Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 819: Line 819:
*:References look much better. I think this is ready to go. [[User:Presidentman|Presidentman]] [[User talk:Presidentman|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Presidentman|contribs]] ([[WP:TBACK|Talkback]]) 21:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
*:References look much better. I think this is ready to go. [[User:Presidentman|Presidentman]] [[User talk:Presidentman|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Presidentman|contribs]] ([[WP:TBACK|Talkback]]) 21:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Posted''' [[User:Stephen|Step]][[User talk:Stephen|hen]] 22:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Posted''' [[User:Stephen|Step]][[User talk:Stephen|hen]] 22:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support blurb''' Nobel Peace Prize-winning head of state. I'm positive we'll blurb Carter, we blurbed Mandela, de Klerk, Shimon Peres, Gorbechev and Tutu. Article also looks good so quality shouldn't be an issue. --[[Special:Contributions/2601:249:8E00:420:E491:206B:5172:51D8|2601:249:8E00:420:E491:206B:5172:51D8]] ([[User talk:2601:249:8E00:420:E491:206B:5172:51D8|talk]]) 23:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


==== (Closed) Ongoing : 2023 Sudan War (Timeline) ====
==== (Closed) Ongoing : 2023 Sudan War (Timeline) ====

Revision as of 23:22, 23 October 2023

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

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

Masoud Pezeshkian in June 2024
Masoud Pezeshkian

Glossary

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

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

Nomination steps

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

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

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

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

Voicing an opinion on an item

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

Please do...

  1. Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
  2. Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
  3. Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.

Please do not...

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

Suggesting updates

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

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

Archives

October 23

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology

Sports


RD: Bishan Singh Bedi

Article: Bishan Singh Bedi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hindu
Credits:

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

 Fahads1982 (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing: Unitary Platform presidential primaries

Article: 2023 Unitary Platform presidential primaries (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, Financial Times, El País
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Primary elections of the Venezuelan opposition. First presidential primaries in eleven years, important international coverage. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC) NoonIcarus (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. We don't have a habit of covering similar primaries, and I don't believe it to be globally shaking enough to make an exception just yet - especially with how lopsided the results seem to be. River10000 (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably belongs in ITN. It is just not important enough for Ongoing. Lukt64 (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not even there. We don't post primary elections. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 20:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware it would be uncommon, but it's one of the reasons why I highlighted the relevancy of these ones and how important they are for Venezuela. I understand if there's still opposition, though. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 22

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


RD: Charles E. Young

Article: Charles E. Young (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-10-22/charles-young-obit
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Long-time chancellor at UCLA. Natg 19 (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Vincent Asaro

Article: Vincent Asaro (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Daily News
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American mobster. Article looks in decent shape. Tails Wx 02:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Samantha Woll

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: Samantha Woll (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Times
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: President of the Isaac Agree Downtown Synagogue in Detroit, who was murdered on 21 October. - SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have initial concerns with this and BLP1E - while her life is being documented in wake of her tragic death, lack of sourcing before her death is a problem. Masem (t) 12:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am also unconvinced that she was notable before her death; I suspect that if an article had been constructed prior to that, it would probably have been redirected to the synagogue article should it have gone to AfD. Black Kite (talk) 13:12, 22 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.

RD: Betsy Rawls

Article: Betsy Rawls (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN & ABC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: A four-time winner of the US Women's Open SchroCat (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 21

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections


RD: Bobi

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

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

Nominator's comments: Confirmed as longest recorded living dog, article is short but not a stub and reasonably well sourced Josey Wales Parley 12:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD/Blurb: Bobby Charlton

Proposed image
Article: Bobby Charlton (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  English footballer Bobby Charlton dies at the age of 86. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, NYT, Al Jazeera, DW, France 24, CNN, BBC, CBS
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: A lot of work needed on sourcing. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb. One of the greatest players of all time. The only winning captain of England, winner of European Cup, record holder for Manchester United. Obvious blurb. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to take away from someone who achieved a lot more than I ever will, but Charlton didn't captain England in 1966, that was Bobby Moore. Charlton also lived to see his records broken for England appearances (by Moore in his own career) and goals (by Wayne Rooney and then Harry Kane), and Manchester United appearances (Giggs) and goals (Rooney). Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Guardian obit for impact. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/oct/21/sir-bobby-charlton-obituary Kirill C1 (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One Guardian obit does not establish blurb-worthiness. It would need a lot more coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're discussing all aspects but I didn't get into the RD/blurb issue for those other languages because those details vary. For example, the German posting is "Bobby Charlton (86), englischer Fußballspieler († 21. Oktober)" while the French have "Bobby Charlton (photo)". These provide more details than an English RD and so are better. But my point was not the level of detail but the fact that most of those other languages have posted the news in a timely fashion. Presumably they are not hampered by the toxic process that we have here, which makes a battleground out of a simple announcement. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The German Wikipedia does that for every RD they post, as you would have seen by the fact that the other 4 RD's right next to it also have the same type of shortdesc. The French Wikipedia also adds "photo" to every RD that is currently a photo. That is not details varying, that's just different RD formats, which is irrelevant to the discussion here. AryKun (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Blurb on notability. JM2023 (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD Appreciate we won't be adding a blurb but it's now overdue an RD. Conay (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb - per my previously expressed view that people who are the subject of full length in depth obituaries in multiple sources in multiple countries merit a blurb. NYT, WaPo, The Times (London), Le Monde. Sources around the world view Bobby Charlton's passing as a news story worthy of significant space, so should we. And for the record, I had never heard of him prior to my NYT news alert, but, as ever, my own experiences are not the basis for inclusion or exclusion here. nableezy - 21:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb considered one of the greatest of all time, with 200+ goals and a World Cup, he deserves his own blurb, RIP Kanyewestlover999 (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Depending on who you ask, Sir Bobby Charlton is somewhere between the 20th and 30th best football player of all time. While talented and mourned, he doesn't reach the level needed for a blurb, as that tends to be reserved for the GOAT in a field, or at least the greatest of their generation. Blurbing Bobby Charlton would be on par with blurbing Gale Sayers in the NFL, Tom Seaver in baseball, Bobby Clarke in ice hockey, or Allan Border in cricket. While I'd agree that bigger sports have a stronger claim to cultural relevance and therefore notability, I still think that Bobby Charlton falls short of the blurb mark. NorthernFalcon (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak support blurb should the massive sourcing problems be overcome. Charlton was certainly a massive figure in football, but I am still unconvinced that he rises to the level of a blurb; there are a number of still-living players who have achieved greatness but probably fall into this category. Indeed, there are very few players who would clearly qualify for a blurb (Messi, C. Ronaldo, Zidane, Beckenbauer, possibly Maldini and Buffon?) and hopefully we won't need to worry about any of thosev any time soon. Oh, and George Weah, but that's not just related to football. Black Kite (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Blurb - we can't blurb the death of every famous sportsperson. In this case, it is just "old man dies". -- RockstoneSend me a message! 20:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Cyclone Storm Tej

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


Proposed image
Article: Cyclone Storm Tej (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Cyclone Storm Tej to make landfall between Yemen and Oman on October 25 (Post)
News source(s): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]
Credits:
 Abo Yemen 13:33, 21 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.

(Closed) TV-D1 mission

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: TV-D1 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: India becomes the fourth country to master launch abortion technology through the TV-D1 mission as part of the manned Gaganyaan program. (Post)
News source(s): Indian Express Jagran
Credits:

Article updated
 MSN12102001 (talk) 12:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - We usually only post launches rather than abort tests like this, but this is still a really cool event. I'm very impressed with how ISRO is advancing atm. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:46, 21 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.

RD: Bill Hayden

Article: Bill Hayden (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [6]
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Governor-General of Australia, 1977–1983. Happily888 (talk) 06:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From 1989 to 1996 per the article. Gotitbro (talk) 10:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 20

Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Politics and elections


RD: Haydn Gwynne

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

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

Nominator's comments: British actress known for Drop the Dead Donkey in the 90s. Stephen 02:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 19

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime


(Posted) RD: Tony Husband

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

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

Nominator's comments: Cartoonist, notable mainly for Private Eye magazine. I have expanded and cited it, it's still quite short but sufficient. Black Kite (talk) 09:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Summa Navaratnam

Article: Summa Navaratnam (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Daily Mirror
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Represented Sri Lanka in both rugby and athletics. Once renowned as fastest runner in Asia. Abishe (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sakharov Prize

Article: Sakharov Prize (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Sakharov Prize is awarded to Mahsa Amini and the Woman, Life, Freedom movement in Iran. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Sakharov Prize is awarded to Mahsa Amini and the Woman, Life, Freedom movement in Iran.
News source(s): European Parliament press release DW France 24 BBC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: I know we usually bold winners but it might be better to bold the award in this case, given the circumstances. Mahsa Amini doesn't have a standalone article on her, just one on her death, and there's no article on "Iranian woman-led protest movement" (Woman, Life, Freedom referenced is a slogan and not an organization, so that can't really be used either). Note that currently only the Sakharov Prize article is updated because I'm not sure how I would add this information into the other articles. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 17:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support and I would see no reason in bolding the death article as that is precisely what the award acknowledged (as well as that article being in good shape --Masem (t) 17:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose as the main article on the Sakharov Prize is pretty much a stub, as it's mostly a table. Would love to see more information in there, then I would be happy to support. Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither bolded article has been updated to mention the prize. Stephen 22:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs work The prize is a motion of the European Parliament and it's not clear who gets the money as Mahsa Amini is dead while "Woman, Life, Freedom" is a slogan not an organisation. There were similar issues last year as the prize was awarded to the "Ukrainian People" and we didn't post it. The nominated article doesn't explain what actually happens in such cases and it doesn't give other details like the votes in that parliament. When even the Nobel Peace Prize is criticised here, it's not clear why we should give prominence to such weak sauce.
Rather than highlighting this empty gesture, it would be more informative to look again at Mahsa Amini protests, which we posted a year ago and ran in Ongoing. That is still being updated and now has an Aftermath section where we read that "...as of September 2023, a crackdown is in process ... a "Hijab and Chastity Bill" passed Iran's parliament, calling for new punishments on women who go unveiled, including prison terms of up to 10 years ...". That seems to be the more relevant parliament as they have the power and jurisdiction.
So, if we're posting this issue again, it should be done fully so that readers understand what is now actually happening on the ground. Here's a summary of the overall situation which was published on the anniversary by yet another parliament.
Andrew🐉(talk) 08:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: S. M. Zafar

Article: S. M. Zafar (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Samaa TV
Credits:

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

 Fahads1982 (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Burt Young

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

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

Nominator's comments: Actor who played Pauline in the "Rocky" saga. Article seems to be in good shape. TheInevitables (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The filmography doesn't have any sources. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Lasse Berghagen

Article: Lasse Berghagen (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [7]
Credits:

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

 --BabbaQ (talk) 10:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Russia withdraws from CTBT treaty

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: Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Russian State Duma unanimously votes to revoke Russia's ratification of the CTBT Treaty banning nuclear tests and nuclear explosions. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:
 --Synotia (moan) 08:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably support in principle, article not ready The article has not yet been updated at all, nor has its companion article List of parties to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. The map also fails to reflect the change. Can someone confirm that this is significant enough to post? My understanding is that the treaty was already not in force, but this development is still quite an alarming shock to the status quo and might indicate that future Russian nuclear tests are to be expected. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 09:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I retract the "probably support" bit given the comments below, although I remain unsure about significance. Would we post a blurb if, say, China or the US were to ratify the treaty? Revoking ratification seems at least as newsworthy as ratifying, especially given the context of an ongoing conflict. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Among the countries that haven't ratified the CTBT Treaty are the majority of nuclear weapon states (China, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and the United States). France, Russia and the United Kingdom were the only nuclear weapon states that have ratified it. So, Russia's move from the smaller to the larger group isn't really that important.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I concur with Kiril; I believe Russia has said they don't intend to actually resume nuclear testing, just that they don't want to be in the treaty any more. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The treaty has not even entered into force, so it's moot at this point, thirty years later. --Bedivere (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose first off, not notable as stated per above, second, article has no mention of Russia withdrawing from the treaty, and third, it has not come into effect yet. Editor 5426387 (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Kiril; if the world's other major nuclear power, the US, had ratified it, it would be more notable.
Unknown-Tree (talk) 00:54, 20 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.

October 18

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


(Closed) Natalee Holloway

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: Disappearance of Natalee Holloway (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Joran van der Sloot confesses to murdering American student Natalee Holloway (pictured) in 2005. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Joran van der Sloot pleads guilty to extortion and wire fraud in the United States and is sentenced to 20 years concurrent with his Peruvian prison term.
News source(s): CNN
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Major missing persons case that got prolonged, global, attention. While not technically a conviction, this is probably the closest we'll get. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - meets II, III, and IV of WP:ITNPURPOSE; this would a great chance to put a featured article on ITN, for those who aren't aware, it would surely be somewhat of an interesting story, and it would diversify the range of stories included on here. We should not be limiting stories just due to geographical location on its own; hell, if we were to use the rationale frequently used for doing that when it comes to say, mass shootings, that would actually lend more credence to the position of posting, since the reason why this wouldn't be posted if it happened in say, India or Nigeria, is since stuff like this is unfortunately much more common. — Knightoftheswords 00:45, 19 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.

October 17

Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Carla Bley

Article: Carla Bley (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Iconic jazz pianist, composer, bandleader, influential in the 1960s, and last recording 2020. So far there was not much to be updated, I replaced 2 dated references for a German Award by a working one. A better lead would be nice, and more text to not have it sandwiched. I'll see what I can do, and help is welcome, especially from someone who can access the NYT obit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza hospital explosion

Article: Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Amid the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, an explosion at a hospital in Gaza kills at least 200 people. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In Gaza, at least 200 people are killed in an explosion at a hospital.
Alternative blurb II: ​ At least 200 people are killed in an explosion at a hospital in Gaza.
News source(s): CNN, Reuters
Credits:

 FatCat96 (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is a part of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, but 500 casualties is enough to be on the ITN in my opinion. Thats, just, a lot. Lukt64 (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
support Lukt64 (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
we didnt post every massacre done by Hamas when they were attacking, we just had a general terrorist attack blurb which then became a war. so why should we put every attack done by Israel when we already have the general war in ongoing? JM2023 (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this is more deadly than the entire Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. This is a big deal. Lukt64 (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There were roughly 1,100 Israelis killed in the initial wave of attacks; I'm not sure what you mean. The Kip 18:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, this is not more deadly than that; over 1,100 Israelis, including many children, were slaughtered during that attack, and last I heard they were still finding bodies. Secondly, this event did not start a conflict. Thirdly, it's still included in the war. Fourthly, the article now has a POV tag and it's alleged this could be a Hamas rocket blamed on Israel; we should be especially cautious of Hamas and allies considering their massive outbursts of genocidal antisemitism recently. Unless we have a Srebrenica situation of sufficient magnitutde then I'm opposed to adding events like this. JM2023 (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support publishing it soon, but make sure it is definitively known whoever launched the attack. Most sources are saying that Israel bombed the hospital but there's claims that it was actually caused by PIJ. Either way, the destruction of over 500 lives is unimaginable and as newsworthy as the most horrible losses of life of the 21st century. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 22:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose we have ongoing for this reason, and I do not see why we need a separate article for this. --Masem (t) 18:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reiterating my Oppose after 24+ hr, where it is clear that the damage may not have been as extensive as it was previously claimed (due to prior strikes) and that while I know the Pentagon has said it was from Hamas activities, there's still so much unknown, including the death toll, that this should be an aspect of the ongoing war but not a headline we should be trying to feature. --Masem (t) 23:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the entire Israel-Hamas War is covered in Ongoing. Also I noticed this said "massacre" before being changed to "airstrike", good because it would be POV to call it a massacre when the actual article is titled an airstrike. JM2023 (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for several reasons: what's stated above (which is debatable, imo; we blurbed the Bucha massacre, and sometimes casualty count/impact can override the ongoing item), the fact the article is currently a stub, and most importantly, the fact that for the moment it's Hamas' word versus the Israeli government's, and neither are exactly neutral actors; independent and reputable press verification, if possible, should be sought out before blurbing. The Kip 18:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Article is also now orange-tagged for POV, given assertions of responsibility versus reporting from reputable media. The Kip 18:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Kip, any update on this vote, given that your concerns have mostly been addressed at the article's talk? AryKun (talk) 06:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ll strike my NPOV concern and the stub concern, but the responsibility one (which we can’t control) is still existent to a degree. The Kip 15:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While not entirely overruling my original vote, I’m now leaning oppose - besides the still-disputed responsibility, there’s now even considerable doubt as to the actual death toll, with the original claim of 500+ being retracted and estimates ranging from as low as 50 to as high as 470. There’s just too much fog of war to post a blurb with any definitive information, besides “an explosion happened that killed some people.” The Kip 16:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. If it is an airstrike on the hospital and the purported death toll is as sources are reporting, it is certainly blurbable regardless of the ongoing status. Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Terrible tragedy but this sort of thing happens in war and the war has been posted in ongoing. On a side note we don't have a lot of hard facts from reliable sources. The numbers being quoted are almost entirely coming from Hamas or affiliated entities, none of which would pass WP:RS. I don't doubt that something dreadful has happened, but it is likely to be sometime before we get details from sources that can be trusted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait (leaning oppose) for reasons mentioned above. Covered in ongoing and it's not entirely clear who is responsible at the moment. This tragedy just happened and there are already unverified reports that it may have been a failed Hamas rocket (which is, imho, no more reliable than Hamas officials reporting it was an Israeli airstrike). Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support for alt-blurb. Given the significance of media coverage and resulting events this is very much ITN-worthy. It's not even clear what the death count is at the moment, however, that's secondary to the tertiary events that unfolded immediately after the incident which are still unfolding. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Russians denyed the Bucha massacre but that wasn't enough for it not to be included in ITN section at the time. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 20:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Israel is probably more credible than Russia. Bucha's responsibility probably had more sources than Hamas press releases. JM2023 (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. Israelies have long long records of violating human rights records and using internationally prohibited weapons like white phosphorus and lying. So it's definitely not "more credible" than Russia. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 10:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In a competition between Hamas and Israel in terms of human right violations and lying, I think I choose Israel as the more credible source. For various obvious reasons. Also those sources are pretty one-sided, ignoring Palestinian actions. You have to look at the two sides of the war if it's a credibility contest. A few examples of various allegations is not systematic enough of an analysis to show Israel lies on the level of Russia. JM2023 (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Bucha massacre has been independently investigated by international authorities who have formally accused Russia of the atrocity. I think there is a pretty strong consensus within the community that both Hamas and the Russian government are not reliable sources on any matter of controversy. To be sure the Israelis are not saints. But when they have screwed up in the past, they have typically owned their mistakes. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, they never had. Drop it already. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 11:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One example is not enough. JM2023 (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They mean when they screw up in their press releases and stuff, not human rights which is pretty much universally known Aaron Liu (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Covered in ongoing. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's an ongoing event and it's worthy of coverage in international news. Rager7 (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. Death toll is comparable to the Bucha massacre which we posted. Very notable event no matter who perpetrated it (The Guardian says the explosion was too large to have been Hamas), though it's probably best to wait and see if there will be more clarity on that in the coming days. Davey2116 (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While people may compare the death toll, the significance in terms of what the event actually was is not comparable (not to imply that you did so). Bucha featured indiscriminate shooting of civilians and torture-murders of civilians including minors. There is a meaningful difference of significance. JM2023 (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Death toll is significant, and the explosion has recent a noteworthy amount of attention as a standalone event despite it being part of the 2023 Israel-Hamas War. TheInevitables (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (partial support). While the attack is covered in the main article, this is shocking and the death toll is very high (per nom), but the attacker is still unknown. Also, I would support the alt blurb per WP:NPOV, as the original blurb says that Israel launched the airstrike, which is currently disputed. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 23:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support posting, but Strong Oppose attributing the attack to anyone until we know more. The first suggested blurb inappropriately assigns blame. --RockstoneSend me a message! 23:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - First and foremost, because several pivotal info and still unknown. Who is responsible for the attack? How many people really died? We need to be responsible here, to avoid becoming a misinformation tool. We are not a news ticker, so why the rush? Let's wait until things get clear and then discuss if this is newsworthy.--Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 23:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The details of the incident are disputed and we have the overall war as an ongoing entry. Note that this is a contentious topic and so we are required to "err on the side of caution". Andrew🐉(talk) 23:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]
  • Comment - I would like to make it clear that I wrote the blurb when the blame was being put on Israel, and that I will not be voicing my opinion on who is wright or who is wrong in the ongoing conflict. FatCat96 (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest you should modify the original blurb. --RockstoneSend me a message! 23:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. FatCat96 (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support one of the altblurbs. While there is still some confusion about the cause of the explosion (though it seems highly unlikely that a Palestinian rocket could do such damage), the high death toll, the singular nature of the event, and the location being a hospital pushes it above the threshold to get something that is usually covered by an ongoing item into a new blurb. This is similar to how the Bucha massacre, which had a similar reported death toll was blurbed despite it being covered by an ongoing entry. For comparison and, while not covered by an ongoing item, the 2015 Kunduz hospital airstrike was blurbed with around 40 deaths. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For the same reason I opposed most Ukraine-Russia proposals: covered by ongoing. The rationale of a massacre is not without ground but unless an actor can be definitively attributed for this I remain opposed. Gotitbro (talk) 03:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until the party actually responsible for the airstrike is confirmed. After that, consider my vote as a weak support. S5A-0043Talk 03:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the main blurb. Since our blurb doesn't assign responsibility to anyone, I don't see why we need to wait to ascertain the party responsible. Likewise, the casualties have been widely reported[8][9].VR talk 06:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the determination of the responsible party changes the nature from being a mistaken explosion (Israel claim) to a massacre (Hamas claim). Gotitbro (talk) 10:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support war crime with immense death toll regardless of who did it; also, we are probably not going to get immediate clarity on the perpetrator as we did in Bucha, because Bucha wasn't being blockaded and carpet-bombed and thus had independent investigators who could go there. We did mention the hundreds dead from Hamas' attacks in the original blurb; the reason we didn't blurb each massacre separately is the same reason why we wouldn't blurb 5 different hospitals getting bombed individually. AryKun (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Issues with the article and the unknown nature of the attack makes it difficult to make a case to blurb. If the resulting fallout of this is significant enough then I would consider Supporting. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 06:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but wait. Number of casualties is unclear, but the event on itself is significant enough, with multiple world leaders commenting on it, and it is all over the news. Blurb will probably need to be modified. AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to support. Still think the blurb needs to be changed. kills at least 200 people might be incorrect. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, unless we can say who was responsible, in which case Support. If we can't, then we need to include the broader context to avoid NPOV issues from readers making assumptions, similar to WP:CATPOV, and there isn't space for such broader context. BilledMammal (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah if the perpretrator of the attack is found then I would Support PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Abo Yemen 11:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, covered by ongoing whoeveer turns out to have done it QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a very significant event even outside of the ongoing. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter who did, for the news sake. The blurb is silent in this term. --Mhhossein talk 20:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support the main blurb. It's a significant event and made a huge amount of reactions worldwide. The article is also ready for this. Certainly newsworthy. --Mhhossein talk 20:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is likely to further erode Israel's ties with the Arab world. Synotia (moan) 08:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why? US and Israeli intelligence strongly indicates it was a Palestinian bombing. JM2023 (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Palestine still trusts Palestine info, but on the other hand, well... Aaron Liu (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand, could you elaborate? JM2023 (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Palestine is kinda part of the Arab world. I'm not sure if the Arab world trusts Palestine information, but maybe that's what Synotia meant. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, based on the observed pro-Palestine and pro-Hamas protests across the Arab world and even the Western world, it's an indication that the Arab world may stick to the Palestinian (very likely false) narrative and thus compromise Arab-Israeli relations. I'm not sure if that gives significance to the explosion itself. JM2023 (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Doesn't matter if we know who did it or not. The topic and article is sufficient enough to appear on ITN. Prodrummer619 (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Covered in ongoing; I'd caution against posting individual attacks - we'll enter a never-ending cycle of "we posted that so we should post this" Schwinnspeed (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Kip. The large death count that previously established this event's separation from the ongoing is now in serious doubt. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Significant event within the context of the war, regardless of the several points of view regarding the facts. I'm also sure this won't get posted, so take this as a moral support. Bedivere (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What would your claim to this event's significance be? Aaron Liu (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    At least one hundred (as per the lowest figure presented by reputable sources) people died. How can that not be significant by any standards? Bedivere (talk) 05:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a war, just 100 is not enough to put outside ongoing, not to mention the lowest estimate is 50 from the credible CNA (nonprofit) and the DNI also gave an upwards estimate of 300 Aaron Liu (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as this incident is being widely covered in the international media. Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support even as a controversey, this event has a sufficiently-wide coverage that it is not far less significant than the initial Hamas attack (nor is the deathtoll that different). Per Bucha Massacre above - for those who respond that this isn't covered by the same level of WP:RS, you can't expect it to. The conditions are different: not every war has the 'luxury' of a conflict in Europe, but certainly the amount of coverage is comparable to say the least --Abbad (talk) 09:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]
    it is not far less significant than the initial Hamas attack (nor is the deathtoll that different) that is entirely untrue. The Hamas attack was a terrorist attack where Hamas terrorists slaughtered thousands of Israelis in their own communities, including the beheading and burning of children in their homes, on the basis that they were Jewish. The death toll is far over 1000. This was a hospital bombing with most likely Palestinian blame and is likely an accident, and current estimates are as low as only 50 deaths. 20 times the number were personally killed in the initial terrorist attack by Hamas.
    Also Per Bucha Massacre above as has been noted, the Bucha massacre was perpetrated by Russian invading soldiers on the ground against Ukranian civilians and involved torture murders of minors; this was a hospital bombing of likely Palestinian blame and may very well be an accident. JM2023 (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought the beheading of children reports had been dismissed as propaganda. Is there any evidence of this? We shouldn't be spreading propaganda by either side. Nfitz (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not according to the Independent or the Telegraph. JM2023 (talk) 03:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is too much uncertainty about the event, with some reports the death toll was as low as 50. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those "some reports" are individual analysis based on photos and videos available online and elsewhere, which are not comparable to official reports. --Mhhossein talk 19:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, the figure used to be misattributed to the center of naval analysis. There is still a sourced claim about an European official who reported the same figure. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Same-sex marriage in India

Article: Supriyo v. Union of India (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Supreme Court of India rules that right to marriage is not fundamental (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Supreme Court of India rules that same-sex marriage is not protected by Indian law.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The Supreme Court of India rules that the legality of same-sex marriage can only be decided by parliament.
News source(s): BBC The Indian Express NDTV Aljazeera
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Quite a significant news story which is getting international coverage. PrinceofPunjab (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait - article has not yet been updated with the case ruling mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The court found that it didn't have the power to change the various pieces of legislation and so that was a matter for legislators. So the status quo continues and there's no significant change. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Added altblurb. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Didn't we just reject a story about the legal status of same-sex marriage in another country? 98.170.164.88 (talk) 16:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Mauritius SSM was rejected because not only was the blurb outright false, it wasn't a major first in anything, so it didnt meet notability benchmarks. JM2023 (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't even SSM in Mauritus - it was the legalization of same-sex sexual relations, which had already been legalized in I believe at least nine African countries (not even counting those where it wasn't illegal in the first place). The Kip 18:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose we just rejected Mauritius SSM because it wasn't a major first in anything. This is even less notable -- court decides to do nothing about it and tells politicians to do something instead. Not significant enough. Also the original blurb has multiple grammatical errors (at least 3 at first glance). JM2023 (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment
    Understandable proposal, considering that India has over a billion people in it.
    But, mauritius Lukt64 (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support upon improvements With having the first or second largest population, this is a significant effect. Even if maintains the status quo or not the first such country to deny rights, its large enough to be a major concern overall. --Masem (t) 18:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it even "denying rights" though? seems like its just the court going "this right does not exist in the constitution". i.e. the right was denied by whoever wrote the constitution, and will be denied by parliament if it votes down a law. JM2023 (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Arguably yes, but I think that at a broad scale, denying equality in things like marriage and other rights to same sex couples (as well as other things broadly under the LGBTQ+ banner) is seen as an issue, comparable with the lack of women's rights in Middle Eastern countries, for example. and while the Court did say that the gov't should review policies to assure that while they can't grant marriages they can grant other benefits to same-sex couples, the articles I've read imply that this current Indian gov't is very much unlikely to follow those recommendations.
    I would compare this to last year's Dobbs decision from the US SC that remove abortion rights, which also claimed it wasn't in the Constitution. Masem (t) 00:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But that overturned a prior decision. This is what I'm trying to get at. Was SSM a constitutional right in India before this decision, the same way abortion was in the US before Dobbs? It doesn't seem notable or significant to me if not. Like if the King of the KSA was asked and said "women actually need to be subject to these laws" but its just re-affirming something that is already the case, that is not significant. JM2023 (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak support I can be convinced to flip my vote, but on first glance, although it doesn't change the status quo, it's the largest or second-largest nation on the planet - as such, the decision has at least some notable impact. The Kip 18:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The ruling right-wing government is anti-same-sex marriage and this is obviously not going to change that. May have been blurbable had the outcome been the opposite. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Every time SSM is legalized it is almost invariably nominated here, and I have generally opposed over the last few years as these events have become routine. This is a fairly unusual case of the supreme court in the world's most populous democracy saying no. It is both unexpected and frankly newsworthy just by virtue of its defying the global trend in democratic societies. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support mostly per Ad Orientem. It's considered commonplace for a nation to legalize same-sex marriage and this is unusual in that it's a more anachronistic ruling. Also, it's one of the most populous and thus most influential nations, so any ruling about same-sex marriage is therefore important. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 19:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder about that. Was SSM previously recognized by the indian SC as a fundamental right? Did this overturn a previous SC case that recognized SSM? If not, then there is nothing significant here. If another abortion case came to the SCOTUS and they ruled in a way that didn't overturn any of their prior major abortion decisions, that would not be significant. If the SC is just telling us what's in the Indian constitution without contradicting a previous decision of itself, that seems like it's not significant. What may be significant is if the Parliament of India passed a law banning SSM. JM2023 (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In my view it's important for two reasons:
    1. It confirms the SC can merely interpret laws. If the SCOTUS were to pass a ruling reaffirming, for example, judicial review in the United States, I'd consider that significant, even it's merely supporting the status quo.
    2. The government will, if nothing else, set up a panel to consider LGBTIA+ rights. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 18:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This decision merely maintains the status quo and doesn't change much. TheInevitables (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - this decision doesn't change anything. If India legalizes gay marriage, I will support it. --RockstoneSend me a message! 23:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Per above, nothing changes. I would support if it was legalized, but the status quo doesn't seem newsworthy to me here. DecafPotato (talk) 03:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Andrew. They simply ruled that they did not have the right to dictate this. Though IMO if the legislature went against it then we should post that. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Agree with Masem, the size of the population, and therefore subsequent coverage makes this notable and ITN-worthy. Schwinnspeed (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ad Orientem; SSM cases have become more prevalent in recent years, however, its rare to see one that rejects the move. Opposing just because "the status quo" would be like not posting a re-election because it's technically the "status quo;" it will still have major ramifications in the years to come. — Knightoftheswords 00:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a rejection, it boils down to "this does not fall under our jurisdiction as it is not mentioned in the constitution". You wouldn't like any supreme court to create a new rule that has no mention at all in the existing laws and articles. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The original blurb also said that they found that no kind of marriage was under their jurisdiction. The court instead accepted the government's offer to set up a panel to consider granting more legal rights and benefits to same-sex couples. I've created alt-blurb II, though I doubt many people would see it and I do not support this being ITN. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing removal: Russian invasion of Ukraine

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: Russian invasion of Ukraine (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)
Nominator's comments: We have just removed the Sudan war despite the fact that the war was not over. This should also be removed. While the timeline section is being updated, it is more minor events rather than anything major. Interstellarity (talk) 13:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
This isnt a civil war, its a war between the 2 largest nations in Europe. Its a bigger deal, at least geopolitically, than any African wars for now. Lukt64 (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose there is still news coverage near daily of events in this conflict, in contrast to far less significant coverage of events in the Sudan one. --Masem (t) 14:06, 17 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.

(Posted) RD: Eric Tweedale

Article: Eric Tweedale (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [10]
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Australian centenarian and formerly the oldest Australia national rugby union team player  The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 09:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Tim Wallis

Article: Tim Wallis (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/10/17/warbirds-over-wanaka-founder-sir-tim-wallis-dies-aged-85/
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: New Zealand aviator and pioneer of the live deer recovery. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 16

Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


(Posted) RD: Carmen Petra Basacopol

Article: Carmen Petra Basacopol (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Radio Romania
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Romanian woman composer, with a PhD from the Sorbonne, and having taught in Rabat also. If she had been a man from the U.S. I would have dropped the topic as too late, but she is a minority and deserves being mentioned, I believe. News of her death came around on 16 October, but I only noticed the following day, and had no time to look closer until now, sorry. I had no time to translate the Romanian obits, yet, and now comes RL. Help? Dahn perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Geri M. Joseph

Article: Geri M. Joseph (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.hhh.umn.edu/news/remembering-geri-joseph-trailblazing-leader-and-humphrey-school-fellow
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American journalist, Ambassador to the Netherlands, 1978 - 1981. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Hatto Beyerle

Article: Hatto Beyerle (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Strad
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Violist, founding member of Alban Berg Quartet, academic teacher in Vienna, Hanover and Basel. Article was basically there, but without reference. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Roland Griffiths

Article: Roland Griffiths (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

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

 – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted as RD) RD/blurb: Martti Ahtisaari

Proposed image
Article: Martti Ahtisaari (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Former President of Finland and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Martti Ahtisaari (pictured) dies at the age of 86. (Post)
News source(s): Le Monde, Presidential Twitter
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: President of Finland 1994-2000, 2008 Nobel Peace Prize laureate. ✨  4 🧚‍♂am KING  08:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

false and fringe
Must we remind you again that ITN’s procedures, voting, etc are governed by consensus and reason, rather than what Andrew Davidson feels they should be? Shame on you, yet again. The Kip 14:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality due to uncited material. Weak oppose blurb due to some of the concerns expressed by Kiril above. The Kip 16:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has, at best, a single-sentence update that wouldn't be redundant to the blurb: the 2021 Alzheimer's/retirement announcement. Without an announcement of the cause of death (at least not that I've found in English sources; I haven't attempted machine translation from Finnish ones), its relevance is debatable - I mean, we can guess that he died of complications of Alzheimer's, and our article as it stands implies it, but we don't know that. And we really can't post a blurb saying "Ahtisaari died at 86", linking to an article that doesn't say anything more about it than "On 16 October 2023, it was announced that Ahtisaari had died at the age of 86." Oppose blurb, insufficient update. —Cryptic 17:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. Nobel prize winner, former head of state. We blurbed Gorbachev and Jiang Zemin. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

support blurb very notable figure in modern european political history and also (former) head of state. One may add the former head of state of the newest nato state and a busybody around said affairs leading up to it. (not being a tinfoil hat)37.252.95.226 (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing : 2023 Sudan War (Timeline)

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: War in Sudan (2023) (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): [11]
Credits:
Nominator's comments: It got removed yesterday [12], and even though it had been updated often it still got removed. I would recommend adding the Timeline to it like the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There was also a wide consensus AGAINST removing it.

Strong Oppose - Ongoing is for items that continuously generate news-worthy blurbs. The War in Sudan has been getting very little media coverage, barely any more than multiple other African civil wars. Ongoing isn't an armed conflict ticker. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and Snowclose per user:Stephen down in the removal discussion: Removed only minor updates have been made to the article since this was nominated for removal a week ago. He then told you specifically when you demanded it be reinstated: You may want to read WP:ONGOING before you make your demands. JM2023 (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose and SNOW close I weakly supported keeping it, but consensus + guidelines dictated its removal and that’s not gonna suddenly change in a day. Sour grapes don’t constitute a valid reason for reinstatement. The Kip 16:10, 16 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.

References

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

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