Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS. Archives of past nominations can be found here.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.

A blurb is a one sentence summary of the news story. An alternate suggestion for the blurb is called an altblurb, and any more suggestions get labelled alt1, alt2, etc. A blurb needs at least one target article, highlighted in bold; reviewers check the quality of that article and whether it is updated, and whether reliable sources demonstrate the significance of the event. Other articles can also be linked. The Ongoing line is for regularly updated articles which cover events that remain in the news over a longer period of time. RD stands for the "recent deaths" line, and can include any living thing whose death was recently announced. In some cases, recent deaths may need additional explanation as provided by a blurb; this is decided by consensus.

Comet C/2022 E3
Comet C/2022 E3

How to nominate an itemEdit

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated).
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
    • Preferably use the template {{ITN candidate}} to nominate the article related to the event in the news. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable secondary source. Press releases are not acceptable. The suggested blurb should be written in simple present tense.
    • Adding an explanation why the event should be posted greatly increases the odds of posting.
  • Please consider alerting editors to the nomination by adding the template {{ITN note}} to the corresponding article's talk page.

Purge this page to update the cache

There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN.

Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template.

HeadersEdit

  • Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.
  • Items can also be marked as (Ready) when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked (Ready), you should remove the mark in the header.

Voicing an opinion on an itemEdit

  • Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.

Please do...Edit

  1. Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
  2. Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. Maybe the previous reviewer has missed a problem, or an identified problem has now been fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes may also help administrators identify items that are ready for promotion to the ITN template on MainPage.
  3. Point out problematic areas in the nominated article and, if appropriate, suggest how to fix them. If you know exactly what to do, by all means, go ahead and fix it as you see fit.

Please do not...Edit

  1. Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  2. Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive.
  3. Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  4. Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. Oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. The criteria can be discussed at the relevant talk page.
  6. Use the discussion section of an item as a forum for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome of a nomination and are potentially disruptive.

Suggesting updatesEdit

A posted ITNC item that needs correcting can be addressed in two ways:

  • For simple updates, such as updated death tolls in a disaster, linking issues, spelling or grammar corrections, or otherwise anything that does not change the intent of the blurb should be discussed at WP:ERRORS in the ITN section.
  • For more complex updates that involve a major change in the blurb's intent, that should be discussed as part of the current ITNC nomination.
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

ArchivesEdit

February 3Edit


February 2Edit

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


RD: K. ViswanathEdit

Article: K. Viswanath (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hindu, Indian Express,
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: Prominent Indian director and recipient of highest Indian cinematic honours. Article looks to be in decent shape. ƬheStrikeΣagle 22:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Support Looks important enough for me. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Importance does not matter at all for RD. Curbon7 (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Lanny PoffoEdit

Article: Lanny Poffo (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Wrestling Observer - Figure Four Online, WWE
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: Wrestler and brother of the Macho Man. Article needs ref work. The Kip (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Richard WoolcottEdit

Article: Richard Woolcott (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Canberra Times
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Article not too good, but at least it is (now) fully referenced Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Support Good condition, ready to be posted. Vriend1917 (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

February 1Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports


(Closed) Tom Brady retires (again)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: Tom Brady (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Tom Brady (pictured), retires from American football. (Post)
News source(s): Tom Brady's Instagram
Credits:
Nominator's comments: 2nd time now. Can he beat Favre? Cheers. WimePocy 14:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm sure this will be the last time. He said so, for real this time.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • By the way, feel free to add more sources as they come in. Cheers. WimePocy 14:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Fool me once... We don'tshouldn't post athlete retirements for this exact reason. Curbon7 (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose thus demonstrating the follies of posting sports retirements. --Masem (t) 14:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the same reason Brady’s retirement was opposed last time. Retirements often aren’t. Status Quo did their farewell tour in 1984. Humbledaisy (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose (again) :D --Tone 14:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose, though I suppose it might start to get notable if he does it about ten times. Black Kite (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support As it is obviously for real this time. We do in fact post sports retirements as we have previously posted Alex Ferguson and Sachin Tendulkar. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
    As I've said before, as soon as Lionel Messi announces his retirement, WP:ITN will bend over backwards to make sure he's given the picture blurb treatment within hours of the announcement, because "association football is a different beast". WaltClipper -(talk) 15:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
    I agree with WaltCip here. Not that I support (or oppose; I know nothing about American football) this nomination, but oppose !votes that oppose "because we don't post retirements" will most probably support Messi's or Ronaldo's "because they're legendary GOATs of the game." The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 15:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
    I'm consistent. When it comes that time, I will still oppose. Curbon7 (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
    Ditto. The only retirement I can remember supporting was Benedict XVI's which was a little different. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
    You know, just because you screw something up once, doesn't mean you're required to screw it up forever. "We did this before so we must do it every time" is a bad rationale for that reason. --Jayron32 15:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
    I don't believe we did "screw up" but you are of course entitled to that opinion. I wanted to correct the assertions above that "we don't do it" in case anyone was misled.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not the sort of stories we should post in the ITN section. Amounts to inconsequential celebrity gossip. --Jayron32 15:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - he already retired once ... he could come out of retirement again. Editor 5426387 (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. We don't post retirements for a lot of reasons. Case in point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose just no, just no, we all know he'll probably come back. he ain't fooling me again. TomMasterRealTALK 16:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose even as someone who adamantly believes that sports retirements are ITN worthy. I think we made a mistake not posting this last time, un-retirement or not, but per the above "fool me once..." comments, I'm not inclined to believe this one lasts and therefore am not going to die on the hill of a "support" here. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose How can we make sure that this time is for real NW1223<Howl at meMy hunts> 16:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Sports retirements are ITN-worthy IMO, but a) Brady has "retired" before, and b) the source given doesn't really prove significance. DecafPotato (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - Per all above PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:00, 1 February 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.

(Posted) Comet C/2022 E3 (ZTF)Edit

Article: C/2022 E3 (ZTF) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​A green comet (pictured) makes its closest approach to the Earth. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Comet C/2022 E3 (ZTF) (pictured) makes its closest approach to Earth
Alternative blurb II: ​Green comet C/2022 E3 (ZTF) (pictured) makes its closest approach to the Earth.
News source(s): Guardian; Independent; NYT;BBC;Al Jazeera
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: It was previously suggested that this should appear at the time of closest approach and that's now. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  • Strong support, post immediately - As consensus has been reached in the previous discussion that we should post now. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong support and support posting immediately due to how time-sensitive this is. Good article, strong coverage today in reliable sources. DFlhb (talk) 10:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. I don't see what has changed since the last nomination a week ago, which ended as no consensus. This comet is not ITNR, it isn't visible to anyone who doesn't have a pair of binoculars (unless they live in an area with no light pollution at all) and knows exactly where to look, and being green isn't unusual. The article is OK but nothing more than that. There has been a bit of media coverage but largely restricted to the science sections. Modest Genius talk 11:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • The previous nomination was not closed; it just scrolled off after there were lots of !votes of "Wait". So, we've waited. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Astronomical items are not required to be ITN/R in order to be newsworthy or ITN-worthy, otherwise nothing would ever get posted except for great comets. It would make for a rather limited pool of science stories. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • @WaltCip: I agree that items don't have to be on ITNR to be posted. I was disagreeing with the 'intr=yes' parameter that was set in the nomination template. Modest Genius talk 17:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • The previous one had a number of people preferring this to be posted on Feb 1, which is today. As one of those people, I strongly support posting immediately. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 12:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Magnitude 5 is pretty bright. It should be visible in the outskirts of major cities, under moonless skies. Perhaps we should include some instructions for viewing in the blurb? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong support posting immediately because it is the closest approach now. - azpineapple (need help? 12:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Neutral – I suggested a wait last time, but that was also because the quality of the article didn't seem up to par yet, and this hasn't changed since. The lack of bare-eye visibility (0.3 AU is quite far away) makes this a somewhat hard sell. It's probably fine to post but none of this makes me particularly excited. I still approve of the main blurb as the optimal choice. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Comets are not near-Earth asteroids, 0.28 AU isn't far if the comet releases enough gas and dust. A comet reached magnitude 3-4 in the 18th century and never even reached 3 AU from Earth or 4 AU from Sun. Halley's Comet would be 4.9 magnitudes brighter than this if both were 1 AU from Sun and observer was thought experimentally on the Sun (the standard apples-to-apples brightness comparison of solar system science because full asteroid is much brighter than thin crescent asteroid and comets obviously get dim very fast as they get further from the Sun (if they get very very close they sometimes even explode and "release all the brightness at once")). And Halley happens every c. 76 years. Hale-Bopp would be even brighter. The 1700s comet would be 13.4 magnitudes brighter. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • It is easily visible under moonless skies, with little light pollution. It's at magnitude 5 right now, which, while not incredibly bright, is still just about visible from my location in the outer suburbs of a city of 14 million people.
    Also, I'm pushing for us to diversify the stories we post from just being changes in heads of state or X tragedy kills Y people PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, though I think the blurb should both say the official comet name and that it is a green comet. I don't think it requires that everyone on earth be able to see it with the naked eye (eg, clearly urban centers have too much background light to do so) but as long as it is some appreciable fraction that have the potential to see it, its a good idea to post. Article appears to be in good shape. --Masem (t) 13:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Proposed alt2. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 14:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
    Support alt2 (or the base blurb). Oppose alt1. DFlhb (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support It was a bit silly that it didn't get posted last week, but c'est la vie. Just because an event is not ITN/R doesn't prevent us from posting if it is particularly newsworthy, as this one is. Curbon7 (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
    Pending quality checks of course. Curbon7 (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support posting immediately, noting that of course if it doesn't get posted today, then there will be no point to posting this as the event will have already come and gone.--WaltClipper -(talk) 14:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - what is the significance of this comet? It has little cultural presence like Halley, etc. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
As @PrecariousWorlds pointed out, we do have to diversify our blurbs a little bit. We haven't had a science-related story at ITN for quite some time now, and this one is receiving pretty good coverage, and the coverage is worldwide for those who love global significance, with sources in the West (CNN BBC) and the Arab World (Alarabiya) reporting on it. The Independent are also covering it live on their website. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 15:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Alright, I guess that's cool. But I do think the blurb needs to do more to establish that this is notable and not just a "diversity candidate" (to appropriate phrasing from the (un)professional world). QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
It's not just about being a diversity candidate, it's about providing interesting stories that viewers of Wikipedia want to read, apart from Depressing Tragedy no. 352. I think astronomical events like these should be ITN:R, as they are In The News. I think we should also post major infrastructure projects as well. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Bestagon PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Support, Posting immediately - per above Editor 5426387 (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: Reasonably significant as far as astronomical news goes and the article is well-cited. Probably should have been posted a few days ago. And while this shouldn't be a factor when considering any individual story, it would be nice to have more science topics at ITN. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
    @Ad Orientem: I think alt2 is better here; it mentions both the official name and the fact that it's green. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 15:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
    The link is to the article with the full title. I doubt that the majority of our readers will be that worked up over the actual name. It's the green comet thing that is going to get their attention. That said, if there is a consensus to change the blurb, or another admin thinks that alt II is better, go for it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm pleased to see that a consensus was reached and that this has been posted. It provides desperately-needed balance to the current gamut of ITN stories which amount to four disasters and an election. I hope that this reflects a sea change towards lessening our overall significance restrictions.--WaltClipper -(talk) 16:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Oppose, numerous astronomical bodies, including comets, pass by the Earth every single day. The visibility of this single one is not specifically notable. I would understand if this was say, a Comet Hale–Bopp type event, where the comet is like that of a great comet. At the moment, I don't see the value in pushing this nomination to diversify the coverage of news stories regarding disasters either. Other folks have brought up the magnitude and distance from the Earth that I concur with.Ornithoptera (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC))
    This is the only comet visible to the naked eye right now, probably for months to come. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
    Not to make it a number-game, but only two editors have made the argument of diversifying. That is not why 7 others !voted in support. Curbon7 (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
    Just to be clear, I never intended diversifying to be my main argument. The main argument was that reliable sources were in fact treating it as a big deal. Diversifying was intended to be a "pushing factor" for those on the fence to lean support. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 04:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
0.28 AU isn't far if the comet is bright. A comet reached magnitude 3-4 in the 18th century and never even reached 3 AU from Earth or 4 AU from Sun. Halley's Comet would be 4.9 magnitudes brighter than this if both were 1 AU from Sun and observer was thought experimentally on the Sun (the standard apples-to-apples brightness comparison of solar system science because full asteroid is much brighter than thin crescent asteroid and comets obviously get dim very fast as they get further from the Sun (if they get very very close they sometimes even explode and "release all the brightness at once")). And Halley happens every c. 76 years. Hale-Bopp would be even brighter. The 1700s comet would be 13.4 magnitudes brighter. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC
  • Noting here that there are several comments at WP:ERRORS regarding the "green comet" wording. ansh.666 18:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Switched to Alt II per multiple requests. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I voiced support for alt2, but prefer User:Ravenpuff's newer version: "C/2022 E3 (ZTF) (pictured), a comet with a green coma, makes its closest approach to the Earth".
It's nice, and the linked term "coma" will certainly stimulate curiosity in our readers, which is what ITN does at its best. I'd be grateful if editors who already posted here would voice support or opposition to Ravenpuff's version. DFlhb (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Concur. Curbon7 (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I support this version, for the record. It sounds much more scientific and interesting. Though it is not entirely clear to me why this event has found its way to the Main Page. There are approximately 10 long-period comets crossing the Earth's orbit every year. --TadejM my talk 19:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
They're usually dimmer. It's also been an unusually long time since the last great comet besides 2006 or 7 (I forgot) which was only naked eye at dusk to most North Hemisphere native English speakers for a few days and not at all after dusk (at least in my extreme light pollution). And I guess some might've also called the magnitude ~2.5 2007 or 2008 comet great, it was naked eye in extreme light pollution but not very impressive there especially if you're not into "faint fuzzy "star" with no naked eye tail". Hale-Bopp of 1997 was the last truly impressive non-twilight one. With that said 22 E3 or better comets seem to happen every few years at worst. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
I Beg you to remove "green comet" from the top. It's a nonsensical moniker applied to it by media that knows nothing about astronomy- as commonly used as it is, it is meaningless at best and misleading at worst. Every comet that has ever graced the sky has been green- saying it's a green comet is like referring to space as "the black space" or the sky as "the blue sky". Sincerely, an actual astronomer. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Is the gas ever greenish cyan/cyanish green? Would that still count as green? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
This ^. We should change the blurb immediately. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Here is what the comet astronomer Matthew Knight says about the comet's color: "The color of C/2022 E3 (ZTF) isn’t unique: Most comets that have higher gas contents tend to yield C2, so they “are generally going to look green to our eye,” Knight says. That said, only a subset of comets happen to make it as close to Earth as C/2022 E3 (ZTF) will get, so it’ll provide an uncommonly good view of a comet’s emerald hue."[1] --TadejM my talk 00:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Meteorologists refer to blue skies all the time. They are much prettier than white or grey skies. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Oppose per Ornithoptera. Completely insignificant.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
    Well, shoot, we better pull it and put the more significant Azerbaijani embassy shooting back up. WaltClipper -(talk) 17:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
    Your assertion is not backed up by the evidence at hand; reliable sources do discuss the comet in a manner that plainly indicates it is significant. Your assertion doesn't make the sources go away. --Jayron32 17:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

January 31Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


RD: Angel AlcalaEdit

Article: Angel Alcala (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Manila Bulletin
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: Filipino biologist and national scientist. Curbon7 (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  • Support well-cited. Tails Wx 05:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: David DurenbergerEdit

Article: David Durenberger (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [2]
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Support Well-cited and holistic enough for our purposes. Curbon7 (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Shanti Bhushan ‎Edit

Article: Shanti Bhushan ‎ (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Bar and Bench,India Today
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Indian Ex Minister and lawyer Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Not yet ready A few CN templates. Date/place of birth is uncited, and entire early/non-political life are missing. The prose in political career is bare, but ok enough for our purposes. Prose in the activism section is fine, except for the 2010 contempt charge which needs updating. Curbon7 (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

January 30Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

  • British sports-fashion retailer JD Sports says that the stored data of 10 million customers "may have been accessed" in a cyberattack, including names, addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, order details, and the final four digits of debit card numbers. (BBC News)

Health and environment

International relations


RD: Bobby BeathardEdit

Article: Bobby Beathard (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Times
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Could use some work. Pro Football Hall of Famer. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Charles SilversteinEdit

Article: Charles Silverstein (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies (Twitter)
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: The American psychologist who got homosexuality removed from the DSM. Curbon7 (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Ann McLaughlin KorologosEdit

Article: Ann McLaughlin Korologos (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): WashPo
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: Former U.S. Secretary of Labor. Some source work is needed. Curbon7 (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Ouyang PingkaiEdit

Article: Ouyang Pingkai (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): qq
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: Chinese academic and party official. A bit short and over-reliant on one source. Curbon7 (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Will SteffenEdit

Article: Will Steffen (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Canberra Times
Credits:
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Climate scientist. Article looks okay to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Support Short but adequate and well sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Article is well-cited and holistic enough for our purposes. Curbon7 (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 05:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Cindy WilliamsEdit

Article: Cindy Williams (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [3]
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: She died on Jan 25, it was just reported today – Muboshgu (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

  • :Support once Filmography section is properly sourced. Mooonswimmer 01:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Not Ready Significant gaps in referencing, mostly around the tables. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Not ready {{verification}} tag at the top of article, needs some sourcing. Tails Wx 05:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Adams (drummer)Edit

Article: John Adams (drummer) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Fox8, Cleveland.com
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Known to many who follow American baseball and everyone in Cleveland, Ohio. Is a Good ArticleEvergreenFir (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Comment Well-cited, but there are significant prose issues. Will give a full breakdown in a bit. Curbon7 (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
    I don't want this to seem over-scrupulous, as we of course don't need the articles to be great or even necessarily good for RD; however, they have to meet a basic threshold of quality. The article is mostly fine for holisticity (wish there was a bit more to his non-superfan life, but it's understandable that sources may not cover this) and sourcing (his date of birth and education are uncited; these are more pressing, as you'll know we can't have uncited material on the main page).
    The main issue here is the prose. This is far from the (very basic) level of quality we expect and needs to either go through WP:GAR to be delisted or needs a ground-up rewrite. To say the article's tone is very informal is an understatement; the entire thing reads like an article on baseball.wikia. That is to say, it doesn't read like an encyclopedia article, it reads like a fan write-up, chock with inside baseball ("making him the only fan for whom the team dedicated a bobble head day"??), weasel words, and general poor phrasing. It is hard to explain because there's not necessarily one specific thing wrong that I can point to, it's kind of just the entire article. Curbon7 (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
    @Curbon7 I have been going through the article and making some edits along the same lines. I think the problem here is that the information in an article is going to be shaped by the information available in the sources, and generally speaking it's going to be Cleveland publications writing about him with a very casual tone. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
    Most of my concerns have been addressed, and the article is much better now! Just waiting for a source on the DoB. Curbon7 (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
    Support I've swapped out the DoB with his birth year based on age at death (DoB is commented out so it is still available if a source is found). Curbon7 (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
    • I've found a source for his birth date and added it back in.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
        Curbon7 (talk) 02:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support (provided date of birth is correctly cited or removed) – I think the quality of the prose is perfectly fine for a front-page feature like this. It goes into details that other encyclopedic articles are unlikely to contain, and therefore can feel informal or odd, but I think it is acceptable at worst and charming at best. Article is well-cited and beautifully detailed, including his personal life (I'm not sure what else Curbon would want from that section (it lists school, marriage, occupation, volunteer work, and health issues). I think this is a lovely feature! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support This has Good Article status. Have we reached the point of arguing about quality for publishing a Good Article to RD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenmelken (talkcontribs) 13:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
    Articles have to meet WP:ITNQUALITY, even if they're Good Articles, as you'll know GAs can diminish in quality over time. Curbon7 (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
    Kenmelken, this article was promoted to GA in 2012. Alot of bad writing can happen in 11 years. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
    11 years?! No, no, 2012 was last year, right? :( --RockstoneSend me a message! 22:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment Someone has updated the article after his death to replace Indians with Guardians in many places. I understand the intent, but it is now factually wrong in many places due to the time frame in which he was active. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
    • I have fixed this. SpencerT•C 05:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Appropriate depth of coverage, referenced. Marking ready. SpencerT•C 05:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Bobby HullEdit

Article: Bobby Hull (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Chicago Sun-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: A lot of work is needed sourcing-wise. Mooonswimmer 15:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Support: pbp 20:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Not yet ready As stated by the nom, the article is still heavily under-sourced. Curbon7 (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Peshawar mosque bombingEdit

Article: 2023 Peshawar mosque bombing (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: A suicide blast in a mosque killed 59 people and more than 170 injured in Peshawar, Pakistan. (Post)
Alternative blurb: A suicide blast in a mosque kills 59 people and injures more than 170 in Peshawar, Pakistan.
News source(s): Reuters, Al Jazeera, DAWN
Credits:

 Ainty Painty (talk) 09:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Not ready – Love an article where 80% of the length is a navigation template. This stub needs a lot of work to become suitable for the frontpage. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. Article has been updated and is well referenced. I think it's already fit for ITN. It will continue to be updated as new information arrives. Very sad news. :( MSN12102001 (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. There's a "failed verification" tag that needs fixing, and the article could stand for more expansion. --Jayron32 13:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Article is ready, definitely significant. Proposing altblurb -Azpineapple (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support per @Azpineapple Editor 5426387 (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Article is definitely not ready yet, with all of its one-sentence paragraphs, but with how the death count is spiking up I'm fairly certain it will be posted soon. Very big tragedy.. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - about 2k characters of cited prose is long enough for DYK, and it's also long enough to meet the quality requirements of ITN, IMO. Levivich (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
    Altblurb is better. Levivich (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - Notability is obvious, given 40+ deaths. I've also expanded the article and I think it's now good enough. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 15:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support because the article is good enough & the death toll is very high. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support article is good, and a lot of deaths. The death count makes it notable. TomMasterRealTALK 16:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - As per above comments. Sherenk1 (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Support alt blurb. First blurb is not grammatical. Notable for sure, article quality is good as is. There are a couple things on the article that need citations, but the article is being actively edited so I assume these will be fixed by the time of posting. e.b. (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Question: Do reliable sources provide any indication that this is having national or regional consequences? Has this affected the political climate in Pakistan in any way? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb The Kip (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Posted Went with a variation on the altblurb. "Suicide blast" sounds sensational and a bit weird. Changed it to the terminology 'in the article' and said "suicide bombing". --Jayron32 18:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

January 29Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


RD: Naba DasEdit

Article: Naba Das (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Indian Express
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Indian MLA who was killed (possibly assassinated) by a police officer. Prose and sourcing both need significant work. Curbon7 (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gero StorjohannEdit

Article: Gero Storjohann (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): FAZ and many others
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: German politician, member of federal parliament from 2002 until his death (however in intensive care from April 2022), worked for traffic and other matters. Most facts were there, but referencing needed work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Support Well-cited, and more-or-less holistic enough for our purposes. A minor point of issue is that Kreisvorsitzender is not defined or linked, but this one point isn't that big a deal in the big picture. Curbon7 (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
    Please help. It's not linked in German. "Vorsitzender" would literally be president, and "Kreis" means districts. Wiktionary has Kreisverband for the district level of some organisations, here the CDU party. Is there anything comparable in English, and if, should that be used? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
    I've parenthesized the word in Deutsch and preceded it with "district president"; this can hypothetically be reversed (parenthesize the English word) if you want. Excellent work as usual   Curbon7 (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Satis. Grimes2 (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 05:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Handball Men's World CupEdit

Article: 2023 World Men's Handball Championship (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Denmark wins the World Men's Handball Championship, defeating France in the final. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Not sure if there is a separate article on the final match. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 12:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Oppose Basically a table farm with very little prose. Not really main page ready. --Jayron32 13:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality It's ITNR, but the article is almost entirely tables. The Kip (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Not ready. Unfortunately there is no prose on the games whatsoever, not even a description of the final. There needs to be at least a few paragraphs describing what happened at the tournament - tables are not enough. Modest Genius talk 17:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: Masood Sharif Khan KhattakEdit

Article: Masood Sharif Khan Khattak (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): DAWN
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.

 Ainty Painty (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Not yet ready A number of CN tags. The other sources need to be spot-checked as well, as I have low confidence in them. Too many section headers, need to be condensed down. Article is almost holistic; expansion is needed on his 1996 imprisonment and his career between 1999 and 2009. If available, details on his army career from 1978 to 1986 and his life from 2009 until his death is desirable, but not necessary, as I understand sources may not cover those details. Curbon7 (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: Barrett StrongEdit

Article: Barrett Strong (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Soul Tracks
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: While the article likely needs editing, Strong is best known for singing Motown Records first hit, Money (That's What I Want). But as a songwriter, also in the Songwriter's Hall of Fame, he co wrote Motown classics I Heard It Through the Grapevine, "War" (The Temptations song), Just My Imagination, and Papa Was A Rollin' StoneTheCorriynial (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Oppose Not yet ready – the discography section is tagged for clean up and also needs more references.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Annie WerschingEdit

Article: Annie Wersching (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Deadline
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 referencing work is needed. Curbon7 (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

2023 Men's FIH Hockey World CupEdit

Article: 2023 Men's FIH Hockey World Cup (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In field hockey, Germany defeats Belgium in a penalty shoot-out to win the 2023 Men's FIH Hockey World Cup. (Post)
News source(s): [4]
Credits:

Nominator's comments: - Rushtheeditor talk 11:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Oppose It's not an ITNR so the article should be of high quality, but there's very little prose involved including what is needed for championship finales. --Masem (t) 16:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose on both notability and quality. Not on ITNR, doesn't seem to be excessively popular, and most importantly the article is almost entirely tables with little to no prose. The Kip (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality Just because it's not on ITNR doesn't mean it can't be posted, and as the top event in field hockey, it has at least a claim to significance. That said, as stated above, the entire article is composed almost entirely of tables with little in the way of prose. Curbon7 (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose For above reasons. Needs significant expansion to be on the front page. e.b. (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Not ready. There's no point in even discussing the significance when the article has no prose on the games. There need to be a few referenced paragraphs explaining what happened at the tournament - tables are not enough. Modest Genius talk 17:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hazel McCallionEdit

Article: Hazel McCallion (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.thestar.com/News/Obituary/2023/01/29/hazel-mccallion-longtime-mississauga-mayor-dies-at-age-101.html
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Notable politician and centenarian. Some citations still needed. Flibirigit (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Support - Article is fine for a notable person. Alex-h (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, article looks like it should be ready for posting. Ornithoptera (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, per above. Rushtheeditor (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - per above. Nfitz (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • A few tagged references needed. Stephen 23:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Done. Rushtheeditor (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Article is now fully cited, but some bare URLs need a template. Flibirigit (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

2023 Iran drone attacksEdit

Article: 2023 Iran drone attacks (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Iran reported attack in military plant of Isfahan (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Iran reports several drone strikes within its territory
Alternative blurb II: ​The Iranian defense ministry reports a failed drone attack on an ammunition factory in Isfahan, amidst other explosions and fires in the country.
News source(s): Al Arabiya, United Press International, Fox News and CNN
Credits:

Nominator's comments: I know the article is stub but it is a major news. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 03:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Wait "A blast recorded in defence ministry which caused minor damage" isn't the clearest English sentence, but it certainly sounds like the opposite of major news to me. The blowback could be huge, especially if bolstered by a video. But you never know how people will react to provocation, the supposed battle to come could also just be one of words. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    I think it is a major news because this attack '''can''' start a war between two countries. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 06:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    It wouldn't be just two, in theory. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    WP:CRYSTAL. The Kip (talk) 07:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Wait The impact of the attack, and its consequences, are yet to be seen. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 06:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    Already CNN, Fox and Al Arabiya can't agree on which words from IRNA's tweet to replace with which of whose choosing. Are they drones or "small drones"? Them or "the drones"? One was hit by or "struck"? Props to UPI for the relative straight dope, just omitting parts, nice and objective-like. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Wait - Per the above PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Wait - Rumours are flying; solid news is still scarce. It currently seems like both Western world media and Iran want to hohum this. Without solid sources, WP is not going to override that. There doesn't seem to be any article on this in fa.Wikipedia - at least according to Wikidata. Boud (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment - Israel did it, it's being reported. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 16:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Wait a few days to see if more information is made available, but definite support if further reporting increases in confidence that it's an intentional attack by another country. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Wait we do not know the death amount, and damage these drones have done. TomMasterRealTALK 23:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    No dead, no wounded. Both "sides" agree on that. Damage is more subjective, quantitative not qualitative, and making things seem better and worse than they are is inherent in political news...or entertainment news...human interests, overall. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose for want of actual damage. Also, little reporting internationally on this (since, apparently, that's now a criteria). --RockstoneSend me a message! 02:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak support an event of this nature ought to be postable, but news coverage of it appears to be dying down. Banedon (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

2023 Australian OpenEdit

 
Aryna Sabalenka
Article: 2023 Australian Open (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In tennis, Aryna Sabalenka (pictured) wins the Women's Singles and Novak Djokovic wins the Men's Singles at the Australian Open. (Post)
News source(s): BBC - Women's singles, BBC - Men's singles
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.

 45.112.200.3 (talk) 08:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Note Prose summaries are needed for the singles finals in the main Open article. Joofjoof (talk) 09:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Lacks prose for the matches (Hopefull fares better than last year's).—Bagumba (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Support once expanded. Individual events need prose descriptions. See the 2021 event for a model. With this win, Djokovic is now tied for the most men's Grand Slam titles and holds the record for most individual titles at the Australian Open (10), perhaps these records could be worked into a blurb? e.b. (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Not ready. Neither the main tournament article, nor those on the men's and women's singles, has a prose summary of the events. There need to be a few referenced paragraphs explaining what happened at the tournament - tables are not enough. Modest Genius talk 17:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

January 28Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


(Posted) RD: Melitta MuszelyEdit

Article: Melitta Muszely (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Online Merker
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Austrian soprano, legendary as the 4 loves of Hoffmann in Berlin in 1958 (pictured by GRuban). There's more detail in the obit, but I'm too tired. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  • I added that detail now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Amru DaulayEdit

Article: Amru Daulay (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Detik
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: Indonesian politician and ruler of Mandailing Natal Regency for more than a decade. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 18:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Support Appears to be acceptable length and adequately sourced. A lot of the references are in Indonesian but I'm going to AGF here and assume they are reliable in the absence of evidence to the contrary. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Well-cited and holistic. The last sentence ("Prior to his death, Amru had suffered stroke for four years") needs to be re-jigged though. Curbon7 (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. @Jeromi Mikhael: any chance you could add links to the article elsewhere to other relevant article(s) on Wikipedia? It appears that it only appears in Deaths in 2023 and Portal:Indonesia from what I can tell. SpencerT•C 05:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lisa LoringEdit

Article: Lisa Loring (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Hollywood Reporter
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: Actress best remembered as Wednesday Adams from the original TV series. Article is short but in decent shape. Ad Orientem (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Support looks fine. MyriadSims (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Appears to be well-cited and holistic enough for our purposes. Curbon7 (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 05:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

RD: Phil ColesEdit

Article: Phil Coles (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.olympics.com.au/news/the-aoc-mourns-the-passing-of-phil-coles-am/
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Australian Olympic canoeist, sports administrator, and member of the International Olympic Committee for almost 30 years. HiLo48 (talk) 04:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Not yet ready Article is well-cited, but is quite short of being considered holistic and is hardly updated to reflect his death. If available, details should be added about his life before becoming an Olympian, his competition in the 1960 and 1968 Olympics, and his life after 2002. A primary example is the quote: "He was key to getting an Australian Olympic team to the Olympic Games Moscow 1980 against all requests for a boycott"; this is a key biographical detail that is not mentioned at all in the prose besides that condolence. The article also makes no mention of his death besides one paragraph of condolences (but again does not explicitly say he died on such and such date in such and such place); as such, I don't think it meets the updated requirement. The article doesn't obviously need to be GA-level, but it can't be a glorified stub either. Curbon7 (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

RD: Tom VerlaineEdit

Article: Tom Verlaine (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York 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: Lots of citations needed, will be working on it Mooonswimmer 01:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Not yet ready Much better than when nominated, but still missing a significant number of sources. Curbon7 (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Czech presidential electionEdit

 
Petr Pavel
Article: 2023 Czech presidential election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Petr Pavel (pictured) is elected as President of the Czech Republic. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Petr Pavel (pictured) is elected as President of the Czech Republic, defeating Andrej Babiš in the runoff.
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Petr Pavel has won the race according to projections and early results. Well PM is the one in charge which does not make this ITNR, but the president holds significant appointment and foreign policy power. President Zeman overused his powers, making the presidency pretty powerful. Very watched in Europe by the news and many observers. BastianMAT (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)744cody (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Not ready as article needs to be updated. Added ITN/R label. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 14:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    Ok I just looked at Wikipedia:ITN/R and I'm not very sure now whether or not this qualifies as ITN/R, so I'll remove the label. I'll still support on notability even if not ITN/R, but the article is not yet ready. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 14:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    This definitely counts as ITN/R, I've updated the template. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 16:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    @The Bestagon check now, it's still 99.99% reporting (there's always a few problem wards that take forever) but the main figures (58-42 and turnout over 70) are staying where they are and are already being reported in RS. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 16:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Support now that the article has been updated enough. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 05:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - both election and bio articles look good to me as of now. Levivich (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. A presidential election by a popular vote should certainly count as ITN/R, even for countries where the president holds limited power. If our ITN/R guidelines say something else, they should be changed/clarified. In any case, support this item on notability. Both bolded articles appear to be in sufficiently good shape for posting. Nsk92 (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak support This is a decently significant election, and it probably should qualify for being a successful candidate. However, it should be noted how few powers the Czech president really has, the impact on the country because of this election is likely to be minimal. Also, I believe the alternative blurb would be better to be used. Quinby (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    Changes in head of state are WP:ITNR, so it doesn't matter if you personally consider it significant or not. Curbon7 (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    No they are not. Read the criteria again. --RockstoneSend me a message! 20:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    Changes in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government, in those countries which qualify under the criteria above, as listed at List of current heads of state and government... President of Czech Republic is the head of state and thus does administer the executive office of the state, plus he is the commander in chief of the armed forces, another executive position. Heads of state are ITNR. Levivich (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    But he does not administer the executive; the head of government does. The monarch in the UK is the head of state; but he is not a member of the executive and does not administer it. --RockstoneSend me a message! 20:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    Note for admins (cc @Tone), the file in the suggestion has questions surrounding its potential copyright. I'd suggest File:Gen. Petr Pavel (2018) (cropped).jpg should be used instead, as is on the 2023 election page. Quinby (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. I was looking for this on the front page.--2601:C4:C300:A210:7836:446C:8BFA:F5CE (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose -- This is not ITN/R, as the President of the Czech Republic is not the head of government. ITN/R says: "Changes in the holder of the office which administer the executive". The President of the Czech Republic does not administer the executive, the Prime Minister does. Switching from ITN/R yes to no. I do however see discussion of this in the news, and the fact that he was a former general means there is something more notable here than "new President". --RockstoneSend me a message! 20:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Elections of the Heads of State like the Czech president are not ITNR. This doesn't prevent it from being included in ITN, it wouldn't be the first time. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Note that the last two Czech presidential elections in 2013 and 2018 were both tagged as ITN/R. Has there been a recent discussion which changed this? – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    There was a discussion in 2021 that defined which kinds of transitions are ITNR. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    I think there was a more long drawn out discussion than that one but I'm too lazy to look for it. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - The President in Czechia is far more powerful than ceremonial leaders you see in many parliamentary democracies, even holding veto powers similar to the USA. This is a major change - I see no reason to not post this, especially given the international coverage. Nfitz (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • This is almost ready, I'd just like to see some more about reactions, then I can post. --Tone 21:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    @Tone: Just added a paragraph about domestic reactions to that section – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Supporty worty - Per the above statements PrecariousWorlds (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Altblurb looks nice PrecariousWorlds (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, obviously Both articles are in good shape and seems like a significant election which has European-wide consequences (mostly on the Babis aspect). Curbon7 (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Article is in good shape. Internationally covered. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support In a normal living or dead person's article, an unsourced paragraph revolving around a claim like In January 1993, his unit was sent to evacuate a French military base, where French soldiers were under siege by Serbian troops would be unacceptable, but this is an elected politician we're talking about here, the sort of person who doesn't even need to meet GNG. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    Just FYI the citations for that part are at the end of the next paragraph – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    Better than nowhere. Thanks for finding them. Still, you wouldn't see Sylvia Syms or Tom Verlaine get off so easy. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Posting. I am bolding just the election article, some paragraphs in Pavel's article could do with source improvement. --Tone 08:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    I think that this pic is much better, as the posted one is somewhat dim. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    I like how the current one doesn't have a gigantic and irrelevant NATO logo in it. Not knocking NATO, but the Czech people have very little people power there. This guy here (who looks bright enough to me) is the guy they more or less chose to lead the way. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
    Pavel was Chairman of the NATO Military Committee from 2015 to 2018, so he had a connection to NATO. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
    Indeed. It's a fine picture for his article, just irrelevant to this election. He probably wasn't elected in the currently pictured shirt, either, but that draws way less attention to itself. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Blurb: Tyre Nichols and ensuing unrestEdit

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: Killing of Tyre Nichols (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Protests erupt across the United States, including in Memphis, Tennessee, following the release of footage of the killing of Tyre Nichols during an altercation with Memphis police (Post)
Alternative blurb: Protests erupt across the United States, including in Memphis, following the release of footage of an altercation with Memphis police before the killing of Tyre Nichols.
Alternative blurb II: ​Video of the killing of Tyre Nichols is released, leading to protests in the United States.
Alternative blurb III: ​The killing of Tyre Nichols leads to protests in the United States.
Alternative blurb IV: ​Video of the events leading to the killing of Tyre Nichols leads to protests in the United States.
Alternative blurb V: ​In the United States, five police officers are arrested and protests erupt following the killing of Tyre Nichols.
Alternative blurb VI: ​Five police officers are arrested and protests erupt following the killing of Tyre Nichols in Memphis, USA.
News source(s): [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Renominating as the footage was released and the protests have already begun Knightoftheswords281 17:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment Regardless of whether or not this meets the significance threshold (which I would assume it does), all three bolded articles have pretty fundamental issues when it comes to sourcing, holisticity, and possibly WP:BLPCRIME. Curbon7 (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    I'd also like to point out that there is an ongoing discussion about merging the first two targets. This should be resolved before posting, assuming that consensus develops that the item is notable for IT. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 06:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Caution I'm not a BLPCRIME extremist, and there is nothing wrong with noting the charges against high-profile murder suspects. But you can't say they killed him yet, as the current blurb does. Not allowed, anyway, it's prejudicial. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    Changed per WP:BLPCRIME Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    Now it's inaccurate, since he died a few days later, but it's better as far as I'm concerned. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose as currently written. There don't appear to have been 'riots' - our own article says one protestor, at one protest, was arrested for jumping on and damaging a police car. The editorial bias involved in regarding that as 'riots' is pretty stark. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    Changed Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose again. Police abuse in the US is routine and this is not a local newspaper. Not serious riots with international interest/impact. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    The coverage this is getting is way beyond "local newspaper", or we wouldn't be here. And "international impact" has never been an ITN criteria. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    So were the protests in Northern Ireland, but we posted those. --RockstoneSend me a message! 20:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Doesn't seem to meet the standard of global significance that seems to be demanded for ITN these days. 2A02:C7F:2CE3:4700:D111:9D08:A092:825C (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not out here demanding global significance. National news can be well worth including. But this is a developing story, and the current framing (not to mention the premature fork into three articles) is unhelpful. I think we need to wait and see for a bit. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Opposed - Purely internal US matter, and no evidence of outsized or extraordinary impact or consequence. Not notable for the vast majority of English speakers. If ITN started featuring US police abuse, it'd be able to feature nothing else. Melmann 11:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    We started a few years ago, and didn't go that nuts with it, still mostly crazy about elections and reelections. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    I don't think 'purely internal matter' is a knock-down argument in cases like this. An internal matter can be worthy of ITN if it's big enough. But I don't think this is, yet, and attempts to talk it up with words like 'riot' are counter-productive. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    The "only affects one country" argument has been essentially deprecated because of how poor it is. Curbon7 (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    Can we PLEASE STOP using arguments like "this is an internal matter"? What part of the admonishment in the rules above that say "Please do not oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive" are people failing to read? -- RockstoneSend me a message! 20:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Wait - This is only Day 1. If this turns out to cause widespread unrest like in 2020, this could be posted. Wait to see where this goes. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Neutral but this whole demand for global significance is silly. Nothing in ITN requires that an item be globally significant to be posted. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    I think many tend to immediately discount US stories as a sort of "counter culture" to how American-centric the internet can be at times, but the USA is so central to global institutions and orders, domestic politics essentially become international from the get-go. Something like this can have far-reaching effects PrecariousWorlds (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Wait per PrecariousWorlds, but I don't think that opposing for the lack of global significance is valid. In fact, a lot of WP:ITN/R items lack any global significance, but are still considered perfectly notable. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 12:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Wait Nothing yet of the scale of the George Floyd protests, in terms of both scale and violence levels. Could escalate but premature to do that now. --Masem (t) 13:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - top international news for the third straight day. Nationwide protests last night. More protests planned tonight. ITN stale. There are so many nominations we could be posting right now, but nah, let's just update once a month because "global significance". Levivich (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Top? Where? _-_Alsor (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    • BBC, Le Monde, El Pais, are three I just checked. Yesterday I posted stories from those three that were the top then. Levivich (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
      • Still in BBC, Le Monde, El Pais, and all US news, for the fourth straight day. Levivich (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless it escalates into a George Floyd level movement or if riots take place. There are more significant examples of ongoing civil unrest in Bangladesh, Ghana, Haiti, Lebanon, Spain, Sudan, and Tunisia, among others. The Tyre Nichols unrest is very minor overall, certainly not significant enough for ITN. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Expecting 'George Floyd level' protests should not be really a criteria here. --Mhhossein talk 04:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - world-wide news, and this nonsense about international impact is just that, nonsense. We have a an entrenched contingent at ITN that refuses to allow what is widely covered world-wide to appear because it happened in the United States. What pray tell was the international impact of 2022 St Helier explosion. But things that are widely covered across the world, proving the lie in the claim that there is no international interest, cannot be included for reasons that the guidelines to this page expressly say are not valid. Please do not item 2: Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. These opposes should be tossed out wholesale, and this place needs an overhaul to actually include what is provably widely covered material on the front pages of news sources around the world. Front page of Reuters, BBC, Le Monde, El Pais, Al-Jazeera (Arabic). It is bs that a set of users have effectively claimed ITN as a member of the EU. It doesnt have to matter to you if this is in the news. It is however in the news, it is widely covered, around the world, and it should be posted here. nableezy - 15:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    We are an encyclopedia that covers a wide range of topics, and not just a US/UK news ticker, which is what happens if you want to follow only the breadth of coverage of a topic as you suggest. That's why we repeat that we are not a news ticker and not simply a mirror of what happens on the front pages of major papers. If you want to work in that space, that's what Wikinews is for, not an encyclopedia. Masem (t) 16:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    That has not been true no matter how many times you have repeated it without basis. Wikipedia is not a news ticker. In the news is literally about directing our readers to topics they have seen, wait for it, in the news. If you dont want to cover things in the news then go help out at DYK, or at FAC, or on this day. This however remains the portion of the main page meant to help our readers find our coverage on the things that are widely covered, once again all together now, in the news. nableezy - 17:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    That's not what ITN says, it is to show quality articles on topics that happen to be in the news. Being in the news is a necessary but not sufficient element prior to posting. We are still selective because this is the front page of an encyclopedia and we need to strive to avoid the media's systematic bias against most topics that are not directly US or UK related. We want a broad selection of topics, not the narrow selection that "following the news headlines" would generate. It should also be obvious that not every major world trending news headline is the basis for a WP article. All that is that ITN is tuned to capturing encyclopedia topics, not following the news. Masem (t) 02:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    Topics are encyclopedia topics by virtue of having an encyclopedia article about them. If you feel they are not encyclopedic then you should be arguing for their deletion. Is anybody seriously arguing this is not an encyclopedic topic? But we must not be reading the same page. WP:ITN says its purpose is to: To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news. And despite your admonishment that I should instead look to Wikinews, what it actually says about that is Unlike Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews, Wikipedia is not an online newspaper and does not accept original works of journalism or first-hand reports. However, many Wikipedians are motivated to create and update encyclopedic articles of timely interest. ITN originated in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, when entries were created and put on the Main Page within minutes of the attacks. The entries led to an infusion of interest by editors in creating a Main Page section that linked to articles providing readers the context behind the news This is not about producing original works of journalism, it is about directing our readers to our encyclopedia articles about topics they are likely to be searching for because they are in the news. nableezy - 04:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    But we are still talking encyclopedic articles, not topics that the news media feel is important. We're talking content featured on the main page, so it should represent some of out best quality encyclopedic content. And unless we work against media systematic bias, we will end up never featuring topics that are good quality articles outside the English-speaking world while focusing too much on relatively common and repeating events that the news media love to focus on. Masem (t) 15:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    If your standard is that we are not a UK news ticker... then why did we post so much internal UK news last year? --RockstoneSend me a message! 20:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    Youre confusing factions here. Masem isnt one of the editors who reflexively supports anything UK related and opposes anything US related. He does however have these very longstanding and, in my opinion, very wrong ideas on some things related to what the standard for inclusion here should be, which as best as I can tell is either being ITNR or having some wide-ranging impact on several countries, and some other quirks related to his reading of BLP and DUE, but you are barking up the wrong tree with that question to him. But there are editors here who would have voted against including the assassination of MLK here as racist violence against Black people is common in America, and this one man did not have any world-wide impact, so include in RD, but when the riots start potentially blurb. nableezy - 21:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    And how many times did we post last year about news in the USA? _-_Alsor (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    Oh hey, theres one. nableezy - 21:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    Not as often as we posted about news in the UK, actually. We even posted about the riots in Northern Ireland last year, and the fact that Sinn Féin won in the Northern Ireland parliament; even though Northern Ireland is not a sovereign state, and the riots were insignificant. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 00:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    The USA is so central to global institutions and orders, domestic politics essentially become international from the get-go. Something like this can have far-reaching effects PrecariousWorlds (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    I agree that domestic politics often have international implications due to the fact that the US is the world's sole superpower, but at the same time, there are domestic events that happen in the US that while important, don't warrant a blurb. Great example: the 2022 Florida Gubernatorial Election saw Ron DeSantis win in a landslide; while his victory annoyed and upset me greatly (since I live in Florida) and has important implications at both the state and national levels (Ron DeSantis is probably going to try to run in 2024), the event is not worthy of ITN. --RockstoneSend me a message! 00:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    Although I agree that the "global impact" arguments are invalid, we should still wait as the level of the protests so far is nowhere near to the George Floyd protests, for example. (Note that GF should not be the standard for protests, but there has not been any of the unrest or chaos that would make these protests more "postable". Until then, they're just another protest movement.) The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 16:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    Do you realize the GF protests were the largest and longest lasting BLM protests in history? Why does that have to reach that level to be ITN? Why is multi-day international coverage and nationwide protests not enough, it also has to be record-breaking? Levivich (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    I literally said that GF should not be the standard. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 16:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    Yet you also said it's nowhere near, and that it's just another protest movement unless there is unrest and chaos. Think about what you're saying: nationwide BLM protests receiving international coverage is not news unless there is violence? White man gets elected: instant ITN. White guy plays bar games (snooker, darts): automatic ITN for a week. But people of color protest? Nah, it's gotta be violent or it's not news. Woman PM resigns? Not news. White man replaces her? Put his picture up for a week! This is systemic bias, again. Thinking BLM protests aren't newsworthy unless they're riots is systemic bias. At ITN. Again. And it's not just you, look at the oppose vote just above: oppose unless there's riots or it's the level of George Floyd. This is sheer bias, it's not logic, it's not the application of our global consensus, it doesn't advance the underlying purpose of ITN, it's just plain bias. Levivich (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    Ok. I was wrong in making the comparison with GF was wrong, and in fact almost my entire above comment was a catastrophe, so I'll just strike it. However, I never intended to say that BLM protests aren't newsworthy in their own right - this applies to all protests, even if they are thousands strong. Otherwise, the ITN section would feature nothing else. Let the story develop, and if the protests persist, then we can post. And by the way, I'm not white, not American, not European. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 16:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    We posted Jacinda Adern's resignation, and Brahim Ghali being re-elected. We don't only nominate "white men". This conversation is thoroughly unproductive PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    Levivich's point is valid; Jacinda Ardern's resignation was only posted once Chris Hipkins was identified as the successor, despite a significant number of calls to post sooner rather than later, and Chris Hipkins both received first mention and the picture in the blurb. Not a good look if we're trying to avoid a sexism bias. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    My bad, I got the chronology wrong. Still, I don't think it was because of a sexist bias PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    If it was a woman that succeeded Adern, we would've posted it. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
    Brahim Ghali's picture was on ITN for almost two days. Which is a record for ITN having a picture of someone other than a white man in January 2023: Pope Benedict XVI Jan 1-6, then darts champion Michael Smith Jan 6-10, Brazilian Congress damage Jan 10-15, airplane Jan 15-20, NZ PM Chris Hipkins Jan 20-27, Sahrawi president Brahim Ghali Jan 27-29, Czech president Petr Pavel Jan 29-30. Please, check my math:
    • 30 days in January (so far), of which
    • 20 days of which had a picture of a person, of which
    • 18 days it was a white guy, and
    • 2 days a non-white guy
    This is what systemic bias looks like. More in my next reply below. Levivich (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
    Ghali may not be the most Anglo-Saxon Protestant man out there, but if he's not white (by your foolish American standards), I don't know who is. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
    Okay, what stories do you think should've been posted instead of these? Was the Pope, the leader of a religion with more than 1.3 billion followers, dying not notable? Is the Darts Championship not in ITN/R? Rioters storming a national congress? 68 people killed in an aircraft crash?
    What nomination do you think was snubbed? Are these not all notable events? Please tell us which story In The News we missed over this period.PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
    @PrecariousWorlds: Great question. For some examples, see the list at Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 95#Removal of Death and funeral of Pelé and Death and funeral of Pope Benedict XVI. Levivich (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
    That's an entirely different discussion, about whether or not ITN should even exist in its current state. Also, almost every one of those articles was listed under RD.
    My point is this: What stories do you think were snubbed over the last month because of some systemic bias? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
    The ones that were on that list I linked to that were nom'd but not posted, for starters: Damar Hamlin, college football championship, the 2023 US Speaker of the House election was nom'd three times, twice in January (1, 2) (that's anti-American bias, systemic at ITN). And don't forget the big one, Jacinda Adern's resignation not being posted until her successor was chosen. In addition to those, we could have and should have posted: US and Philippine airspace closures, Australian helicopter crash, Artsakh blockade (nom'd multiple times), Senegal bus crash, Mursal Nabizada's assassination was admittedly a bit short, Solomon Pena, Monterey Park, Half Moon Bay, #Comet C/2022 E3 should have been posted by now although that one is probably not due to systemic bias but simply personal idiocy (waiting until after the comet is viewable to post it), as should #2023 Afghanistan cold wave, #Dissolution of the Moscow Helsinki Group, #(Ready) Jenin killings and East Jerusalem synagogue shooting, and, of course, Tyre Nichols. Hope that answers your question. Levivich (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
    Now I actually agree with many of the nominations you cited(most of all the Speaker of the House election), and I will concede there's a little bit of Anti-Americanism in ITN, but I do believe this is done in good faith to try and balance the stories we post from just being a US Domestic politics news ticker.
    I think we're having a discussion here on whether or not nominations need global significance to be posted, and I would agree with you that we should post more local stories. My own personal opinion is that we should post what is, quite literally, In The News. But, a lot of the nominations you mentioned weren't quite notable or of quality to be posted to the front page of the sixth largest website in the world.
    Damar Hamlin wasn't posted because A. We aren't a celebrity news ticker, and B. The nomination in question made it sound like he already died, when it wasn't the case. The US and Philippine closures were small, one-day long events that did not have wide reaching significance, and by the time the story was voted on and the article expanded, everyone had already moved on. The Australian helicopter crash, while a tragedy, did not meet our (somewhat morbid and odd) death criterias for posting. Based off of precedent, we only post tragic loss of life if they are of significant scale, if we were to post every awful loss of life, it would flood ITN. Comet C/2022 E3 is probably going to be posted in the next few days as the comet makes its closest approach. The Afghanistan cold wave was not of sufficient quality (And I'll add I nominated this story), one small group in Russia being dissolved didn't meet notability criteria, and was already sort of covered by the ongoing crisis in Russia and Ukraine. In regards to Jacinda Ardern, we still would've posted her successor if she was a woman, and I would also bring up we posted Jacinda Ardern being elected. And finally, the Jenin and Jerusalem violence is literally ready to be posted.
    I can see your point about Anti-Americanism(which I attribute to a push back against the American-centric Internet) but generally I have not seen evidence of a widespread bias against women or minorities in the stories we post, and for the most part, I believe people are acting in Good Faith, and acknowledge that this is a divisive nomination and there are many arguments for and against that people have put better than I could, which don't come down to Bad Faith or plain bias. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
    As for this story, I change my vote to Oppose - Per Masem's excellent reply below. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
    I can not understand why in particular the images section of ITN draws so much ire. It should be the last thing we are concerned with, yet some people seem to want to make it their singular object of ire. The seemed suggestion that we are being biased against events involving minorities and women using an arbitrary timeframe where it just so happened that none were shown in a picture was absurd, whether the bias be "systemic" or not. In fact, it's probable that NONE of the blurbs that you noted would have been accompanied by such images as well, and either way the lack of such shouldn't be an indication of bias. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
    Exactly. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
    Levivich: Are you suggesting that we wouldn't have posted it if Arden had been succeeded by a woman? Or that we we'll stop posting an ITN/R if a Black person wins a sporting event? Or maybe that we'll support posting a few hundred people protesting something if they're white? Not only are you casting WP:ASPERSIONs, but you're casting them in a way that's not even plausible. If you continue to accuse me of opposing on the basis of race, then I fully intend to open an ANI thread. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
    @Thebiguglyalien: Neither I nor anyone else is accusing you or anyone else of opposing on the basis of race. Systemic bias is a result, not an intent. My fuller comments about Arden are in the thread about her; ITN didn't think her resignation was worthy of posting, but her successor was worthy of posting. Similarly, five police officers being charged with murdering an unarmed black man is not deemed worthy unless it leads to a movement or riots, in your words. It's not that you are opposing on the basis of race; you are clearly opposing on the basis of your personal opinion about what is important and what is not important. You are not basing your !vote on what reliable sources are writing (which is what you should be basing your vote on, see Snow Rise's excellent explanation below). Because you and others are !voting based on personal opinion and not based on reliable sources, the result is things like, what I posted above, that this month we had a picture of a white guy for 18 days and a picture of a non-white guy for 2 days, and no pictures of women at all. This isn't because we had so many nominations of white guy news; it's because too many of us are voting based on personal opinions, and our personal opinions are unavoidably infected by systemic bias as a result of the culture we live in (far more so than mainstream media, which also has systemic bias, but at least has some built-in protections against it, which we lack). Levivich (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
    I think my point stands. The same thing would have happened if Arden was succeeded by a woman or if the protests were about economic issues. The only difference is that no one would be making claims of "bias". Nonviolent protests of a few hundred people almost never have sustained notability, and we shouldn't post them just on the off chance that they might. The thing that was predicted in RS didn't happen. If we post this, then there are at least a dozen other protests going on around the world that we should post as well. Now if we just nominated whatever was on the front page of the BBC without regard for sustained notability, that would create a clear systemic bias. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
    If Adern had been succeeded by a woman, the same thing would have happened, and it would still be systemic bias, and I'd still be complaining about it. You're missing the point, re-read what is wrote: the systemic bias in that situation was ITN deciding that the resignation wasn't important enough to post until there was a successor. It's the failure to recognize what the RS recognized: that the resignation of a female PM is significant -- more so than just a change in PM. The result is systemic bias because it was highly likely that the successor would be male. That's why it's systemic bias, not personal bias. The system overlooks the unique aspect of it being a female PM resigning, but it doesn't overlook the ordinary aspect of a change in PM (which overwhelmingly involves men, since that's the world we live in).

    Back to this nom: it's not about the protests. It's about the killing of Tyre Nichols. That's the important story. That's what the world's media has been writing about for the past four (almost five now) days in a row. The failure to recognize that police being charged with murdering an unarmed black man as important, unless there are "George Floyd level" protests, or riots, is systemic bias. It's the failure to recognize this event as important, even though it is important, even though reliable sources all agree it's important, because we are working in a system (here, ITN) that has biased results (like way over emphasizing white guy news to the exclusion of news about non-white-male people). There is no basis in policy, no basis in reliable sources, for suggesting this killing isn't worth posting to ITN. There is no "must be a movement or riots" rule or even a principle from which such a rule could be drawn. Focusing on the protests and not on Tyre Nichols is an example of systemic bias. Some are saying this is common--the violence is common, but the video, and the charges, are not common. Failing to recognize this as extraordinary is the systemic bias of which I speak.

    We post the darts champion's picture for days (white guy), but police being charged with murdering an unarmed black man, brutally, on video, isn't important enough unless there are historic protests (not "just" nationwide protests)? I'm sorry but if we make such decisions, we are valuing ordinary white people news over and above extraordinary black people news. It's just like Adern/Hipkins: we post ordinary men's news but don't post extraordinary women's news. This has become a very serious problem at ITN, IMO. Levivich (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

    The death happened 23 days ago (a week and a half before the oldest ITN item). Over the past four or five, the story's been arrests, video and state-sanctioned protests. That's not to say the death isn't the root of these problems, but the nom and the news are too closely timed to ignore here. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
    For those following along at home, this is a reply to the first two paragraphs above. The third came later. It's clearer now that Levi already gets how the charges and video are bigger than the everyday police violence. And yes, nationwide protests are historic. That's why we write about them. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
    I see your point, and even I have to admit it feels a bit weird placing higher priority on a darts championship for posting rather than the death of a man, but at the same time, if we were to post every tragic murder, or protest, that's literally all we would post. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
    OK. Instead of posting every tragic murder or protest, how about we post just the ones that make international news for multiple days, like this one? How about we just post the ones where the President of the United States gives a speech about it, like this one? How about we just post the murders that lead to nationwide protests, like this one? How about just the ones where the article receives a million page views in the first couple days... like this one? Supporting this nom does not require changing any rules or even stretching the imagination. Opposing this nom does however require closing our eyes, both to our rules, to what's happening in the ITN box, to what our readers and the rest of the world are looking for, to the very purpose of ITN, to the very purpose of Wikipedia. Levivich (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
    Lots of things happen in the US that lead to international coverage and the press talking about, we don't post every one since that would set an undue bias on US events. We also carry little about page views, since we are not newspaper dependent on that to keep out of the red ink. And if we only post the most popular topics, then by TOP25, we should be posting about Avatar 2, The Last of Us, and several other pop culture topics.
    There is literally only one paragraph in the article about protests, and scanning news, there really isn't much at a national or international level about the protests that did happen. That is, while the press were gearing up for something as dire as the George Floyd protests, that simply didn't materialize in that expected manner.. what protests their were after the video release were tame. Thus the story here is not about the protests, but simply the arrest if the officers for murder, which is not the type if story we cover at ITN. Masem (t) 14:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
    Couldn't have said it better myself PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
    @Nableezy: You and I have been normally on diametrically opposing sides when it comes to ITN/C, but I couldn't agree with you more. You hit the nail right on the head. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    I appreciate that, but Ive always been right, even when you were wrong ;) nableezy - 17:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    Ah, never mind, here we are back to being diametrically opposed again. 😌 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    I concur, I think Nableezy and Bestagon have summed up the arguments pretty well PrecariousWorlds (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • This blurb reads as a little sensationalist. Protests have not "erupted" - there have been a few and each have been of relatively small scale. I'm fine waiting, but as of now I would be opposed to this nom. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    Switching my vote to oppose now, more or less per Masem, and also seeing as I feel the long-term impact of this incident really hasn't been substantiated. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unfortunately police brutality in the US is very common, and Black Lives Matter protests too. Vriend1917 (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    Police brutality may be common, an officer being charged with murder is not. nableezy - 18:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    Police brutality might be common (although on a larger scale, while way too common, it's still rare), but not of this caliber, on video. --RockstoneSend me a message! 20:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment If protests continue, we could instead post those to Ongoing instead of blurbing. Curbon7 (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support -- for all those opposing, would you oppose if this was happening in the UK? It seems to me that this more than meets the requirements to post; it is indeed "in the news" by any metric. Stop with the anti-Americanism. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 20:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    Big difference: in the UK (in Europe in general), this doesn't usually happen. If it happened in Brazil, would you support it? I certainly wouldn't. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    What part of this story is it that you think usually happens in America, besides the initial beating of an unarmed Black man by police. Because it is unusual that there is video, that the police are fired, charged with murder, or that the video is released. It is unusual for multiple cities to have protests related to that video on one night. Which part of this is usual to you? nableezy - 21:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    If this happened in Brazil, and video were released, and people were outraged about it? Yes. Also, although police brutality is less common in the UK, it's not unheard of. --RockstoneSend me a message! 22:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    I don't take the country into consideration when deciding significance. For something of a political nature, you might consider scope, impact, or duration, among other things:
    • The number of people directly affected is low. I would expect hundreds of thousands if not millions of people to be directly affected for it to be posted on the basis of scope.
    • There is no evidence of significant short-term impact. It's not likely that Memphis is going to be plunged into anarchy or have to undergo significant reconstruction, so it shouldn't be posted on the basis of impact.
    • There is no evidence that this will still be significant or relevant in WP:TWENTYYEARS, so there's no argument for duration.
    If any of these three things changes, then I would strongly reconsider my oppose !vote. Compare the Peru protests, for example, which brought parts of the country to a standstill and plausibly may have affected national-level governance. Anti-Americanism is certainly a problem, and it should be prohibited on Wikipedia just like any other bigotry, but I don't think this is it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    Thebiguglyalien: The Memphis Scorpion Unit was just disbanded permanently and hundreds gathered in 'Washington Square Park' today. --Mhhossein talk 15:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    The disbanding is interesting, but it's a local task force. If it was the entire state law enforcement apparatus, I'd probably consider it significant. And I said "hundreds of thousands", not "hundreds". The fact that each of these protests are only a few hundred people essentially confirms to me that this doesn't reach the level of significance I'd expect for an ITN post. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    The broader incident is a top news anyway, be it local or countrywide. --Mhhossein talk 04:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Major news, global RS coverage. I will remind users that !opposing "solely because the event is only relating to a single country" is invalid. Davey2116 (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Impacts seem exaggerated. Riots? Looking around, I see reports of his death - which may be notable. But nothing about riots, and the protests seem relatively peaceful. I am seeing lots of coverage - but not about riots. Did we do a RD for this? Nfitz (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • No, because Tyre Nichols was not notable before he was murdered. --RockstoneSend me a message! 22:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    Correct, RDs cannot be run on people whose notability was as a result of their death, per WP:BLP1E. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 23:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    And the exact opposite guideline is in effect after much discussion at RD's parent article. If a person's name is in the title of a death article, they don't get removed at the end of the month. Any interpretations of BLP1E weigh less than Deaths in 20xx rules, to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Removed mention of riots in first blurb. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Protests are not on a scale we typically look for at ITN. And as noted above, I'm not seeing a lot of "riots." -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    Removed mention of riots in first blurb. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose unfortunately, police brutality like this is fairly common in the United States, and there don't seem to be full-on riots yet. Protests like this is also fairly common in the U.S. Editor 5426387 (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • No, per all above commenters. Bedivere (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm neutral on blurbing the death, but including the protests seems a bit disingenuous to me. So far they are very small scale (the article talks about "75 people", "a dozen protestors", and 3 arrests) and quite localized. On the other hand, we can't include the indictment of the officers because of BLP. YD407OTZ (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    I also dont think anything in BLP prevents us from saying four officers were charged with murder when they verifiably have been charged with murder. We arent saying they are guilty of murder, but it is an unambiguous fact they have been charged. nableezy - 05:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    Well, the consensus below seems to be that it would be a BLPCRIME issue. YD407OTZ (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • ALT III Precise, concise and fair in its limited presumptions. If I have to nitpick, I'd only bolden the protests article instead of the death. The death is kind of stale. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: The impact is high enough for ITN. For those who say this is common in US; maybe, but this one is exceptional due to footage release showing the police savage behavior and the fact that significant reactions were resulted (FBI director said he was "appalled" after watching the video!!!). Also, given the Brown and George Floyd experiences, and dozens of others, this one is even more news worthy. Ha? they did it again? Wow !--Mhhossein talk 15:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    You say "they did it again", but the consensus among criminologists is that this sort of phenomenon happens rather frequently in nearly every state, but it goes unreported due to lack of video evidence. That said, this is of course newsworthy due to the national fervor associated with its aftermath. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    Yes and I was careful enough to say "this one is exceptional due to footage release". --Mhhossein talk 04:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment It would be advisable to wait for sometime before posting this, to see if the protests prolong. Blurb and alt-blurb appear too verbose and exaggerative, the ones after these should be preffered. Gotitbro (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: This is making front page news in Canada, which again is not America so the event is of international significance. 2607:9880:2D28:16:8D62:57BB:BA17:B0FE (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support As stated above, this is obviously more newsworthy than many of the things currently already on the Front Page. Even outside of the US, it won't be hard to find outlets reporting on this event. Here it is on Bolivia's Pagina Siete, Peru's El Comercio, France's France24, the UK's BBC, and so on and so forth. You know what none of these outlets mention? Western Shara's president getting reelected. Yet that's on there. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    If you have such strong opinions on the Western Sahara blurb, maybe you should've participated in that discussion. Or alternatively read WP:Consensus. Curbon7 (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    I have no issue with that blurb being there. I'm just saying that if that meets the newsworthy criteria, this likely does as well. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment honestly, the fact that we haven't posted this, when it's the headline news story across the world, makes us look silly. I'm not sure why there is such a strong anti-American bias in ITN, but it is annoying. --RockstoneSend me a message! 21:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    We are not beholden to posting a news story simply because it is being reported on. Again, that's Wiki-News territory. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
    We are not, but we look like fools for not doing it. The whole point of ITN is to report things IN THE NEWS. This is about as "In The News" as you can get. --RockstoneSend me a message! 03:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
    No one here will look like a fool for a decision to support or oppose a ITN nom, and anyone reader who believes not posting a nom to ITN reduces our credibility is probably coming here for news and we are not a reporter of news. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I would say this falls under, "what if the media reported an expected riot, and nobody came?" BD2412 T 22:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose — The protests are not that notable. However, I'll change my vote to ongoing if there are continued protests, but that has so far not been demonstrated.
  • Strong support. I will grant you that I do not check in on ITN all that often, but every time I have of late, I have been struck by just how completely un-anchored from WP:WEIGHT and WP:OR process here has become: instead of !votes rooted in coverage and RS, I invariably find the majority of positions (supporting and opposing entries, to be fair) more likely to be predicated in the completely subjective value-judgment assessments of editors as to why the subject is or is not "important" enough to mention--or sometimes based in thinly veiled rationalizations for the same. Police abuses (even those accompanied by protests, massive media attention, exceptional and noteworthy action by authorities at local, state, and federal levels, and significant political impacts) aren't warranted for inclusion unless the protests devolve into riots? Since when? Why? Where is this anywhere codified in policy or other formalized community consensus? What an arbitrary, ad-hoc, and completely irrelevant-under-our-policies argument.
Likewise, purely domestic/"internal" U.S. issues don't warrant inclusion? That's another one I see conveniently reached for as a thin cover for WP:IDONTLIKEIT (or more precisely IT'SNOTHINGBIGTOME), but again, where has the community ever enshrined this principle that "only subjects of global significance" are fit for ITN? If there's been a properly vetted change to a guideline regarding ITN in this respect, I'll be happy to eat some crow once someone shows it to me, but lacking that, this argument too is completely divorced from policy and established best practice on this project. (Edit: I just reviewed the current wording WP:ITN and discovered that not only are such arguments not endorsed by the guideline, but they are specifically identified as low-quality arguments to be avoided). As for the also prevalent position that WP:NOTNEWS somehow operates to keep mention of recent events out of the In the News section of the main page, that position is so manifestly, obviously, and profoundly obdurate that I don't even know how to approach someone making such an argument.
All of which is to say that the context of ITN is not so unique that the arguments here can abrogate or ignore our normal content policies. The only relevant evidence anyone should be advancing is that which is based in the volume and depth of coverage in sourcing, not idiosyncratic opinions directly from our editorial corps' mental processes as to why this subject is or is not "really important in the grander scheme of things". You think that "the media" is blowing the story out of proportion? Oh well, too bad--that is exactly as much an WP:OR argument here as it would be on the talk page for relevant articles. You know what we call "the media" in contexts such as this? WP:RELIABLE SOURCES--you know, the stuff we are supposed to be basing our content on, rather than our individual, personal opinions?
In those terms, this is unambiguous: this is front page news on papers across the U.S. and well beyond and is getting similar coverage on the airwaves, on online news pages, and new media: American news constitutes a relatively limited part of my personal media diet, and I see this story everywhere in the global press. Yes, more prominent in the anglophone sphere, of course, but hardly relegated to U.S. domestic press. And again, WP:ITN specifically notes that the existence or absence of major coverage in international press is a bad argument for or against inclusion of a particular topic, and that the volume, breadth, and depth of overall coverage is what is important. But even were international coverage a prerequisite, it would still be handily met here, by miles. This should be a WP:SNOW call for any editor basing their !vote on an objective WEIGHT test rather than a subjective personal assessment of the "actual importance" of the topic. SnowRise let's rap 03:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
I could not have said it better myself. It seems like there's a contingent of Wikipedia that is simply unwilling to consider any actual news from the US to be "worthy" of ITN, even though this same contingent was fine with posting non-news from elsewhere, especially the UK. It's like yelling against the wind. I'm sympathetic to the fact that not every news story (or even most news stories) which are important in the US should be blurbed, but the only way someone can possibly believe that this story does not rise to the level of importance to merit a blurb is if they're ignoring the obvious; I don't mean any disrespect by that comment, but that's just how I see it. It makes Wikipedia look detached from reality. --RockstoneSend me a message! 03:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support I generally oppose "routine" US stories such as most mass shootings because the vast majority are in the news (in the rest of the world) for a very short amount of time - purely because they're so regular. But this was top of the page in reliable sources for quite a few days - it does seem to have dropped off today, though it's still the 2nd story after the Pakistani bombing on BBC World News. I think it passes. Black Kite (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support It is being widely covered in reliable sources and no issues with article quality. I think alt3 is best.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment -- given that there is consensus, can an admin please post this? Thanks. --RockstoneSend me a message! 20:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
    I actually tend to think there is no consensus, and that if further participation doesn't occur, an admin will likely close it as such. Also, there are a god-awful high number of blurbs to pick from.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
    Of all the numbers in the multiple choice world, seven is probably the least ungodliest, and as a man with a rainbow connection, I'd expect higher praise of it from you. You're right that more than three options isn't conducive to helping a group that already disagrees agree in time, though. If that's what you meant. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
    Assuming consensus is determined by the weight of the arguments and not pure numbers, support should win out. --RockstoneSend me a message! 18:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose didn't see much coverage in most of the world then, and there's even less of it now. Banedon (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
    Really? Because it's been in the news in the US and outside the US for the past week. Here is today's BBC story about it, and today's AP, and today's Reuters. Can anyone name another story from the US in the past 6 months that received international coverage every day for a week? Levivich (talk) 05:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
    Sure, the record high inflation & Ukraine war both heavily involve the US and have been receiving international coverage for months, if not years. Banedon (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
    Seriously, those are examples of stories from the US? You realize the first one is happening everywhere and the second one is not happening in the US? Levivich (talk) 06:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, those are examples of stories involving the US. If you disagree, I have no more comment. Banedon (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
    @Banedon: Really now? Don't be disingenuous. You didn't say "involving the US". You said "FROM the US". Inflation and Ukraine are not stories FROM the US. --RockstoneSend me a message! 08:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
    @Rockstone35 *I* didn't say "from the US". Levivich said it. Read the above carefully. Banedon (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
    Elon Musk bought Twitter FROM the American people. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Now that some time has passed, it is clear this was a significant event with a significant response. Admin discretion on whichever of the seven(!) blurbs they favor. Curbon7 (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment - Today was his funeral, it's in the news in Canada, the UK, Spain, France, Germany, China India, Japan, Australia, South Africa, Qatar, and of course BBC, AP, Reuters, AFP, and UPI. The first time I posted international coverage of this story was on Jan 27 UTC. Today is Feb 2 UTC. Over this period of time, the article has received over 1.5 million views. The "In the news" (ITN) section on the Main Page serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest. ITN supports the central purpose of Wikipedia—making a great encyclopedia. Levivich (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
    But nothing significant has happened. There was some peaceful protests, but nowhere close to the level of protests that the George Floyd protests created (like all of 70 protestors in New Orleans yesterday). There is yet no convictions yet. There are more serious and sizable protests happening in other places in the world (like UK and France related to labor policies) that actually have a larger impact on the world than these, at this point. Maybe if the conviction comes down and these officers are acquitted, we're going to see the South and major urban centers light up and be larger than any prior events, at which point those protests would be ITN. But that's then, not now.
    I cannot stress more than enough that we (en.wiki) are not a newspaper, and when it comes to ITN we cannot follow what the news media thinks is important (otherwise, as I've pointed out, we've be flush with pop culture topics and US/UK daily politics, aka we are not a news ticker), nor are we here to serve readers that are coming here looking for newspaper content, at least at the cost of a quality encyclopedic article, Writing encyclopedia articles is at odds with trying to write like for newspaper (writing in broad, long-term approach rather than the day-by-day nitty gritty), which is why NOT#NEWS exists. We have people trying to detail the events in this case too narrowly (unlike the Floyd protests, there is almost no long-term impact of the day-to-day protests that need covering). Particularly when we consider how limited we can cover non-US and UK topics. I'm not saying we stymie ourselves in crafting articles on clearly notable events in the US and UK, but we should be writing as if they occurred 10 years ago and the small details are simply unnecessary, so that we have similar equity in article quality for notable events in other non-US/UK countries. Masem (t) 04:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
    Significant things that happened: (1) an unarmed black man was beaten to death by police officers, (2) it was captured on multiple videos, which were publicly released, (3) the police officers lied about it in their reports, as we learned in the last day or so, (4) the police officers are being charged with murder, and (5) this killing is leading to police reforms at various levels of government in the US. The nationwide protests were smaller than the George Floyd protests, but protests are not the point; the killing is the point. Apply any logical measure or test that results in the current ITN postings being a "pass", and this nomination is also a "pass" under that measure or test. Levivich (talk) 04:48, 2 February 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.

January 27Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Yang YiEdit

Article: Yang Yi (translator) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): China Daily
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Died aged 103, so it's long, but definitely worth a read if you like Chinese history. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  • Support Thorough depth of coverage, referenced. SpencerT•C 23:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support High enough quality; well-referenced. Happily888 (talk) 05:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mesir SuryadiEdit

Article: Mesir Suryadi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Lombok Post
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Politician and former MP from Indonesia. Date is burial date. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Comment: Jeromi Mikhael Any chance it could be de-orphaned with links from other relevant articles? Otherwise has appropriate depth of coverage and referencing. SpencerT•C 06:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
@Spencer: I've added links to two different articles.Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Well-cited and holistic. A little underlinked, especially in the latter half, but not that big a deal for our purposes. Curbon7 (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support High enough quality; well referenced. Happily888 (talk) 05:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 05:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Azerbaijani embassy attackEdit

Article: Attack on the Azerbaijani Embassy in Tehran (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​An armed attack on the Embassy of Azerbaijan in Iran leaves one person dead and two injured. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​A shooting at the Azerbaijani embassy in Iran kills a security guard and wounds two more.
News source(s): CNN, Reuters
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Lethal attacks on embassies seem pretty rare and this one is the first such on an Azerbaijani one. Article is up to snuff. Brandmeistertalk 16:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Support. As per the nom, deadly attacks on embassies are quite rare - a rough estimate from List of attacks on diplomatic missions would suggest an average of once a year. The significance is increased by this being the first one on an Azerbaijani one, making this a very big deal there. It's also been reported across major global news outlets. I think this is a good example of an event that's blurb-worthy without being ITN/R or all over the place in Anglophone media. The article is in good shape, too. --GGT (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. Attacks on embassies are significant. The article is sufficiently long and sufficiently well-cited. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support per GGT. Levivich (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Support Attacks on embassies are quite rare, definitely something important. Vriend1917 (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Support - Per above PrecariousWorlds (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak Support only on the grounds that it was very likely a terrorist incident. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support I think an attack on an embassy, whether terrorist or state-sanctioned or otherwise, which results in death of a state official is clearly something we should be posting. Curbon7 (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    This killed a guard, not an official. I'm not saying officials are worth more, even if they have an article, or that I Oppose this post. Just a reminder. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    The "guard" killed was the head of the embassy's security service. Curbon7 (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, and if he'd been the head chef, I'd still call him a chef rather than a state official. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    And before you dismiss that as coming from a far-out country bumpkin (which I am), note how the state's top diplomat officially refers to "another security guard" and "other employees". InedibleHulk (talk) 04:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Pull Observing this new blurb, I read the article and found it to be of poor quality – the English is stilted. And the incident seemed quite petty – a domestic matter about a wife which became lethal because the guy with a grievance had a gun. Browsing the BBC and the NYT, I see no mention of it whereas the drone strike on Iran is getting reported there. So, it doesn't seem to be in the news in a significant way. As shootings go, this seemed less significant than the recent ones in California. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • PullFor one dead? And it doesn't seem to be a terrorist attack for which one support was given.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Don't pull - An attack on an embassy is not everyday news, and we have a good enough article. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 12:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Pull One dead from an attack that for all purposes appears to be a lone wolf and not associated with any terrorist group? (Yes, they initially treated it as a terrorist one for easing the investigation, but they seem to have backed off that) Yes, it is an attack on an embassy but this is nowhere close to the scale of other events already on the board and likely to be added sooner, and a story on violence within a region already filled with violence. --Masem (t) 15:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support Attacks on embassies are rare and are automatically diplomatic scandals with implications on the bilateral relations between the countries. So, comparing this to other attacks of similar scale is like comparing apples and oranges.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Pull. Likely no long-term significance. Attacks on embassies may be rare, but just because it's rare doesn't mean it's notable. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Pull for lack of any long-term significance. --RockstoneSend me a message! 03:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Azerbaijan has evacuated the embassy staff and suspended the embassy's operation by now, article updated accordingly. Suggest keeping. Brandmeistertalk 10:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Post-posting weak support Quality article with good depth that pushes this toward support territory for me. SpencerT•C 04:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep But Altblurb I got ghosted at ERRORS, feel free to disregard me here, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Pull because it's nowhere near important enough. We don't post the vast majority of attacks which have higher death tolls. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. This was a major news in international mass media, including CNN, BBC, NYT, The Washington Post, Reuters, etc. Also it led to a significant crisis in relations between Azerbaijan and Iran, with Azerbaijan closing operation of its embassy and evacuating its personnel. Grandmaster 19:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Pull The attacker was not politically motivated, as stated by the media. One dead? Not really important enough. --Mhhossein talk 05:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Dont Pull - I can not see why some of us are making such a big deal over the low death toll. The death toll is not the only factor that may make an attack notable. The armed attack on the embassy resulted in the death of the head of the embassy's security staff and the injury of two others. In addition, this armed attack was one of the factors why Azerbaijan closed its embassy in Iran. This is definitely not a routine event, thus it should not be pulled. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 06:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep it this was significant worldwide news and it serves to show the wide range of Wikipedia's articles. We tend to focus too much on US the Europe. We should try to get more blurbs from other parts of the world. Jehochman Talk 06:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support. These sorts of attacks capture the news cycle because of their international importance, and this article is high-quality enough to remain there. No need to pull. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Dont Pull — Some commenters seem to be either unaware of the incident or have not read the article.

1) Attacking embassies is a common practice in Iran. There were attacks on the US embassy in Iran in 1979, on the British embassy in 2011, and on the Saudi Arabian embassies in 2016.

2) After this attack, Azerbaijan evacuated its embassy Tehran.

--Rəcəb Yaxşı (talk) 05:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  • Don't pull So we have the Iranians claiming it was a domestic incident and the Azeris claiming it was a (possibly state-sanctioned) act of terror. Now, both sides are wildly unreliable authoritarian regimes, so I don't see why we should take either at their word. Regardless of the intention, this attack is spiraling relations between two countries who are closer to war than a lot of people realize. Curbon7 (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Cyclone ChenesoEdit

Article: Cyclone Cheneso (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Cyclone Cheneso kills at least 24 people in Madagascar. (Post)
News source(s): BNN Network (Associated Press) AfricaTimes
Credits:

Article updated

 HurricaneEdgar 00:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Weak support article looks good. 22 deaths is quite significant. It seems that last year a tropical storm hit Madagascar leading to 142 fatalities, and that would have been nominated if the article quality was good enough. Azpineapple (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - Even though it isn't as serious as last year's storm, 22 deaths isn't a small number. The article is pretty good as well. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 15:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Levivich (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Support As said by @The Bestagon Vriend1917 (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Query Is the inclusion of "For the latest official information, see: links" standard for ongoing storms? Curbon7 (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 10:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Jenin killings and East Jerusalem synagogue shootingEdit

Article: 2023 Jenin killings (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​The Israeli Defense Forces conduct a raid in Jenin with seven Palestinian militant and two Palestinian civilian fatalities. A Palestinian gunman kills seven Israeli civilians in East Jerusalem in response. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​A mass shooting at a synagogue in East Jerusalem kills seven Israeli civilians one day after the Israeli Defense Forces conduct a raid in Jenin with seven Palestinian militant and two Palestinian civilian fatalities.
Alternative blurb II: ​A mass shooting at a synagogue in East Jerusalem leaves seven Israeli civilians dead, following a raid conducted by the Israeli Defense Forces.
Alternative blurb III: ​A Palestinian attack at a synagogue in East Jerusalem kills seven Israeli civilians, following an an Israeli raid in the Jenin refugee camp that killed nine Palestinians, including two civilians.
News source(s): Al Jazeera (Jan 26 raid), Reuters (Jan 26 raid), New York Times (Jan 27 shooting), AP News (Jan 28 shooting)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: I was hesitant to post this, but it appears that this is a significant political escalation. I've done my best to write a few options for neutral joint blurbs. Note that the Israel–Palestine conflict is listed as a contentious topic, and editing restrictions may apply to this discussion. I will support sanctions against any user that attempts to WP:DISRUPT the conversation, use it as a WP:FORUM, or WP:BLUDGEON the process by replying to everyone that has a different opinion than them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

  • There are several parts that could be included, but the most significant outcome so far, obviously besides the loss of life, is the Palestinian Authority suspending security cooperation with Israel ([11], [12]). Could be something like The Palestinian Authority suspends security coordination with Israel as tensions escalate following an Israeli raid in the West Bank and a Palestinian attack in East Jerusalem. Also, the two articles maybe should just be merged together. nableezy - 21:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
    Id support altblurb1, but would prefer now offered alt3. nableezy - 23:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  • While I do think it should be posted, we shouldn't conflate the killing of people at a synagogue with those killed during a raid on terrorists. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
    How would we be conflating them if the synagogue attack was a response to the raid? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
    The two events are clearly connected, with several Palestinian factions and sources celebrating the synagogue shooting as "revenge" for the raid. Plus, the "raid on terrorists" also killed civilians. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 05:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support combined blurb – Muboshgu (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Procedural comment All editors participating in this should be aware of the sanctions and remedies established in WP:ARBPIA. Per those remedies, this discussion is restricted to users who have ECP. As a personal note, as this is a clearly contentious area, let's all try to stay on topic and keep the temperature low. Curbon7 (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Combine them, all major sources report one as a response to the other. Else, neither. Selfstudier (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
    Alt blurb 3 should say "at" rather than "on"? Selfstudier (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support blurb on the attack, and support altblurb one if there is a consensus to combine. However, oppose combining as while coverage of the attack does mention the raid the blurb puts undue emphasis on the raid - the BBC article on the attack, for example, includes 24 paragraphs, of which only one discusses the raid. BilledMammal (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    • The article still mentions the raid, which proves Thebiguglyalien's point that it's seen as a retaliation. Only talking about the synagogue attack makes it seem like the attack came out of nowhere, when the timing shows it's most likely otherwise. Mount Patagonia (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
      • They are connected, but to comply with WP:N we need to ensure that we reflect the respective emphasis in reliable sources. None of the proposed blurbs do this, as they put too much emphasis on the raid. BilledMammal (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Just to be clear, this is not a blurb about the attack that just happens to mention the raid. This is a blurb about two significant events. The raid has received extensive coverage in its own right. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb I or III. This is clearly a tit-for-tat attack, so it's important to mention both. To only blurb one or the other invites accusations of bias. Mount Patagonia (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    agree, both should be featured. Mhhossein talk 05:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Wait. I think it stands to reason that these two events are connected, but it might be worth us waiting for a bit more verification. To link these events. Sure Hamas claimed responsibility, but I don't feel we should be inclined to take their word for it. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    It could be best to wait a bit, I'm not seeing a clear cut claim from Hamas/PIJ in the latest sources. Of course, viewing it as just a coincidence seems a bit of a stretch. Lone wolf is a possibility, however. Selfstudier (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    The lone-wolf aspect of it is what I'm wary of yeah. Hamas could totally be piggybacking off it. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak Support On the one hand both incidents involved multiple fatalities and are clearly terrorism related. But being brutally honest, this sort of thing is not exactly uncommon in that part of the world. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support alt3 - The Guardian described the Palestinian attack as "the worst in years" and made the connection with the Israeli raid, describing it as "the deadliest in two decades". Both events are thus significant and connected. Note as well that the death toll has risen to eight. The articles are good enough too, except for one CN tag in the 2023 Jenin killings article. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 05:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    Also, the Israeli raid killed ten people and not nine, so the article should be updated to reflect that. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 06:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, no strong preference about which blurb. Levivich (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Since there has been more violence today, I would support (and prefer) an updated blurb that works that in. Maybe even a generic "violence erupts" blurb if it's too complicated to discuss the individual events. Or, better, Support adding I-P conflict to ongoing where it should have been the entire time ITN existed. Levivich (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose The NYT report says that this is "latest escalation of a particularly violent cycle in the region, where the situation — never calm — began to worsen last spring". So, it's an ongoing situation. This appears in the list of ongoing armed conflicts as going back to 1948 with about 27,000 deaths total to date. That just rates as minor, as these things go. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per Andrew. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Weak Support - Escalation of the conflict, In The News. While I can see the argument that this is unfortunately nothing new in Israel/Palestine, I still think that this should be posted on the basis of notability. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Altblurb III PrecariousWorlds (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Violence around the Gaza Strip region (including into Jerusalem) is sadly too common there due to the long-term conflicts there. --Masem (t) 13:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    It is being described as the worst terrorist attack on Israelis in years. [13] Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb 3 to avoid undue weight. And yes, consider me warned about the discretionary sanctions. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    After much ado, ds is now ct :) Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Comparison with discretionary sanctions Selfstudier (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    Ooh, that's right. I forgot all about that change. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Update: A 13-year-old Palestinian gunman injured two Israeli civilians in East Jerusalem today. Adding an AP News article to the sources list, but I'll leave any additions or rewriting of the blurbs to discussion. In regard to significance, the new source also notes that the Jan 26 raid was the deadliest single incursion in the West Bank since 2002, so it's not business as usual for the region. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    This article gives a longer perspective, the temperature has been increasing slowly for a couple years now and the new Israeli government is considered to be raising it some more. Definitely not business as usual. Selfstudier (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Support alt3–sadly too common, but still important. -- lomrjyo talk 20:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Support altblurb II and this one should replace the attack on the Azerbaijani embassy in Tehran. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Dunutubble, we don't get to pick and choose what does and doesn't roll off. The blurb that rolls off is always the oldest blurb on the list (i.e. the bottommost one), which is currently the Kyiv helicopter crash. Curbon7 (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

:Support alt3 Wait for further clarification. There are contradicting reports. is was the most NPOV blurb.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree. This report for instance. Selfstudier (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Douma chemical attackEdit

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: Douma chemical attack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: OPCW released a report, that Douma chemical attack was committed by special forces of Syrian Army. (Post)
News source(s): [1][2][3]
Credits:
 Jenda H. (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose First off, the article hasn't been edited since November 2022, so there is no update to the article to evaluate. Secondly, so what? This report isn't telling us anything that we didn't already know. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - Per @Muboshgu PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is neither news, nor in the news. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per above Editor 5426387 (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "THIRD REPORT BY THE OPCW INVESTIGATION AND IDENTIFICATION TEAM PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 10 OF DECISION C-SS-4/DEC.3 "ADDRESSING THE THREAT FROM CHEMICAL WEAPONS USE" DOUMA (SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC) – 7 APRIL 2018" (PDF). OPCW. Retrieved 27 January 2023.
  2. ^ "Watchdog blames Syria for 2018 Douma chemical attack". BBC News. 27 January 2023. Retrieved 27 January 2023.
  3. ^ "Watchdog blames Syrian gov't forces for 2018 Douma gas attack". www.aljazeera.com.
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: Sylvia SymsEdit

Article: Sylvia Syms (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): GB News
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Referencing needs improvement! Mjroots (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Not yet ready A few spots in the prose need citations, and her entire television filmography is uncited. Curbon7 (talk) 05:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
    The BFI source covers both her film and television credits. The only exception was the 2019 credit, which I found a separate source for. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
    I had spot-checked it, and unless I'm mistaken, there are a bunch missing. 1972 The Adventurer, 1991 Countdown, 2002 Doctor Zhivago, 2008 New Tricks, and 2009 Blue Murder, as just some examples I randomly selected. Curbon7 (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

(closed) Blurb: Tyre NicholsEdit

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


Article: Death of Tyre Nichols (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Five officers of the Memphis Police Department are arrested for alleged involvement in the death of Tyre Nichols (Post)
News source(s): [14]
Credits:
Nominator's comments: May possibly fall under WP:TOOSOON, however, I think this is notable enough and may be bolstered tomorrow by the potential video. Knightoftheswords281 17:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Wait for Altblurb We don't really do arrests, but we certainly do video-bolstered outrage, if sufficiently bolstered. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless the situation changes. Arrests on their own are not notable, and the response will not be notable unless it escalates into citywide riots. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose as said by @Thebiguglyalien Vriend1917 (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Top story at BBC.com right now: Tyre Nichols: Biden urges calm over Memphis police murder case. When the BBC is reporting that the US president is urging calm ahead of a video of police brutality that will be released Friday night, it's an indication. It's likely there will be protests, and it's likely to stay in the news, and we're likely to post it, the only question is what the blurb will say exactly. It's not just the BBC, also The Guardian, Le Monde, El Pais, and of course it's the top story in all US news outlets right now, and the video isn't even out yet. Support, we can update the blurb as events progress. Levivich (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
    He's not exactly urging calm, he's "calling for peaceful protest", outrage without violence. That could make a good altblurb. Not every day the president calls on citizens to protest a criminal matter rather than just let the judicial system do its job.InedibleHulk (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  • An arrest of a police officer for the killing of a civilian in the United States is absolutely notable, and rare. From the NYT in 2020: Law enforcement officers kill about 1,000 people a year across the United States. Since the beginning of 2005, 121 officers have been arrested on charges of murder or manslaughter in on-duty killings, according to data compiled by Philip M. Stinson, a criminal justice professor at Bowling Green State University in Ohio. Of the 95 officers whose cases have concluded, 44 were convicted, but often of a lesser charge, he said. Shades of Laquan Mcdonald in the arrest only coming when the video is ordered released, but absolutely notable, absolutely in the news. Support. nableezy - 05:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Main page should adhere to WP:BLPCRIME policy:

    For individuals who are not public figures...editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.

Bagumba (talk) 06:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Oppose per this policy. This is a mere allegation and should not be in the mainpage. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 06:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
    No police officer is named in the article. The police officers that have been charged have indeed been charged with a crime. That is verifiable fact. And nothing in BLPCRIME says we cannot say so. If you feel it does, then it is a BLP violation to include the charges in the article. Do you actually think that is true? nableezy - 07:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
    I just read the article and the five officers were named. You can't rely on the state of the article unless it is completely locked. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
    I'm pretty sure people Joe Biden and Al Sharpton highlight in federal public safety reform campaigns become public figures. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:BLPCRIME. Btw, this is another case of police abuse in the United States. It did not have the same international impact/coverage as George Floyd. So no, it’s not ITNR worthy. Not now, not later. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
    George Floyd also wasn't on George Floyd's level until after the viral violent video, so it's not fair to compare yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:BLPCRIME, which articles featured on the main page should adhere to. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 10:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  • BLPCRIME? For internationally-reported arrests of police officers? That didn't stop us from posting about George Floyd, and we create these articles all the time. Tonight there will be protests, give it a minute. Levivich (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
    The key part is that as these are not public figures as BLP defines, their mere arrest is not something we should be shouting from the rooftops by plugging it in an ITN box. Masem (t) 14:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose mere arrests; even a conviction seems unlikely to be significant enough to justify a blurb. So far there are minimal signs of broad impacts. If major protests erupt, then we can consider those on their own merits, in a separate nomination. WP:CRYSTAL applies. Modest Genius talk 13:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Why a separate nom and not this one? Levivich (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
      • Likely as there was nearly no protests comparable to the Floyd ones from this event - the PD took a rapid step to outright fire the officers than cover up anything, and given the racial makeup of the fired officers, its hard to bring in racial motivation as it was in the case of Floyd. So there's nothing to report beyond the remaining legal trials from these arrests, yet. If they all get off completely free, there could be riots from that, but that's not going to happen until the trials happen. Masem (t) 14:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
        • It's still top news today, 2nd news cycle, and it will stay in the news all weekend. The video is being released tonight. There will be protests tonight and this weekend. My question was: why a new nom and not this nom? I don't see the point in closing this today and making a new nom tomorrow. Levivich (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
          • And ITN doesn't care how much a topic dominates the news, otherwise we'd only be covering US and UK politics and pop culture. And if riots actually break out, we'd likely need a rescoped article, but they might not even happen. It would be better to start a fresh ITNC if the riots are the key story. --Masem (t) 14:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
            • Please, let's not refer to protests as riots. The video will be released in about 9 hours. In 12 hours, the story on all the news will be "protests erupt after video is released of the death of Tyre Nichols", which will be a blurb we can post without BLPCRIME concerns. It makes no sense to close this nom before then and require someone to make a new nom. By tomorrow consensus will develop to post. Levivich (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
              • No one referred to protests as riots. If protests "break out", it might not be ITN-worthy. If riots happen, it most certainly would be ITN-worthy. 2607:F470:E:22:B825:75C6:626A:5AD1 (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
              • Addendum: No one HERE referred to protests as riots. Numerous people in the outside world make their fortunes off of such "misrepresentations". 2607:F470:E:22:B825:75C6:626A:5AD1 (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose The notable aspect of events like this is what happens afterwards, from possible unrest to criminal proceedings/convictions. The arrest itself is too soon to post, as we do not yet know the impact of this case. Kafoxe (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  • The BLPCRIME votes make zero sense to me, if you feel it is a BLPCRIME issue then nominate the article for speedy deletion. This is widely reported, BLP does not exist as something to suppress uncomfortable material if and when it is widely reported in reliable sources. nableezy - 18:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose unless a conviction is secured, this article is not ITN-worthy. Editor 5426387 (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose as it stands. This is a tragic death, but it is too early to determine its significance. BD2412 T 19:21, 27 January 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.

ReferencesEdit

Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.

For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents: