*'''Support''', wow, that is a huge improvement of the record! Of course, the articles need updates. --'''[[User:Tone|Tone]]''' 16:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''', wow, that is a huge improvement of the record! Of course, the articles need updates. --'''[[User:Tone|Tone]]''' 16:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose on quality''' - Kiptum's article is short but adequate, while the record article needs updating and the marathon article needs more prose. [[User:The Kip|<span style="color:#333f42;">'''The'''</span>]] [[User talk:The Kip|<span style="color:#b4975a;">'''Kip'''</span>]] 17:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose on quality''' - Kiptum's article is short but adequate, while the record article needs updating and the marathon article needs more prose. [[User:The Kip|<span style="color:#333f42;">'''The'''</span>]] [[User talk:The Kip|<span style="color:#b4975a;">'''Kip'''</span>]] 17:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Gigantic improvement on old record. If possible, can we still keep Gaza-Israel on top though? [[Special:Contributions/2607:9880:2D28:108:8CCB:4DA1:DB7C:5EDB|2607:9880:2D28:108:8CCB:4DA1:DB7C:5EDB]] ([[User talk:2607:9880:2D28:108:8CCB:4DA1:DB7C:5EDB|talk]]) 17:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
The death toll in the Gaza Strip increases to 370 with more than 2,200 injured. The death toll in Israel increases to more than 750 with over 2,000 injured. Hamas says they hold 130 Israeli captives. (i24 News)(AFP via Barron's)
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.
Support - I’m not sure it’s ITN/R, but this is one of the most prestigious records in athletics and not one I was expecting to be broken now, particularly outside Berlin. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 15:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality - Kiptum's article is short but adequate, while the record article needs updating and the marathon article needs more prose. TheKip17:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scores of Israeli and non-Israeli civilians are taken hostage to Gaza. Hamas spokesman Abu Obaida says they are being held in "safe places and resistance tunnels". (The Independent)
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: This was blurbed last year (I actually just retyped the blurb from last year, except that I changed the 2022 article to the 2023 one), and I know that there are much bigger stories going on right now, but I think this should still be blurbed too. Vida0007 (talk) 03:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Max Verstappen's article should not be bolded,it's just the season one that's ITN/R, as per all sporting events and per previous postings. [1] Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 06:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This rightful target has its own problems, too. Namely too many primary sources for race reports (Formula1.com), not enough pronouns in the narrative and very short subsubsections in "Regulation changes" which could just as well be paragraphs. Of course, we have posted far worse before. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Needs work Copy-editing for tense and other ongoing issues is needed. For example, "The Qatar Grand Prix is scheduled to return to the calendar, after last being held in 2021." Andrew🐉(talk) 09:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose on quality The article overall isn’t a stub, but the sections about the earthquake itself (versus Afghanistan’s tectonic profile) are. TheKip13:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Saw no sourcing issues in the article, and I think it is sufficient enough to be posted as an ITN article. The article could still be expanded (and I think more details would come out), but I think this is already good enough. Vida0007 (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, this should be snow posting. Albeit I am not sure about blurb and what is actually happening. Guardian writes "Israel declares state of war", and BBC just writes "Israel has readiness for war". Kirill C1 (talk) 08:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Altblurb Obvious massive ramifications; massive attack that has already declared consequences. Article is surprisingly large & well-referenced for such a short span of time; kudos to all editors involved. - Nottheking (talk) 08:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I oppose the vague first alternative blurb "Hamas launches an attack on Israel". The same kind it has done repeatedly for the past few years, or is something maybe different this time? Merlinsorca08:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original blurb as too sensationalist, opppose alternative blurb 2 as being unconfirmed (5,000 rocket number is only claimed by Hamas leader). Support alternative blurb 1: Article is well-referenced (beside Anadolu Agency and pile of twitter citations) and substantial enough. ArcticSeeress (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support on significance as a no-brainer. However I'm not sure whether the blurbs are a bit too casual (is that how you describe it?) S5A-0043Talk10:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Support, prefer the first blurb; the second lacks details (Hamas frequently attacks Israel; we need to make it clear that this one is remarkable), while the third lacks clarity about what infiltration involves. Oppose the third, as it also lacks clarity about what happened. (Between the alt blurbs, I prefer #3, "Israel is infiltrated and attacked with over 5000 rockets by Hamas militants") BilledMammal (talk) 10:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There has been more than just rocket attacks: occupation of southern locations. I think that indicating only "attack" would reflect something more general about what has happened. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are some positives to your prose, but it also loses how it's more than just Hamas. How about: "Palestinian militant groups, including Hamas, launch an attack on Israel, consisting of missle attacks from the Gaza Strip(aftermath pictured) along with land and sea infiltrations." - Fuzheado | Talk14:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good edit. I have incorporated the longer wiki link, and included the casualty count. However, another editor Firefangledfeathers decided to unlink Israel and Palenstine, which I would not have elected to do, but I'm pinging here for discussion. Thanks. - Fuzheado | Talk16:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support With the second blurb. The firing of rockets into Israel isn't anything new, but the infiltration of Israel and kidnapping civilians is certainly new. Readers miss this key context with current blurb.
The current blurb is inaccurate because of a major omission. The attack includes both rockets and an armed incursion by militants. I recommend changing "a rocket attack on Israel" to "rocket attacks and an armed incursion against Israel". Please wikify Israel. I don't understand why Gaza is wikified and Israel isn't. We should use parallel structure and I favor more links. You might wikify Palestinians as well. JehochmanTalk15:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb doesn't say "airstrikes" it just says air. Reliable sources are also saying "land, sea, and air" [2][3] because of the use of paragliders [4]. So for now, I believe "air" is justified. - Fuzheado | Talk16:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also reword the current blurb from "Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups launch land, sea, and air attacks against Israel, including rocket strikes from the Gaza Strip (aftermath pictured)." to "Hamas and other Palestinian militant groupsattack Israel from land and sea, including rocket strikes from the Gaza Strip (aftermath pictured)." for which the reasoning has already been provided above. Idol Destroyer (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another admin has actually reduced the number of wiki links in the blurb, so I'm not eager to add more until more consensus is established. - Fuzheado | Talk16:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing The blurb is now bloating as the clash develops and the consequences and details emerge. Tit-for-tat strikes are happening and there seem to be hostages and fighting for control of border hot-spots. So, this will be best handled as an ongoing item, like the Ukraine conflict and all the other ongoing conflicts. Note that, while this may now be considered a war, there are 6 major wars currently and Ukraine is just one of them. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing is used when either something can not be expressed by a blurb or when the blurb rolls off. With this story being top blurb at the moment, consider ongoing later. Tone09:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the posted blurb is no longer a neutral or accurate representation of what's happening. Its a full scale war, with Israeli attacks on Gaza just as significant as Palestinian attacks on Israel. I would support altblurb3.VRtalk18:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the headline has regressed to the point of no significance. "a series of attacks" could just as easily mean 3 individual rockets fired, each of which were shot down by Iron Dome, resulting in 0 casualties. What is significant is the massive number of rockets (thousands), the coordinated incursions/infiltrations, and the casualty count that is now in the hundreds. I disagree with the decision to remove casualty figures; if 70 became outdated, the figure simply should’ve been updated - like we do for the other headlines.
I agree the current headline is relatively weak compared to the previous one. A rough death toll should be included in some way, though I'm not sure we can say "Israel" has declared "war" as it is only an utterance by Netanyahu. For all practical purposes, it's hard to believe this is not an all-out war, but we should find the right WP:V wording here. A possibility:
Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups launch a series of attacks against Israel (aftermath pictured) leading to hundreds of deaths and a declaration of war by prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
How about "leading to hundreds of deaths in the ensuing war"? The war itself surely trumps its declaration, and several of those hundreds are victims of it, not the initial "series of attacks". Just a suggestion. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And yeah, if there's something unverifiable, undesirable or otherwise ugly about "war", something like conflict, fighting or battles might get the same point across slower. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe better to unlink militant groups. Israel is not linked because we do not link countries, Gaza Strip is a region and we usually link those. Tone14:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was hesitating to put "Israel declares a state of war" unless it was official, but it seems like the cabinet has made it so: "Sunday’s move by the Israeli cabinet is an official decision, tantamount to a declaration of war by Congress in the United States." (CNN) I am going to work in some of the casualty count. - Fuzheado | Talk14:41, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It still seems a bit weird to focus on the declaration of a state of war, then attribute the dead to the opening attack, rather than to the now-day-old war itself. But whatever, it's close enough. Thanks for unpiping! InedibleHulk (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seventeen people are killed and fifteen others are injured after a bus carrying migrants from Venezuela crashes in Oaxaca, Mexico. (Reuters)
Floods and mudslides triggered by heavy rain occur in Sri Lanka, with five people killed and five others injured when a tree falls on a bus in Colombo. Another person is killed by a falling rock in Galle District. (AP)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
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.
DYK for Simone Biles? We're not talking about an obscure athlete here, and her article is neither new nor heavily expanded upon. DYK wouldn't make sense for her. Kurtis(talk)23:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Major milestone in gymnastics, and her article is very well-written with lots of sources. I think the only thing it needs is a bit more information on the achievement itself. Kurtis(talk)23:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Most-decorated" is not a very meaningful term. Very tabloid. Even though the article tries to define it, it's not an agreed "record". (Why not just say "won more World Championship medals than anyone else"?) Even then, it's always difficult to numerically compare sports people from different eras. The numbers of events available change, and the quality of competition varies, so winning more doesn't automatically mean better. HiLo48 (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just World Championship medals, per the lead, but all the relevant awards. I don't think "most-decorated" is tabloidy, rather a short way of saying this in sports, entertainment and military "parlance". Agree it is not a cromulent synonym for "greatest of all time". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most decorated sounds like soldiers', police, etc, awards for valour to me but don't North Americans use that interesting word "winningest"? JennyOz (talk) 06:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The claim is incorrect and ill-founded. Firstly, it’s impossible to sum medals won at the Olympics and the World Championships. Secondly, the Olympics are by far the most important contest in gymnastics. Thirdly, the World Championships now take place annually, except in Olympic years, but they were held every second year in the 1980s and every fourth year from the 1930s to the 1970s, which makes it impossible to compare her with gymnasts from the past (for instance, Latynina won five gold and a silver medal at the 1958 World Gymnastics Championships, a feat that Biles has never achieved; furthermore, Latynina won six medals at each Olympics from 1956 to 1964, another feat that Biles has never achieved). She may be the most decorated gymnast at the World Championships in the current format, held annually bar in Olympic years, but she’s still far from what Latynina did in the sport. I’ll support a blurb if she surpasses Latynina to become the most decorated female Olympian, but this is not it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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: Change in head of government, so ITNR. Kilman's article seems good, but Salwai's needs a decent bit of work. Crediting the IP who initially posted it to Current Events, as the blurb is effectively copied from there. TheKip17:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Salwai's article is marked as a stub, and the update consists of a single sentence in the lead. (Also, the NYT source above is a month old and doesn't mention him.) —Cryptic05:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest oppose: Article is missing information on how he first became leader of the RMC (which I also could not find online) which makes being re-elected to that position confusing. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
question is he opposed to the China deal the old dude did? If so, it's massive. otherwise not ITNR as head of state. Quite normal in parliamentary systems.37.252.80.255 (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per ITNR:
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 except when that change was already posted as part of a general election.
Article:Narges Mohammadi (talk·history·tag) Blurb: The 2023 Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to human right activist Narges Mohammadi while in prison in Iran "for her fight against the oppression of women in Iran and her fight to promote human rights and freedom for all". (Post) Alternative blurb: The 2023 Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to Iranian human right activist Narges Mohammadi "for her fight against the oppression of women in Iran and her fight to promote human rights and freedom for all" News source(s):Financial Times 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.
Bold In this case, we have an article about this year's prize –2023 Nobel Peace Prize – which is obviously the most specific article about the event and gives details of the competition. That should be the primary article in bold while the winner can be in bold too, if desired. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, the winner is the one that is featured in ITNR, that's clearly who we want to be featured in the blurb. Second, that article has problems: the committee section is unsourced, and beyond mentioning Mohammadi as the winner, there's no aspect actually related to the naming of the winner. Masem (t) 12:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question I’ve been rebuked for language before, but are the loaded adjectives e.g. Mohammadi made a moving speech, Mohammadi was arbitrarily arrested, she gave a shocking report from prison the norm for such articles? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It still says Editors may on occasion wish to use wording more neutral than that used by Amnesty but if it’s a standard term then sure. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, true. I thought about this more and it probably is an NPOV violation. What about just saying she was arrested and then saying "Amnesty International called it an arbitrary arrest"? 98.170.164.88 (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The paragraph beginning with "On 27 February 2021" is lifted almost verbatim from page 98 (50 in PDF numbering) this report. Might need to be reworded to avoid copyright issues. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged that as a copyvio which is going to block posting until its fixed. There may be a need to investigate the whole article on that issue. Masem (t) 18:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Earwig's Copyvio Detector I'm disregarding the iran-protests.com hit as it incorporates text in the article which has evolved over history and its other profiles have major similarities to Wikipedia articles, e.g. Nasrin Sotoudeh vs their profile. sawtbeirut.com seems like a highly suspicious source as the first two pargraphs duplicate each other and the article was published after the relevant text was added. gc4hr mainly duplicates quotes, which should be fine. Running it against the PDF only turns up the quotes besides the aforementioned copyvio. I don't think there are other copyvios in the article, nor can I find another way to phrase the copyvio text that is just as good. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the identified copyrighted text. Considering that the text was added by one new editor who has made five total edits on the page in one day in 2021, I don't think we need to be concerned about wider copyright problems (absent additional evidence). Ed[talk][OMT]06:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On February 27, 2021, she posted a video on social media in which she explained that she had been summoned to court twice in December. These summons were related to a case that had been initiated against her while she was in prison. Mohammadi made it clear in the video that she was refusing to attend these court hearings and intended to defy any verdicts that might be issued.In the video, she recounted incidents of sexual abuse and mistreatment, both endured by herself and other women during their time in prison. She also emphasized that authorities had not yet addressed a complaint she had lodged on December 24, 2020, regarding these issues. The case that had been brought against her was linked to a protest staged by female political prisoners at Evin Prison. This protest had been in response to the killing and arrests of demonstrators by security forces in November 2019.
”
Even if we convert the dates and move everything about the case in one paragraph, the is still overly verbose while basically copying large parts of the original material. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted after resolving the copyright investigation. Kudos to Aaron Liu. I've used a lightly modified version of the proposed blurb. While it could be shortened to "The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to Narges Mohammadi for her activism in support of women's and human rights in Iran", that reverses the quoted line ("fight against" -> "support of") and felt like too much of a change to make without discussion. Ed[talk][OMT]06:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Russia says that a child has been killed and three others are injured while trying to dismantle cluster munitions fired from Ukrainian forces, in the occupied city of Horlivka. (Al Jazeera)
Russia announces the successful test of the Burevestnik, a nuclear-powered and nuclear-capable cruise missile with a potential range of thousands of miles. (Reuters)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Not 100% sure if this can be posted, he died last year and his death was only revealed this week, but the criteria say an article can be posted if the death was announced within the last seven days. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 17:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suppport - A similiar situation happened earlier this year with Rolf Harris, whose death was not reported immediately. Granted, his was reported two weeks after the fact rather a year later, but I think what matters is that it is only being reported now. LM2000 (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
I just cited basically everything in that section. The only remaining claim in the article tagged with CN is about a 2008 TV episode, which can be easily verified by searching for "Top 10 Most Feared Tacklers" on YouTube and going to 39:38, but I think there's a guideline against linking to/citing YT videos. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 04:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This attracted my attention because the name stood out. Not being familiar with the subject, I found the article to be a good read and it's already a GA. I don't think that RD does the subject justice as they were outstanding at the top of their field, but suppose that there will be plenty of name recognition. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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: Article is there in quality but a copyedit to link some single-sentence paras together couldn't help. Masem (t) 12:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nyorsk Reading the article, I noticed it said "This made him the first Nynorsk writer to receive the prize". I first thought that Nynorsk was a place but it turns out that it's a language. As I'd not heard of this before, it seemed like an interesting encyclopedic aspect. (I find that we have a separate Wikipedia in that language to avoid conflict). Perhaps the blurb might mention this. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, though it is only a form of Norwegian and a blurb can fit only so mundane including the Prize rationale. The nationality (and the implied language therein) thus in this case suffices. Gotitbro (talk) 09:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Non-native Norwegian speaker here: Nynorsk is a written standard, not a language (the other important standard is Bokmål). Nynorsk's more popular in less populous, less metropolitan areas. It's sometimes seen as a form of national pride since Bokmål is more similar to Danish's writing system. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page15:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Novo Tape As a native Norwegian speaker I was just about to make this correction but you beat me to it! It's indeed important to remember that Nynorsk and Boy kmål are just written standards, which is why no one speaks Bokmål or Nynorsk. They speak their dialects, which of course may be closer to Bokmål or Nynorsk. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror15:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support (w/ comment on alternative blur 2) — I would go with alternative blurb 2 which I just added. Alternative Blurb 2 is the same as the first blurb (by Masem) except it links to 2023 Nobel Prize in Literature, the latter article adding further context for interested readers. But keeping the blurb to minimal verbiage. Trauma Novitiate (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support and small comment - Looks good to go for me. As a minor point: I would prefer if we referred to him as "author and playwright", as he's known for both his novels (his latest one, Septology, was widely acclaimed) and his plays. Khuft (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted ALT2 I’m curious about the comment that we usually include a Nobel Prize rationale. If so, we should swap to ALT1. Could we please get some input on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwede66 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the other Nobels, we can usually write to what specific field of research they were involved with that they award for. They don't offer a simple explanation for the Literature and Peace prizes, so it makes sense to include some brief statement why they were awarded based on the Nobel Committee's explanation. --Masem (t) 19:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose In contrast to the footy World Cup, the cricket one does not receive the same level of worldwide news coverage as to make it appropriate for ongoing. The final result is an ITNR and we can post then. --Masem (t) 12:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Masem. Few global tournaments beyond the FIFA World Cup and Olympics receive enough coverage to qualify for ITNR; this sadly isn’t one of them. TheKip14:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support seoncdmost popular sport in the world; sorry if you guys haven't seen the coverage, but there is obviously tons of coverage in countries which actually play the game (which is like 1/5 of the world). AryKun (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the 2022 Rugby World Cup is at least sports page news in some South American countries, like Argentina, which is contending for a knockout stage berth, for example. The 2023 FIBA Basketball World Cup should also be in the news in some South American countries, like Argentina, for example, which infamously did not qualify, after losing in the 2019 final.
Is it really tho? Im having trouble finding any consistency in the various places on the internet ranking popularity, in either audience or participants, of sports besides broad agreement that soccer is first. nableezy - 18:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support If this was posted the last time I don't see why we should digress from that now. This is already ITNR so posting the championship on its own goes having an ongoing before that does not hurt. Gotitbro (talk) 03:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure the US is one of the few countries included in the qualifiers. Its everybody else Id imagine that cared even less. nableezy - 18:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The unfortunate reality is that there is truth to the above statement. The same reality that would have us post Norman Borlaug’s death but not post M S Swaminathan’s death. Ktin (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's because the CWC guys don't bother letting minnows with no chance of qualifying participate. All of South Asia is colored in on that basketball map, and I will guarantee you that no one gives a shit about our basketball teams here. AryKun (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Do not see issues with posting this in ongoing. Also, seems like it has been posted in the past, no reasons to change now. Also, in ITNR so that will cover the end of tournament posting. Ktin (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - If ITN is going to post the result of a multi-day competition, it should post the competition to "ongoing" as well, as it'll be more helpful to readers to have the link during the competition instead of just after it's over (and thus fulfill the purpose of ITN: to help readers find articles about things in the news). Levivich (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's compare this annual national tournament in the world's eight most popular sport to the once-every-four-years World Cup of the world's second most popular sport. Brilliant comparison, totally makes sense. Honestly, I wonder how long it'll take the Americans here to admit that their favorite games just aren't the erst of the world's favorite. AryKun (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's just ten competing teams, and it'd be in ongoing for a month and a half. That's disproportionate compared to the three sporting events we do regularly have consensus to put in ongoing: the Summer and Winter Olympics last a bit over two weeks, with essentially every nation competing in the Summer and 90ish in the Winter, and the FIFA World Cup is 32 teams over about a month. Posting this to ongoing in 2019 was an error we should not repeat. —Cryptic01:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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:LGBT rights in Mauritius (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Mauritius becomes the second african country to decriminalise same-sex sexual intercourse between men (Post) News source(s):[9] Article updated
Oppose Anything outside the first country to pass such laws is not as significant, as we've done in the past. --Masem (t) 12:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The gap between Italy and Germany's 10 year bond yields increases by 200.2 basis points. Italy comes under intensifying pressure to sell off the public assets. (Reuters)
At least 14 people are killed and 100 others are missing after a cloudburst causes severe flooding in Sikkim, India. (CNN)
The Lhonak Lake bursts its banks, causing major flooding and impacting 22,000 people. It its the worst such disaster in the region in over 50 years. (Reuters)
Large parts of the Teesta Dam have been washed away, with multiple large bridges also being destroyed. (NOS)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: From a one-person cleaning company, with bucket, broom and a used donated typewriter, to millionaire, with a big heart for social improvements, patron of education, music, museums, - he will be missed. Only two of the 2018 sources were no longer in service, - a nice change. Many more report his death but mostly just short dpa, - perhaps tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Strong oppose this Wiki article only has one sentence, meaning that it is insufficient article size for ITN, and this article may be a future candidate for deletion. 4me689 (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on the nom other than the article quality has a long way to go. On a wider note, all(?) the reporting on this appears to trace back to the Daily Mail, which according to WP:RSP has a "reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication". Ed[talk][OMT]21:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose This is not really ITN-worthy due to the fact that we usually don't post just because of the canceling of a building project, and this is just not something I would expect to see on ITN. Editor 5426387 (talk) 01:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Phase 1 has another 10 years to go and so phase 2 is too WP:CRYSTAL. The rail network in the UK will be getting other updates in this time and, as it's all quite political, complex and subject to further change, it's best to focus on the completion of significant pieces. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support Article is good enough, and the unusual circumstances of plunging 50 feet onto power lines killing over twenty people should allay any NOTNEWS concerns.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support ALT2 Article is in good shape and circumstances are considerably more unique than the average bus crash. TheKip17:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not wish to express any thoughts on notability yet, but I have two concerns regarding alt2. Firstly, plunge is linked to Bus plunge an article about the journalistic practice of reporting bus plunges. That seems like a weird choice, especially since the article itself says some believe that such reports aren't about newsworthiness but to fill space. It's an interesting choice to include that on an ITN blurb, since ITNs notability/significance standard is supposedly higher than the news. Secondly, why is "killed" the bold link? Shouldn't it be "when a bus plunges", as that's the event? It's common practice, for example the bottom blurb on ITN right now has "a suicide bombing" bold linked, not "killed", and it seems to comply more with MOS:LINKCLARITY. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror17:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's especially strange for us to link to bus plunge, an article about newspaper phrasing, when it's Wikipedia's decision to phrase the blurb in this way. I've removed the link, but left the rest alone in case others would like to weigh in. Ed[talk][OMT]18:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Comment outside the picture issue (I note there's one on Brus' page), Brus and Bawendi are ready on quality, but Ekimov's is still a bit stubby but it is fully sourced. --Masem (t) 12:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Thank you for the nomination, Happily888. I'd like to see clarified if the tenor parenting is the father of her child - conflicting sources. I also wish her - a great singer in many fields - a better lead, but have no time today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The interview in The Sydney Morning Herald (2013) is clear on that: "We picked the sperm donor together." But I think there's no need to delve into that kind of details in article; IMO, it's fine as it is. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree if this is so, - I had no time to read all sources in detail, which is one of the reasons I didn't nominate. I just remember that one source read (to me, and I may have misread) as if he was also the biological father. I don't remember where, and you are right: doesn't matter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Notability of the incident is derived from the relative young age of the suspect and the shooting's location in one of the most popular malls in Thailand, not so much its death toll per se. JaventheAldericky (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Please do not...Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive." PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that the picture can be changed to something else since this picture does not depict an accurate image of the shooting. Also, dont put a picture of the shooter. He is a minor. Ilantheeditor (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose Knew this nom was coming. It’s historically significant, but domestic enough that it doesn’t have the reach to be blurbed. I don’t believe we posted his election as Speaker either. TheKip21:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
His non-elections were news in Europe. His eventual election was not. In contrast, news are going to be full of his ousting today, and not just in Europe. Renerpho (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Domestic political drama, and its only a speakership, not a position of leadership of the country. Dont think any other non confidence vote for the speaker of a legislative body would even be considered here. ✨ 4 🧚♂amKING21:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not unusual for a lot countries. If the presidency was vacated and the speaker assumed power, that would be a completely different story, with different considerations. (and qualify for ITN/R even). ✨ 4 🧚♂amKING13:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Support Alternative Blurb 1 Much more notable than his election back in January. If I recall correctly, this has never happened before. This is notable, and relevant. BigCheese76 (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The removal of the leader of a legislative body of a UN security council member, a first for that country, isn't important? What is important enough? 331dot (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The removal of the President of the United States would be important enough. We don't post domestic squabbles here. If this were any other country, it wouldn't even be considered. If it's not the leader of a nation, I won't consider posting it. Noah, AATalk21:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but we should be posting good articles about events that are heavily in the news, since this is in the news. Please see "please do not" above. Ukraine might have a strong interest in their being a speaker. 331dot (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While the Speaker plays an important role in US politics that makes the American Speaker different from the Speakers of other countries, the Speaker doesn’t have the executive role that a Prime Minister has. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the same way that the election of the speaker of the British HoC or the resignation of the president of the French National Assembly isn't important enough. Please. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Speaker of the HOC is non partisan, unlike the Speaker of the US House which directs legislation. And, we can't consider what isn't nominated. 331dot (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we can use examples to support our arguments. Where is the prohibition?
The Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives is not a Head of Government or Head of State, and does not assume diplomatic functions. No matter how much of a director of the legislative process he may be (I guess it is good to advise you to know how it works in other countries). _-_Alsor (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - seems unremarkable - even if it's rare in that nation. We (rightfully) refused the ouster of the Canadian speaker of the house last week - even though it was under much more unusual and controversial circumstances! And I doubt we'll see a nomination for today's election of Canada's new speaker - despite the historic first of being the first black speaker! I'm not sure it's even the most significant event to occur in the USA Congress in the last week! Nfitz (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how that's relevant - it's more about the significance of the event and the news coverage. I don't think Nazis were involved in McCarthy's ouster. Nfitz (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG support. Has received international breaking-news coverage, and is a significant event. Among the top news of the day. Perhaps a better blurb should be found though. SecretName101 (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Elisecars727 It is not required that an event be international news to be posted. As said above, "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." 331dot (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support because this is a first in history, and also has international impacts (will delay further US aid to Ukraine). I probably wouldn't support if this wasn't a first. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak supportSupport Yes, this is domestic politics, but it is true that it made news internationally. Renerpho (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC) Removing the weak qualifier. I fully support, on the same grounds as I gave earlier, and per Nomader's and Tamzin's votes below. Renerpho (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The US system of government is explicitly designed so that power is not concentrated in one person – not even the President. The Speaker is quite significant in passing budgets, as seen recently, and now the recent temporary deal is unlikely to hold. There will then be further brinkmanship and financial instability which will be significant because of the size of the US. As this hasn't happened before, we're in interesting times. But the blurb should be like the alt in specifying that this is the US speaker, as many readers won't already be familiar with the details. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the first time in U.S. history this has happened. Analogies to other countries that routinely shake up leadership are inapt because the U.S. political system functions very differently. Oppose votes on the grounds that this is a national issue should be discounted per ITNCDONT #2. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose domestic politics and he can return according CNN. Not important enough for world news as he is not head of state or government. Shadow4dark (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it might not but there is no constitutional crisis and he might return. We will repost this anyway if they come with a successor. Shadow4dark (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose part of the political circus the House has been. Also understanding that we are to try to combat external systematic bias by understanding that the press are going crazy over this but it presently has little ramifications in how this country is governed. --Masem (t) 21:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no Speaker, the House cannot pass legislation to keep the government open past mid November, and the government not operating is certainly significant. 331dot (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to arguments with counterarguments in a civil manner is hardly bludgeoning. It is debatable as to if the temporary speaker can move legislation. Is this ITN, or isn't it? 331dot (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether or not the comments are civil. Responding to nearly every oppose comment in a discussion to contradict them is bludgeoning. In Wikipedia terms, bludgeoning is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. It is undesirable and considered a form of disruptive editing.Noah, AATalk22:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to "contradict", I'm trying to discuss and persuade, as is everyone here. I've already conceded one of your points above as "fair enough". If that's "bludgeoning", then we all are doing it. If you would like to discuss this further with me, please use my talk page. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ten comments in 35 minutes, may indeed be excessive User:331dot. I'm confused though - if the Speaker is at home with the flu for a week ... does the entire House come to a halt? Surely not. Nfitz (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The office isnt vacant then, there is an acting speaker. Right now the only business the House can consider is who to elect speaker. nableezy - 03:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By my count, 331dot has responded to five out of nine opposes. Not what I would call "responding to nearly every oppose comment", nor "contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own", nor bludgeoning, nor excessive. ---Sluzzelintalk22:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a possibility this mess will lead to another gov't shutdown in 45 days, but anything outside of "McCarthy outed" is all speculation, even by the media. The only other thing that the media are stamping on in a non-opinionated matter is this being the first time that has happened -- however, superlatives like this, particularly when only limited to one chamber of one country's governing body, do not make for good ITN stories.
The media is riled up on this showing the GOP as the clown show they have been all term, but that's all opinion and which does not make for good ITN coverage. Masem (t) 23:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this were any other country, people would be supporting and then replying to oppose votes saying "you only opposed because this isn't in America". We can keep speculating like this, or alternatively, we could stop playing the "you're just biased" game every time a new ITN blurb comes up. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's still the closest thing to a Prime Minister the US has. As you presumably know, in a Parliamentary system, the Prime Minister is the head of both the Legislature and the Executive. In a Presidential system like in the US, the President is the head of the Executive. The Speaker is the head of the Legislature, so in that respect, the speaker basically has the same legislative powers as the Prime Minister does. In addition, the Speaker is chosen from the members of the House, again, similar to how a Prime Minister is chosen. -- RockstoneSend me a message!18:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for this claim? Democrats won't help McCarthy, and what will persuade the rebels to change their mind? 331dot (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obligatory Canadian oppose because of (insert whining about Americentrism). In all seriousness, this is big news, but is it really that important outside of the US? If it leads to a shutdown, I'd be tempted to support, but in the meantime, let's wait a while. LilianaUwU(talk / contributions)22:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We would likely post a US government shutdown(IIRC we posted the last one) but we certainly wouldn't post it as "30 days ago Kevin McCarthy was tossed out of the Speaker's chair which led to this government shutdown". 331dot (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeToo many Support arguments of the form "IF this isn't resolved quickly, we WILL have a crisis." That means this event in itself isn't huge for the country, yet. It is huge for the Republican Party, but I don't think one party's problems in any country should make it here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Struggling to see the impact here. He was only Speaker for nine months, and seemed to spend most of that time just trying to hold on to his job. The House will elect another Speaker in due course. Yes it may be a "first", but it's not going to actually affect anyone in the way a government shutdown would. It is, ultimately, internal political squabbling. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Three of the four proposed blurbs say "ousted". That's both slangish, and unclear. Might look good in tabloid headlines, but we should do better. Ousted how far? From the job, the House, the party, the country, Washington...? Is ousting a physical action, such as defenestration? (It sounds a bit like it?) HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per 331dot. Interesting story with global coverage, historic occurrence in U.S. politics with some international ramifications. Solid prose article. Davey2116 (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - meets I and II of WP:ITNPURPOSE; readers are certainly looking for this item now, and it will intrigue those who are perhaps less engaged in U.S politics but will no doubt still interest them. Historic moment as well. — Knightoftheswords23:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, we use ITNCRIT to decide what items to display in the box. ITNCRIT distills ITNPURPOSE into quantitative and qualitative aspects to consider. Masem (t) 00:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - might I also add, I think we should really do away with "we shouldn't post because I believe we wouldn't post if it happened in x instead of y!" arguments. They're essentially the discussion equivalent of WP:CRYSTAL; being based on pure speculation, and have accomplished nothing aside from further narrowing the pool of select few topics that even have a chance of getting posted on here. — Knightoftheswords23:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support now that McCarthy has announced he is no longer seeking the Speakership ([13]) -- he's just out completely. Per WP:ITNPURPOSE, it clearly is something that people are searching for now and would showcase the quality of our article on the matter. I'd also argue to Hurricane Noah's point on the Acting Speaker -- they aren't actually... doing anything. They will do nothing until they vote on who the new Speaker is, basically the US government stops functioning completely and will have a series of votes now. Nomader (talk) 00:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a follow-up to a Comment I made earlier, a question from a non-American unfamiliar with the details of US political machinations - What's he out of? The job of Speaker, the Republican Party, the House (does that need a capital?), Washington? My earlier concern was about three of the four proposed blurbs saying "ousted". Huh? We are global. Let's please be clearer. HiLo48 (talk) 02:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Next question. By whom? And so what? What's it mean? What happens next? Just repeating headlines intended for internal US consumption is not good enough for this global encyclopedia. HiLo48 (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, and I could see an argument that we should wait until a new Speaker is elected before posting this as well -- I prefer the third Alt version here which I think is the clearest and most concise summation of the situation as it stands now.
A faction of Republicans joined Democrats in voting out the Speaker, highlighting intra-party conflict that has honestly never happened before in the U.S. The House needs a Speaker to operate. Without one, it can only vote on "Who should be Speaker", preventing any legislation passage at all, including funding for Ukraine and other internationally-important notes. I'd liken it to the 2010 Australian Labor Party leadership spill in Australia or the 1990 Conservative Party leadership election in the UK -- except... this has never happened before in the American system, so it's just kind of chaos right now. It's also not the leader of the country, but in the American system, the Speaker is a critical piece to allowing government to function so I'd argue this should still be included. Just what a mess. Nomader (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see a number of comments saying it's "local," but by that definition we shouldn't consider the change of Prime Ministers or Kings either; this is counter-productive, and is just an example of a lot of Wikipedians forgetting the 2nd "Please do not" guideline. Just because McCarthy wasn't Speaker of the House for the entire world doesn't make it "too local." And while not being the sole head of government (contrast to the analogous position of PM in the world's many Westminster-styled parliamentary systems) is a difference, that actually only really applies to the rational for the change in Speakership to not be ITN/R.
In short, there's a lot of folk forgetting that we're not debating whether all Speakership changes are ITN/R, but rather whether this particular event is "newsworthy," as well as having encyclopediac significance. These two parts are pretty self-evident: we have loads of evidence of heavy reporting of this event all over the world, and its significance is already established given this event Already has a substantial article.
It's pretty hard to question that this whole event cycle (of replacing Kevin McCarthy as speaker) is easily on the sort of event that we post: it is highly unusual. And because the ouster itself is the unusual part, that's what'd be posted, not the eventual election of a replacement. Nottheking (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support As plenty of other domestic political events across the world have been featured in the news and this is a first time in the United States congress, at least recently, it's an event worth a blurb in my opinion. --AXEdits (talk) 00:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per 331dot, Nomader, and others. If this becomes a routine occurrence in the House, then sure, we shouldn't post it. For now, it is an unprecedented event that has resulted in the removal of the #3 government figure in the world's superpower. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trump's not going to be elected Speaker: a few Republicans might vote for him, much like how they did during the January elections, but it's just political grandstanding. -- Carnildo (talk) 21:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose internal politics. If the head of state / head of government is affected then sure, for everyone else I oppose regardless of what country it is. Banedon (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "only head of state/government" is for ITN/R. We're not discussing whether all US Speaker changes are ITN/R, (this isn't even the page to discuss that!) but whether this particular event is noteworthy. And to call it "internal politics" is to ignore #2 of WP:ITNCDONT. - Nottheking (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The office of the Speaker of the House has existed continuously since April 1, 1789, and the speaker is second in the line of succession to the US presidency. The speakership is an exceptionally powerful office, and this is the first time in 234 years that a speaker has lost his job through a vote of the House of Representatives. This is an unprecedented development in US politics, and has an immediate impact on military assistance to Ukraine. Cullen328 (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support this one as I did the similar event in January. The house speaker has never been removed before, and is a crucial role in the government — the House of Representatives has a lot of power over diplomacy, and a lot of the dispute stems from the funding of Ukraine; it is by no means solely internal politics. I agree with Rockstone35, many may be misconstruing the role of the Speaker of the House as the US does not use a Westminster system. Unknown-Tree (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support (altblurb 3) - While I came here with the intent to oppose this to avoid Americentric bias, particularly considering we did not post Anthony Rota's resignation in Canada, it does appear that this is making pretty big news elsewhere, or at least across the pond where it is the top story for the BBC [14] and The Telegraph [15]. I think a lot of the opposition here is ignoring WP:ITNCDONT: Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. And while I understand and support the idea that we should avoid ITN being solely or heavily America-centric, I wouldn't want to overcorrect in the other direction and not post something historic in the U.S. in the name of WP:GLOBAL. estar8806 (talk) ★01:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Altblurb3 at least avoids the tabloid word "ousted", using "removed" instead. That's good. But this non-American is still confused. Who removed him? Really? The article says the House did, but I'm getting the impression that his party has turned against him. Is that what's really happened here? If that's case, THAT is surely the big news here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
8 Republican members of the House who were unhappy w/McCarthy voted w/the Democrats to oust McCarthy. 1 of the Republicans (Matt Gaetz) made the initial motion to vacate. B/c of the slim Republican majority, there were enough votes to remove McCarthy. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Being unprecedented does not make an event more impactful. If we don't post speaker elections, I don't see the point of posting a removal. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing saying we don't post speaker elections, we just haven't, in the past, because they're not notable enough for here. A speaker gets elected every two years in the US House. This is the only time a Speaker has been removed. -- RockstoneSend me a message!01:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The question in my mind is if a change in the Speaker was not considered notable enough to post in the past, why now. DYK is a great place for interesting factoids. The most important thing here is the Speaker has changed, and it appears consensus is to not post such changes. And with all due respect you did compare the Speaker to a PM above, which simply does not follow. Yes, this hinders the functioning of the government, but the Speaker is hardly the most powerful person in US politics, not by a mile. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The most important thing here is the Speaker has changed -- That is not my impression, and it doesn't seem to be what's reported in the news. The most interesting thing is the fact they have been removed, not that they have changed. Renerpho (talk) 03:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, wait ~ I agree with Estar8806, but I believe we should wait until a new speaker is voted in - however long that takes - and include both McCarthy's ousting and the newly elected speaker in the blurb, so that ITN isn't filled up with two separate blurbs discussing McCarthy's ousting and the election of his successor a few weeks later; if this blurb is posted now, I'm sure ITN will have another nomination for the newly elected US speaker whenever that happens, and that would certainly seem a little over Americentric. Alternatively, we could post the blurb now and change it when a new speaker is chosen, but it depends on whether McCarthy's ousting or a newly chosen Speaker of the House seem like more ITN-worthy blurbs. If McCarthy's ousting seems more covered among news sites, then I agree the blurb should be posted now. Daneellis11402:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.216.43.157 (talk) [reply]
Oppose. Speakership of a house, not that significant, even if a first for that country. We can't post speakership changes for all countries. Posting just this one only adds to the systemic bias. Usedtobecool☎️02:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the US Speaker of the House is significantly more powerful than the Speaker of the House within a Parliamentary system. Not posting this would indicate systemic bias against the US (which is a serious problem here). Just because it's from the US doesn't mean it's 'not' newsworthy. -- RockstoneSend me a message!03:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However more powerful they are, they are still just the Speaker, working within the basic confines of the role, that is largely universal. If anything the post mid-term development in the US House show, it is that. I can not take any claims implying the US is the one suffering from bias anywhere seriously, unless accompanied by overwhelming evidence. Usedtobecool☎️03:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
they are still just the Speaker, working within the basic confines of the role, that is largely universal. Not at all. In Westminster countries, the Speaker is a more procedural office. The Speaker of the U.S. House has a near-unchecked pocket-veto (in the colloquial sense) over all legislation in the United States, in that they can prevent it from ever coming to a vote, and have enormous power to shape what legislation does come to a vote. They are either the second- or third-most powerful person in the U.S. government, depending on what responsibilities a given vice president has. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is why I say that the Speaker is the closest thing to a Prime Minister the US has. Notwithstanding alsor's incorrect insistence that that's not the case, the Speaker is the most powerful member of Congress, and is the leader of the legislature. It's hard to make direct comparisons between the Presidential and Westminster systems, but the Speaker in the US has the legislative power of a prime minister, even if not the executive power (which falls to the President and his cabinet). -- RockstoneSend me a message!05:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Speaker of the House is not even 'remotely' the same between the USA and Westminster-style Parliametnary systems. The better parallel with the latter is... the Prime Minister. In both cases their powers, the rules for their selection, etc. 'are more or less identical'. (down to the fact that while each lower chamber can elect anyone they wish for their respective posts, the winner is almost always just the leader of the majority/plurality party of the chamber)
So saying it's "not significant" would be the same as saying that the oust of Liz Truss wasn't significant, as another case of a party's leader being forced out after a short, turbulent premiership due to losing the support of their own party. As a reminder, no election of the UK House of Commons was held, with only an internal party leadership vote that elected Rishi Sunak to succeed her. And at the time... There was overwhelming support with nearly no one opposing posting it.
And this was NOT ITN/R, because that was instead applied to Rishi Sunak's election four days later. Both events got posted as their own blurbs. - Nottheking (talk) 05:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The difference of the American system is that you elect the executive and the legislature separately, so that the two branches can in theory be truly independent of each other. That extra power that occasionally comes from it, lies in the House, not its Speaker. The Speaker may appear to do big things when proxying for the majority; that does not mean they did said big things with the power inherent to them. To wit, the Speaker prevents a bill from reaching the floor not because they themselves have the power to decide which bill gets a vote and which does not, but because they, by virtue of being Speaker, have the majority behind them, and can use that majority to fail said bill on the floor anyway. If they don't have the majority support in blocking the bill, the majority can simply vote them out and elect a Speaker who will put the bill to a vote. The Speakers in other countries have enormous power in shaping and influencing what gets done too, by the simple fact that, in almost all cases, an influential member of the Party and the House is who gets elected Speaker in the first place.
As for the comparison with the prime minister, as you all acknowledge, the PM has executive powers. The Speaker does not. So, yeah, the Speaker is like the prime minister except for lacking any executive powers and just staying in the House, in other words the Speaker is like the Speaker, same as everywhere else. Usedtobecool☎️07:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, in my world, "local politics" covers the mayor, the city council, county supervisors and perhaps state legislators and the like, and issues within a relatively small geographic area. . The United States is widely considered the "world's sole superpower", and the "locale" it encompasses stretches from Nome, Alaska to Key West, Florida, a distance of 7,252 kilometers, and from Bangor, Maine to Kauii, Hawaii, a distance of 8,350 kilometers. The US has a population of over 330 million people. This is not a local matter. Cullen328 (talk) 04:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If we are to consider that this position is analogous to the one of prime minister/second-in-command (actually third here?) in other presidential systems, the argument goes that we don't post those here at ITN (neither elections, including this, nor changes/drama thereof) and would be setting a bad precedent for a flood of such noms especially to do so based on internal party squabbles. Though further significance to this might be added if it does have immediate effective impact but so far all that has been posited is basically CRYSTALBALLing. Gotitbro (talk) 03:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I currently count 22x support, 20x oppose, and 2x wait, and no indication that this is leaning in either direction. Is there any chance we will reach a consensus, given how controversial this topic seems to be? Renerpho (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote. Hopefully the closing admin will take into account the significant number of opposes that are based either on misstatements of policy or misunderstandings of how the U.S. system of government works. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - In addition to being unprecedented, it’s being reported as a sign of fundamental instability in the party controlling one of the chambers of the legislative branch of government, and is already causing paralysis of that body’s functions. It’s equivalent to a mass protest event that disrupts a country’s governmental functioning or the removal of a head of government given that the U.S. government is not unitary and depends on the basic functioning of each constitutional institution to act. Also, I don’t think we should wait until McCarthy’s successor is chosen, because that could be weeks or months away. SS451 (talk) 03:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - This event is notable and has received front-page attention even from non US media, such as the BBC and CBC News. To state that it is "domestic" neglects the fact that almost all news is "domestic" in some sense. It isn't notable just because the guy left, but because he was ousted in a historic first, and the instability that it indicates for Congress. Let's not reduce this down to just "some guy got fired from his job." It's the most powerful person in the United States legislature losing their job to significant in-fighting in their own party.aaronneallucas (talk) 04:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Really, the "significant in-fighting in their own party" is the major news here. Do we normally post political party in-fighting? HiLo48 (talk) 04:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Party infighting is playing a role, but it's hardly the major news, considering it has been going on for years. There is a lot more to this news item. Renerpho (talk) 04:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re blurb Based on some feedback this non-American is getting and some clarity I am finally seeing, I propose Alternative blurb IV: In the United States, Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy is removed from office after eight rebel Republican members voted against him. This is the real issue here. Someone else will be in the Speaker's position in no time. It's not a constitutional crisis for the US. But the Republican Party is in a bit of a mess. HiLo48 (talk) 04:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support This is unprecedented and while it is for now local to the US government, the speakership is a huge deal here and this could have massive ramifications especially since US is playing a big role in the support of Ukraine. He's declined to run again as well, this might be local news but it is MASSIVE local news and I think it warrants posting. Jbvann0504:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Saying this will have huge ramifications is speculation, and ultimately this is just a squabble that doesn't involve the head of the executive and I can't imagine we'd even consider such a posting for any other country. — Amakuru (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stats Our readership naturally thinks this is a big deal and isn't waiting for ITN's permission. It's not just Kevin McCarthy that they are reading to understand the issue. The related topics include:
As McCarthy has said he won't stand again, attention will shift to the Speaker pro-tem, the election of another Speaker and the pending shutdown. Perhaps there's an umbrella topic which would be suitable for Ongoing? Andrew🐉(talk) 09:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a factor for gauging reader interest but is really not a basis to judge ITN suitability (see for e.g. WP:POPULARPAGE). A comparision can be made with WP:TOP25 to see how that rarely corresponds with ITN. Gotitbro (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be the only metric we go off of, but if a current events item is getting a significant amount of readership then I believe that increases notability. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's honestly bordering on disruptive at this point, as he continues to do so despite being repeatedly warned otherwise. TheKip16:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I Oppose posting this on the basis that we dont normally post removals, and I'm not sure this is significant enough. Would definitely support posting the new speaker once they are sworn in as speaker (or however they are officially made speaker). QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question The proposed blurb states this is the first removal of a speaker in the US (with supports also based on that aspect) but the article adds a qualifier that this is the first time it has happened during a Congressional session. I gather that the speaker has been removed before then just not through this procedure? Gotitbro (talk) 10:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the speaker has never been removed from their position by others in Congress before. Up until this week, the only causes that a Speaker would leave their office is that they either failed to win the next Congress' election for Speaker (typically because their party lost their majority) or that the Speaker resigned, or died in office. There can be considered the strange outlier scenario where there has been (brief) vacancies of the Speaker stretch out as the election took multiple ballots. (Most recently between January 3 and January 7, between the end of Nancy Pelosi's term as speaker during the 117th Congress, and the eventual election of Kevin McCarthy after 4 days and 15 ballots.)
This is the first time that the Speaker's office has been vacant by any means other than a normal speaker election (after the end of a prior term of Congress) resignation, or death. - Nottheking (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I agree with 331dot. While Kevin McCarthy is not the leader of the world or the country, his removal as speaker of the House of Representatives is getting much news coverage and it's the first kind of thing to happen in the U.S. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 (☁＝☁＝✈) 13:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is unprecedented, and while an argument can be made as to how really notable it is, it's the first time this has ever happened and it's also getting a ton of news coverage. Important enough for ITN, even. River10000 (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted - I'm seeing a weak consensus above to post. There are a few more supporters than opposers, and ITN's guidelines call for giving less weight to people who oppose because an event is happening in a single country. In addition, I gave less weight to opposes based on "he can return" given the later news that he will not be. Ed[talk][OMT]14:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since some of my thoughts are about what was posted, I’m going under the reply section of this:
Support Blurb; Post-Posting weak oppose. I think that this should be posted since the role is an important one in American federal legislative government. Granted, it is not like the Prime Minister of Parliamentary country (which some people have been saying), but it is a crucial cog in the government. This is also the first time that a Speaker has been removed from office by the representatives, which is notable. On two lesser notes (that don’t need to be talked about much), the cause and result of this are intriguing to the U.S.’ government, and, additionally, the speaker is 2nd in line of presidential succession. With all of this, I think a blurb should be posted. However, I think it should be mentioned that this is the first time this happened in US history. For example, “In the United States, Speaker of the HouseKevin McCarthy is removed from office: the first in the role’s history.”; it’s not crucial, but I think it should be noted so it doesn’t act Americentric. Kybrion (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support per everything above. Trying to counter systemic bias does not mean killing all US stories, IMO these should be treated the same as European countries Aaron Liu (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was there any consensus for this current blurb? The current blurb reads as if McCarthy was removed from his position as a Representative, which is not the case. He was only removed as speaker. Jbvann0518:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jbvann05: The specific decision on what blurb to use is often left to the posting admin, as most people don't support/oppose specific wordings. In this case, there were a few people that specifically supported alt3, so I posted a slightly shortened version. I have no objections to any changes, but the process for that is WP:ERRORS. Ed[talk][OMT]18:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support. That it's front page news across the US should really be enough to demonstrate significance, but let's put that aside. While it's not front page news everywhere in the world, it is in enough countries to demonstrate global significance (e.g. Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Ireland, Spain), which makes sense, because Speaker of the House is the #3 leader in the US (behind Pres and VP), and it's the first time in history the Speaker has been ousted. Glad to see this was reopened and posted. Levivich (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it was ever closed actually. And considering how toxic things can get around here, this was one of the more drama-free and productive debates. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Though this is already posted and closed, for posterity's sake, let me update my post with more links. Another day has passed, and this story is still front page world news. Front-page, above-the-fold photographs in China, threeGermanpapers, and India. Above-the-fold without a photo in another Indian paper, Israel, and Japan. A front-page, above-the-fold editorial in Switzerland. Front page below-the-fold photographs in another Chinese paper, another Israeli paper, Italy, and the UAE. Front-page, below-the-fold without a photo in Austria, France, and the Philippines. These are all October 5 publications; that's in addition to the October 4 publications I posted above; and this for an event that occurred on October 3. It seems beyond dispute that this met the significance criteria of ITN. ITN voters should look at world front pages, rather than their own internal opinions, when determining significance criteria. That might mean leaving the ITNC nom open for 24 hours after the event so that we can all see how the world's reliable sources treat the significance of the event. This nomination ended at the correct result, and it also provided a lesson about the nomination process. Levivich (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment re blurb Given how much information has been presented in the discussion above, the posted blurb is ridiculously shallow. It needs to say something about WHY he has been removed. I'm one of those 95% of people in the world who isn't American, and without having seen this discussion, would have no idea that this is really about the Republican Party being in a big internal dispute. Three of our four proposed blurbs mentioned the budget dispute, two mention the Republican Party, yet none of this made it to the Main page. A couple of times above I listed some questions of mine, and some fine editors helpfully explained the answers. These issues included - How was he removed? (Physically?) Who removed him? (Maybe there was a coup.) Is it the end of US democracy as we know it? What happens next? This is a complex matter, but not a hint of that is in our published blurb. Why not? (At least we didn't have him "ousted" in the published blurb.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to think the phrasing of "removed as Speaker" does not imply being overthrown in a coup - if this were some big violent event, that would be the story. I think it'd be okay to try to fit in a little more info, but the blurb is just a blurb after all, there's not enough room to answer all of the questions you posed. That's what the article is for. Vanilla Wizard 💙22:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat - Three of our four proposed blurbs mentioned the budget dispute, two mentioned the Republican Party. Neither fact made it to the published blurb. Even one of those facts would help, ideally both. HiLo48 (talk) 03:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting weak support I really was about to reflexively oppose, I was honestly surprised when I checked Wikipedia today and saw this was posted. I asked myself if there would be any shot we'd post a speakership ousting in any other country, even if it were the nation's first. But then I read this entire long-winded mess of a conversation and I was actually persuaded by some of the support !votes. Sometimes even us Americans need reminding that the speaker in the US is not analogous to the speaker in other countries. It really is the closest thing we have to a prime minister; the job of the American speaker is to serve as de facto leader of the party in the House and to outline and advance their party's legislative agenda, and they are vested with enormous power over the legislative body to accomplish this. Then there are the usual rationales like global coverage, front page news, ITN's purpose, etcetera. While I do still understand the impulse to oppose this one - I felt it myself - I honestly think it's fine that we posted it. Vanilla Wizard 💙22:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent close analogy that comes to mind would be the resignation of UK Prime Minister Liz Truss during the government crisis almost a full year ago. There wasn't an attached general election, but it was clear that it was unusual & earth-shaking enough that it got posted: there was virtually no substantive opposition to quickly posting the resignation to the front page. Likewise, four days later we posted to the FP again when Rishi Sunak was became Party Leader and thus Prime Minister; worth noting that in the latter case, it was a victory by default, (as Sunak had been the only active candidate for the position) but still significant enough to post.
At that point last year, it was pretty self-evident to most editors that these were really major, unusual events that had significant implications, and this is why it was all over the news. And the same goes for the events on the other side of the pond this week. - Nottheking (talk) 03:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Canada and the United States are both changing who the Speaker of the House is this week. In neither case does this deserve a blurb. Have we ever seen a dispute between the House and the Senate where the House got its way? McCarthy and Pelosi before him had remarkably powerless positions. The tradition of putting a big spotlight on them in the American media is convenient to those who don't really want the voting public to be well informed. Connor Behan (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The USA does not use a Westminster-styled Parliamentary system. Thus while the phrase "Speaker of the House" may be shared, they are not the same sort of position. This would be like saying that the President of the United States isn't a meaningful position just because they're not the Prime Minister. The analogous position to the Speaker of the House of Representatives is, in fact, the Prime Minister. The chief difference with Westminster systems is that in those, there is no separate, powerful President, and the upper house (Canadian Senate, UK House of Lords, etc.) have little power. While "Speaker of the House of Commons" is a ceremonial role, "Speaker of the House of Representatives" is the presiding officer who controls the flow of bills through the chamber. Likewise, while "Speaker of the House of Commons" is a non-partisan role, "Speaker of the House of Representatives" is in fact very partisan, and traditionally always held by the leader of the majority party in that chamber: 100% in parallel to the Prime Minister in Westminster systems. - Nottheking (talk) 03:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure I wasn't clear. As an American who is glued to politics, I'm very well aware of how the government works, and I think we are saying the same thing. I'll clarify above. --RockstoneSend me a message!03:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies; my reply was meant to be towards the same person you were replying to. For some reason Wikipedia's reply/formatting system is confounding me, and indented my reply to make it look like I was replying to you rather than Connor. - Nottheking (talk) 04:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the differences between a presidential and parliamentary system. And one of them is indeed that the American Speaker has much more power over the house than the Canadian speaker. But this is not as meaningful as it seems because of the second point I made which is repeated in your sentence "the upper house (Canadian Senate, UK House of Lords, etc.) have little power". The least powerful person in the U.S. Senate is roughly comparable to the most powerful person in the House of Representatives. Connor Behan (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment/observation While I already given my support earlier, I've noticed that there's also been a lot of confusion over the rational being argued here. Namely, I see a situation where people are conflating the standards for ITN and ITN/R. The standards used for the latter are pretty clear, that it only covers the outright sole "head of government/head of state" changes. Which (for non-hereditary positions like monarchs) usually coincides with an election. And it's the standard that top-level elections for every independent country in the world (yes, including for the United States House of Representatives, not just the President) merit an ITN/R position: that each occurrence of them is considered automatically notable enough for ITN.
However, this is not an ITN/R proposal; no one is suggesting that every speakership election should be ITN. (e.g, that it be ITN/R) After all, there is already an associated ITN/R for that: the preceding House of Representatives election.
However, as we can clearly see, ITN gets filled with lots of events that are not ITN/R: they don't need to be re-occurring in order to be considered notable. These are events that are unusual & impactful, so trying to argue that as a nominal re-occurrence of something isn't noteworthy discredits an unusual occurrence is off-mark. It'd be akin to saying that an asteroid impacting Earth and causing a significant explosion isn't newsworthy just because asteroids make close approaches all the time.
Many people are correct to point out that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is not parallel to the Speaker of the House of Commons, and in fact better matches the office of Prime Minster. Yes, there are some differences in powers, but these aren't due to it being not the analogous office, and more to the fact that the UK & other countries use a Westminster System, but a Presidential System, so that the United States House of Representatives holds no executive powers, only legislative. And the Speaker in the USA most certainly does wield leading power in that chamber; they are not a "ceremonial office;" they are also inherently partisan (as the leader of the chamber's majority party) and also are allowed to vote. (something that a House of Commons Speaker does not do!)
So, we do have a strong precedent for posting & keeping this, where we had an intra-party kerfluffle at the highest level of legislature: the resignation of Liz Truss from the office of UK Prime Minister just under a year ago, followed by the election of Rishi Sunak to succeed her. Normally, the House of Commons voting in their Prime Minister isn't considered particularly newsworthy: the real news was already resolved with the general election (that elected said Parliament) on a prior date. However, it was abundantly clear that these were unusual events, and in both cases, they were posted to the front page under ITN with little opposition, even though no votes (be it even of MPs, or Conservative party membership, let alone the general public) were held; Sunak won by default by being the only valid candidate on the ballot. (thus precluding a vote)
Much like that scenario, there's a parallel here: we consider US Congressional elections ITN/R, same as with the national/federal-level legislative elections of every nominally-democratic country. Procedural/internal party votes for their officers is normally not significant at all, but as we can see... Sometimes unusual exceptions happen! - Nottheking (talk) 04:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: I noticed this as the top story on the BBC and it's gotten worldwide coverage as there seems to be a panic in Paris. The 2024 Olympics seems to be a particular factor so I'm not sure which the best article is and haven't found an update yet. The NYT associates it with the Paris Fashion Week so the search continues... Andrew🐉(talk) 17:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The fact that Paris is hosting the Olympics in 2024 does not make a bedbug outbreak more notable. I am finding it difficult to take this nomination seriously. But assuming it is genuine, oppose due to lack of encyclopedic value. Chrisclear (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per above. Seems like a non-story anyways, only really gaining traction because the French government is paranoid about something derailing the 2024 Olympics PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The news cycle is not that slow that we start posting one of the most common health issues which adds nothing to it (CRYSTALLBALL as for any effect on the Olympics). Does not appear to be a convincing nomination either. Gotitbro (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose, WTF was this person thinking when nominating this, this is so small and so absurd to nominate, if this happens in any other city that was not hosting or soon to be hosting an Olympic games, no one would attempt and/or even think to nominate this, it is absolutely not newsworthy. 4me689 (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Agostini's article is new and needs expansion (and an image). Agostini and Krausz each have an unsourced paragraph. L'Huillier seems OK. In all articles, the Nobel win is mentioned, but needs more context and sourcing. After a bit of work on the articles, this should be postable (but I don't have the time right now). Sandstein 10:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bothj Agostini's and L'Huiller's articles need "Research focus" or a similarly titled section to explain the body of their work, beyond what they were just awarded for. Krauzs' needs to be updated with Honors and Awards in the body as to call out, at least, the Nobel. And as noted, Agostini's is ways away from being ready, as it only has one secondary source so far. --Masem (t) 12:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Krausz's article is a ways away - the bulk is sourced to his papers, which is not appropriate here. The other two are basically sufficiently ready to go. --Masem (t) 12:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Articles are brief and merit expansion and copyediting, but appear broadly sourced and are updated with the prize. Sandstein 10:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Karikó's has one "better source needed" tag and one statement summarizing the research that should sourced, but both articles are otherwise good. --Masem (t) 12:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. Can anyone capable, attempt at creating a composite of image of the two winners? Masem indicated that they are busy off-wiki. Ktin (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Since no other admin seems to be around, I've taken the unusual step of posting my own nomination, given the unanimous support. Sandstein 17:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
I would have opposed too, because this isn't ITN material, but the claim about the film music makes perfect sense to me. This may have been her signature song. Renerpho (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
There are between 50 and 55 sports ITN/Rs per year. That's one per week (and not all of those get posted because they're not up to quality standards). I don't think that's overkill. What you do get is clustering of events at certain times (as currently - the same thing happens around May/June time) which makes it appear that there are far more. Black Kite (talk)10:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose Needs much more prose, mostly tables. It'd be great to see a speedway article on the front page, but the quality is nowhere near good enough. --Bcp67 (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
He could have put it in a more respectful way, but as unfortunate as it is, events like these are relatively routine. ITN should not be a tragic disaster ticker. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing against posting, but nightclub fires are not particularly rare occurrences, owning to a combination of generally poor building codes, pyrotechnics, overcrowding, etc. Curbon7 (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An answer to "ITN should not be a tragic disaster ticker" could be that we need to nominate and post a wider variety of content more often. Ed[talk][OMT]02:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When is the last time a nightclub fire with tragic consequences in a health and safety conscious country like Spain occurred? Abcmaxx (talk) 07:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Wikipedia is not for news coverage, it's for encyclopedic coverage. Likewise, ITN is not for news stories, it's for encyclopedic subjects that happen to be in the news. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of those were former nightclub fires, to be fair. Whole other ballgame. Still, bit extraordinary how it was the third time for Kitty's (Scotland) this year. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose and wait. Protests, just because they are protests, are not always ITN-worthy. For now, there is nothing to suggest that they will have a noticeable transcendence and impact.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated 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.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
@Spencer: According to this article, "he is undoubtedly best known for his leadership of the Dunedin study". (In an act of OR, I also went through a few of his most-cited articles, which were multi-author works based on data from said study.) His leadership of this longitudinal study is already mentioned in the first sentence. Would you prefer something more specific? 98.170.164.88 (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The body of the article should include at least a paragraph summary of his research work. What is the Dunedin study? What were Poulton's specific areas of interest within this? SpencerT•C04:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The 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: A plurality of votes does not mean much here as everything rests on coalition building with the smallest parties. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As there is no majority winner, they will have to form a coalition, which will take time. We do usually mention which party won the plurality in the blurb. In any case, a section on the aftermath is needed in the article. --Tone08:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support but Oppose Blurb 1 The term hung parliament is mostly used in the UK, not in countries like Slovakia where a single party almost never wins an outright majority. In fact, searching for Slovakia + hung parliament on Google News shows only 2 results, both from the UK. Johndavies837 (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality, needs more content on the campaigns and the aftermath. The "issues and developments" section is the only prose outside the lead describing the election at all and mostly now looks like outdated speculation. Proposed altblurb3 for simplicity. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱09:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The section on his CFL career is unsourced. There are also a few {cn} tags in other parts of the prose. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
In the news toolbox
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
