Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates: Difference between revisions
→RD/Blurb: Bobby Charlton: Reply |
→RD/Blurb: Bobby Charlton: Reply |
||
Line 279: | Line 279: | ||
*'''Oppose'''. Very short on citations. [[User:Moscow Mule|Moscow Mule]] ([[User talk:Moscow Mule|talk]]) 21:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose'''. Very short on citations. [[User:Moscow Mule|Moscow Mule]] ([[User talk:Moscow Mule|talk]]) 21:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC) |
||
*'''Oppose blurb'''. I don't think he was so impactful that he reaches blurb level. — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 21:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose blurb'''. I don't think he was so impactful that he reaches blurb level. — [[User:Amakuru|Amakuru]] ([[User talk:Amakuru|talk]]) 21:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC) |
||
*:I'll remember that when the next barely known baseball player get's a blurb. [[Special:Contributions/91.125.140.227|91.125.140.227]] ([[User talk:91.125.140.227|talk]]) 21:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose blurb''' per above rationale. Here we go again. [[User:The Kip|<span style="color:#333f42;">'''The'''</span>]] [[User talk:The Kip|<span style="color:#b4975a;">'''Kip'''</span>]] 23:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose blurb''' per above rationale. Here we go again. [[User:The Kip|<span style="color:#333f42;">'''The'''</span>]] [[User talk:The Kip|<span style="color:#b4975a;">'''Kip'''</span>]] 23:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC) |
||
*'''Global survey''' It's the day after the death and, following the discussion of languages above, I just looked at the main pages of the 15 biggest Wikipedias to see how they compare. Bobby Charlton's death is currently on the main pages of the following language editions: Chinese, Dutch, French, German, Polish, Portuguese and Spanish. Looking at the exceptions, it seems that the following languages don't do any recent deaths: Italian, Japanese, Russian, Ukrainian and Vietnamese while the Arabic edition only seems to list people from the Arab world. So the only two major languages which are dragging their feet on this news are English and Swedish. "[[s:Bible (King James)/Mark#6:4|A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country...]]" [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 09:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC) |
*'''Global survey''' It's the day after the death and, following the discussion of languages above, I just looked at the main pages of the 15 biggest Wikipedias to see how they compare. Bobby Charlton's death is currently on the main pages of the following language editions: Chinese, Dutch, French, German, Polish, Portuguese and Spanish. Looking at the exceptions, it seems that the following languages don't do any recent deaths: Italian, Japanese, Russian, Ukrainian and Vietnamese while the Arabic edition only seems to list people from the Arab world. So the only two major languages which are dragging their feet on this news are English and Swedish. "[[s:Bible (King James)/Mark#6:4|A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country...]]" [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]]🐉([[user talk:Andrew Davidson|talk]]) 09:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:49, 24 October 2023
Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here. |
In the news toolbox |
---|
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.
view — page history — related changes — edit |
Glossary
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
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.
Headers
Voicing an opinion on an itemFormat 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...
Please do not...
Suggesting updatesThere are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:
|
Archives
October 24
October 24, 2023
(Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
Cyclone Tej
Blurb: Cyclone Tej makes landfall in Yemen near the Oman–Yemen border (Post)
News source(s): Nasa, [1], [2], [3],
Credits:
- Created and nominated by Abo Yemen (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Susmuffin (talk · give credit) and Mobius Gerig (talk · give credit)
Abo Yemen✉ 12:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- support i dont ever see hurricanes in this area, and considering that its right next to yemen and somalia, 2 of the most wartorn countries on earth, this could cause thousands of deaths Lukt64 (talk) 12:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Cyclones hitting the Arabian Peninsula is hardly rare. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Opposedue to quality - multiple empty, orange-tagged sections in the article ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)- can you review the article again? I've filled the empty sections Abo Yemen✉ 13:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Wait until impact becomes more clear - fair enough on the quality point ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 17:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Even if the sections are filled, the cyclone's total damage and deaths are still not clear. Sorry, but for now, this is still not ITN worthy. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 17:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- The cyclone has displaced 1800 families according to the Yemeni Red Crescent [4] Abo Yemen✉ 17:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per article quality concerns noted above. Wait until further impacts occur, I'd like to see more significant impacts before posting. Tails Wx 13:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- I've filled the empty sections; Can you change it to wait instead of oppose + wait Abo Yemen✉ 13:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. (edit conflict) x2 The article is nowhere near ready to be posted as there are many empty sections and tags. Also, Wait until the deaths and damage is clear. Also, until the cyclone's aftermath becomes clear, I suggest changing the blurb. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 13:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose as of now as impacts do not appear pursuant to that that we would expect for a tropical cyclone posted to ITN. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Not seeing a reason to post this at this time. Landfall is not sufficient for an ITN posting.
- Noah, AATalk 14:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Wait, lean oppose - The cyclone's effects aren't entirely known, but thus far from what is known I'm not seeing enough to justify blurbing. The Kip 18:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Wait before effects of the cyclone are determined. Kanyewestlover999 (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Wait until we get damage and casualty reports
- Elisecars727 (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
October 23
October 23, 2023
(Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Science and technology
Sports
|
RD: Bishan Singh Bedi
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hindu
Credits:
- Nominated by Fahads1982 (talk · give credit)
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)
- Article needs some ref improvement currently. - Indefensible (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
(Closed) Ongoing: Unitary Platform presidential primaries
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.
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, Financial Times, El País
Credits:
- Nominated by NoonIcarus (talk · give credit)
- 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)
- Probably belongs in ITN. It is just not important enough for Ongoing. Lukt64 (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Not even there. We don't post primary elections. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 20:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- Oppose. Venezuela's elections are rigged and Machado is barred from holding public office anyway. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose There's not even a blurb, how is one suppose to post this on ITN? Editor 5426387 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose The nomination is for an "Ongoing" entry, not a blurb, but I'm not sure whether it is even ongoing. It seems like the voting has already ended and all that remains is to count the votes and declare a winner. However, I don't think we usually blurb presidential primary results. For example, even the ITN nomination for Trump's victory in the 2016 Republican primary was rejected. Unless there's something really noteworthy about this specific primary election I don't think it should be posted. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per above IP user’s rationale. Primaries in any country simply typically don’t rise to the level of ITN’s standards to post. The Kip 01:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Seems like a good faith nom but can probably be WP:SNOW closed soon. - Indefensible (talk) 03:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
October 22
October 22, 2023
(Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
(Ready) RD: Charles E. Young
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-10-22/charles-young-obit
Credits:
- Nominated by Natg 19 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Bagumba (talk · give credit)
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)
- Support Article looks good. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Article is in good shape. Seems ready to be posted. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 04:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Marked "Ready". Charles E. Young § Political stances is marked for too many quotes, but that's a yellow tag, not the orange or red showstoppers mentioned at WP:ITN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagumba (talk • contribs) 12:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support Meets criteria. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 18:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
RD: Vincent Asaro
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Daily News
Credits:
- Nominated by Tails Wx (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Jkaharper (talk · give credit) and Strattonsmith (talk · give credit)
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)
- Support Article is in good shape. There's just one citation need tag that needs to be sorted out though. I would like to see that fixed before it's posted. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 04:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
(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.
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Times
Credits:
- Nominated by SchroCat (talk · give credit)
- Created by Dsp13 (talk · give credit)
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 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)
- 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)
RD: Betsy Rawls
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN & ABC
Credits:
- Nominated by SchroCat (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Jkaharper (talk · give credit)
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)
2023 Swiss federal election
Blurb: The Swiss People's Party, led by Marco Chiesa, expands its plurality in the Swiss National Council. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The Swiss People's Party, which campaigned on opposing immigration, expands its plurality in the Swiss National Council.
News source(s): Bloomberg, Reuters, Associated Press, Financial Times
Credits:
- Nominated by 1990'sguy (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: The 2023 Swiss federal election received much media coverage because of its results. 1990'sguy (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support, though should also contain a piece of info about the grand coalition cabinet that the Swiss are basically permanently stuck in. The blurb can be seen as a bit deceiving.
- River10000 (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Just as a note, the election for Switzerland's Federal Council will occur on December 13. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support; major news coverage and national elections are ITNR This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
October 21
RD: Bobi
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News
Credits:
- Nominated by Joseywales1961 (talk · give credit)
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)
- Weak support - yes, article is short but I think its just long enough and has just enough citations. Not much more can be expected for this article ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support Article is sufficient. There is one outstanding cn tag though, and I would like to see that fixed before it hits the main page. Bremps... 00:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support Article is long enough and does not have any sourcing issues. Mooonswimmer 16:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
RD/Blurb: Bobby Charlton
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:
- Nominated by Pawnkingthree (talk · give credit)
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)
- Blurb As the article says, "Widely considered one of the greatest players of all time" and so seems comparable with Jim Brown who was blurbed earlier this year. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Bad comparison. Brown was more than an athlete. See Jim Brown#Acting career and Jim Brown#Civil rights work. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Bobby Charlton was way bigger than Jim Brown.
- Just look at number of wiki pages.
- Brown, 38, and Charlton has 67 as of now. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- "Number of wiki pages"? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe he was referring to articles in other Wikipedia languages. I've always thought the 2023 FIBA Basketball World Cup was a bigger event than the 2023 Cricket World Cup; it's written in more Wikipedia languages (36 for basketball vs 30 for cricket). I guess Brown was bigger than these two events? Howard the Duck (talk) 18:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe he was. If so, it's irrelevant what other languages he has a page on as we're here on the English Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- There are always arguments about worldwide fame. Number of articles in different languages indicates how much a person is known in the world. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, that is what I referred to. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- That's a good point. You can use langviews to show the readership across all languages and this is a good way of assessing global impact and interest. Comparing the all-time, all-language views, we have
- As I said, they are quite comparable. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- Nice. I tried comparing the 4 world cups this year:
- 2023 FIBA Basketball World Cup (5.6 million)
- 2023 Rugby World Cup (6.8 million)
- 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup (12.4 million)
- 2023 Cricket World Cup (13.3 million, of which 12.9 million is from en.wiki)
- Howard the Duck (talk) 08:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- I think most views for Jim Brown come from English wiki. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- Nice. I tried comparing the 4 world cups this year:
- Maybe he was. If so, it's irrelevant what other languages he has a page on as we're here on the English Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe he was referring to articles in other Wikipedia languages. I've always thought the 2023 FIBA Basketball World Cup was a bigger event than the 2023 Cricket World Cup; it's written in more Wikipedia languages (36 for basketball vs 30 for cricket). I guess Brown was bigger than these two events? Howard the Duck (talk) 18:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- "Number of wiki pages"? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Bad comparison. Brown was more than an athlete. See Jim Brown#Acting career and Jim Brown#Civil rights work. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb Unnecessary, RD is fine. Not ready for posting yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb As in pop music and acting, the field of leading personalities in association football is so vast that only the very best should be blurbed. Johan Cruyff was not blurbed in March 2016, which I find outrageous as he was one of few people to change the way football is both played and managed. Charlton is well known and recognised within football - ten stories right now on the front page of Marca and the lead on L'Equipe while games are being played in France - but was not a global icon like Pelé or Maradona. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Two wrongs do not do right.
- He was a global icon. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe global icon was not the right term to use, but there's a bracket where there's Pelé, Maradona, Messi and Ronaldo and very few others. Not fact, just my opinion. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- I see nothing on that page to suggest he was a "global icon". One of the best players of all time? Sure. But there's too many of those to blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- One Guardian obit does not establish blurb-worthiness. It would need a lot more coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Blurb. Very clearly one of the best soccer players ever. The key word is "one" of. Have we blurbed a soccer player that is father down the "best" list yet? DarkSide830 (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Not from soccer, but we blurbed Shane Warne with 30 wiki pages. Charlton has almost seventy. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- By that logic, if Corbin Bleu were to pass away, he would be a clear choice for a blurb, given that he has articles in 213 different language Wikipedias. See Wikidata. BangJan1999 18:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- That is actually fascinating. How in the hell does this guy have an article on nearly every Wikipedia? AryKun (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- At the risk of derailing the conversation, that's truly amazing. I've never heard of him before, but Bleu has more Wikipedia articles than Mohammed, the Buddha, Napoleon, and Elizabeth II.
- Does anyone know the story with this? Did one of his fans decide to create an entry for him in 200 languages, or was it an SEO campaign, or something like that? I refuse to believe this occurred "naturally". I checked some of the revision histories in little-known languages (e.g. Greenlandic, Norfuk) and they were created by Saudi Arabian IP users, mostly circa 2010. Bizarre. Edit: I found a news article about this on Insider.com and they came to the same conclusion about a dedicated fan from Saudi Arabia.
- Anyway, this example definitely makes the case that number of sitelinks is not an infallible metric for notability. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- It never is, either on or off enwiki. Pop culture and sports etc. fans, editathons and numerous other factors influence these. The only focus should be on the main article of a topic and the relative importance of that in its field or otherwise. Gotitbro (talk) 03:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- That is actually fascinating. How in the hell does this guy have an article on nearly every Wikipedia? AryKun (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- And Warne was a mistake. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- By that logic, if Corbin Bleu were to pass away, he would be a clear choice for a blurb, given that he has articles in 213 different language Wikipedias. See Wikidata. BangJan1999 18:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Not from soccer, but we blurbed Shane Warne with 30 wiki pages. Charlton has almost seventy. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb for reasons given above, no indication that he had a significant influence on the sport as someone like Pele. Oppose RD for numerous unsourced statements on this article. --Masem (t) 18:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb per above. AryKun (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- RD at least. Yes, one of the best players ever (and I grew up in England with him at his finest in the 1960s - he was a big part of English life at the time). Unsure whether he warrants a blurb.--A bit iffy (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb since I wouldn't vote for a blurb for any sportsballist, let alone one who I've never heard of This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. Very short on citations. Moscow Mule (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb. I don't think he was so impactful that he reaches blurb level. — Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- I'll remember that when the next barely known baseball player get's a blurb. 91.125.140.227 (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb per above rationale. Here we go again. The Kip 23:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Global survey It's the day after the death and, following the discussion of languages above, I just looked at the main pages of the 15 biggest Wikipedias to see how they compare. Bobby Charlton's death is currently on the main pages of the following language editions: Chinese, Dutch, French, German, Polish, Portuguese and Spanish. Looking at the exceptions, it seems that the following languages don't do any recent deaths: Italian, Japanese, Russian, Ukrainian and Vietnamese while the Arabic edition only seems to list people from the Arab world. So the only two major languages which are dragging their feet on this news are English and Swedish. "A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country..." Andrew🐉(talk) 09:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- There are quality issues (lack of sources) that still present that prevent this from even going to RD. Masem (t) 11:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for that misrepresentation of statistics. I checked every single version you mentioned, and he is there in RD. We are not dragging our feet for RD, we're discussing whether or not he should have a blurb. None of those Wikipedias have him as a blurb, so what they have done is irrelevant here. AryKun (talk) 11:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- No one is making it toxic or a battleground here. It flat out fails quality purposes on en.wiki, which is a necessary requirement before even RD posting. Obviously, the other wikis have different quality rationales, which don't apply here. The de.wiki version of the articles has nearly zero sourcing, for example, which would never fly for even a normal BLP article here. Masem (t) 17:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- I think comparing other language wikis to the English wiki is an effective strategy for making these discussions more toxic. They do what they do and aren't relevant to what we do. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- Is someone going to send Andrew to ANI or not? I thought we were going to try and make an improvement on ITN/C as far as toxic behavior goes, and he has been repeatedly bringing up irrelevant statistics and arguments to nominations which do nothing to advance the discussion, nor help out whatsoever in getting the item posted. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 02:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- No one can stop you. JM2023 (talk) 03:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Admins willing to post ITN: Do any of you agree that Andrew Davidson's conduct on ITN is worth taking to ANI? BangJan1999 14:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Questions like that is not what that ping should be used for. Anarchyte (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Is someone going to send Andrew to ANI or not? I thought we were going to try and make an improvement on ITN/C as far as toxic behavior goes, and he has been repeatedly bringing up irrelevant statistics and arguments to nominations which do nothing to advance the discussion, nor help out whatsoever in getting the item posted. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 02:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- I think comparing other language wikis to the English wiki is an effective strategy for making these discussions more toxic. They do what they do and aren't relevant to what we do. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- No one is making it toxic or a battleground here. It flat out fails quality purposes on en.wiki, which is a necessary requirement before even RD posting. Obviously, the other wikis have different quality rationales, which don't apply here. The de.wiki version of the articles has nearly zero sourcing, for example, which would never fly for even a normal BLP article here. Masem (t) 17:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- Oppose Blurb on notability. JM2023 (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- So being a World famous player and World Cup winner isn't notable enough? Perhaps he should have played baseball or Gridiron. 91.125.140.227 (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Why not? It seems any old baseball player gets a blurb. 91.125.140.227 (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support RD, neutral on blurb, but the RD/Blurb argument means we've gone three days without posting anything at all, so let's get it posted somewhere (RD) and then upgrade to a blurb if and when consensus emerges. 2A02:C7E:30F9:A600:FC7C:5C6F:5B54:7090 (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality Article needs some ref work before posting can be done. Once the sourcing issues are addressed, I would support a blurb given how he's regarded as "one of the greatest players of all time", meaning he was influential in his field. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
(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.
Blurb: Cyclone Storm Tej to make landfall between Yemen and Oman on October 25 (Post)
News source(s): [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]
Credits:
- Created and nominated by Abo Yemen (talk · give credit)
- Wait until landfall actually occurs and we can determine the extent of damage. --Masem (t) 14:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. No content in the target section and seemingly no related draft at the moment. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- fixed link. Check it now Abo Yemen✉ 16:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. The page has been changed to a redirect on several occasions, by several people, as recently as today, due to the storm not being set to make landfall for at least a few days. All have been reverted by you. - RockinJack18 17:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- can anyone close this nom Abo Yemen✉ 17:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
(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.
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:
- Nominated by MSN12102001 (talk · give credit)
- Created by Erick Soares3 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- 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)
- Oppose An unmanned test launch is typically not the type of space exploration news we post. --Masem (t) 14:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Weak oppose per Precarious and Masem. Certainly an objective for the Indian crewed program, but not exactly fit for ITN. Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 19:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose on the grounds that it is the fourth country, not the first, not even the second, and not even the third. There is no way that this is notable. JM2023 (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
RD: Bill Hayden
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [10]
Credits:
- Nominated by Happily888 (talk · give credit)
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)
- From 1989 to 1996 per the article. Gotitbro (talk) 10:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support on condition that the citation needed tags are removed. Bremps... 00:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- The Weakest of Opposes 99% of the article is pretty well-sourced. However I cannot support because of the 1% that needs to be cited. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 03:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
October 20
October 20, 2023
(Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
International relations
Politics and elections
|
RD: Haydn Gwynne
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Stephen (talk · give credit)
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)
- Oppose Career section needs more refs. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 16:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
October 19
October 19, 2023
(Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
|
RD: Atsushi Sakurai
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Mainichi
Credits:
- Nominated by Vida0007 (talk · give credit)
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: Japanese musician who died on Thursday, although his death was only announced earlier today (24 October). Article meets the criteria for RD, although I think this could still be expanded a bit. Vida0007 (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
RD: Carlos Romero Deschamps
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [11]
Credits:
- Nominated by Bremps (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Dominus Moravian (talk · give credit), Normantas Bataitis (talk · give credit), Jkaharper (talk · give credit) and Kelisi (talk · give credit)
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: Tone in article may come across as a bit snarky, so a few minor revisions may be needed Bremps... 00:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Tony Husband
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Black Kite (talk · give credit)
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)
- Support Article is sufficient for RD. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 16:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support ^agree with Monarch ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 20:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Summa Navaratnam
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Daily Mirror
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Abishe (talk · give credit)
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)
- Support - article has enough sources ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 03:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Sakharov Prize
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:
- Updated and nominated by MonarchOfTerror (talk · give credit)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @Iamstillqw3rty: The article for Sakharov Prize is a list, and that's why there's comparatively less prose. Lists should be evaluated differently from other articles — this one is even a featured list. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 21:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Neither bolded article has been updated to mention the prize. Stephen 22:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- Support. All three articles look fine to me. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
RD: S. M. Zafar
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Samaa TV
Credits:
- Nominated by Fahads1982 (talk · give credit)
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)
- Oppose for now. There is an unsourced sentence in the "career" section. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 23:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- It is not a requirement that every sentence is sourced — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support: Now looks good and well cited. Ainty Painty (talk) 09:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Aside from the uncited statement in the career section, there are also 2 unsourced statements in the official posts section and the bibliography needs more sources or ISBNs. Also the infobox mentions his spouse but that isn't sourced anywhere and one of his children isn't sourced either. Side note but is it really necessary to name all of his children? Only one of them has a article (which happens to be the one that isn't sourced too). Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 12:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
RD: Burt Young
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News
Credits:
- Nominated by TheInevitables (talk · give credit)
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)
- The filmography doesn't have any sources. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Lasse Berghagen
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [12]
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by BabbaQ (talk · give credit)
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)
- Support - well cited ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support. No problems found and looks good enough. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 23:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 00:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
(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.
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:
- Created and nominated by Synotia (talk · give credit)
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)- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Oppose per Kiril; if the world's other major nuclear power, the US, had ratified it, it would be more notable.
October 18
October 18, 2023
(Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
RD: Henry Kyemba
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.monitor.co.ug/uganda/news/national/ex-minister-henry-kyemba-dies-at-84-family-4406258
Credits:
- Updated by Jkaharper (talk · give credit)
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: Ugandan politician, minister of health (1974–1977). 65.94.213.53 (talk) 10:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
(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.
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:
- Nominated by Presidentman (talk · give credit)
- Updated by SQB (talk · give credit)
- Comment The confessor is the one making news here, his should be the target article and picture. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Not as a significant/well-known/impacting as a crime like the Zodiac Killer, and in the current landscape of news, this really doesn't cut it. It might have been a long time puzzling case, but also extols the issues of missing white woman syndrome of media bias. --Masem (t) 22:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose - well-known case, but to the extent that there is a systemic bias towards western news on ITN, I think this would qualify. A similar story elsewhere would never be proposed as a blurb. --RockstoneSend me a message! 23:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose good faith nom. This is basically tabloid news. While undoubtedly important to the family and loved ones of the victim, it has no real significance in the broader world. Suggest this be closed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. Serial killers are known to lie and say they killed more then they actually did. For all we know, van der Sloot is lying, and even if he isn't, as Masem notes, this is hardly the highest-profile murder. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- Oppose as stale, provincial, special interest only, all of which are typically grounds for SNOW closure This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose per all above. The Kip 02:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Prime example of Missing white woman syndrome. We don't post news about most murders going on in the world on ITN. Canuck89 (Gab with me) or visit my user page 02:53, October 19, 2023 (UTC)
- Leaning oppose. The headline here is that a person long-believed to have almost certainly been murdered by a certain person is now known to have been almost certainly been murdered by that certain person. BD2412 T 03:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
October 17
October 17, 2023
(Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
(Posted) RD: Carla Bley
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit)
- Updated by MonarchOfTerror (talk · give credit)
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)
- Support - nice nom, Gerda. I think it looks good enough to post ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support - Sure. Well sourced and decent enough. I do not see any problems. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 13:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support Meets requirements. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 19:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Admins willing to post ITN: BangJan1999 19:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Posted The discography section should have some content but it's not a show-stopper. Schwede66 20:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Gaza hospital explosion
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.
Alternative blurb III: An explosion transpires at a hospital in Gaza.
News source(s): CNN, Reuters
Credits:
- Nominated by FatCat96 (talk · give credit)
- Created by Super ninja2 (talk · give credit)
FatCat96 (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- support Lukt64 (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)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)- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- Support as per Lukt64, this is a big number. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 18:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support - we posted the Bucha massacre, which saw similar body counts, and although it may be accounted via ongoing, there are always certain stories such as the Crimean bridge explosion and the like that are unique/major enough to warrant a blurb, regardless if the parent article is in ongoing. I would wait for more sources to come out and for the article to be expanded however. — Knightoftheswords 18:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- seems the Bucha rationale is now moot due to Israeli and US intelligence findings. JM2023 (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support - HUGE incident, despite the war being in ongoing already, this war crime against humanity deserves a blurb CR-1-AB (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- We don't even know who did it yet. Some now allege it was a Hamas rocket. You shouldn't jump to conclusions and call it a crime against humanity to support significance. Also "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity" exist but not "war crimes against humanity". JM2023 (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support - The scale of this atrocity makes it important to include. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:84CE:346A:7D23:D4F5 (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support - we posted the Bucha massacre, which saw similar body counts, and although it may be accounted via ongoing, there are always certain stories such as the Crimean bridge explosion and the like that are unique/major enough to warrant a blurb, regardless if the parent article is in ongoing. I would wait for more sources to come out and for the article to be expanded however. — Knightoftheswords 18:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Wait: Initial reports of casualties and perpetrator are still uncertain. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 19:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Wait The real authorship of this execrable massacre is not confirmed by the RS sources, which only include the communiqué of the Palestinian Ministry of Health. I don't think it’s comparable to the Bucha massacre either in a war context, nor in an operational or significant context. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Exactly, however unfortunate it may be, lines have often been drawn by nations between the civilian bombing campaigns of total war and the personal door-to-door massacres of genocidal actors. And no wars are being started over this. JM2023 (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- You’re totally right. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Exactly, however unfortunate it may be, lines have often been drawn by nations between the civilian bombing campaigns of total war and the personal door-to-door massacres of genocidal actors. And no wars are being started over this. JM2023 (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support - Truly shocking to read, RIP to all those poor people - a war crime and a crime against humanity. Similar has also been posted relating to the Russo-Ukraine war. AnthonyIreland 19:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- do you have additional comments now that it has come out that both US and Israeli intelligence indicates with strong likelihood that it was a Palestinian missile? JM2023 (talk) 08:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Israel is now formally denying responsibility. They are claiming that the Palestinians blew up the hospital, probably by accident, while using it as a launch site for their own missiles aimed at Israel's civilian population centers. I reaffirm my oppose. But if this is posted, the currently written blurb assigning blame to Israel cannot be used. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- No, they never had. Drop it already. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 11:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- One example is not enough. JM2023 (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- No, they never had. Drop it already. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 11:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- even besides the POV issue, the currently written blurb also has several typographic errors ("israel airstrike" instead of "an Israeli airstrike") JM2023 (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Comment In conjunction with the disputed responsibility and NPOV edits on the article, I've proposed a more neutral altblurb for now The Kip 20:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. Covered in ongoing. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Respectful oppose Part of the reason for having an ongoing section is to avoid the inevitable tit-for-tat "we posted this attack so why can't we post that attack". Bucha was by far the exception rather than the norm. Curbon7 (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- In my view for ITN purposes, where this differs from Bucha is that this strike was directly part of the war covered by ongoing, whereas Bucha was not. Curbon7 (talk) 07:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support per KoTS. Not sure how Bucha clears our bar but this doesn't. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Bucha was a personal purposeful massacre by an enemy country invading another -- this, according to US intelligence, was a Palestinian failure. totally different. JM2023 (talk) 08:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support It's an ongoing event and it's worthy of coverage in international news. Rager7 (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I would suggest you should modify the original blurb. --RockstoneSend me a message! 23:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Will do. FatCat96 (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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[13][14].VR talk 06:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Changing to support. Still think the blurb needs to be changed.
- 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)
- Yeah if the perpretrator of the attack is found then I would Support PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support per nom Abo Yemen✉ 11:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Wait per Gotitbro. A combination of this being covered by ongoing and also not knowing who perpetrated the attack. If there is definitive evidence on who is responsible, I'd be willing to rethink ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Wait, likely a couple days, as preliminary investigations are still ongoing, both on the perpetrator and the death toll. Then, support. I revoke my earlier stance. — Melofors TC 16:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose, covered by ongoing whoeveer turns out to have done it QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- It’s a very significant event even outside of the ongoing. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Oppose Big thing indeed, but Covered by Ongoing, just like the siege and next big thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support per Bucha precedent as discussed above This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Bucha was well-established as being a Russian perpetration; Israeli and US intelligence say its much more likely a Palestinian action, not an Israeli one. This may change your conclusion. JM2023 (talk) 08:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- I don’t see how the fact that Bucha was perpetrated by Russia changes much Aaron Liu (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Because Russia was the invading country and Bucha was perpetrated against Ukrainian citizens on purpose, while Palestine apparently accidentally bombed its own citizens. That probably makes a significant difference. It's not that Bucha was specifically Russia or that this was specifically Palestine, it's that Bucha was against foreign citizens on purpose by an invading country whereas this was against one's own citizens apparently by accident and domestically. JM2023 (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- I don’t see how the fact that Bucha was perpetrated by Russia changes much Aaron Liu (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Bucha was well-established as being a Russian perpetration; Israeli and US intelligence say its much more likely a Palestinian action, not an Israeli one. This may change your conclusion. JM2023 (talk) 08:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support This is likely to further erode Israel's ties with the Arab world. Synotia (moan) 08:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Why? US and Israeli intelligence strongly indicates it was a Palestinian bombing. JM2023 (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Palestine still trusts Palestine info, but on the other hand, well... Aaron Liu (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- I don't understand, could you elaborate? JM2023 (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I don't understand, could you elaborate? JM2023 (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Palestine still trusts Palestine info, but on the other hand, well... Aaron Liu (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- Why? US and Israeli intelligence strongly indicates it was a Palestinian bombing. JM2023 (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- What would your claim to this event's significance be? Aaron Liu (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- What would your claim to this event's significance be? Aaron Liu (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support as this incident is being widely covered in the international media. Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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).
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)- 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)
- Not according to the Independent or the Telegraph. JM2023 (talk) 03:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- That's almost 2 weeks old, before the anti-Palestinian propaganda had been fact-checked. Why would you post such horrific prejudice User:JM2023? Nfitz (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- I think you might want to also post the fact checks in question that proved the claims wrong, it's very probably that they simply do not know about the timeline rather than posted in bad faith. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- That's they'd double down after being politely called out, and then needing to use 2-week old references to make the point, suggests that at a minimum, it's very careless. Especially considering the considerable reporting about this propaganda in the media - over a week ago! a, b, c. Nfitz (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's now horrific prejudice to repeat reliable sources telling us that literal terrorists committed terrorist acts like beheading and burning children. You're saying I'm prejudiced against antisemitic genocidal terrorists? By the way, it's not been shown to be "propaganda" and it's not like this would be the first time children are beheaded and burned in an attack. Israeli investigators continue to announce such events. What has been questioned was a report by an Israeli journalist interviewing soldiers who said babies were killed; social media users conflated that with babies being beheaded. And anyway, It's uncalled for to call my statement "horrific propaganda" even if it wasn't true, since "burned and beheaded" is a small difference from "brutally butchered in an ISIS fashion" and "burned alive". The difference there would not be "horrific propaganda"; what is horrific is the evident brutal murders of children by Gaza terrorists. JM2023 (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Nfitz’s second link is a news source that directly claims that the beheading was false using reason that there has been no evidence, while I’m unsure about the Washington post one as I do not have access. It doesn’t disprove it, but it’s very in doubt.There are genociders and terrorism on both sides of the war. While it is no excuse, you cannot unilaterally confirm any side’s press releases until a secondary source has agreed.Also, both of the links you provided in your “Not according…” comment only said killed and not beheaded. The politifact article you sent was on the exact same story as your provided ones, the one repeated by US and Israeli officials. It’s not just social media users and I don’t see how you could arrive to this conclusion after reading these articles. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- I think you might want to also post the fact checks in question that proved the claims wrong, it's very probably that they simply do not know about the timeline rather than posted in bad faith. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- That's almost 2 weeks old, before the anti-Palestinian propaganda had been fact-checked. Why would you post such horrific prejudice User:JM2023? Nfitz (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Not according to the Independent or the Telegraph. JM2023 (talk) 03:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Blake Spendley is also still sourced. Blake Spendley is an intelligence operative at the CNA, which may be why it was also sourced to CNA (i.e., considering that person to be speaking for their organization). JM2023 (talk) 08:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- That falls under
individual analysis based on photos and videos available online and elsewhere
, it’s what open-source analysis means. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- That falls under
- Blake Spendley is also still sourced. Blake Spendley is an intelligence operative at the CNA, which may be why it was also sourced to CNA (i.e., considering that person to be speaking for their organization). JM2023 (talk) 08:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Oppose Per masem. We have ongoing for a reason. Uneasy about the use of casualty figures when there is a war on. And Palestinian rockets hit Gaza all the time. This article would make a good poster child for the perils of current news reporting on Wikipedia; the signal to noise ratio is very low indeed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Same-sex marriage in India
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:
- Nominated by PrinceofPunjab (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Quite a significant news story which is getting international coverage. PrinceofPunjab (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Wait - article has not yet been updated with the case ruling ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- Comment Added altblurb. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Comment
- Understandable proposal, considering that India has over a billion people in it.
- But, mauritius Lukt64 (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- In my view it's important for two reasons:
- 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.
- 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)
- In my view it's important for two reasons:
- 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)
- Oppose This decision merely maintains the status quo and doesn't change much. TheInevitables (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Support per consensus that SSM legalization is functionally ITN/R; I see no reason the negative not be the case, especially given the populations affected This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- It’s not a rejection, it’s an “in-progress”. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Can you point to this consensus anywhere? -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose This isn't a change in law, nor is a change in law being blocked. This is merely a clarification. This is far too trivial to post & I'm baffled at the length of this discussion. It shouldn't even have been nominated. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose To me, the story would have been if it had been legalized. "Not our jurisdiction" doesn't seem noteworthy.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
(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.
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)
- 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)
- Strong oppose & WP:SNOW close Here we go again. This war is still ongoing and raging on. Battles around Avdiivka have intensified greatly. We had this exact discussion a few months ago. TwistedAxe [contact] 13:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose - article is still being updated and war is still very much going on ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
(Posted) RD: Eric Tweedale
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [15]
Credits:
- Nominated by The C of E (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Normantas Bataitis (talk · give credit) and The C of E (talk · give credit)
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)
- Support - well cited ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Per above. Article looks decent enough. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 14:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 08:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
RD: Tim Wallis
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:
- Updated by Zyates87 (talk · give credit)
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)
- Oppose. Needs more citations as several sections in the article are unsourced. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 14:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
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: