Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 13: Line 13:
----
----
<!-- Insert new nominations below this line -->
<!-- Insert new nominations below this line -->
==== RD: Andrew Peacock AC GCL ====
{{ITN candidate
| article = Andrew Peacock
| recent deaths = yes
| sources = [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-16/vic-former-liberal-leader-andrew-peacock-dies/100075920 ABC News], [https://www.smh.com.au/national/andrew-peacock-dies-in-the-united-states-aged-82-20210416-p57jze.html The Sydney Morning Herald], [https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/apr/16/andrew-peacock-former-liberal-party-leader-and-australian-foreign-minister-dies-aged-82 The Guardian]
| updated = <!-- (yes/no); Leave blank if you aren't sure -->
| nominator = JMonkey2006 <!-- Do NOT change this -->
| updaters = Ballitomanga, Steepleman, Rubberbandme2015, Lugnuts, Artegia
| nom cmt = Former national leader of the Liberal Party of Australia (LP), Former Ambassador of Australia to America
| sign = [[User:JMonkey2006|JMonkey2006]] ([[User talk:JMonkey2006|talk]]) 12:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC) <!-- Do NOT change this -->
}}


== April 15 ==
== April 15 ==

Revision as of 12:08, 16 April 2021

Click here to nominate an item for In the news. In the news toolbox
Shortcut

This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.

Alberto Fujimori in 1991
Alberto Fujimori in 1991

view — page history — related changes — edit

Glossary

  • Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
    • Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
    • A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
  • Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
  • The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.

All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.

Nomination steps

  • Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
  • Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
  • You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.

The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

  • When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
  • Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
    • If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
    • Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
    • Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).

Voicing an opinion on an item

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...

Shortcut
  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. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
  3. Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.

Please do not...

Shortcut
  1. Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
  2. Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
  3. Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
  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. Discuss them here.
  6. Use ITN as a forum for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome and are potentially disruptive.

Suggesting updates

There are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:

  • Anything that does not change the intent of the blurb (spelling, grammar, markup issues, updating death tolls etc.) should be discussed at WP:Errors.
  • Discuss major changes in the blurb's intent or very complex updates as part of the current ITNC nomination.
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Archives

April 16

April 16, 2021 (2021-04-16) (Friday)

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

RD: Andrew Peacock AC GCL

Article: Andrew Peacock (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC News, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Former national leader of the Liberal Party of Australia (LP), Former Ambassador of Australia to America JMonkey2006 (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 15

April 15, 2021 (2021-04-15) (Thursday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

  • Divers arrive at the scene of lift boat MV Seacor Power, which capsized and partially sank off the coast of the state of Louisiana in the United States. Rescuers suspect crew members may be trapped. Since the accident, six crew members have been rescued, one has died, and twelve remain missing. (KATC-TV)

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

United States racial unrest

Article: 2020–2021 United States racial unrest (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Nominating after proposal at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Daunte Wright protests. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose all just run of the mill stuff at the moment. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (pending significant developments) in accordance with previous reasons in Daunte Wright protests below. Osunpokeh (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Osunpokeh Anything specific? I can't see anything that applies to this nomination considering this is a list of all protests (which undeniably are notable and have a high impact), rather than a single element of that list. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's ongoing, it's certainly in the news, the overall impact (both domestic and international) is high, and the article is high quality. The comment about the protests being routine (which I agree with) doesn't apply to a collection, so there's no issue with that in this nomination. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Uses X mostly. I'm unconvinced by the not a (insert country name) ticker - civil unrest is well established as notable enough for Ongoing. We should apply the same standards that we ought apply to others: pull it down when the story is stale or the article is trash. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it's significant, the nature of these protests is not run-of-the-mill at all, and the article is in great shape. Events are likely to continue in this direction as today we see the release of a video of a 13 year old Hispanic male shot while his hands were up. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support none of this is run-of-the-mill, despite the misinformed protestations to the contrary. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 22:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong. That's why we have an article detailing literally dozens of protests after the literally hundreds of people who have been killed by the US police in the last few months. It's almost as common as mass shootings. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is no valid argument against this year-long event being significant. Rather the argument is that several hundred mass protests occurring in a short span are distinct unrelated events, such that a) they must qualify individually and b) the vast number of protests make the them commonplace. Cynical as hell, but typical anti-American bashing from the usual suspects. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The problem is, given the nature of this article is being constructed, there's no proverbial end to this, and it would remain in ongoing indefinitely (In contrast, we know there will be a point we can eventually remove COVID once it no longer is seen as a worldwide threat). If we post this, we might as well post something along the lines of "gun violence in the United States" - a major news topic but one that has no clear "end". --Masem (t) 22:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Guaido still thinks he's president of Venezuela, students in Hong Kong are still antagonizing the CPC, in fact there are still weekend protests in Belarus all those articles were in ongoing and are no longer. Prying stuff out of OG is a gigantic hassle around here but that isn't a reason not to put things into OG. Brexit popped in and out as it flared up. The Myanmar protests are in the box right now and that mess is a monument to WP:SYNTH. I empathize, but relax, we'll be fine. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Masem and The Rambling Man. I do not believe that several riots that may coincide temporally and causally is something of such importance as to be "ongoing". Police brutality + protests is usual in the US. Catalonia has experienced something similar (bridging the gap) in recent years in the context of the territorial crisis with Spain, with riots for days and I would not even think of nominating it. Although honestly I am not going oppose if a consensus is reached to support it. Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Its a notable series of ongoing protests, and I would support Catalonia protests being ITN, tooJackattack1597 (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Since at least 2011, there have been reliable protests/unrest/riots in American cities every Summer. Whether you're sympathetic to the professed motivations, yet another year is hardly unique, unusual or comment worthy outside of larger effects. Putting them in Ongoing is like putting Crime in the US in Ongoing; it's part and parcel of living there.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adding, individual events are much better suited for blurbs, and I would (and have) support(ed) them previously. The linked article is narrative spinning from disparate events that are sometimes not even thematically related.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kerch Strait closure

Article: Kerch Strait (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Russia announces its decision to close the Kerch Strait in the Black Sea to "warships and other state vessels" until October. (Post)
News source(s): NY Post, Plymouth Herald, Ukrinform
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Likely a notable development in the ongoing tensions with Russia, Ukrainian Foreign Ministry has responded. Brandmeistertalk 21:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Announcement. Might be relevant when it actually happens. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Just an announcement, and not in the news much. The update would also need to be longer, giving the impacts of it, etc, as right now there's only the background. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think Russia announcing it's doing a thing is the same as Russia doing that thing. I rather doubt anyone is going to test them. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is related to the back-and-forth between Russia-Ukraine-US, and is a minor development about equal to the US sailing destroyers through the Dardanelles, or Zelensky's visit to troops. The article is actually pretty nice. I'd rather post good articles with a topical update than the usual "event" article, but some more information in the blurb is needed to give readers context. And we should wait at least until next week when this is no longer merely an annoucement.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 14

April 14, 2021 (2021-04-14) (Wednesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

RD: Michel Louvain

Article: Michel Louvain (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CTV News / Canadian Press; Montreal Gazette
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ahmed Usman

Article: Ahmed Usman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Premium 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: Former Military Governor of Ondo and Oyo States in Nigeria. Article is referenced and has appropriate depth of coverage. SpencerT•C 15:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted to RD) RD/Blurb: Bernie Madoff

Consensus does not seem likely to develop for a blurb, so I am closing/withdrawing it.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: Bernie Madoff (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  American financier Bernie Madoff (pictured), who operated the largest Ponzi scheme in history, dies at the age of 82. (Post)
News source(s): Guardian, AP, BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Financier and fraudster
Both of you are going to have to provide a rationale...-- P-K3 (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pawnkingthree: To be fair the comments were posted before I added the template - it previously just read "Bernie Madoff" with no context. Black Kite (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my bad. I was just bewildered that it didn't have a template. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Daunte Wright protests

Article: Daunte Wright protests (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Nightly unrest is now in its third day. 2600:1700:5890:69F0:1D21:C59E:DB08:A777 (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article is improved and the AFD has closed. On a second review the article could go up. The point made by TRM below is a very good one, though. Protests and riots in the Upper Midwest (and in many of the places listed in the Events elsewhere section) have become commonplace over the last few years.130.233.213.199 (talk) 04:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another Ongoing nomination has been made for this event (above) which links to a much weaker and frankly poorly composed article. In the interest of getting something up on this topic, I'd suggest to make a blurb nomination along the lines of Protests and unrest stemming from the death of Daunte Wright enter their Nth day. The article here is good enough, and that blurb formulation we have used many times previously.130.233.213.199 (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because it's nowhere near important enough. The article is up for deletion. Jim Michael (talk) 08:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's pretty clear that this isn't like the George Floyd matter. 331dot (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-opened The AfD has been speedily closed with a result 'Keep' so the discussion here can continue.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, the AfD was closed as "no consensus".—Bagumba (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes indeed but 'no consensus' to delete has the same effect as 'Keep', which is more spot on in relation to this nomination.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never seen a speedy close with no consensus before- seems like that is being used solely so people can re-open this nomination. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The nominator themself withdrew the nomination, but a speedy keep was technically not possible because one editor chose "Delete" before the article was expanded to a reasonable length (see WP:WITHDRAWN). Other than that, it was between a keep and a merge, and a merge isn't reasonable considering the size of both articles. There's no conspiracy. Uses x (talk • contribs) 19:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It would be inconsistent of me to have supported posting the Northern Ireland protest but oppose this one. Mlb96 (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be considered that often when there is a "white cop shoots black person" incident which happen with rather troubling frequency, there are protests, some more significant and/or violent than others; the Floyd protests clearly surpassed a level of being "routine". These protests may be just tipping past "routine" with the events of last night but they still aren't at the same sense of scale as the Floyd ones. In contrast, the protests in N. Ireland aren't anywhere close to routine occurances, and the events that led to those unusual (beyond the ususual tension between N. Ireland and the rest of the British Isles). As such, it didn't have a baseline to compare to so was posted for that reason. Its why we do consider events relative to their scope and scale for similar events within the same region for posting, and how that would filter up to the international scale. --Masem (t) 18:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose along the lines of Masem's explanation above. Like mass shootings, these protests are now commonplace, and realistically it needs to not be "routine" for it to be something we should consider at ITN. Those arguing about the N'Iron posting need to realise that riots there (in this day and age) just don't (didn't) happen. Trying to equate these regular riots with a rarity is not a reasonable comparison. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Effects? Which ones? Where? Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
City under a state of emergency, professional sports teams cancelling games, protests around the country. These things rarely accelerate as quickly as this one has. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Per Jim Michael, TRM – The shooter and the police chief have resigned, and the shooter has been charged, hopefully defusing this incredibly bizarre event.
PS: This user grew up in Minneapolis, and can hardly believe the stuff going on there – but I left a long time ago. – Sca (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 13

April 13, 2021 (2021-04-13) (Tuesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

(Posted) RD: Conn Findlay

Article: Conn Findlay (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press; The Washington Post
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Only announced and reported today (April 13). —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bobby Leonard

Article: Bobby Leonard (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Indianapolis Star; Associated Press
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Peter Warner

Article: Peter Warner (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sydney Morning Herald
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Australian captain. Article covers key aspects of the subject's life in appropriate detail; referenced. SpencerT•C 15:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Japan's cabinet approved dumping of radioactive water

Duplicate nom; see closed nom below. SpencerT•C 15:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Discharge of radioactive water of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Cabinet of Japan approved the Fukushima nuclear Plant to dump treated radioactive water to the Pacific Ocean over a course of 30 years. (Post)
News source(s): "Fukushima: Japan approves releasing wastewater into ocean". BBC. 2021-04-13.
Credits:

Article updated
  • Nominator comments: This is the first time since 2011 the Japanese government makes it clear to the world on how Japan would deal with the radioactive water. Reading the comments on the ITN nomination of #(Closed) Fukushima disaster cleanup (which was a different article), my responses are as follows.
  • (1) Part of the "consensus" on rejecting #(Closed) Fukushima disaster cleanup was based on the poor focus and the poor quality of that article, not on the importance of the news per se. This is a different, new article, entirely focus on the water.
  • (2) Some users voted "opposed" by claiming this is "old news". In fact, news on this before 13 April 2021 was just speculation by tabloids. The cabinet approval was handed down on 13 April 2021.
  • (3) While some users rightly pointed out "the cabinet approved the dumping to happen two years later, not to happen now", being the "first ever cabinet decision on the matter" grants this news importance.
  • -- love.wh 15:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and speedy close. We just had a discussion on this that closed as a clear consensus not to post. The fact that a new separate article has been created doesn't change the consensus. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Significant global news, must read. STSC (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose New article is a hopeless mess of WP:SYN about various dumping events. I'm not even sure why this is a distinct article from the Fukushima clean-up article. It takes a scatter-shot approach to reporting on the events, and there's little in the way of narrative flow that makes the article very hard to follow, and not up to the standards I would expect for the main page. --Jayron32 15:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Fukushima disaster cleanup

Consensus will not develop to post. -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


Article: Fukushima disaster cleanup (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Japanese Prime Minister Suga Yoshihide announces that more than 1 million tonnes of radioactive water will be dumped into the Pacific Ocean (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Japanese Government announces that treated radioactive water from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant will be dumped into the ocean
Alternative blurb II: ​ Japan announces that radioactive water from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster will be dumped into the ocean
News source(s): NHK News, KBS News, CGTN, Reuters, Global Times, The Guardian, Al Jazeera, ABC News, The Jakarta Post, The New York Times
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Huge announcement in the aftermath of one of the largest nuclear disasters - Backlash from many Asian countries as well as environmental organisations JMonkey2006 (talk) 07:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

April 12

April 12, 2021 (2021-04-12) (Monday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

  • 2021 Peru bus crash

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Galen Weston

Article: Galen Weston (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN Globe and Mail
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Canadian business magnate, head of the Loblaws family of retail chains. Article needs some citations but is in pretty good shape overall. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ady Steg

Article: Ady Steg (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Times of Israel
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: French urologist and Holocaust survivor; updated and referenced. SpencerT•C 01:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Shirley Williams

Article: Shirley Williams (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Guardian
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: British politician, former minister who was one of the original four founders of the SDP. Article needs a significant number of citations. Black Kite (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123: I posted the one above, but I can't post this one as I nominated it, and Spencer has commented on it as well. Black Kite (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I might have guessed. It's like the old boys club round here! Maybe mark as Attention needed? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing: Northern Ireland riots

Consensus to post will not develop. Closing without prejudice to open at later date if appropriate. (nominator close) Kingsif (talk) 05:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: 2021 Northern Ireland riots (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Looks like it's about to roll off with the Masters. Kingsif (talk) 06:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the point is things are still happening, so judge by article updates. The repeated comments that there's nothing in X newspaper aren't helpful (though yours was quite funny) Kingsif (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Largely absent from main RS sites Monday. – Sca (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry about that. I didn't know about the new Minnesota riots. Now that's why the Timberwolves game was postponed and left many fantasy NBA pissed pissed. Either way, the Myanmar civil disturbances are putting every rioter in shame, but not enough for it to be posted here. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't seem to understand your objections. It is currently posted on the main page. It says "Myanmar protests" right there! Right now! This isn't new; it has been on the main page for weeks. --Jayron32 16:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few weeks ago, there was a day where Myanmar killed 100 of its people during the protests. This was rejected at ITN/C because it's already ongoing. That was a poor decision as that would've "unpinned" the article from ongoing and we would not be needing another discussion to remove it if it becomes stale. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you're upset that the Myanmar protests are still on Ongoing? If that is the case, you should start a direct discussion to remove it. I see you haven't done that yet. --Jayron32 17:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm upset that the Myanmar protests weren't promoted to a standard blurb when the state supposedly killed 100 of its own people, because it is "ongoing" (and some downplayed or doubted the event). I suppose there's no !rule preventing an article in ongoing being promoted back to a blurb (and being removed from ongoing) but people have used that non-rule to prevent articles in ongoing promoted back to blurbs. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let it roll off. This was pretty borderline to add in the first place, and I agree with GCG above. Modest Genius talk 10:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose According to the article itself, the last significant, widespread, rioting occurred on and around April 7-8, with isolated incidents of vandalism and hooliganry occurring sporadically since then. Not as widespread as it was 5-6 days ago, and with little worth reporting since then, it seems like this is not really "ongoing" anymore. If it becomes sustained and widespread again in the future, with clear evidence of such in the article writing, I'd be perfectly willing to reconsider at that point. But as of now, it's not there. --Jayron32 16:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to wait until the whole Northern Ireland is burning. The article has been "regularly updated with new, pertinent information", that's the real criteria for "ongoing". STSC (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) Guillermo Lasso elected President of Ecuador

Proposed image
Article: 2021 Ecuadorian general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Guillermo Lasso (pictured) is elected the 47th President of Ecuador. (Post)
News source(s): The Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, BBC
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: Lasso's article has been updated and well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alsoriano97: the results section needs a prose summary of the second round voting results, and once that is done, I'm willing to support. SpencerT•C 17:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Spencer I have made some progress. If you think it's not enough, I'll get to it after dinner. Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Joseywales1961! Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Severe Tropical Cyclone Seroja

Consensus to post will not develop. Stephen 00:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: Cyclone Seroja (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Severe Tropical Cyclone Seroja makes landfall on the Western Australian coast (Post)
News source(s): ABC News, SBS News, The Guardian, BBC
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Major weather event; same cyclone that impacted Timor-Leste and Indonesia (also listed on News) JMonkey2006 (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't they all leave "a trail of damage"? So far the impacts in Australia aren't really noteworthy enough to post, and this is especially reflected by the article. So what if it's the "strongest to hit X town in X many years", these records are set and broken every single year. Gex4pls (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. If the loss of life isn't there, then the damage would have to be pretty significant for us to post, like if this had completely demolished the Syndey Opera House (I know, wrong coast, but trying to come up with local example). --Masem (t) 20:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

April 11

April 11, 2021 (2021-04-11) (Sunday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

RD: Massimo Cuttitta

Article: Massimo Cuttitta (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Italian international rugby player and coach. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) British Academy Film Awards

Proposed image
Article: 74th British Academy Film Awards (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At the 74th British Academy Film Awards, Nomadland wins four awards, including Best Film and Best Director for Chloé Zhao (pictured). (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ At the 74th British Academy Film Awards, Nomadland wins four awards, including Best Film and Best Actress for Frances McDormand (pictured).
Alternative blurb II: ​ At the British Academy Film Awards, Nomadland (writer and director Chloé Zhao pictured) wins Best Film along with three other awards.
Alternative blurb III: ​ BAFTA conducts the 74th British Academy Film Awards ceremony.
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: Updated with ceremony details. If using a McDormand blurb, there is an image of her at the article, too. Both Zhao and McDormand are mentioned in the Best Film citation so neither blurb as currently phrased would be inaccurate/open to misinterpretation. Kingsif (talk) 06:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Enzo Sciotti

Article: Enzo Sciotti (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sciotti's Instagram, Movieplayer.it, Kotaku
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: Italian artist that did thousands of iconic movie poster art in the 1980s and beyond. Article probably could be longer Masem (t) 03:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: "but well-referenced" - ??? Uses x (talk • contribs)
@Uses x: Your ping didn't work, but I looked to the ref list when I saw missing inline cites and the Guardian article there is good (the way it's been added as a source but not inline is an old ref format that just needs sorting). If information from it can be taken and added to the article, it should be mostly fine. Filmography might be on BFI but that's the real issue. If I had an hour I wasn't dedicating to something else, I'd do it. Kingsif (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support With the update it's more comprehensive and fully cited. @Bagumba: ping in case you don't see it. Uses x (talk • contribs) 09:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2021 Masters Tournament

Article: 2021 Masters Tournament (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In golf, Hideki Matsuyama wins the Masters Tournament. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In golf, Hideki Matsuyama wins the Masters Tournament to become the first Japanese male to claim a major golf championship.
News source(s): CNN–B/R, USA Today
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.

 PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If "new records" don't often happen, they won't often appear in blurbs, but look at the current Grand National one. Kingsif (talk) 07:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ITN: Blurbs should avoid sensationalism ... Every listed event can practically be described as a first for a specific location and/or situation. Perhaps the Grand National was an WP:IAR for one of the two gender assignments, while there are many more nationalities. That said, the headlines consistently allude to his nationality: "Hideki Matsuyama victorious at Masters, becomes first Japanese man to win major" ESPN, "The Masters 2021: Japan’s Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga leads celebrations after Hideki Matsuyama’s historic win" The Independent, "Hideki Matsuyama Wins the Masters With a Groundbreaking Performance" The New York Times—Bagumba (talk) 07:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mention of ethnicity/nationality as the event is ITN/R – plenty notable result without the need for qualifiers. Also, the way in which we would have to frame it to be a record (e.g. "first Japanese man" "first Asian-born champion") reeks of sensationalism. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
≈50% of the world's population vs. ≈1.6%? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But No. 3 in world GDP. —Bagumba (talk) 09:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing: Uyghur genocide

Consensus to post to ongoing will not develop. Stephen 01:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Uyghur genocide (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, CNN, USA Today
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Both "continuously updated" and "frequently in the news." Article is "regularly updated with new, pertinent information" – judging by the page's history, updates are added nearly every day to detail the evolving situation. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't change that it wasn't on ITN in the past. The fact of the matter is, as you said, that it's ongoing. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, ongoing like the Israeli–Palestinian_conflict and Darfur genocide and Rohingya genocide and Somali Civil War and War in Afghanistan (2001–present) and Syrian Civil War...let's permalist all those too. Yes the world is a dark place. TarkusABtalk/contrib 18:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – This has been a significant news item over the past week. Turkey summoned the Chinese Ambassador and issuing what at least one expert called the "most public rebuke of China in more than a decade." (For context, Erdogan accused China of committing genocide against the Uyghurs in 2009). China released a musical as a part of an intense propaganda campaign to deny its human rights abuses against ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang (a quote used in the NYT article was declared to be the NYT Quotation of the Day.) China has been intensifying its attacks against Uyghurs and Uyghur allies overseas, China has sentenced Uyghur officials to death, France is seeing a court case filed against multinationals relating to labor rights abuses in Xinjiang, and there are public discussions among the United States and its allies regarding whether or not to boycott the Winter Olympics, earning a response from Beijing. The Uyghur genocide is indisputably in the news, and it is one of the biggest stories currently. I believe that the article would be certainly fitting for inclusion here. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 08:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article is high quality and fully cited, but I have to question the word "genocide", as it's not completely agreed on (the BBC article states it's an allegation, for example), and it's not comprehensive enough about what's happening; I think the term "persecution" should be used for the title instead. Is there any reason against this, or should I suggest a rename? The article is also one-sided, with mostly commentary from activists and NGOs, and little commentary from China or its allies; you don't need to believe it (I don't), but it has to be given in the article. Uses x (talk • contribs) 09:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uses x, this title was very recently decided on in an extensive talk page discussion, which resulted in a one-year moratorium. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AllegedlyHuman That was changing the name from "Uyghur cultural genocide" to "Uyghur genocide". None of the titles the article has had or have been suggested, giving five in total, have used the word "persecution", so my point hasn't been discussed yet. The moratorium isn't an endorsement of the current name, so "If it becomes clear in the intervening 12 months that a better name exists" I can suggest it on the talk page, but that would take over seven days so I can't support the current nomination anyway, unless I'm convinced "genocide" is the widely-accepted term. Uses x (talk • contribs) 09:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See FAQ point two: "If I wish to rename the page, should I go ahead and open a move request?" "No." AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Uses x (talk • contribs) 09:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Uses x: The title "Persecution of Uyghurs" was proposed in a February 2021 move request, which resulted in not moved, with nobody other than the nominator supporting it. The discussion was not as lengthy as the April 1 move discussion, but there was still a consensus present not to move the page. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikehawk10 "was not as lengthy" - that's an understatement if I've ever heard one. The singular oppose doesn't deal with what I said, as the IP user who suggested it didn't give any kind of rationale for the change, and the current name was based on other factors ("cultural genocide" vs. "genocide"), so I'm not convinced.
Take a look at the talk page for the recent rename, and tell me there isn't a huge amount of personal research and WP:ACTIVISM there. Remember, the editors who are even involved in article re-naming are usually those involved in the article itself (and look at the sheer number of now banned, recently registered, and IP users in that bunch), so talk page concensus doesn't necessarily equal ITN concensus. Uses x (talk • contribs) 19:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that there is some activism going on that has led to breaches of the WP:NPA policy (such as this edit). I also think that Go Phightins!, the administrator who closed the most recent move discussion (which once again found an affirmative consensus to keep the page at Uyghur genocide), correctly closed things in a way that reflects consensus achieved on the article talk. Obviously, there can be different local consensuses in different places when there is no global consensus, so talk page consensus doesn't necessarily equal ITN consensus. That being said, it seems that the proper place to challenge article neutrality is in the article talk itself, not a separate venue, as this would help to keep the discussions on the article in a consistent place that editors can more easily discover and engage with. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - for article subject and overall article quality. Any concerns raised though should probably be fixed before posting.BabbaQ (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Uses x. As long as this article is calling something a "genocide" despite reliable sources not yet referring to it as such, it's not suitable for inclusion on the main page. The closer of the recent RM acknowledged that the title was problematic, but appears to have closed it as "not moved" on the grounds that no better title has been proposed. That may be the case, but it doesn't make the current title suddenly OK. I also agree with TarkusAB's oppose - this tragedy did not begin recently, it's been going since 2014, and there doesn't seem to be any end in sight - if we put it up, then we're basically saying it's going to be up for the next five years. There haven't been significant new developments in the past week and it's unclear why this is being proposed now rather than at any other time.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that "there haven't been significant new developments in the past week" per Mikehawk10. And as the nominator, I'll tell you frankly: I nominated it now because I thought of it now. Should it have been nominated in the past? Probably, but I can't go back and change that. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK that's fair enough, you thought of it now, and my point is not to say that nothing has happened recently. This is an "ongoing" event in the sense that terrible things are happening to people on the ground on a daily basis. I'm not belittling it at all. But as tragic and concerning as that is, that isn't what the ITN "Ongoing" section is all about. There are several ongoing conflicts and tragedies in the world right now - the never-ending wars in the middle-east, the War in Donbass, unrest in Venezuela, the persecution of Rohingyas, wars in Africa etc. etc. But the question is whether anything going on those conflicts amounts to global breaking news that we might consider posting as an individual story. When I do a Google news search for "Uighur" I don't see anything that would ever be considered as an ITN story in its own right. And honestly, from personal experience as someone who reads the UK news, nothing on this has crossed my radar this week. That may be a fault in the way international outlets are reporting it, but it's also not our job to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Please do not accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN." AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't accused anyone of anything. I'm saying that we shouldn't push an obviously non-neutral article into ITN that parrots the US State Department's allegations. Those allegations are widely contested, not least by the US State Department's own legal advisors. See, for example, this article, which describes how the political appointees at the US State Department ignored the legal advisors and accused China of genocide. The article Uyghur genocide puts extreme claims into Wikivoice, despite the fact that reliable sources describe these claims as allegations. This is not the sort of content that we should be pushing onto the front page. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You essentially called me and every support voter a fed for daring to think that a current genocide is in fact major world news. Now, I have a pretty thick skin, but you ought to strike that remark for those who don't. If you have concerns about neutrality, oppose on that principle and, if you're really so concerned about the article's current form, I would strongly encourage you to follow up on it by taking it to the article's talk page, making a better encyclopedia for all. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per reliable sources, these are allegations of genocide, made by the US State Department, contradicting its own legal advisors. There's a difference between allegations and facts, and it's important to note this distinction on Wikipedia. Putting an unproven (and heavily contested) allegation in Wikivoice is bad enough. We shouldn't then push this non-neutral material to the front page. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Besides for the Chinese government nobody appears to be contesting the allegations of human rights abuses, WP:RS have confirmed the allegations as far as they have been able to. Also just FYI the page name predates that US State Department designation as you well know because you participated in the naming discussion, your personal attacks are inaccurate as well as hurtful. Just because you personally don’t agree with a community consensus does not mean you can disrespect it or lie about it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
64 UN member states have signed a declaration rejecting the allegations - far more than have supported them. Even the US State Department's own legal advisors advised that the accusation was unsupported by the evidence, but they were overruled by the political appointees. RS specifically describe "genocide" as an allegation in this case, and attribute the allegation to the specific parties making it, as has been shown over and over again at Talk:Uyghur_genocide. The fact that reliable sources report that allegations have been made does not mean that those allegations are true, as the Iraq WMD fiasco illustrates. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, usually edits or discussions which aim to sway an article to pro-Chinese or anti-Western views are quite often met with "CCP trolls" or "wumao". I'm not saying that we should be allowing accusations of ethnocentrism, but we should be careful about applying double standards especially on a Euro and American centric website if we are to aim for a clear, balanced and worldwide take on topics. 58.167.153.79 (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - (1) per Uses x. The article name is contested, (2) Not particularly in the news (looked on the front and "world news" pages of several major news organisations and searched for "Uyghur" with no hits. AntiVan (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the CPC isn't going to stop because we stuck this article in ongoing. It will continue for generations until the Uyghur people are assimilated, exterminated, or driven out and the region repopulated with Han Chinese. Are we really going to leave this in the box that long? It's akin to putting Climate Change or Israeli–Palestinian_conflict into the box it is never ever ever going to stop. Nominate the occasional "blurb-worthy" event instead please. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nominate the "blurb-worthy" event instead please. Otherwise we end up filling the infobox with ongoing events, like Rohingya genocide,Yemeni Genocide all of which are current. When US designated a genocide in January 2021, that was a good point for "blurb-worthy" nomination. Albertaont (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Same old allegations do not qualify as "ongoing" for ITN. STSC (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As far as I could see the only legitimate support is from the nominator itself and Mikehawk10. All other supports other than that doesn't clearly state the reasoning. The oppose section raised various concerns regarding the neutrality of the article title and the content, and the fact that putting in on ongoing is an act of WP:RGW as the event itself has been going on for several years and the recent coverage is just about the "expose" part. One IP user pointed out to balance the take of the topics.
Meanwhile, the only support for this ongoing based it on the fact that there has been continuous widespread coverage over the past week. Judging through the refutations of the nominator on oppose comments, the nominator nominates this item due to the continuous development of the event's article in Wikipedia and the recent widespread coverage. The nominator refutes the neutrality allegation put forward by the oppose, stating that the matter has been discussed for a while and there is a moratorium for that. The nominator recommends whoever questioned the support to bring it up on the talkpage.
Judging by the weight of both opinions, I oppose the notion of nominating this item for ongoing. The continuous coverage of the event is only for the various actions of nation in response to the event and not for the existence of the event itself. Other than that, I believe that this article is sufficiently neutral due to the continuous consensus. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

April 10

April 10, 2021 (2021-04-10) (Saturday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

(Posted) RD: Ramsey Clark

Article: Ramsey Clark (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/10/us/politics/ramsey-clark-dead.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: Former U.S. Attorney General &c; significant figure and substantial article, some refs missing. Moscow Mule (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Issues were addressed. Hanamanteo (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not a factor for an RD; all people with articles are important enough to post. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My personal iVotes on these issues takes notability into primary consideration. Just because someone nominates someone who played one professional game of football but has a cracker-jack polished page doesn't mean I'll be coming by to support an RD. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ooooookay, but editors have raised legitimate concern about this page's current quality, the (agreed upon by consensus) sole issue for an RD. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is an iVote? Is that the Spanish version of !vote? --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 04:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Si. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If one is disgruntled with RD criteria, take it up at an appropriate venue, this is not it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just read the novella-length RfC and discussions, and it seems that the close of the RfC is far from supportive of the criteria without criteria expansion. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If what you're saying is that you think regular ITN users have misinterpreted the RFC linked to every RD proposal, then that's something to take up higher than this individual nom; I would suggest Wikipedia talk:In the news. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC close accepts the criteria as defined but seems to ask for further refinement. If someone can come up with a coherent sentence portion to add to it then your advice is appropriate. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn ... that's the literal point of RD. Anyone (and I mean anyone) who has a Wikipedia page is eligible for RD, which you can read on the text of the nomination itself. You don't need to come by if you don't support that, the regular contributors here will manage. Uses x (talk • contribs) 06:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the close of the RfC which asks for further criteria refinement in addition to article quality. This has been done in the case of inclusion of animals, yet it seems that the need for additional language to address other good faith concerns hasn't as yet been fully addressed and resolved. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn It has already been refined. Wikipedia:In_the_news#Article_quality, and the article doesn't meet that. And remember, if there are citation needed tags it means no one has put much effort into fact-checking the article, so the citations that are present likely haven't been verified. Uses x (talk • contribs) 07:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've sorted out most of the citation needed tags, the only two bits missing are two dates (both tagged) that are not particularly important, and that's fine according to the critera. Pinging everyone who was also opposed, in case you don't see the update: @Hanamanteo, AllegedlyHuman, The Rambling Man, Joseywales1961, and Pawnkingthree:
Changing to Support as issues were addressed throughout the day JW 1961 Talk 21:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Listed by French & German Wikis' RDs. – Sca (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sca Take a look at those pages, and you'll be able to say why those got posted yourself. Uses x (talk • contribs) 15:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Always amusing to see how poor the de. and fr.wiki standards are for BLPs. Something we should definitely not aspire to. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We're here to please. – Sca (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Grand National

Article: 2021 Grand National (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Minella Times wins the Grand National, with Rachael Blackmore becoming the first woman to win the race in its 180-year history. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Minella Times wins the Grand National, with Rachael Blackmore becoming the first woman jockey winner in the races 180-year history.
Alternative blurb II: ​ In horse racing, Minella Times wins the Grand National, with Rachael Blackmore becoming the first female jockey to win in the race's 180-year history.
News source(s): BBC Sport
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: It's already ITNR, but the "first female winner" would justify it regardless. Sceptre (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I tagged in this? L1amw90 (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've made significant contributions to the article so people think it reasonable to credit you with doing so. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Riders come off at a jump, it's the only reason and so common and expected to be unremarkable. Kingsif (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the only reason a horse fails to finish, and you know it. We are covering an historic event, so the info should be there for those in the future to be able to read. Mjroots (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is the only reason. I mean, if they have to shoot a horse, I hope the rider's come off it by then. Which is the disqualifying factor. Kingsif (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull. I have to agree with the above. The event is noteworthy enough, but the article is insufficient. The horse's article is also a redirect (to the race) and the jockey's article is a stub. -- Calidum 22:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 9

April 9, 2021 (2021-04-09) (Friday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Sandra J. Feuerstein

Article: Sandra J. Feuerstein (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Newsday
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American lawyer who served as a federal judge (2003–15) is killed at age 75 in a hit-and-run incident. Article needs more cites. Davey2116 (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Nikki Grahame

Article: Nikki Grahame (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [4]
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.

 BabbaQ (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reason to Oppose on ITN. Secondly, you obviously has not read the article.BabbaQ (talk) 09:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the article had over 300.000 views yesterday.BabbaQ (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because admit it, she was popular back in the days and that was the last series of BB I've watched. 86.9.227.81 (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great; not a valid reason to oppose. Read the notice at the bottom of the tan box. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ross Young (politician)

Article: Ross Young (politician) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC News
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Late-middle-aged statesman, technically. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Aten (city)

Article: Aten (city) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The lost city of Aten is discovered in the Theban necropolis (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Archaeologists announce the discovery of the ancient Egyptian city of Aten.
News source(s): Nat Geo, CNN, Guardian
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Described as the "second most important archeological discovery since the tomb of Tutankhamun" Onceinawhile (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Provisionally oppose on quality, support on significance. Whoa, this is big news, but I'll withhold my support until after the article is improved to post-able quality. Osunpokeh (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: DMX

Proposed image
Article: DMX (rapper) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  American rapper DMX (pictured) dies at the age of 50. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ American rapper DMX (pictured) dies at the age of 50 following a week of hospitalization.
News source(s): LA Times, Pitchfork, Rolling Stone, XXL
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: Sadly, it has now been confirmed. 50. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article is currently full-protected, so I literally can't. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, bloody ridiculous to have it fully protected. Shambles. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged the protecting admin, who dropped it back to semiprotection. Edit away. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The likes of TIME and USA Today called him a “legendary rapper” who “changed hip-hop forever”. On top of his number-one albums breaking Billboard records. So a transformative career is irrevocably the case. Trillfendi (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Article looks good enough for RD. A cleanup is due for the 'Legal issues', but it's acceptable. Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Masem and Uses x: Nice4What has now removed claims that were missing citations from the article. Would you mind taking another look? Thanks. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AllegedlyHuman Done, the article is acceptable for RD. Thanks for the ping. Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two major things that are still a problem: All of the Apperances need to be sourced (standard for any actor), and I'd beg the question if we need to detail every arrest/time in jail in "Legal Issues"; that he was frequently arrested and in jail is summarized in the lede, and if there were any major notable ones, those can be mentioned but it is highly inappropriate to post a rap sheet for a BLP/BRDP. --Masem (t) 17:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the guidelines say the deceased must be "notable enough outside the US for a blurb"? --LaserLegs (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not speaking for Connor, but as I read it, that was a kind way of saying "he might have been blurbworthy at his peak based on US popularity, but not when you think of all rappers globally". Of course, Connor might be saying "people outside the US don't listen to good rap" or something... Kingsif (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The chart peaks in DMX discography show hotness in Canada and not bad at all elsewhere after 2001. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Needs referencing. When ready, Support RD only: I thought I knew music, but I have never heard of him. Anecdotal evidence? Sure, but in a rapper hierarchy of who might possibly get a blurb one day (currently opining none), he's not even on the list. Kingsif (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb, Support RD Had he died a decade earlier, may have justified a blurb. Has been out of limelight. Albertaont (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb, support RD - At no point in his life was he anywhere near important enough for a blurb. Claims that he was a household name are ridiculous. Try mentioning DMX to elderly relatives - they won't even know there was a person known as DMX, let alone that he was a rapper. Jim Michael (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm sure the elderly would have actively avoided any such kind of "that hip hop music", just as I'm sure many free-spirit young punk whippersnappers would have avoided any sign of fealty to those monarchists in England. Singling out one group or another to determine what's important to society overall is myopic. (I doubt most of those grannies would have even heard of Kanye.) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Millions of young people don't care about Prince Philip's death, but they know who he was. (By the way, I'm opposed to him having a blurb as well, but realised long before he died that there'd be a strong consensus for a blurb.) Ask your octogenarian/nonagenarian (grand)mother/(grand)father/(great-)aunt/(great-)uncle what (s)he thinks about DMX & (s)he won't even know you're talking about a person, let alone a rapper. Jim Michael (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, you said that before. And as I said before, it's a ludicrous argument. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's relevant in refuting the claims that he was a household name. Most people haven't heard of him. Jim Michael (talk) 09:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to American rap, something that most people have no interest in. Being a household name means being very well-known across all demographics. Someone merely being well-known in their field isn't sufficient for them to have a blurb - they need to be at the top of it. Jim Michael (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The bar here is "transformative", not "top". AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In what way(s) was DMX transformative? Jim Michael (talk) 09:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, doing a cursory glance through what Wikipedia has to say on rap music, it's about 90% one and the same as "American rap music", especially in the period DMX was most notable. (Sorry, UK drill.) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not say "support RD" when you are merely opposing the blurb. Support RD means you think the quality is sufficient to post now. On that subject, I think we have enough oppose blurb votes - it will not happen. Lets just focus on getting the RD ready. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD Have finished referencing the filmography and awards. Marking ready. SpencerT•C 02:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • plus Posted RD "Legal issues" could use work, but no consensus that NPOV concerns there preclude posting.—Bagumba (talk) 03:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, only. While it may be true that "By late Friday afternoon there was one death dominating the most-read stories on the BBC website: that of the rapper DMX", [6] even if mistakes have been made with other blurbs, no need to compound them, and the article is fine for RD. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-RD posting support RD oppose blurb - Article is in good condition for RD. Tom Petty situation here - excellent music, premature death reports unfortunately bringing his actual death a bit more into the media spotlight, but just below the blurb line IMO. -- a lad insane (channel two) 18:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mahyuddin N. S.

Article: Mahyuddin N. S. (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Kompas
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: Governor of South Sumatra for five months and member of parliament for five years. COVID-19. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) La Soufrière eruption

Proposed image
Article: La Soufrière (volcano) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ La Soufrière erupts in Saint Vincent, causing the evacuation of close to 20,000 people. (Post)
News source(s): New York Times, Associated Press
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Many people evacuated, volcano hasn't erupted in 42 years. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now; information in the target article is exactly identical to the blurb. Unless we have something more to tell people in directing them to the article in question, there's no reason for an ITN posting. Please expand the article with sufficient information about the eruption, and then we can look at assessing those additions for their quality. Right now there's basically nothing there. --Jayron32 15:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bueno. --Jayron32 18:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been updated / expanded. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted as blurb) RD: Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Closing discussion before it turns sour. This is unlikely going to be pulled, but fixing issues issues related to any timing or bias should be on talk page. --Masem (t) 13:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC) The arguments on both sides are rational but the comparison to Barbara Bush doesn’t stand up because the Prince held his position for a much longer time, thus increasing the possibility to have a transformative effect on his field (philanthropy, social service). His long service has virtually no equal. He is the Wayne Gretzky of royals. Jehochman Talk 23:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Prince Philip (pictured), the Duke of Edinburgh and the consort of Queen Elizabeth II, dies at the age of 99. (Post)
News source(s): NBC
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Member of the British royal family, husband to the Queen. 99 and was notably in declining health before now. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • But if you really want "transformative in his field", he was a commander of the Royal Navy and literally helped invent a modern-day equestrian sport and the premier award for encouraging community spirit in young people internationally. In short, I'd expect the same treatment for any equivalent figure, though there are none (internationally impactful constitutional monarchy, military career, charitable career, dynastic longevity, etc). Kingsif (talk) 11:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Support RD only We don't post blurbs for the deaths of consorts (a recent example is the death of Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark) and I don't see how this person transformed any relevant field. Blurbs are not reserved for public figures per se.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:IMAGEQUALITY is relevant: "A biography should lead with a portrait photograph of the subject alone, not with other people." AllegedlyHuman (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd set that rule to anyone with a death article but that's yet a two-edged sword. People will fight to work up such articles in order to make the nominations qualify but, on the other hand, we'll probably end up with an increased number of RfDs on notability grounds as a result.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Mjroots, I don't think this meets the spirit of WP:WHEEL, Stephen reverted Fuzheado because he saw consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WHEEL: Wheel warring is when an administrator's action is reversed by another administrator, but rather than discussing the disagreement, administrator tools are then used in a combative fashion to undo or redo the action: Fuzheado reverted. OK. Stephen reverted. Wheel. —Bagumba (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both Fuzheado's second action, and Stephen's action, were technically WHEEL. It might be a good idea to stop there for the time being unless there's a clear consensus to change it, I think. Black Kite (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Black Kite. Let it end there, rather than everyone heading on over to WP:DRAMAFEST. Mjroots (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [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:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=1018127384"