his publishing career. Between starting his company in 1973 and receiving an award in 2012, the article has a sentence with a list of books his company published but not much more. SpencerT•C 06:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good point. I've now added a feature interview and some articles from reliable source outlets on the influence of the books he published. Blythwood (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Nick Galifianakis (politician)[edit]

Article: Nick Galifianakis (politician) (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.

Nominator's comments: Died on March 27, announced today. Member of the U.S. House, uncle of the comedian. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Article looks good for RD. Side note, it's uncle of the comedians Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Dreadful news, but the article's alright and the scientist is taking it pretty well, so cheers! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Sourced and good enough for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 09:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted --Jayron32 11:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Trump indicted[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: Indictment of Donald Trump (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A grand jury indicts former U.S. president Donald Trump (pictured) over his payments to porn star Stormy Daniels, making Trump the first former U.S. president to be indicted. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Former U.S. president Donald Trump is indicted over his role in a hush money payment scandal, becoming the first U.S. president to face criminal charges.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Former U.S. president Donald Trump is indicted by a New York grand jury on 34 counts.
Alternative blurb III: ​ Former U.S. president Donald Trump is indicted by a New York grand jury, becoming the first U.S. president to face criminal charges.
News source(s): NYT CNN
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: First former U.S. president to ever be indicted. Will also significantly affect the 2024 presidential election Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First current or former president to be indicted, not just first former president. Might be more concise to just say first American president to be indicted and charged with crimes? I have no thoughts on a !vote yet. It's definitely going to be enormous news in the United States and very likely to receive large coverage across the world. Maybe once/if we have a standalone article about the ramifications of this news story it can be posted, but right now it might be a little soon since we don't know what he will be charged with yet and he has not been arrested yet.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I will not support an article at ITN that only has a footnote update on such an important matter. NoahTalk 21:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose How many times do we have to talk about WP:BPLCRIME in this space? Exhausting. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indictments are not convictions, only that there is reasonable cause for him to be under arrest and under trial to determine guilt. Masem (t) 22:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    this is exactly what I'm referring to. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:BLPCRIME before bringing it up, unless you are of the view that Donald Trump is not a public figure. nableezy - 23:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't a violation of WP:BLPCRIME to say that an indictment of a former US president is newsworthy. Birdsinthewindow (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also important to read what one has commented on other nominations, so as not to make manifest incongruities. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is BLPCRIME does not apply here at all. It very specifically says for people who are not public figures. nableezy - 22:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. Presidents have been indicted before. Not in the US, but they have. We don't need to post every first at ITN. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Under this logic, 1/6 should not have been posted because "riots at governmental buildings/coups occur. Not in the US, but they have. We don't need to post every first at ITN." - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 (Talk-Contribs-Wikis) 22:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There were other obvious reasons to post 1/6 beyond "it hadn't happened before". More specifically, this is a campaign finance violation, which aren't exactly rare in the US. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Major news with historic gravity. -TenorTwelve (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a worldwide news page, not a list of news about U.S. politics. I'm so tired of this american/western bias here, jesus. it's like every other news piece is american congress this, american funded court that, american enemies do this (very bad!) thing, heroic american troops do that. Daikido (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we on the same ITN? Because its frankly the opposite; lot of stories get put down because they occurred in the west (especially if they occurred in America). There is legit one story about America on ITN right now. Also, ITN entries do not require global significance to be posted and such arguments are actually discouraged from being used here. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 (Talk-Contribs-Wikis) 22:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This may be an incredibly controversial opinion, but we are a wikipedia primarily centered around the Anglosphere, just the same as the Spanish wikipedia is centered around the Hispanic world. Naturally, more weight is given to articles in the west. Also, the USA is so central to how the world functions that its domestic politics affect the world an incredible amount. I don't think it's some injustice to place more weight on domestic affairs in the US. That being said, I do not think we should become a US politics ticker, nor do I think we should re-inforce a bias to the west, we should try to have a diverse array of stories we post, but for something like this I think it's okay to place more emphasis on the US. Just my opinion, I may be wrong. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to your opinion. But it is not and should not be our policy to focus on the Anglosphere. We already have a source-bias problem there, because it is generally necessary to be able to both read the source language and write English in order to contribute. That's a lot easier to find people for if the source language is also English. We should absolutely not compound that by intentionally focussing on Anglophones. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never said we should intentionally focus on the Anglosphere, I even think we should strive not to in many circumstances, my point was that we shouldn't oppose this story purely based on the fact that it's America-centric PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely based opinion. Look I support attempts to broaden coverage of the rest of the world, but this whole circus that occurs whenever a US-based story occurs or this attempt to "combat systemic bias" by opposing western stories is trivial and petty, and a direct violation of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 21:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The indictment of a former president, one of the most powerful jobs in the world, is not newsworthy? Manumaker08 (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and change link to Indictment of Donald Trump - extremely important news and historic moment. The opposes seem to reek of contrarianism and anti-Americanism (excluding @Hurricane Noah). - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 (Talk-Contribs-Wikis) 22:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop accusing of anti-Americanism to those who do not think the same as you. The world is bigger than you may think. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If a being says its not a cat, but meows, acts, and looks like a cat, its a cat. ITN has no requirement for global significance and WP:IDONTLIKEIT or its thinly veiled, WP:OR variant of "the media is overblowing it" should not cut it here. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 (Talk-Contribs-Wikis) 22:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, the media is definitely over-blowing it. This probably has little impact on the next election. A conviction doesn't preclude Trump from running and if we are honest, it's probably not impacting very many voters if any. Most likely this situation results in the paying of a fine by Trump and not much else. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s not “accusing of anti-Americanism” when multiple oppose votes above literally opposed solely because “oh posting this is America-centric” or some variation thereof. The Kip (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That article is currently a stub and probably gets rolled into the current linked article anyway. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support Unlike some other people on here I'm not inherently against posting indictments of current/former political leaders, and the historic significance of this can't be understated (though some are trying...). However, the Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal is in no shape to be posted. Once that article gets improved, or the Indictment of Donald Trump is expanded per Knightoftheswords281's suggestion, then I will support it. Mount Patagonia (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest !wait - Maybe it's a little too early to accurately assess the notability? We don't know what the ramifications will be yet. Indictment of Donald Trump was started after this nomination was posted and it'll take time to develop into a suitable target article. I recommend holding off from !voting for at least a couple of hours, if not a day.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for now. Obviously this is too short of an update now, but by later tonight, it should be fleshed out as those relevant comment. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Article at Indictment of Donald Trump is suitably fleshed out, so that should be the bold link. Altblurb 3 is probably the one that conveys the importance of the issue without mentioning something that might end up to be wrong (e.g. nature, number of charges), though it will have to be updated later. Former POTUS being indicted is unprecedented, and WP:BLPCRIME is not a complete bar on these pre-conviction legal matters, especially for public figures, which Trump obviously is. There's a lot of US stuff that gets nominated here that would be too American-centric to post, but this is not one of them, and posting would help our readers navigate to the an important and highly sought-after item in the news. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. As far as I can tell there is no indication yet of what the indictment is for, and whether it will turn out to be something utterly minor. BD2412 T 22:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if we should wait until we know the actual charges. The indictment is still sealed. Clear historical first.331dot (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree that waiting until the actual charges are, and the article expanded, are known. --Masem (t) 22:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes; with Putin we knew what the charges were. And also agree the article needs expansion. 331dot (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      In that case, we knew what the charges were and still falsely accused them of child abduction instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not false, many RS claim that. Russia has no authority to move a single Ukrainian civilian from Ukraine, they are an invader, much less force Russian citizenship on them. But I've already said too much. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The blurb wasn't about what many RS claimed about Russia, it was just about what the ICC prosecutor alleged Putin and Lvova-Belova did. Which was "unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation", not child abduction. If anyone's abducting children, it's their underlings, minions or goons. High-level politicians play high-level games. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. We don't want to have our remarks struck due to sanctions. We should make facetious remarks about imaginary screenplays instead. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's absolutely refreshing to see Wikipedia's "In the News" not following the example of mainstream US media, who as usual imply, by the size of their headlines, that Donald Trump is the most important and interesting person in the world. Bishonen | tålk 23:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose. If he gets convicted, or indicted on an offense more likely to lead to conviction, then we can consider posting. BilledMammal (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Couldn't we have a pic of Stormy Daniels instead? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We don't do arrests. We ignored the rules for Putin and Lvova-Belova, and proved we can't be trusted to present allegations as allegations or even get the allegation correct. Right off the bat, it was one payment and Michael Cohen made it, not Trump. Trump is accused of falsifying a record of the repayment. Not again, for any BLPs. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and Bishonen you are in my top 3 admins or editors ever, but cmon it is not just the mainstream US media. This is the top story everywhere. Al-Jazeera Arabic (and English), BBC, The Guardian, Le Figaro, The Chosun Ilbo, Bild, Sydney Morning Herald are all leading with this. This is the top story on every single newspaper I look at it in multiple languages. I dont get the idea of waiting either, right now is when people would be looking for information on this story, right now is when it is most relevant to post to our in the news section. nableezy - 23:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate to repeat myself but we are not a newspaper. We do not care how many RSes cover a story, we want to make sure we get the story right first and foremost for the enduring topic of an encyclopedia. That we have no idea what he was indicted for is the issue. Which should be known in a few days. Masem (t) 00:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep saying this thing like it applies to this discussion. ITN exists to direct our readers towards topics they are reading about in the news. So yes, it matters how many news sources are covering something, as that correlates to the number of people reading about it and in turn searching here for more information about it. Nothing in the blurb I proposed is not solidly backed up by a ton of reliable sources. So the bit about we dont know is likewise not relevant here. nableezy - 03:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Nableezy! Indeed, the mainstream media all over the world publicize everything about DT as if the least detail connected with him or word out of his mouth ("Alvin Bragg is a Soros-backed animal") was the most newsworthy thing in the world. And this, still, even after the media's soul-searching ever since 2016: "We created this monster!" Yeah, you did, guys, and Trump must be delighted to see the size of, say, Wapo's headline. Bishonen | tålk 08:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]
  • Premature The alleged indictment is under seal. Until it is published this is conjecture. Ok... it's well sourced and widely reported conjecture. But it is not real until the indictment is unsealed and publicly put on the record. Same for the leaked SCOTUS decision that overturned Roe v Wade. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support — The indictment of Donald Trump has no meaningful impact on the world. However, given that this story is the top headline around the world (above Finland's accession to NATO), I'm going to support putting this in ITN. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nableezy, who did the same thing I did, look at multiple worldwide news sources. It's at the top around the globe. The news of the indctment itself is news. Opposers don't make a convincing case, as I see it. Jusdafax (talk) 23:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Up until 15 or so minutes ago, there was another top story about the Paltrow verdict. Before that, it was NATO. Before that, the Vatican and the Pope personally. Opposers never think Supporters are convincing, nor vice versa, that's the point. But news changes. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Paltrow was the top story in multiple newspapers across the world in multiple languages? I call bs. nableezy - 00:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I only read French and English, and thought I was talking about multiple worldwide news sources here. So you may be right. But I shit you not. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not just the front page, but the top story? Push everything off for the multiple stories that run off this story level of story? Cmon, the last time that happened was when some old lady died in Scotland. nableezy - 01:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot resist a cmon. Have it your way (meaning I like your alt). I could care less about Gwyneth Paltrow, but the important thing to happen today is still the Vatican's renunciation of the discovery doctrine. It's just one step, sure. But a much bigger step than this one step. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nableezy. Rushtheeditor (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - While I would oppose this in principle, as nableezy said it is the headline right now. ITN is intended for global news, and I agree that American/Western news tends to wrongfully dominate ITN, but this is not the event to try to make that point. Estar8806 (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I forgot to mention my support is conditional on the link being changed as others above have mentioned. Estar8806 (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a historical event and a high-profile occurence. Despite no arrest or convict as of now, it is something with historical precedent that warrants a mention. Jennytacular (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A mention is one thing, but this is a prolonged photo of Donald Trump smiling you're supporting. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    An image of Trump's portrait is definetly not needed, the attorney office should likely be the photo. If that doesn't suffice, an image should not be added and just a passing mention. Jennytacular (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Birdsinthewindow (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And Hulk makes three, removed...for now. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Major story in international English-language media, a historic moment for the US. It's absurd to say that this is not a noteworthy current event. Birdsinthewindow (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. It is true that ITN usually posts convictions rather than indictments, but this is quite historic for the U.S. and is a top story globally. Also, we did post both of his impeachments, which are the political equivalent of indictments rather than convictions. Davey2116 (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The proposed blurb uses terminology/jargon that is specific to a small number of countries. Specifically, "indicted" and "grand jury". I suggest that these two terms are linked to Indictment and either Grand jury or Grand juries in the United States to make the article more accessible to all readers. Chrisclear (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As far as I can tell, the person involved in this news item has only been charged and has not yet been found guilty by a court. Chrisclear (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support I am bewildered this is even debated. The idea that we should ignore this because the west or the USA gets a lot of attention already is a pretty silly argument. How would this anti-west framework even work? If the West starts nuking certain ethnic groups would we ignore that? Is it "something unprecedented" + "the west" = "Wikipedia ignores". It's silly, as for the idea that merely being charged is not sufficient, only conviction that's silly too. The most recent head of state of the most powerful nation on earth is being forced through the criminal procedure. How is this up for debate? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're cool with saying he made multiple payments to a porn star we only know Michael Cohen paid once? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said he made multiple payments, but if that's what New York says and they have the proof for it then absolutely. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The blurb you just Strongly Supported says that. The target article, which isn't what it should be, makes the payment plan clear. Cohen paid Daniels, Trump repayed Cohen. We won't know if the state has proof (of any wrongdoing) until its evidence is tested in court. Just so you know, not trying to sway you. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The blurb was corrected and we know the state has proof beyond probable cause at a bare minimum. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nableezy. Call it “America-centric” all you want, it’s a massive story that the former leader of the global hegemon is now facing charges for the first time in history. The Kip (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, basically per WP:IAR, because it's Trump. Nsk92 (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support obviously. The sheer scale of coverage alone qualifies. This will drastically alter American history. Blade Jogger 2049 Talk 00:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • offered an alt I think works a bit better, nableezy - 01:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While posting this would break precedent this is the story of the month. Not having this on ITN would be a failure to meet the goals of ITN Aure entuluva (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose since when did we start posting indictments instead of convictions? (And please don't say "since we posted the ICC issuing an arrest warrant for Putin"). Banedon (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with reservations, Mr. Trump is an important political figure in the 3rd largest country by population, and this is a story that will be widely covered by news media globally. While I wouldn't normally support this in most other circumstances, this is one where I think we really should make an exception for reasons mentioned prior. I do think the wording of this could be reworded however to flow better. Planetberaure (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—Per Nsk92. My understanding is that indictments aren't normally ITN-worthy, but this is the former President of the United States and a uniquely high-profile person. The fact that criminal charges are being formally pressed against a former POTUS is unprecedented, and a major development. Kurtis (talk) 01:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Et tu, Kurtis? C'est la vie. But FWIW, it won't be a fact until he's arraigned, probably Tuesday. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, I know it’s not conventional, but this indictment strikes me as being uniquely consequential and newsworthy. That being said, I do see the opposing points and am open to reconsidering. Kurtis (talk) 11:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, yer good, bud. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to neutral. I've been mulling it over since yesterday, and ultimately, I'm not sure where I land. On the one hand, convention is to wait until a conviction takes place, which I think is a good thing; we don't want to contribute to the perception that someone is guilty before they've even had a trial. Approving this could conceivably set a precedent for other indictments, which wouldn't be desirable. But on the other hand, a current or former POTUS even being charged with a crime is pretty remarkable, and it's proving to be big news. Kurtis (talk) 07:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: We post convictions, not indictments. Now, if Trump supporters start rioting in the streets over the indictment, that would be worth posting, but the post would be about the riots, not the indictment. --Carnildo (talk) 02:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until Tuesday, which appears to be the date Trump has agreed to be taken into custody, which means we'll also know all of the charges at that point. --Masem (t) 02:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb2. Link to the article about the indictment. Update the blurb and article as this story develops. On Tuesday we can add “and arrested” and say specifically what the 34 counts are. Jehochman Talk 02:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The number of counts is not known. It is what is claimed to be the number from those with inside information, but it is no way official, and definitely something we cannot support on the main page. --Masem (t) 02:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reliable sources report 34 counts. It’s good enough for starters. Soon we will know more and update the blurb. It’s like a disaster where we keep updating the toll. (Unlike a disaster, this is great, great news.) Jehochman Talk 02:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        It is ABSOLUTELY NOT, and a major violation of BLPCRIME to include in the blurb. He's indicted on at least one count, and that number may be higher, which is the same way we handle death tolls, reporting "At least (known death toll)" and updating as we go along. Masem (t) 02:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        BLPCRIME does not apply to public figures. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support This is THE political news that people have been waiting on for years. This is amongst the first of likely several, and has historic implications as well as implications for the 2024 race. If any US political news made it as an ITN article over the past 6 years, this would be an obvious contender for top 3. People that oppose this either don't understand the full gravity of how "NEWS" worthy it is, or are biased and trying to mask it with feigned concern. When you think rationally about this, this is prime ITN material, especially on the English Wikipedia. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Especially on the English Wikipedia' my eye. This is Wikipedia in English, not Wikipedia about Anglophones. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Seems like a no-brainer at this point to post this -- a former US President and current presidential candidate has been indicted for the first time in US history, and on 34 criminal charges, is clearly of major political significance for the US, and is being widely covered globally with interest for potential domestic and international implications. --PopularMax (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: This event has been quite widely spoken of for the past week, and yes it is only an indictment but I'm sure the whole Bill Clinton ordeal would have made ITN had it happened more recently. And though, yes, that was a different situation the publicity behind it is largely the same. Daneelis114 03:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a formal indictment of an US former president. Yes, we probably won’t post a former president of Paraguay or Fiji being arrested, but let’s face reality: the US is simply much more relevant to any audience outside those countries. Juxlos (talk) 04:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose More US-centric news. Not a sitting president. Not even convicted. CoatCheck (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Please do not oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one." The Kip (talk) 06:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reminder People face their charges at arraignment in America. When they literally (albeit sometimes virtually) face a judge. Until then, it's just a figure of speech and if it's posted early, no amount of reasoning can fix it later on ERRORS. Also bear in mind that nobody explicitly asked for a picture with this one. Nobody. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: As per above, this is the first time that a former US president has been indicted. Even though convictions are generally considered for ITN, it's hard to ignore the criminal indictment of a former president of the most powerful country on Earth and its significant political and social ramifications. Waiting for his arraignment (most probably short) would not not change the initial significance of his indictment. I do not think that we should be seeking to be sensational by waiting to post only his arraignment as this is one of the steps that follows an indictment.^^Maxxies (talk) 05:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're misunderstanding me, I'm just saying don't write that he's become a president facing charges until it's true, not don't post (in my Vote I'm saying don't post, but not in the Reminder). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no doubt about the indictment. The district attorney has confirmed it. Arraignment will happen when Trump flies to New York and presents himself in court. The indictment has already happened. Jehochman Talk 08:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's a better way I might convey that my problem isn't with the indictment, but rather that the president will only hear/face his charges/judge on the coming Tuesday (at which time, unless something changes, half these blurbs will become accurate for the first time), just let me know. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Post conviction. Pavlor (talk) 05:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - An historic decision. First former U.S President to be indicted.BabbaQ (talk) 06:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- this story is literally everywhere. It would make Wikipedia look ridiculous to not also post it. --RockstoneSend me a message! 08:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral on the actual posting - it's clearly big news, but other users are correct that we don't normally post individual arrests or indictments. We should definitely wait until it actually happens and the charge list is unsealed. And I want to stress again that the fact that a person is charged with a stated offence is frequently a public fact about them, and we shouldn't shy away from that. I appreciate not wanting to present the information in such a way as to prejudice a trial, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't cover it. And I notice that some of the people who are keen to rely on BLPCRIME when it protects prominent right-wing politicians, are not so exercised when speculating about other alleged criminals. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would like to bring up that we posted the arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin by the ICC, so this isn't too much of a stretch. In fact, I'd even argue it's more notable due to the real chance that Trump will be arrested, while the ICC's decision was largely symbolic. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mixed - I'm leaning support due to the fact that this is literally In The News, at the top of every news outlet, and the indictment of a former global hegemon, as others have pointed out, is big news. Opposing based on the fact that this is America-centric is not really a strong point. However, @InedibleHulk has made quite good counter-arguments, and it might be best to wait, as per the above. Hmmm PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to Wait, per above Waits PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Listen to your heart, PW, not this ringworn old blob of cholestorolic vapourlock (but if you happen to never write "however" again, I'd appreciate it). InedibleHulk (talk) 09:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the sort of remark I mean, when I say that your posting at ITNC includes a lot of wildly unhelpful material that is tolerated out of all proportion to its relevance. Can a third party comment on this phenonomenon, please? GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's better than Indeed. We don't want to have our remarks struck due to sanctions. We should make facetious remarks about imaginary screenplays instead. Anyone want to have to guess what the hell that means? I can't bother. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is as good as yours when it comes to that phrase
Better to be a bit more relaxed, in my humble opinion. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NEVER! That's when they get you. But yeah, I'll pace quietly. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this editor is consistently disruptive, but not so egregiously as to warrant sanction. Just don't look. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Listen to my heart, I shall PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We post convictions, not indictments. The story could end up being a whole pile of nothing yet. Black Kite (talk) 09:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until it is official, then post the indictment. If that means we're a couple days late to the news, so be it; it'll be on the main page for a couple of weeks regardless, based on the current slow news cycle. Anarchyte (talk) 09:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We don't generally post indictments, we post convictions. I don't see this as necessary to break that standard. Furthermore, the article highlighted is neither sufficiently updated nor of sufficient quality. There are basically two fragmentary sentences (one in the lead and one in the timeline", and the article suffers from WP:PROSELINE quality problems. --Jayron32 11:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose i'd rather wait for a conviction. Onegreatjoke (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose a mere charge. We should reconsider if/when he is convicted. Modest Genius talk 12:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Narrow support on significance, but oppose on quality of this 50% WP:PROSELINE article. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: After a brief check, this is currently on the front page of the websites for the BBC (where it is the top story), Times of India and Le Monde. Countless others have it as the top story of their "world" sections. This has ramifications beyond the United States. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For the same reason I opposed the Putin blurb, mere charges and arrests [for them] should never be up on the main page. This has been the standard with the Putin posting being an aberration. Furthermore, at least in posting that we knew what the exact charges were and there was an arrest warrant (which is what that posting hinged on and not the mere indictment by the ICC); there is no such thing here, no exact charges have been revealed nor is the person up for arrest (as of this moment). Even those wanting this to be posted should wait for the exact charges to be revealed and the person being up for arrest/arrested (though I would still oppose for the reasons stated here initially and for a basic deference to BLP). Gotitbro (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (as nominator) The Indictment of Donald Trump article was not written when I nominated this, but I would prefer this to be the main target rather than the Stormy Daniels article as initially proposed. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm replacing the article if that's fine with you. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 (Talk-Contribs-Wikis) 16:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's fine! Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait this is important enough to post, but we should wait for the charges to be announced. The "Stormy Daniels" payments being the main charge is still speculation at this time -- "business fraud" is what has been announced. 217.180.228.188 (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it appears there is consensus to post, and given that this story is dominating headlines worldwide, I really think it makes Wikipedia look silly to not have already posted it. --RockstoneSend me a message! 17:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Picture - If this is posted, we need a picture of Trump like we posted a picture of Putin. Son OThe Desert (Talk) 18:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Son Of The Desert @PrecariousWorlds re-added picture removed by @InedibleHulk, per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 21:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb per above. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Conviction, not indictment. There are 100 ways for an indictment to end, and 98 of them are non-stories. --WaltClipper -(talk) 19:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – It is not the first time a former President of a country has been indicted. News has relevance pretty much in the US alone. Yakme (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does this matter? I constantly see this, but the note up top explicitly admonishes people against opposing because an article only relates to one country. Are people just unable to read or...? -- RockstoneSend me a message! 03:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - we don't know why he was indicted - there's rumours out there. If he's actually charged, or flees into exile, then I think we need IAR and post this. It's a massive story - unlike anything we've seen in a half-century since Vice-President Agnew (who was also facing indictment on similar charges). Yeah, we have a problem with an American bias here - but this is big. Nfitz (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per Bish and Black Kite. No conviction yet, we don't know the contents of the indictment, it's presumably something to do with campaign finance laws that are not infrequently broken. If there is a fallout, it will presumably occur after a trial is complete. Also: this may briefly have made headlines outside the US, but as I write, it no longer is very prominent; it's dropped off of the front page for the non-US outlets that I checked; at best, there's a followup opinion piece or two visible. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is there some smiling photo of him? If we have to have an image, then are the AI generated ones of him being arrested not CC licensed? Half kidding, but I dont think we need his photo for this blurb, it adds nothing to it. nableezy - 23:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When he surrenders on Tuesday we can add his photo. The mugshot. Jehochman Talk
  • Support - While not a completely unique event, it is still unprecedented for the United States and follows a lengthy investigation that was itself a long-running news story. While there's no guarantee this will be considered a big deal in a few years, I'm satisfied that it's a big deal right now, and suitable for the infobox. Tisnec (talk) 02:50, 1 April 2023 (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) US Senate votes to end COVID-19 emergency[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: No article specified
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:
Nominator's comments: This about as much of a declaration of end to the pandemic we can hope for. WHO will never declare it. 2A02:2F0B:B500:5A00:41F3:1AF6:93B2:B1C5 (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - For all practical purposes, the pandemic has already been over for quite some time. There is no need to post an official announcement of its end that only deals with one country out of more than 190. Son OThe Desert (Talk) 17:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? Let's not get carried away, the US is not the WHO and, therefore, the end of the pandemic can only be declared by this organization. This is far from being ITNR-worthy when, moreover, it is not even the only country to have done so. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Irregardless of what the nominator thinks, the WHO will eventually declare covid-19 has moved from a global pandemic to a global endemic. When that happens, it's news and we'll post it. In the meantime, the United States is just one country. Gopchunk (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't feel like I need to explain why. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I understand why you've nominated this, but there are numerous flaws in the idea. The bill hasn't become law yet - Biden still has to sign it. The US Senate doesn't get to decide when a global pandemic is over. That's not what they've done anyway - the bill is related to emergency powers and funding that were granted to the US federal government to tackle the pandemic, not a declaration of when the pandemic itself began or ended. Those powers were due to expire in May anyway. There's no reason to post the US response to the pandemic over other countries'. Wait for the WHO declaration that Covid is endemic, whenever that may be. And finally, there's no updated article, which is an immediate fail for ITN. Modest Genius talk 19:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – The WHO will, eventually, declare that the pandemic is over. The United States is not the WHO. DecafPotato (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2023 (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) Fort Campbell collision[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: 2023 Fort Campbell mid-air collision (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the United States, two helicopters (model of both pictured) operated by the 101st Airborne Division collide over Fort Campbell in Trigg County, Kentucky, resulting in nine deaths. (Post)
News source(s): NYT - CNN - NYP - NBC - Reuters - CNBC - BBC - Newsweek
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Collision of two military aircraft in Kentucky, USA, with several fatalities. We posted the Dallas airshow collision in November, so I don't see any issue with posting this as well. Article needs some serious expansion in quality and prose. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 (Talk-Contribs-Wikis) 15:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article is a stub. Not worthy of the main page given that. Will reevaluate if that ever changes. --Jayron32 14:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Still opposed. Reading the source material; it is a tragedy, but from my reading of the source articles, it looks like this is likely that this event is generating a lot of one-off stories (many of which are reprints from newswires) of relatively short length and it doesn't seem like this level of reporting indicates significance of a level that would indicate posting on ITN right now. Willing to be proven wrong in the future, with more indepth coverage. But it's not there now, from what I see. --Jayron32 16:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article is a stub as Jayron mentioned. Though I would like to say that the main reason why the airshow crash was posted was specifically because it got a LOT of media attention. So this would likely have to receive some as well. Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. According to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2020–present), fatal military aircraft crashes seem to happen about once per month. Nine deaths is tragic for those involved, but less than many bus crashes. I'm not convinced this crash even justifies an article per WP:NEVENT (particularly WP:PERSISTENCE), let alone being listed in ITN. Plus the article is currently a four sentence stub. Modest Genius talk 14:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Jayron Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — U.S.-centric story. I'll change my vote if there is sustained coverage. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    From the instructions at the top of this page "Please do not...Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country... This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive." --Jayron32 15:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose we generally do not include the result of disasters to military personnel while in their duties, as this was. --Masem (t) 15:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Jayron32, @Onegreatjoke, @Modest Genius, and @Iamstillqw3rty as the article has been expanded past stub status. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 (Talk-Contribs-Wikis) 15:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While that now meets our minimum length and referencing requirements, it doesn't change my view of the (lack of) significance. Modest Genius talk 16:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Dallas airshow was a very contentious posting, probably not a good testcase. There were also other factors which contributed to that posting, particulalry that the two aircraft invovled were historic planes among the last of their kind. This appears to involve two Black Hawk helicopters; helicopter crashes are fairly common compared to other aviation disasters. Curbon7 (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We generally don't post deaths that occur during standard military operations since that is an inherent risk associated with being in the military. NoahTalk 16:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose per all of the above, -user:editor 5426387 (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2023 (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.

March 29[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

  • Sinking of MV Lady Mary Joy 3
    • Thirty-one people are killed and more than 200 others are rescued after a ferry catches fire near an island in Basilan, Philippines. At least seven are still missing. (AP)
  • Four people are killed by a storm in Syria. (AP)

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


RD: John Kerin[edit]

Article: John Kerin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/john-kerin-remembered-as-labor-great-20230329-p5cwc4
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 Australian government minister HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Multiple unreferenced sections. SpencerT•C 05:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Michael Berlyn[edit]

Article: Michael Berlyn (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): GameDeveloper.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: Game developer, creator of Bubsy and co-founder of Bend Studio. The date of death is not clear but it has to be no later than March 29 given the twitter reports. Masem (t) 16:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose Bleh. Article is pretty short, one long list with a single citation added to it, overall, I don't think this is ITNRD ready. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Girish Bapat[edit]

Article: Girish Bapat (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Indian Express
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: Some A lot of issues. Rushtheeditor (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly Oppose: Article has more than "some citation issues", it is unfortunately lacking in any detail. It does not explain anything Bapat did through his career, only the offices he held. This article really needs a lot more to it. Octopusplushie (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article is orange tagged and is far from ready for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Paul O'Grady[edit]

Article: Paul O'Grady (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [2]
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.

 2A02:C7C:9238:D400:39E8:F434:CE99:3E68 (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Clearly notable, very comprehensive article. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 06:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, his article is good and he's definitely notable enough. Suonii180 (talk) 09:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Definitely notable enough. --79.66.89.36 (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support provided the four [citation needed] tags in the article are resolved. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all tags resolved! Tails Wx 15:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No issues, very notable UK TV personality. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very notable, article has good quality. Ollieisanerd (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article well written. Undoubtedly "a national treasure" in the UK.SethWhales talk 17:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Ks0stm (TCGE) 18:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - No objections to the posting, but why do people fail to notice the instruction that significance is a non-factor in posting to RD? Any person, or even animal, is eligible if they have an article that is good enough. Son OThe Desert (Talk) 18:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I was thinking that. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Myriam Ullens[edit]

Article: Myriam Ullens (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Art Newspaper, South China Morning Post, Het Laatste Nieuws (also Daily Mail, but well, let's leave that aside)
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: Unexpected violent death, but notable long before this as art collector and philantropist Fram (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Minimal depth regarding subject's business career, could use additional detail. SpencerT•C 05:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 28[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

International relations

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: James Bowman (countertenor)[edit]

Article: James Bowman (countertenor) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): classicfm.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: The No. 2 countertenor, Britten's Oberon in 1967, and as good in Early Music as world premieres. The article was pretty much there, but references missing + I was on vacation. I hope he can still appear. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support it seems quite ready for me.
_-_Alsor (talk) 10:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Ryuichi Sakamoto[edit]

RD: Derek Meyers[edit]

Article: Derek Meyers (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC News Saskatchewan
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: Needs expansion. Rushtheeditor (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of expansion. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Margareta Strömstedt[edit]

Article: Margareta Strömstedt (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): DN
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: Article created after her death. Some citations needed. Thriley (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2023 Saudi Arabia bus crash[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: 2023 Saudi Arabia bus crash (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: In a bus crash carrying Umrah pilgrims killing at least 20 and 29 injured in Asir province in southwestern Saudi Arabia. (Post)
News source(s): Gulf News, BBC, AL Jazeera
Credits:
 Ainty Painty (talk) 08:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per @Sandstein, and, while this is a tragedy, death tolls do not automatically mean notability. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:NEWSEVENT, "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, ... – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this policy should come up way more often on ITN. It feels like every single disaster over 15 or so deaths gets posted regardless of actual significance (though not to downplay these tragedies). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not just ITN, but NOTNEWS overall that needs to be more strictly enforced. We shouldn't have articles on things like bus accidents like this in the first place, though a list of traffic accidents in (country) would be appropriate. Masem (t) 12:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We recently posted a bus plunge in Panama. I don't see what makes this any different in terms of postability. Regardless, the article is at AfD, so that precludes this discussion until that is resolved. Curbon7 (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - while I generally revile arguments such as WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEWSEVENT being used in a section dedicated to covering the news, I think instances like this where there really shouldn't be an article at all are acceptable cases for those points to be invoked.
  • Additional comment Article is now at AfD, thus automatically rendering it ineligible for posting unless the AfD closes as a keep (which given how its currently going, seems incredibly unlikely). As such, I'm requesting this be closed.
- Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 12:42, 29 March 2023 (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) Lisbon mass stabbing[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: 2023 Lisbon Ismaili Centre stabbing (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Portugal, two women are killed and multiple people are injured in a mass stabbing (aftermath pictured) at the Ismaili Centre in Lisbon. (Post)
News source(s): BBC - Sky News - Al Jazeera - Times of Israel - PBS
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Possible high casualty stabbing in Lisbon. Article needs work regarding prose however. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 22:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Personally my bar is at 15 dead minimum. So this will be an oppose from me. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It feels weird to have a "minimum death toll" for notability. As Andrew pointed out above, WP:NEWSEVENT says "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, ... – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scratched out what I wrote. Though, i've noticed that the article itself doesn't even really talk about the stabbing. Rather it just mentions the perpetrator, victims, and aftermath. Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:MINIMUMDEATHS is not a thing and should not be a thing. Candidates should be assessed on significance, not an arbitrary number. Curbon7 (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless, I don't really see this event as being that notable for ITN. It killed two people, which is sad, but that doesn't really make it notable from any other stabbing in europe or probably even portugal. That's why i'm voting oppose. Onegreatjoke (talk) 12:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per @Curbon7 and WP:NEWSEVENT PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because although this is rare for Portugal, its death toll is low & we know very little about the motive. This should be on DYK instead. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is in good shape, and reliable sources are giving this the attention to indicate it is significant. --Jayron32 13:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Absent a very unusual scenario or context (which there doesn't appear to be here), I don't see how an event with such a low death toll reaches the bar for ITN, regardless of whether it's in the USA, Portugal or anywhere else. Black Kite (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on notability 2 deaths, multiple injuries, a shooting in Tennessee had more deaths and got shot down, and so will this. Cheers. WimePocy 16:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose trivial crime despite how tragic it was for those involved. In no way encyclopedic. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Personally, I feel a mass killing, gun or stabbing, should only make ITN if there's a major conversation occurring because of it. I would oppose most mass shootings in America in general, except things such as Uvalde and Buffalo, because conversations for gun restrictions were the result of that. Nashville, nor Monterey Park and Half Moon Bay had that, IMO. Then again, I'm not sure I have much of a say when it comes to how significant this event is, because, well, I'm not Portuguese. Though, I feel my point remains. If no major action/large conversation is taken because of this, then this should not be blurbed. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2023 (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.

(Ready) RD: Jacob Ziv[edit]

Article: Jacob Ziv (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (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: Significant sourcing work needed. Mooonswimmer 14:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support, Wikipedia wouldn't function without his work (; Synotia (moan) 16:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Notable enough, article looks good. Ollieisanerd (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The biography section is almost entirely unsourced. Nythar (💬-🍀) 23:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Article looks OK.Alex-h (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support article is fine and ITNRD ready. Cheers. WimePocy 16:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not yet ready As Nythar states above, the Biography section is still mostly unsourced, and the article is made up almost entirely of one or two sentence paragraphs. Curbon7 (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final sentence in Jacob Ziv#Biography has one footnote, but there are none in the several paragraphs before that. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nythar, Curbon7, PFHLai, all resolved! Tails Wx 22:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now that the article's sourcing is acceptable. Thank you, Tails Wx. – Nythar (💬-🍀) 23:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marked as ready. Cheers. WimePocy 11:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Muhammad Idrees (politician)[edit]

Article: Muhammad Idrees (politician) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (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.

 Fahads1982 (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Needs additional depth about what he accomplished in his political roles. SpencerT•C 03:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Sources are mostly elections results, and the article does not go in-depth about anything except public offices. Need larger and more detailed biography. --Octopusplushie (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Ciudad Juárez fire[edit]

Article: Ciudad Juárez migrant center fire (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Mexico, 38 men are killed and 28 are injured in a fire at a migrant detention facility in the border town of Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Detainees in an immigration detention center in Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, Mexico deliberately start a fire, killing 39 men.
News source(s): CNN AP ABC NBC
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: High casualty disaster along the US-Mexico border involving migrants. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 12:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose on quality, support in principle. NoahTalk 12:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality per Hurricane Noah. Will flip vote when expanded. The Kip (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Count me as a Support now. Article's been suitably expanded. The Kip (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support From what I can see right now, the article is short, but definitely well more developed than a stub, and well-referenced. There's enough information here as of now for posting on the main page. Additionally, news sources appear to be covering the story in a way that indicates that it is significant enough for the main page. --Jayron32 17:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support looks more expanded since it was nominated. It's well-sourced, and I would go with the original blurb! Tails Wx 17:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support It’s an important story & the quality seems just barely good enough to post. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Notable event by its rarity and death toll Sheila1988 (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Hurricane Noah and @The Kip given the recent article's expansion. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 22:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:NEWSEVENT, "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, ... – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're sure that an arson attack killing 40 people from several countries is a routine event?! Had this happened in the developed world (even if only a couple of miles away in El Paso, Texas), it'd have been posted within a few hours of being created. The article would be much longer & have been edited by several times as many people. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...such as the deaths of 38 people at a deportation center. Curbon7 (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
38 is not a lot – it's comparable with the Saudi bus crash. Migrant deaths are commonplace and, when they are crammed into boats, trucks, camps and the like, you will tend to get death tolls of this size. Overall, the UN estimates about 100/week over the last 10 years. It's an ongoing problem like the cartel war in Mexico for which the stats so far this year include:
1,383 Reported Fatalities
273 Battles
130 Riots
927 Violence against civilians
It's not our job to detail each such incident. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. This is a horrific tragedy, but ITN isn't just a "disaster with high death toll" ticker. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, high death toll and the article looks ok. Such numbers of victims are usually postable. Brandmeistertalk 12:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per all above, article is fine in both quality and notability. Cheers. WimePocy 13:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marked "ready". I am ineligible to post, as I voted and am thus WP:INVOLVED. Any other admin who hasn't voted can post it, given the widespread support. --Jayron32 14:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Humza Yousaf[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: Humza Yousaf (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Humza Yousaf elected as the first minority ethnic leader of the Scottish National Party and set to become Scotland's first minister (Post)
Alternative blurb: Humza Yousaf is elected as the leader of the Scottish National Party and Scotland's First Minister
News source(s): The Guardian, The National
Credits:

Article needs updating
  • Support. The proper target article is in good shape. For the blurb, I recommend the concise altblurb. We can understand the practical effect that he will become First Minister, though some further formalities are required. To my mind this is like the US presidential election where we announce the vote results, not the meeting of the Electoral College. Jehochman Talk 11:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Firstly, this is not on ITNR so I've removed that flag. Scotland is not a sovereign country (it is part of the United Kingdom) so its first minister is only the leader of a regional government. It's equivalent to the leader of an Indian state, Belgian community or US state - none of which we post in ITN. Secondly, I don't see how his ethnicity is relevant to the position. Thirdly, it's an internal party succession with no associated popular election. There's no reason to treat this differently from any other local government succession. Modest Genius talk 11:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PS. see the ITN/C discussion when Sturgeon resigned last month. Modest Genius talk 11:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That was a close discussion, and the result was wrong. Scotland is a country, not a state. Not ITNR does not mean it has to be rejected. This is a significant event that is widely in the news. Jehochman Talk 11:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said in that discussion, "when comparing different sovereign states it's mostly just semantics whether they refer to their largest sub-national entities as states, provinces, regions, cantons, communities, nations or countries". The fact that the major subdivisions of the UK are called countries is historical and doesn't make them sovereign. I'm British, I know how the UK works. Modest Genius talk 12:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I trust you do. California would be the ~7th largest country in the world by GDP, and has the same population as Canada, but we post elections in Monaco, which have much, much less significance and zero global news coverage. Our criteria is borken. Jehochman Talk 12:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per MG. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 11:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Topic has been covered sufficiently by news sources, article is in sufficiently good shape. The lack of ITNR is a non-issue as many stories are posted in the ITN box that are not in ITNR. --Jayron32 12:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not ITNR and Scotland is mot a sovereign nation, so it’s more close to be a sub-national political event than an statal one. There’s no way this should be posted. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - I think there's a difference between the UK's subnational governments and those of countries like America. The fact that I and many other foreigners know about Sturgeon but not say Heather Stefanson or Tim Walz is demonstrative of this.
- Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 12:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the same can be said for famous US Governors, like Ron DeSantis or Gavin Newsom, who are recognisable names overseas like Sturgeon. I don't think many people would be able to name the First Ministers of Wales or Northern Ireland (I even live in the UK and I don't know them).
While the UK and the USA have very different political systems, I feel like you can draw an equivalence between the constituent countries of the UK to US states. Both have an elected legislature in the style of the overall federal legislature, both have significant regional autonomy and control over many of their own affairs, etc. The only meaningful difference here is that the USA has 50 while the UK has 4, which if you adjust for population is roughly like 8-9 states to 4 UK countries. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well to be honest, although that is true, I think another difference lies in the timing. You cited how we didn't post the 2022 Cali elections, which ignore that they were apart of the wider midterm elections that year and were thus already technically covered. This, as far as I know, is an independent election time-wise. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 13:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was no popular election here - voters didn't get a say. Only party members were involved. Modest Genius talk 13:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still an election, as the article title and prose states, as well as governmental processes and news media. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 15:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's actually a good point, I forgot that the California elections were part of the midterms, but then I'll bring up that we did not post the 2021 California gubernatorial recall election, where Gavin Newsom was re-elected (Discussion for that here). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
America is a continent, btw. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
America primarily refers to the United States (see that that redirects to "United States", not "The Americas". Actually, America, by itself, is not a continent. There's North America, and South America, but there's no continent referred to "America". --RockstoneSend me a message! 03:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know many in South America prefer to use "America" to refer to the two landmasses as a whole. If I'm perfectly honest the whole idea of a continent is stupid, there are incredibly arbitrary borders (Europe ends at the Ural Mountains and Black Sea. Why? Don't ask questions. North America and Africa both end at man-made canals, why? Who knows? And there's some mysterious sea border between Oceania and Asia that no one can quite define. Also, why are we even grouping these places together? The Middle East is insanely different from the Central Turkic states, which are different from Eastern Russia, which is different from China, which is different from Thailand, which is different from India, which is different from the Philippines, and etc. etc. Why are all of these places grouped together into "Asia"? Asia was literally just a Roman Province, same for Africa. Well I have no clue how I got from the Scottish First Minister to ranting about geographical divisions but I'm getting off topic so I better stop.). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Scotland is merely a region within a nation. We didn't post the 2022 California election result, and even if we were to include regional subdivisions for ITN, we would have to wait for his approval from the Scottish parliament. He has only been elected party leader, not First Minister yet. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Subnational + he hasn't even been formally elected as First Minister. The Kip (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this not count as formal election? [3]
    No comment on the overall proposal. Couruu (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It's explicitly not ITNR. But it is making the headlines. And for the record, I would also support a sufficiently prominent sub-national election elsewhere in the world. I am interested to see what becomes of the NSW proposal further down, once it is a done deal and not ongoing. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I support in principle the idea of posting election results in large sub-national regions, but Scotland is nowhere near the largest and most influential sub-national regions, so until such a practice becomes much more common I will oppose. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support (altblurb)- Simply because it's an election not listed on ITNR doesn't make it ineligible for ITN, which is what most of the opposition I've seen so far has been based on. Without regard to the fact that Yousaf is the first muslim leader of a major political party in the UK (I think in the whole of the West, if I'm not mistaken) but it is a major moment for the Scottish independence movement. For example, The Independent reports that Labour and the Conservatives are calling Scottish independence "dead"[4]. Not only is his election being reported covered by major UK news outlets (such as the Guardian[5]). , but also by primarily U.S. sources like CNN[6] and global sources like Al Jazeera.[7]Estar8806 (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose -- We do not post the elections of subnational entities. We wouldn't post this same story if it happened in a US state or Canadian Province, even though US states and Canadian Provinces are more independent than Scotland is. To post this story would smack of UK-centrism, already a huge problem here. --RockstoneSend me a message! 22:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Objection! Scotland has Scots law. You don't see that kind of self-rule in Nova Scotia or Manitoba. If Ontario wants to reject the monarchy, it needs permission from the nine other provincial legislatures, the federal government and the monarchy. Scotland just fights (historically). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ... Good point. I have a feeling that I don't understand Canadian federalism very well. Here in the US though, Louisiana has its own legal system that's a hybrid of civil and common-law, and here in Florida, juries consist of only 6 people (except for capital felonies). -- RockstoneSend me a message! 23:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, all fifty states are absolutely positively 100% sovereign. Florida Man is popular for a reason that just wouldn't fly in one of the hippy or yippie states. Here, we can't publish (decent) crime comics, anywhere, despite that panic having died out with the MPs who thought it made sense at the time. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, Cajuns are arguably more Canadian than hippy, yippie or Floridian, by virtue of their Acadian "bloodline". And those poor historical souls were arguably more French than anything. And as any Gallic historian can tell you, France probably had something to do with Gaelic diverging from Celtic and Welsh back in the foggy days when unicorns represented more than a district, ward, factory, metropolitan statistical area or fen. Maybe I'm just rambling. Support Photo Blurb because this formerly magic kingdom and its promising new ruler are still In The News today. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The election of a leader of a subnational govt. shouldn’t be posted. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is good news 5.44.170.26 (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - for the same reason as opposing the Sturgeon announcement, we dont post sub-national office changes. We would never post the election of the governor of California, which remains a much more consequential position in nearly every regard. nableezy - 23:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Subnational entity, and conceptually the position is no more powerful or constitutionally significant than the governor of California, which we wouldn't generally post... And that's before we even consider that California has a population more than seven times that of Scotland.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my prior rationale for supporting changes in the holder of First Minister of Scotland. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a reason changes to heads of state/government of non-sovereign entities are not included in ITNR and why such noms have not received support here. A case can be made that this election is significant, with the choosen head being the first from an ethnic minority background, but this stemming from a mere party election and not a popular vote is not fully convincing as to the latter's notability. Gotitbro (talk) 06:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he's more notable for trying to call an independence referendum on his first day in attempted service than for being...whatever one calls a native Glaswegian ethnic minority or minority ethnic leader in Scotland. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. what about the first Zhuang governor of Guangxi province while we're at it? Sheila1988 (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Yes, Scotland has less autonomy than some other subnational entities. But 1), the countries of the UK get significantly more worldwide media coverage than things like the governor of California (which, like I said when Sturgeon resigned, has a higher population and GDP and msot other metrics than some sovereign states, proving that "a bunch more people live there" isn't a valid reason to oppose), and 2) the campaign for Scottish independence remains significant and ITN-worthy in my opinion. DecafPotato (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment from nominator. I'll remember all this 'we don't do regions' during the US primaries then. but no doubt the US bias will rule differently at that point and we'll have a whole bunch of stuff about Super Tuesday and guff that only affects 'regions' of the US. 148.64.29.90 (talk) 11:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I am aware, we have never posted Super Tuesday in ITN. Modest Genius talk 11:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even so, and this may be controversial, but I think a major US party nomination (especially for a contentious race like what's going on in the Republican party) could be argued for notability in ITN. I live in the UK, so it's not out of some American bias, but because American politics naturally has more weight as a. It is predominantly the focus of most major, reliable news outlets, and b. The US heavily influences the entire world. That being said, I'm sure there's plenty of good counter-arguments. Just my take. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, If it is not ITNR it does not mean it is not suitable for ITN. Alex-h (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support, a major event. Khan, Sunak, now Yousaf Kirill C1 (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose We wouldn't post if AOC became Governor of New York, or Omar the Governor of Minnesota, or Haaland the Leader of the Democratic party. Not ITNR, and not very notable. Sunak was an exception as it is somewhat the British equivalent of the US president, but this is a subnational election being held in a country-that-really-isn't. Cheers. WimePocy 16:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sunak wasn't an exception. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose minor local politics. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Only relating to one area does not disqualify something from ITN, and I'd hardly classify Scotland's first minister as 'minor' – the fact that it made international news already distinguishes it from the 'US governor' comparison as well. DecafPotato (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it? High-profile governor's races make it to international news occasionally. --RockstoneSend me a message! 05:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, we have a long standing aversion to sub-national politics for a reason: it becomes very difficult to decide where to draw the line. I could see this creeping further to include, for example the governor of California, mayors of Paris, Tokyo, Berlin... We already feature a lot of political news, no need to expand this - Dumelow (talk) 07:09, 30 March 2023 (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.

March 27[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


RD: Gianni Minà[edit]

Article: Gianni Minà (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [8]
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 key figure in Italian journalism, I didn't manage to nominate him until now. At the moment, the main issue is the evident lack of sources, but I hope I'll be able to solve it as soon as possible. Oltrepier (talk) 08:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oltrepier Have you been able to work on it? The article still needs a lot of work. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Alsoriano97 Actually, I don't know if I'll be able to work on it as much as I would like to: sorry... Oltrepier (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Cuban parliamentary election[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article: 2023 Cuban parliamentary election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: The Communist Party of Cuba wins the parliamentary elections. They were the first elections since 1976 in which neither Fidel nor Raúl Castro are involved. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Parliamentary elections are held in Cuba, the first since 1976 without either Fidel or Raúl Castro.
News source(s): Al Jazeera
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: Cuba holds election. Needs updates. Rushtheeditor (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality Article needs considerable updates/expansion. The Kip (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nothing of value has changed in a single-party country. And the article, as pointed out above, is far from perfect. --Bedivere (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I searched WP:ITNR and there is nothing saying that single-party countries are to be excluded. Is your rationale based on ITNR or personal opinion? Tube·of·Light 02:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Single-party state, elections effectively mean nothing. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - Just another sham election. TomcatEnthusiast1986 (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - WP:GOODFAITH nomination, however, it's an election in a single party state. Big deal. Crusader1096 (message) 01:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support - since its the first election in Cuba not under the Castros, I reckon that this is fine for posting since it's WP:ITNR. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Rights ) 03:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Might I add that this is under the condition that the primary article is expanded and improved upon. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Rights ) 03:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reinstating original vote following alteration of blurb. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 (Talk|Contribs|Wikis) 21:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We do post the results of sham elections, such as Kazakhstan which is currently posted, but there is a distinction between the circumstances there and here. Curbon7 (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to defend Kazakhstan's government, but Kazakhstan is more akin to a competitive-authoritarian or illiberal democratic system, not a true one-party state. Besides, Kazakhstan's was notable in that it was the most competitive in their history, in relative terms. AFAIK not so in CubaThis post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Hence there is a distinction between the circumstances there and here. Curbon7 (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality (note: there is nothing in ITNR saying single-party elections are not ITNR) Tube·of·Light 02:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The blurb is not accurate. The CPC did not win the election because the candidates do not represent that party and are not necessarily members. Instead, the candidates represent local assemblies and other bodies such as women's organisations. And there's no "winning" because it's not a competitive process. The voters just get to approve the single choice for each constituency. Most voters just tick a box saying that they approve all 470 candidates. So, what matters is who was selected as candidates by the National Candidature Commission. But the article doesn't list them – there's no list of names, who they represent and which constituency they were elected to. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support if and only if the blurb can be written in a concise way that explains the actual result without implying that this was in any sense a competitive election for the Communist Party as an organisation. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrote altblutb to account for the single-party nature of Cuba. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose good faith nom per above. Article is completely inadequate for one covering national "elections" and the elections were just a rubber stamp affair in a Communist police state. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Blurb is 100% false, with claim that neither Castro were involved in the 1976 "election". The Communist Part of Cuba won all the seats in 1976, and Fidel Castro was both the leader of the party and of the country before and after the 1976 election. Perhaps User:Rushtheeditor can explain this Stalin-like historical revision? Nfitz (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me? I saw that ON the page, and I DID NOT write that on there. I assumed (my fault) that it was true and posted it. Do not accuse me of such ‘historical revision’. Rushtheeditor (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Uncalled for. Mistakes happen; stating that an editor's honest mistake is a Stalin-like historical revision is absolutely a personal attack. Curbon7 (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb - oppose the tut-tutting of the anti-countering systemic bias in favor of entrenching it fuller crowd. People want to talk about elections but had no problem posting this "election" in which 140k people decided the UK PM, or this one in which not even that level of "election" took place. nableezy - 20:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is ITN/R and all the arguments about Cuba's elections dont count because I dont believe in Cuban elections should be ignored and tossed aside. The only objection that has merit here is quality, and of the people discussing it that does not seem to be a stopping point here. This should be posted, and the people advocating for keeping ITN a bastion of Western superiority should be rebuked. nableezy - 16:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I apologize for the original blurb. I see how it is wrong and I will learn from this and be more careful when proposing blurbs. Again, I am sorry for this. Rushtheeditor (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Feels like SNOW is in the offing here, but I still passionately believe that we should post these sorts of elections. No one's refuting that Cuba's a one-party system, and I can understand a lack of belief that anything will change with this election. However, I believe this is an ITN/R election and thus merits posting. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason I, and I suspect some others are opposing this, is because this was not in fact an election in any generally accepted sense of the term. The labels of the Communist Party notwithstanding. You can call a turd a strawberry, but that doesn't make it so and I don't think we should be promoting that kind of blatant fantasy to our readers. The subject is certainly notable enough for coverage in the encyclopedia. But presenting this farce on the main page as an election would be gravely misleading. Wikipedia should not be serving turds and labeling them strawberries. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So you sit in judgment of another country's system of governance and deny it the legitimacy of Wikipedia's front page? And that is not systemic bias? nableezy - 22:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't consider the Communist Party or any official organ of the Cuban Government as a reliable source. I am unaware of any reliable source that treats this as in any way, an election in the generally accepted sense of the term. If you want to call that systemic bias, then I plead guilty. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides the al-Jazeera source cited, there is Reuters, NBC News, hell even Fox calls them elections. Uncontested ones of course, but they are elections according to reliable sources. nableezy - 23:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They are all reporting the claims of the Cuban government, which is entirely proper. We should likewise report the claims, and we do in the article. But none of them have in any way suggested that what the Cubans are labeling elections, are in fact such. No reliable source has called these true elections, and many have made it fairly clear that they are not. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly is the "blatant fantasy" here? We know this election happened. You can debate the actual impact, but there was indeed a parliamentary election just held in Cuba, legitimate or not. Call it a semantic argument, but the phrase "sham election" contains the word "election" in it. The phrase simply means the election was not legitimate. The only way for you to believe this "turd" is a "strawberry" is if. quite frankly, you can't read or you didn't actually click on the article. It's not our job to cater to those who have no interest in actually reading what Wikipedia has to tell them. To quote Benjamin Franklin, "Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn". DarkSide830 (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – There is no clause that excludes one-party or unfair elections from being posted to ITN. DecafPotato (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait We have no idea how any potential discussion on the removal of Cuban parliamentary elections from R might go, best to let that play out first, like with the despised and printed rocket failure. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question do we post Chinese parliamentary (not merely Xi) elections? Because I feel that's the most appropriate comparison/precedent here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It depends. Do RS come out and confirm politics (not merely government) as a significant motive and do we feel that an election winner of that motive is sufficiently interesting to post? If so, sure, sounds like news. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, I don't see either of those things here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely. So we Oppose. We may still disagree on whether a political motive is more crucial to promoting potentially developing election coverage than in the retelling of a relatively popular modern horror story as it unfolds. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per comrade InedibleHulk. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Yes elections are ITNR, but that is not the sole criteria. Firstly we have to look at the article quality (per ITNR itself) which is completely absent here, a few barebones paras mostly about the results without any contextual information on the history, conduct, impact and analysis. Secondly, we have to look at the precedent for such noms here on ITN; we have not posted elections or other leadership changes in similar one-party communist states beyond the general secretary positions, i.e., who actually holds power. The recent examples being China and Vietnam. This fails on both criterias, and I see no reason to deviate. Gotitbro (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good points. Looking at the detail, there's some mysteries which the article doesn't explain. The number of seats was reduced by over a hundred but it's not clear what the practical effect of this has been. And exactly how many are there? There's a couple of numbers floating around – 470 and 474 – but which is it? I get the impression that the detail is fuzzy because it doesn't much matter. The actual headline figure seems to be the turnout as the closest thing the system gives to a verdict on the government (which doesn't change). Andrew🐉(talk) 08:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Elections are ITNR because the assumption is that they are of political significance and therefore in the news. This assumption does not apply in the case of sham elections of rubberstamp parliaments in autocracies, because such "elections" have no political impact. Sandstein 09:06, 29 March 2023 (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) Covenant School shooting[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: 2023 Covenant School shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Seven people including the shooter are killed in a mass shooting at the Covenant school in Nashville USA (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the United States, seven people are killed, including the perpetrator, in a mass shooting at the Covenant School in Nashville, Tennessee.
Alternative blurb II: ​ In the United States, a transgender person kills six people in a mass shooting at the Covenant School in Nashville, Tennessee, before being killed by police. (NOTE: Only include this if allegations of this being a hate crime or relating to the perpretrator's transgender identity are true)
News source(s): BBC, CNN Al Jazeera
Credits:
Nominator's comments: I'm not going to convince anyone with this so instead I will plead with you to be civil. If we cannot than I think we should consider asking the arbitration committee to lay down some sort of law. Aure entuluva (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Mass shootings such as this are commonplace in the United States.
NoahTalk 02:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait @Hurricane Noah, although shootings are common in the US, we usually tend to post those with a peculiar motive. From what it seems there's a decent chance that this may have been a politically motivated shooting, with the perpetrator being transgender and possibly being motivated by transphobia and the like. However, since WP:RSes are slow to progress and all of these claims are still in dispute and unverified, it's best to wait. If these accusations are authenticated, I will support.
Crusader1096 (message) 02:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just concerned with the fact there have been 9 shootings with more victims than this one thus far this year and that there has been a mass shooting five of the past seven days. NoahTalk 02:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Major news story, #1 story in the U.S. today, high quality article to post. For the purposes of ITN, the number that happen per year is irrelevant. Motive is irrelevant. The other mass shootings don't get this kind of news coverage. The ones that rise to "No Way to Prevent This" mockery are the almost 1:1 the ones that we should be posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The other mass shootings don't get this kind of news coverage; I would disagree with this statement at the moment to be honest. With most mass shootings of this scale, there's a lot of instant coverage which tapers off in the following days. Curbon7 (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Many mass shootings don't have Wikipedia articles because they don't get this kind of news coverage. And "instant coverage which tapers off in the following days" refers to a lot of what ITN posts, or should be posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Tragic, but as is the case with many of these shootings, not notable to ITN levels. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - an absurd nomination. Six deaths in a US shooting - that must make it Tuesday. We've had this discussion before. Reading the nomination statement, User:Hurricane Noah nominated this fully knowing it wouldn't go through. Isn't that disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? Nfitz (talk) 04:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    However, it isn't Hurricane Noah–I don't see their green glow with a splotch of red at the end of the nominator statement! Tails Wx 04:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wx ... I completely misread the first three posts! Nfitz (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by the nominator The notability isn't from the death count as much as it is from where the shooting happened. People care about children and school shootings are rare even in the US. By my count there have been 14 school shootings with more deaths in US history. Source: US school shooting before 2000, US school shootings since 2000 Aure entuluva (talk) 05:13, 28 March 2023 (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.
  • Note I support the close for the moment but am prepared to re-open the discussion if strong evidence emerges that this was some sort of terrorist/anti-religiously motivated incident. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question why is this closed with a yellow box? Banedon (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Regardless of motive, I think RS have made it pretty clear that a woman who is also a man and shoots up a school that is also a church is a "sufficiently interesting" type of shooter, at least compared to a simple terrorist who shoots women anywhere mostly because he's a man with a political preference for men. Even if you just think of her as a woman who shot someone else's children, that's pretty unusual. But yeah, viewed purely in terms of an American with a gun and inclusive death toll, he or she doesn't stand out. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 2 Please do not delete other editors' comments because you do not agree with them. The close on this nomination is not a hard close and may be re-opened by any editor in good standing who believes the facts now available justify further discussion. FWIW I am ambivalent on that question. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 3 The box this was closed with used to be yellow, only one of us knows why and it doesn't matter anymore. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – For the record, this is still in news around the world, which is a longer period than I recall (most) other U.S. shootings getting, and there are a lot of investigations into the motive and background of the perpetrator. I didn't !vote in the pre-close discussing, but I would be open to re-opening the discussion, as this is very much still a developing story. DecafPotato (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What is news around this is the return to the non-debate around gun control, with Democrats trying to push on it hard, while Republicans are deflecting this on the shooter being a trans person. There's little about the actual shooting that's in the news at this point compared to the politic debate. Masem (t) 03:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which I think does contribute to the significance of this shooting in particular, no? DecafPotato (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 26[edit]

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Politics and elections


RD: Bill Zehme[edit]

Article: Bill Zehme (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
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.

 Thriley (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a stubby new article with less than 180 words. More text, please. --PFHLai (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Virginia Norwood[edit]

Article: Virginia Norwood (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: Looks ready. Thriley (talk) 11:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Article looks good to go, well cited and concise. Bluemarsman (talk) 19:18, 01 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Relatively light in the career section but article as a whole meets minimum standards, fully referenced. SpencerT•C 04:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) The Boat Race[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: The Boat Race 2023 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Cambridge University win the men's and women's events of The Boat Race. (Post)
News source(s): The Times, The Guardian
Credits:
 Whizz40 (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsurprised that the article is of far lesser quality than previous years, since it's since been removed from ITN/R. Well done, everyone. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, it's not just that, it's the relentless hatred that's stopped me bothering. Fuck it, why bother? The ex-colonials win and the encyclopedia loses. Standard stuff these days. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this article was of the quality of previous years, I would have supported, not that it would help with the below. I do think the arguments of ITN being only suitable for surprising things that aren't scheduled events to be reasonably blind that almost everything outside of an act of God is scheduled, and something being "amateur" or "niche" isn't of itself not culturally relevant. If you do want to fix it up, or just want someone to update the item, drop me a line. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on significance. A minor event with limited international coverage. nableezy - 19:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Amateur competition with only two entrants, little public interest, and all the other significance issues that were raised in the recent discussion on WT:ITN. Modest Genius talk 19:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not being on ITBR does not exclude a topic from being discussed as its ITNC entry. Masem (t) 19:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am well aware of that. I specifically referred to the significance concerns that were discussed there, not the outcome (delisting). Many of those arguments also apply to an individual nomination. Modest Genius talk 19:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Very true, albeit I believe he meant that his oppose is based off the same significance reasons given to remove it from ITNR (as opposed to arguing it shouldn’t be posted because it was removed). The Kip (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose MVP Jasper Parish doesn't have an article, much less a suitable picture, and Jasper Parrish is awful. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you tried writing relevant comments with your !votes? GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is relevant. When we post a sport, we usually post someone's picture and both sources agree he's the hero here (though not "MVP", exactly). He's also not mentioned at the target article. If that's not reason enough, its latest source is from 2016. Retrieved then, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Nableezy. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Nableezy. The Kip (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are we happy now? Did we somehow improve the English-language Wikipedia by doing this? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be frank, it seems like the entire reason this was on ITN/R at all was to appease some disgruntled old hand. The main page should not be held hostage by vested contributors, and yes I think not featuring unimportant crap like a rowing race between two and only two universities on the main page is improving Wikipedia. nableezy - 19:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be frank, seems like you're full of hatred against a 200-year institution which is broadcast around the globe. The main page was never "held hostage" (emotive language, typical of people like you), I always produced top quality material for ITN. You fucked it all up for a large number of people, so well done you. Applause. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wee bit childish, innit. But hatred would imply I give a shit. Hint, I dont. nableezy - 19:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite what you may believe about its significance, it still receives absolutely minimal media coverage; having googled it, literally the only non-UK-based source reporting on the race or its results is the Olympics/IOC. Arguing for it to be kept, as a limited-coverage event between two and only two colleges, is effectively akin to arguing for us to post the result of Michigan versus Ohio State every year, which obviously should not be posted (and British editors would certainly be opposed to). The wider, not-just-British consensus was that it doesn’t meet ITNR’s standards for inclusion, and the consensus here seems to be that it doesn’t meet ITNC’s either; you can either accept the consensus of the English-language (not just English!) Wikipedia, or continue to be a sore loser of sorts as your comments are indicating. The Kip (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article is far too brief at this stage. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way this process has played out is sad. Just very, very sad. An ugly vendetta has spilled out into open view on ITN/C and completely poisoned the well. I think there is plenty of shame to go around for all of us. Can we just close this before it gets worse. WaltClipper -(talk) 20:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Theres only one person showing any type of vendetta here, but apparently its just the ex-colonists (imagine thinking being a colonizer is a good thing lol) lashing out. There is exactly one person acting like a child here. Guess who it is. nableezy - 20:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody appears rosy here, and I certainly find it depressing that you indirectly referred to an editor's long-time work as unimportant crap. I ask again the same question posed by Muboshgu: How have we improved the encyclopedia through this rabid and toxic bickering? WaltClipper -(talk) 20:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Boat Race is unimportant crap. The articles are lovely. They can still be on the main page as DYK and FA when they make GA and FA. They just dont belong "In The News" because the news (worldwide) largely ignores it as unimportant. Asked and answered on the question. But the only toxicity is coming from one person here. One person you seem disinclined to say anything about. nableezy - 20:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you show a little sensitivity and civility here? 331dot (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure if Im not called an ex-colonial who fucked it all up for a large number of people. Strange sliding scale you have for civility. And why does this need sensitivity? Compared to things like this I think Im a paragon of sensitivity and civility. But theres that sliding scale I guess. nableezy - 20:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That this was removed from ITNR kinda shows ITN has lost its way and purpose. The vitriol here doesn't help. The article involved might have gotten more work and attention had there been a willingness to post it, as it has previously. Does that help the encyclopedia? If you want Michigan v Ohio State posted, nominate it and tell us why. Neither Michigan or Ohio State is as old as Cambridge and Oxford, but maybe we've missed something. This longtime race watched live by hundreds of thousands and on TV by millions between two ancient universities is important to some, even if others don't think so. We should be thinking about readers here and we're not. Sorry to digress but, that's my two cents. And I do support this on the merits. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If I can pay attention and update the article, having no interest in the race and taking vitriol, anyone can. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality. NoahTalk 20:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I recommend removing this nomination until the article has been improved further. When it is more complete it could be renominated. Please do not be deterred by the negativism in this thread, of which there is sadly too much. Last year's Boat Race article became featured. This one could be featured too, and appear on the home page through that alternative, if not through the News. Jehochman Talk 20:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all of the above - User:Editor 5426387 (talk) 20;50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
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: María Kodama[edit]

Article: María Kodama (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Buenos Aires Herald
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: Jorge Luis Borges' widow and the sole owner of the rights to his work. Needs more update. BorgQueen (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've added 3 cn tags. Once this gets resolved, I think it'll be ready for RD. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple CN tags need to be addressed. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Oladipo Diya[edit]

Article: Oladipo Diya (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Premium Times
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: Nigerian military officer; article needs some more update – Ammarpad (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support article looks good (long enough + no unsourced paras) enough for RD. Cheers. WimePocy 12:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Sourced. And ready.BabbaQ (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks good for RD. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 04:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Innocent (actor)[edit]

Article: Innocent (actor) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Times of India
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: Innocent Vareed Thekkethala an actor and Indian MP . Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 25[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


(Posted) RD: Nick Lloyd Webber[edit]

Article: Nick Lloyd Webber (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [9], [10], [11]
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: Son of Andrew Lloyd Webber, followed his father's footsteps and became a composer. Article looks good, well cited. Ollieisanerd (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Frank LeMaster[edit]

Article: Frank LeMaster (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Philadelphia Eagles
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 by the Eagles on March 25, although he died on March 23. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing: 2023 New South Wales state election[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article: 2023 New South Wales state election (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Still being counted, but it the winner has been declared.
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.
  • A small but I think reasonable request: Can we please wait for more than a bloody hour before SNOW closing a nomination, especially if it has only garnered three !votes? --WaltClipper -(talk) 14:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose so, but considering it was three quick opposes on an item that would already be highly unlikely to post considering precedence, in my opinion it was justified. The Kip (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that's a reasonable request at all. WP:SNOW is dominating. We've had a long-standing rule not to post the elections of individual states within a federation unless there's a very good reason. Now, I'd like to see that rule loosened somewhat, but if we started posting every subnational election, that's all ITN would ever be. --RockstoneSend me a message! 22:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • God damnit, I didn't say post every bloody subnational election (and no, we don't have a "long-standing rule"), please do not insinuate that was what I meant. I said can we not SNOW close good-faith nominations within an hour. I thought we were collectively going to try and steer away from making ITN/C a walled garden culture. WaltClipper -(talk) 13:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Ongoing: Protests in Israel[edit]

Article: 2023 Israeli anti-judicial reform protests (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: This has been going on for a while now, and just now Netenyahu's defence minister publicaly called on him to freeze the legislation. It's a big deal and there have been threats of civil war. Son OThe Desert (Talk) 18:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to the current French ones, where the number of protestors have been near a million, the numbers here are far less significant. I realize recent changes may cause these to grow. However, I would point out the same issue that most of our protest articles start as: a pure timeline without a significant background section and larger narrative section is not very helpful to readers. Masem (t) 19:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a proportion of the population I wouldnt say that this is less significant. nableezy - 19:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A bit late, but with ~700,000 Israeli protesters (7-8% of the population) it’s hard to say so. Juxlos (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a huge deal with serious implications for Israel's long term politics and constitutional order. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this was nominated before last month, but it was dismissed as "politics as usual." This is anything but: this can have immense ramifications for Israeli politics and can change the very structure of the country's government. Additionally, @Masem's point regarding the French protests is misleading; 1.5% of France is protesting, and with these protests, as many as nearly 3% have been protesting in Israel. The comparison is not apt. However, I will agree with you @Masem in that it should be expanded into more of an article of proper prose. Crusader1096 (message) 23:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support once expanded per Knightoftheswords281. DecafPotato (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. They've been going long enough at a large enough scale to merit an ongoing event. The Kip (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support agreed with all above. It also seems these protests won't be ending any time in the near future, or at least the month. Daneellis114 03:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per above PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, especially with news of Netanyahu firing Israel's defense minister. This will only escalate from here. Blade Jogger 2049 Talk 18:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting – Muboshgu (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting comment Given what has happened over the weekend in Israel, I really think that 1) this needs to be a blurb along the style of "Mass protest arise in Israel after Netanyahu fires its defense minister." and 2) the article needs to be more in depth about what is happening in the govt instead of just covering the protests. eg 2023 Israeli judicial reform and these protests should be in the same article since their timelines go hand in hand. --Masem (t) 03:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Concur with Masem, I think this could have made a lot of sense as a blurb with consideration for subsequent Ongoing after time as a blurb. SpencerT•C 04:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree blurb over ongoing, something like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu postpones consideration of judicial overhaul in the wake of mass protests, nableezy - 05:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb. In light of recent developments, I would also support a blurb with a subsequent drop-off to ongoing. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Asteroid 2023 DZ2[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: 2023 DZ2 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Asteroid 2023 DZ2 (pictured) makes a close pass between the Earth and the Moon. (Post)
News source(s): BBC; NPR
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: A near miss this time, it seems, but it will return so it's a reminder of the importance of rocketry and space development. Relevant agencies will be using this as a drill/exercise for planetary defense. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose no significant impact, not visible without good telescopes, etc. Yes, we do need to be aware of the importance of tracking objects that may hit earth, but close misses are not really good ITN stories, since we generally do not post on "what ifs" --Masem (t) 18:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a once a decade close approach by an object this large and (other than Apophis in 2029) these things are never visible without a telescope. -- Kheider (talk) 08:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Apophis will be visible without a telescope IIRC. I think when it does pass by Earth we should post it. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppose near-misses happen frequently. Fdfexoex (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFD. Article seems to fail WP:NASTRO. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Google 2023 DZ2 and look at the news tab instead of assuming. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No you. Reaffirming my suggestion to send to AFD. Close passes like this aren't all that infrequent, and a flurry of sensationalist headlines every time there's one doesn't really add up to GNG for the object in question. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How exactly does this fail WP:NASTRO? Seems to fulfil clause IV. Crusader1096 (message) 23:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we looking at the same #4: "The object was discovered before 1850, prior to the use of astrophotography or automated technology.[note 2]", because that's definitely not fulfilled. The NASTRO fail seems pretty clear...the place where there's some room for disagreement is GNG, but I still feel that it's not satisfied. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Three not smaller* objects got this close or closer since the start of a campaign 25 years ago, to stop missing ones from systemic bias (looking where it's easier to discover an asteroid). *size is how big it'd be if it was the most likely shade of gray cause its light reflection efficiency isn't known beyond "most asteroids are between 5 and 25%". Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think it should be AfD'd, feel free to bring it there. DecafPotato (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, an IP technically can’t create an AFD without an (autoconfirmed?) editor to finish the process. Courcelles (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per @Masem. Crusader1096 (message) 23:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Masem. The Kip (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - NEO passes happen a lot, obviously didn't hit anything, no real reason why we should post it. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2023 (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) Einstein problem[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: Aperiodic tiling (talk · history · tag) and Einstein problem (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The einstein problem is solved by a single shape that tiles a plane without repeating (pictured). (Post)
News source(s): Science News; New Scientist
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Thanks to GenevieveDEon for suggesting this. The maths requires care to define exactly but its visual nature makes it more accessible than most maths breakthroughs and so we should take this opportunity to show our readers the remarkable new hat shape. There are at least two possible target articles and so I've highlighted them both. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Shouldn't "Einstein" be lowercase? DFlhb (talk) 14:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Done, thanks. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - As I mentioned on the main ITN talk page, the discovery is currently only in pre-print, so I don't know that it's been appropriately reviewed. And neither of the two proposed target articles is in good shape. Aperiodic tiling doesn't even link to Einstein problem, even though the latter is clearly about the former. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Science News reports that "While the paper has yet to be peer-reviewed, the experts interviewed for this article agree that the result seems likely to hold up to detailed scrutiny." Formal publication might take months or years and, by then, the result will be well known and the news will be stale. This therefore seems the best window for us to share this development. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's helpful, thank you. If the articles can be improved, I would be inclined to reverse my position. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We always wait on the publication of a peer-reviewed paper for ITN. Masem (t) 15:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't. Just about nothing that appears at ITN is based on a peer-reviewed paper that has been through the ponderous process of academic publishing. Instead, most stories are based on news reports and press releases. For example, see the Afghan earthquake which has just been posted. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For all scientific and medical-based stories (this is one), we expect a peer-reviewed source per SCIRS and MEDRS. Newspapers and the general media are not experts to be able to judge if the results are valid. Masem (t) 18:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the details of a recent earthquake, such as its magnitude, are a scientific matter – that science is seismology. The same applies to other occurrences such as weather (meteorology), space (astronomy and astrophysics), &c. Just about everything is covered in some way by academia but we do not require peer-reviewed papers. What we require is that it's in the news. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a bit of a difference between the occurrence of a massive natural disaster (reported by mainstream news, with immediate and up-to-date facts) and the solving of a long-standing math problem (which still requires peer-review to confirm). The Kip (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The key difference is that insisting on a different level of sourcing for mathematics introduces an arbitrary and systemic bias. It accentuates ITN's tendency to run topics which are recurring, repetitive and routine while shutting out those which are actually new. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, given how math proofs can generally be easily verified by other skilled mathematicians, compared to other scientific fields where the peer-review has to be based on an assessment of the data quality and methods used rather than recreation, expecting a peer-reviewed source for a mathematics proof is absolutely reasonable and within expectations.
Now, in a case like this, where the result is an interesting result but one with little practical application, as opposed to demonstrating, hypothetically, that NP-hard problems can be solved in P-time which would have massive impacts on computing technology, that the news is reporting it prior to a peer-review shows that its more a curiosity than a groundbreaking discovery. So we're not creating a bias here. Masem (t) 13:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at the evidence and do the math. There's 10 nominations at WP:ITN/C currently which are STEM in some way. The only ones which have been posted are those which feature some deaths - the earthquake and tornado. So, that's all that matters in practise. But the trouble is that "if it bleeds, it leads" is a journalistic, tabloid sensibility. ITN is posting sensational stories and snubbing science. That's systemic bias. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It may take a while, but peer review exists for a reason. --WaltClipper -(talk) 14:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is this actually... important? I've read the target articles and sources, and while the problem has existed for a long time and might have applications in material sciences, I'm not convinced (but could be!) this really matters all that much. -- Kicking222 (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Was the proof that pi has infinite digits important? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is material suitable to DYK, not ITN as its not a major scientific breakthrough. --Masem (t) 15:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per @Masem. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[