Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates
![]() | Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here. |
![]() |
---|
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.
![]() The ATR 72 involved in the crash
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
January 1
January 1, 2022
(Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Dan Reeves
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:
- Nominated by Muboshgu (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: Needs sourcing, I think I can get it there – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
RCEP comes into effect for ten countries
Blurb: Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, the largest free trade area in the world, comes into effect for Australia, Brunei, Cambodia, China, Japan, Laos, New Zealand, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. (Post)
News source(s): Channel News Asia, The Japan Times
Nominator's comments: In December 2018, we posted about Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, then-third largest free trade area. 2001:268:C148:7117:248B:1961:A6E2:6439 (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose As this has already been posted and this is a long-term work-in-progress, it doesn't seem that this milestone is making enough waves to be worth posting again. For example, the WSJ says "So far 10 of the 15 member nations have formally ratified the agreement ..." and so there are still plenty of formalities remaining. And the actual impact on regional and global trade remains to be seen. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per what Andrew said. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
December 31
December 31, 2021
(Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Health and environment
|
Marshall Fire
Blurb: A wildfire forces the evacuation of 40,000 people near Boulder, Colorado. (Post)
News source(s): [1]
Credits:
- Nominated by 64.231.158.212 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Most destructive wildfire in Colorado history. A rare December wildfire fanned by 110 mph winds. Close to 40,000 people evacuated (counting the populations of Superior, Louisville, and a small portion of Broomfield). No deaths, but massive property damage. 64.231.158.212 (talk) 19:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: the scale is similar to the 2016 Fort McMurray wildfire, which we posted. 64.231.158.212 (talk) 19:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
RD: Ivan Mozgovenko
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): classicalmusicnews.ru (in Russian)
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Grimes2 (talk · give credit)
- Created by Gisbert K (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: Influential Soviet and Russian clarinetist and music teacher. Grimes2 (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
RD: Hteik Su Phaya Gyi
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [2], [3]
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Htanaungg (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: The last (surviving) grandchild of the last king of Burma. Htanaungg (talk) 05:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support but... - Some parts of the article lack citations, much more content could be added. But, as the last surviving member of a royal family in a country that has lost its monarchical origins, it's RD-worthy. (PenangLion (talk) 09:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC))
- Support as Myanmar's last royal figure. Taung Tan (talk) 11:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. The "Family" section is completely unsourced. Importance is irrelevant for RD, only quality. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: it was described in the "List of People" section of The King in Exile: The Fall of the Royal Family of Burma. I've added that. Htanaungg (talk)
(Closed) Blair becomes a Knight Companion of the Order of the Garter
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: Tony Blair joins the Order of the Garter as a Knight Companion (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Count Iblis (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Strong oppose Trivial in the larger picture. We don't mark every knighthood or similar type of honor. --Masem (t) 00:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Really? Just no. Pure trivia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
(Closed)(Posted blurb) Betty White
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: American actress and comedian Betty White (pictured) dies at the age of 99. (Post)
News source(s): TMZ Deadline Hollywood (confirmation from her agent) WaPo obit CNN
Credits:
- Nominated by 力 (talk · give credit)
- Shit, no. I had a bad feeling about CNN promoting her 100th birthday party. :( – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Was about to drop a warning that I can only see TMZ (and a few tabloid sites that link back to it) as the source, and thus highly suspect. --Masem (t) 19:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- FWIW I've reverted White' page to before the death was added because we should absolutely not be using TMZ as the only source for it (per RS/P) --Masem (t) 19:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- News is starting to spread to other outlets, but citing the TMZ report. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- We now have confirmation from her agent via Deadline, so this is now appropriate. --Masem (t) 19:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- News is starting to spread to other outlets, but citing the TMZ report. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- FWIW I've reverted White' page to before the death was added because we should absolutely not be using TMZ as the only source for it (per RS/P) --Masem (t) 19:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- WaPo. 2021 indeed sucked at least as hard as 2020. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb, if this is true. BD2412 T 19:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose presently on article quality. Several unsourced para. --Masem (t) 19:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Also I weakly oppose a blurb. A lot about White is her superlatives - years in television, number of roles - as well as that she was about to turn 100. However, longevity or number of roles doesn't equate to "top of her field" (which even if we limit acting to women, would be people like Katharine Hepburn or Meryl Streep. --Masem (t) 21:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose RD On numerous gaps in referencing. Oppose Blurb on significance. We didn't post Kirk Douglas or Olivia de Havilland either, both of whom were far more significant in the entertainment world. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb Very notable person. --TheDutchViewer (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb the sourcing issues should be straightforward to fix once the volume dies down. Also, the "100th birthday plans" section will need updating. Regarding a blurb - in addition to Ad Orientem's examples, I don't see this being more blurbable than John Madden or Harry Reid. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support Blurb - highly notable nonagenarian, huge influence on popular culture. Not a Mandela or Thatcher, but highly regarded irrespectively. (FWIW I'd have supported Madden for the same reason. I think the bar is too high) - Floydian τ ¢ 19:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Not ready for RD yet on quality, but the gaps in referencing are few and far between so I think it'll get up to shape soon enough. Leaning towards support on blurb notability. She had an eight decade long career in entertainment, with continued relevance and name recognition from the 1930s to the present day. We tend to post people who are at the top of their respective career or otherwise highly influential, and there's certainly a case that Betty White fits this. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support - highly notable and worth a mention. --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb per above arguments. This is one blurb candidate where Sca can't say "old man dies".--WaltCip-(talk) 19:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support Blurb Highly influential lady in entertainment. NW1223(Howl at me/My hunts) 20:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Support for RD despite some filmography cn tags. I would oppose and try to find sources myself, but it is NYE. I do not expect anyone to work so hard to find obscure refs for at least a day, and the cn tags are not numerous, serious, or high in the article enough that it massively detracts from such a detailed article. I am neutral on whether White warrants a blurb, though I would lean for it, but it definitely shouldn't get a blurb until the tags are sorted. Kingsif (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)Not retracting, but different reply needed now tags are fixed and RD posted Kingsif (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)- Support Blurb once article issues are sorted out. Her impact as a woman in entertainment over the past century cannot be understated. Psfiseditingwp (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb, this site is America-centric enough as it is. Sheila1988 (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Please do not... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 21:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Sheila1988 If you would like to see more non-American stories posted, you need to nomimate them and work to bring the articles up to proper quality. We can only consider what is nominated, and I invite you to do so. 331dot (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb once issues are fixed; 91 years in the entertainment industry cannot be ignored. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb No Little Richard, no Betty White. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- That we didn't do X so we shouldn't do Y is a poor argument, as it means no change would be possible. 331dot (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Historically, the trend of change has been fewer blurbs and not more. If Little Richard and Chuck Yeager didn't get blurbs in 2020 after Carrie Fisher had gotten one in 2016(?), we shouldn't reverse course in 2021/2022. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- More importantly, post the Carrie Fisher blurb, we've been more careful to post blurbs on deaths simply because the person was popular, a household name, or similar metric that wasn't a direct indicator of importance. --Masem (t) 22:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Historically, the trend of change has been fewer blurbs and not more. If Little Richard and Chuck Yeager didn't get blurbs in 2020 after Carrie Fisher had gotten one in 2016(?), we shouldn't reverse course in 2021/2022. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Or reverse argument - Dilip Kumar was blurbed, so Betty White should be. And she has almost as many Wikipedia articles as Little Richard, so it is difficult to argue that she is below his level of popularity or that she is less famous worldwide. Kirill C1 (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- That we didn't do X so we shouldn't do Y is a poor argument, as it means no change would be possible. 331dot (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb not important enough for ITN blurb. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb If these 85 year old Indian politicians no one has ever heard of can make the blurb, I think Betty does.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JosHeartTransplant (talk • contribs) 20:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- This is false, they only made RD Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC) Also a SPA with 16 edits Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb/RD Guinness World Record holder of 9 decades in entertainment, has spanned a lengthy career with many notable achievements, even served in Women's Voluntary Services in World War II. Understand the article may have some issues, but it is a holiday, and this is definitely significant news and is being at least mentioned almost everywhere you look right now. LTC b2412 Troops Talk RFC Inbox 20:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy support RD, neutral on blurb, per Kingsif and LTC b2412. This is all over the mainstream news and the article isn't in such an awful state that it must be kept off the front page. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 20:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Slight, coin-flip oppose blurbNeutral Honestly have warmed to the pro-blurb arguments, but my initial instinct was to oppose the blurb, just because I think White belongs in the category of very old and very famous performers whose deaths, on a fundamental sense, aren't the news stories themselves as opposed to their life and career. Using that approach, having her name on the RD ticker just about says it all.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)- Oppose blurb. White was certainly beloved but as a television actor whose most successful roles were classed as "supporting" or "guest" I think we're stretching the idea of "top of one's field". I know OTHERTHINGS is a flimsy argument but it would be a clear indicator of bias if we posted this blurb and not Bébel earlier this same year. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 21:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Bébel (Belmondo) was posted, albeit pulled later. Kirill C1 (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb -- she is notable and blurbworthy because of her trailblazing for woman actors everywhere. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 21:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb. If a 90 year influential career (how many people have that?) with numerous accolades doesn't merit someone a blurb, we might as well just pack it up and stop doing death blurbs, period. Very frustrating. 331dot (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- This pretty much sums up the argument for posting as a blurb. 90 years of experience in acting is incomprehensible in its size. She was acting through the end of World War 2, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Iran-Contra scandal, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and 9/11. Whatever you might think of her notability outside the U.S., very few entertainers - possibly none - can lay similar claims to the breadth of her career. WaltCip-(talk) 21:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Particularly since she was a woman in a male dominated field... When she was born, women had only been allowed to vote in the United States for a single year.-- RockstoneSend me a message! 21:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb - I think under any other circumstance, this would be an oppose, but White was still very much active in her career despite her age, and it can't hurt to improve the male/female balance of main page features, as well. Kafoxe (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb - she was worldwide known due to such films as Proposal and You Again and the fact that she was acting in them while she was around 90. It speaks volumes that there was arranged, or planned, a celebration of her centennial.[1] Kirill C1 (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb, yep. Deserves no less and was a national icon in the U.S. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support RD While she is known worldwide due to many films played by her, her role was not significant enough to posted as blurb, at least for someone who lived outside the US. 114.125.253.28 (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Why does this matter? Please do not... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.-- RockstoneSend me a message! 21:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose RD on quality. 1 failed verification and ~15 cn tags, including for non-trivial statements like "This marriage ended in divorce in 1949 after Allen pressured White to give up her career to become a homemaker." which absolutely must be cited or removed. No opinion about blurb. Thryduulf (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support RD - Sure she has done films. But she is essentially an extremely productve TV actress. RD is appropriate.BabbaQ (talk) 21:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Fundamentally speaking, what is the difference between TV acting and film acting when it comes to blurbability? WaltCip-(talk) 21:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support RD/Oppose blurb Much loved actress with a long career but no different to someone like Una Stubbs or Sally Ann Howes.2A00:23C5:5082:6101:85A9:36C0:A02C:5B64 (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Una Stubbs - 22 wikipedia entries. Sally Ann Howes - 12 entries. Betty White - significantly more. Kirill C1 (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose RD Let's not rush this, there are several outstanding cite tags. Neutral on blurb once they are fixed. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb Legendary cultural figure with a career spanning nine decades. Remember that "but it's America-centric!" isn't supposed to be used as an argument. The Kip (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Sadly, it looks like "it's America-centric" will prevent anything American from being blurbed. I get it, America produces a lot of culture and news and it can be annoying. ITN is not supposed to be an American news-ticker, which is fair... But America is the third most populous country in the world, and the world's sole superpower, it has a lot of influence and we can't just refuse to post things because it came from the US. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 22:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Why mention the superpower thing? Are you going to invade us if we disagree? Many American stars would deserve a blurb, but this lady was NOT one of them. HiLo48 (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) This isn't necessarily how to read a lot of the opposition and it would be a good idea to not treat it as something competitive or combative. The truth is a lot of names of similar standing have been summarily ignored for ITN blurbs because their names weren't known to the US, or they were rightly seen as not being at the top of their field. American and British media are very widely seen in the anglophone world and can create the impression that because you or I are familiar with someone, that they must be a significant figure, which isn't the case. Here we are discussing someone whose entire career was spent in supporting roles--by definition not the top of their field--and the question is less a matter of "we shouldn't post it because it's an American story" and more of "are we only even considering posting it at all because it's an American story". If a non-anglophone supporting player were brought here it would not even be considered for a blurb for one second, and that is where the mention of America-centric bias comes from. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb. There are millions of television actors but none have worked longer in the field than she did. Pretty sure any remaining issues on quality can and will be fixed shortly. Regards SoWhy 22:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Strong support blurb Super notable, worked in the industry for decades, highly deserves a blurb. KingOfAllThings (thou shalt chatter!) 22:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb One of the most legendary actresses of all-time in Hollywood. NoahTalk 22:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb I cannot see what makes her more important than many other RD candidates (actors and others) who haven't had blurbs. HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support RD, oppose blurb - she wasn't at the top of her field, nor did she have a transformative effect on it. Having had an exceptionally long career doesn't make her important enough. She's well below the level of hundreds of entertainers, including Kirk Douglas, who wasn't blurbed. Jim Michael (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Kirk Douglas should have been posted, as he was exceptional figure. Still, he was posted on main page in another language. Kirill C1 (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment The voting tally is 19 to 10 in favour of the blurb. This should really be posted now and closed before the discussion turns into something else, imho 5.44.170.26 (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb/RD - Holding the longest television career of any entertainer, with her performances winning her five Primetime Emmy Awards, two Daytime Emmy Awards, and numerous other awards, she was truly one of the most legendary actresses in Hollywood, definitely meriting a blurb.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb, article is mostly fixed by now, and this discussion is overwhelmingly in favor, see above Comment. jonas (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb per above. Davey2116 (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support RD/weak support blurb Qualifies near "top of the field" in acting, and very well known. –DMartin 00:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- There is nothing in the article to even support the idea of "top of the field". "Beloved" and "well-known" do not qualify for this. --Masem (t) 00:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment -- not that this is a !vote, but I could 23 supports for a blurb, to 10 opposes.-- RockstoneSend me a message! 00:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Too many unreferenced claims to post. Stephen 01:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose not transformative/lack of impaact etc, unless simply being a part of the furniture is considered its own field. Bumbubookworm (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support blurb—she was the first woman to produce a sitcom on television. She's won numerous awards, and her career has spanned many decades from the earliest days of television to the modern day. She merits a blurb, and given the holiday, the few CNs present are either fixable or ignorable. Imzadi 1979 → 01:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. Gosh. Look at this thread and see how pathetic it shows all of us to collectively be. Mark a blurb, respect a life well-lived. Move on. For a moment, think of someone from outside the project or outside the encyclopedia reading this thread -- how pathetic are we, collectively. Move on. Use this time to improve the article instead. Article has 9 [citation needed] tags as of this moment. Ktin (talk) 01:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sometimes, I truly wish only folks who contribute to improving the article get to post their opinions here. Will do away with all the cacophony. Ktin (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb She is the "John Madden" of TV. She is not top of her field and not transformative. Tradediatalk 01:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb, support RD While she is transformative figure in sitcom and highly influential in entertainment industry, she was relatively unknown outside of English-speaking countries or Europe given her performance. 182.1.235.246 (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- So someone can be very important but because they aren't known to everyone (I would venture that Anglophone world and Europe is a significant amount of the world anyway) they are disqualified? That's impressively the opposite of other arguments above; that she was well-known but no more important than Kirk Douglas (specifically because he wasn't posted). I'll just be clear and think that neither are very useful !vote reasons. On the subjective side, comparing importance to similar people can be useful. Douglas and White aren't very comparable, and he is only being mentioned because he wasn't posted. Debating how known someone is, is particularly pointless because of the ITN/R things (global elections, Nobel and other awards) that annually give blurbs to lots of people of various industries and nations who are transformative but unknown. Kingsif (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support blurb or RD High-profile person. wizzito | say hello! 02:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thread re-opened following resolution of the citation needed tags. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Suggestion: Post RD now let blurb discussion continue. Kingsif (talk) 02:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support RD now that the CN tags have been taken care of.
Neutral on blurb, but leaning towards support. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 02:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)- Changing to a Support Blurb. IMO, good arguments have been raised here about White's importance, consistent popularity, and longevity in the medium of television that I think she warrants a blurb. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 06:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Posted as RD but whether a blurb or not can continue --Masem (t) 02:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note that this is after verifying the article was fixed. I see one line unsourced but its about an appearance in a work so non-controverisal. --Masem (t) 02:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Can we post the blurb now? Seems consensus is leaning that way. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 02:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment There is the tiniest discussion of infobox image on the talkpage. As this would impact the image posted in the box for a blurb, everyone here is welcome to join. Kingsif (talk) 03:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb Name recognition and/or familiarity does not equate to being 'top of field'. Likewise, we don't post blurbs just because someone lives to the age of 99. As mentioned by another poster, Betty White spent the majority of her career in supporting roles. It is inconceivable that a blurb for similar person outside the US would be given the slightest of consideration. Chrisclear (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb. Fwiw, utterly unknown in this neck of the woods. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support blerb It is not often that someone in the entertainment industry has a long career like Betty White, spanning most of her life. Urbanracer34 (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support blurb Whether people in ...Egypt, as a random country... have heard of her or not, White's position in the field of television cannot be denied. She places more among transformative pioneers than entertainers: she was on television before television existed, when there were experiments to invent it in the 30s, and after it "died" come 2016 and the dominance of streaming (and then she did streaming too). During that time, she was regular in at least sitcoms and game shows for all eight decades. She was a constant of the medium. Who else, in any field, ever, has been a solid figure at its inception and through its (and their) entire lifespan? And I do hope if there was an actor from, say, Egypt, who was such a perennial figure in television, the achievement would also be considered important enough. Didn't we recently blurb the death of a Bollywood actor at the top of that industry? I know there's a sizable cohort of Indian editors, but ITN-contributors-at-large listen when the impact of something they don't know is explained. It's not American bias to give White a blurb when she has an achievement to warrant it. The hidden bias is that with more American editors, it is less likely any non-American comparable figure would have an article/ITN nom/discussion if nommed at ITN to get posted, but that isn't for us to solve in this discussion. Kingsif (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- None of the claims of greatness are supported by the article - factually true she had a long career, but that doesn't equate to having a transformative role in television which needs strong sourcing to back it up. The problem is the same we had with Carrie Fisher - an extremely popular actress and the death shocked the entertainment world, but really not as transformative or top of the field as has been given. Thre's no section that goes into detail about how her role has impacted the industry, which would be a minimum requirement to even suggest that she was that transformative. --Masem (t) 07:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support blurb. Reading her article, it's clear that her body of work make her blurb-worthy. The fact that many of her achievements were breakthroughs for women that we now mostly consider mundane but were absolutely groundbreaking decades ago shouldn't be a barrier to posting. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support blurb Article is in good shape, she was a TV icon, groundbreaking actress and her death is being reported globally (if she wasn’t notable outside the US, those obits wouldn’t exist). TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support blurb – "If I had a dick, this is where I'd tell you to suck it!". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb Notable, no doubt, but not a world-changing scientist or politician, which is typically the bar for death blurb This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 05:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support speedy blurb Television pioneer with a career of nine decades. In nearly major news source, her death has been the most viewed and most shared story. I cannot recall any death where so many of the obituaries and tributes describe the deceased as a national treasure. A serious newsroom would understand the prominence of this story and its import to the public. That over 12 hours have passed without the blurb being added suggests this process is at best dysfunctional and more likely broken. Dr Fell (talk) 06:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Second this. I have no idea why this hasn't been posted yet, but it's clear there is a consensus for it. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 06:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support blurb given her truly unique role in the history of television. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 06:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Old Woman Dies A charismatic and beloved woman, sure, but a big name whose age was already famous in the RD slot is the exact same message (minus a photo). A blurb is just fan service, which is already provided extensively in the article we're already promoting. Violates NPOV, loosely. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Posted blurb – consensus leans in favor of posting a blurb as several of the opposing arguments are unconvincing. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 08:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Mine convinced you to finally do it, admit it. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Post-posting oppose Discussed whilst much of the world outside the US was celebrating the New Year, and I suspect the voting may have been different otherwise. It would not have hurt to let the discussion run for 24 hours. Beloved figure she may have been, but not at top of field, largely unknown outside one country. At least Carrie Fisher was widely known... Black Kite (talk) 08:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hello 2022 Let the year's first "the rest of the world was sleeping (or hungover)" debate begin.—Bagumba (talk) 08:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I'm only speaking for myself, but I would normally have seen this discussion before it was closed. Black Kite (talk) 08:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Not transformative either. No Academy Awards or Golden Globes. An equivalent entertainer with a long career in any other country would be unlikely to be given a blurb. She had a very long career, but was nowhere near the level of Katharine Hepburn or Meryl Streep. Jim Michael (talk) 09:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Jim Michael Academy Awards and Golden Globes are for work in film, White was primarily known for television, for which she got several Emmys and a lifetime achievement award. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- But she's best-known for the guilty-pleasure sitcoms The Golden Girls & Hot in Cleveland. How can that put her in the same class as Streep? Jim Michael (talk) 10:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Has Streep worked in film for 90 years? 331dot (talk) 10:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- As you know, Streep - like the vast majority of people - hasn't hasn't been able to have a career that long due to not having lived that long. However, Streep's career & achievements greatly outweigh White's. Streep should be blurbed less than an hour after being nominated, but this nom should have been up for discussion for 24h before a decision about posting were made. Jim Michael (talk) 12:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Has Streep worked in film for 90 years? 331dot (talk) 10:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- But she's best-known for the guilty-pleasure sitcoms The Golden Girls & Hot in Cleveland. How can that put her in the same class as Streep? Jim Michael (talk) 10:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- She was nominated for four Golden Globes, though. She also won several Emmys, both Primetime and Daytime, SAGs(Screen Actors Guild Awards), Grammys, BAFTA/LA Britannia Awards, and was nominated for numerous Emmys. Kirill C1 (talk) 10:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Jim Michael Academy Awards and Golden Globes are for work in film, White was primarily known for television, for which she got several Emmys and a lifetime achievement award. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Not transformative either. No Academy Awards or Golden Globes. An equivalent entertainer with a long career in any other country would be unlikely to be given a blurb. She had a very long career, but was nowhere near the level of Katharine Hepburn or Meryl Streep. Jim Michael (talk) 09:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb Non-transformative actor, no impact on acting, acting or theatre history, no appearance in any transformative work. Utterly unconvincing supports above include coffee and crumbs’s vote without rationale and the ridiculous claim that “she was on television before television existed”, which is just completely incorrect. Old woman dies is a bit harsh, but true. We’ve ignored many, many others in the entertainment field who have a better claim of inclusion, and this is just fan-voting and nothing else. 213.205.197.251 (talk) 10:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced you even glanced at the article. And yes, she was on television before it existed as an industry. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- You don’t know what you’re talking about on either point. Yes, of course I read the article. The television industry began in 1936 in the UK (although we began broadcasting in 1932) and white appeared in a very minor piece in 1939, then not appearing in the medium for another decade. So no, she didn’t appear on television, or even in the television industry, “before television existed”. These arguments are all a very, very long stretch to try and get someone up as a blurb. 213.205.194.165 (talk) 10:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't say "before it existed", I said "before it existed as an industry". It was not widespread in the 1930s. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- My original comment quoted Kingsif: s/he was wrong in making the claim “she was on television before television existed” whether you take it as television or the television industry. You have tried to move the goalposts to claim “she was on television before it existed as an industry”: that is also incorrect. There was a television industry in the UK in the mid to late 1930s. Making up unverified claims to try and get someone on the front page seems a bit desperate. 213.205.194.165 (talk) 10:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Since you know all about it I suggest that you review the article for possible corrections that need to be made. I have nothing else to add. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have not said I know all about it. I have simply refuted one of the more misleading claims that have been made to attempt to justify the posting. There is no justification for the fan posting here, and the sooner it is taken down, the better. 213.205.194.165 (talk) 11:08, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- If being responsive to current events and what readers might be looking for is a "fan posting", so be it. The JWST must have fans to, as did Desmond Tutu and those interested in cricket. 331dot (talk) 11:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Straw men arguments. 213.205.194.165 (talk) 11:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Please tell me you didn't just equate Desmond Tutu with an actor. (The cricket story is ITN/R). Black Kite (talk) 11:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's OK, they're both Christians, Christians dig unity in the hereafter. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Tutu was blurbed less than an hour after being nominated because he was at the top of his field. Is anyone honestly claiming that White is on a par with Streep, or even anywhere near her level? Jim Michael (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Tutu technically worked under two Archbishops of Canterbury, one of whom might die soon. Show some respect. What made Tutu bigger than White (in this life) was helping end apartheid. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- We'll certainly blurb Carey, but Tutu was more well-known & influential overall (including his activism). No-one's claiming White was at Streep's notability level. The main arguments for including White are her popularity, domestic awards & career length, which aren't enough to justify a blurb. Jim Michael (talk) 12:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Don't forget her recent online association with "national treasure", AKA "the phrase that pays", eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- We'll certainly blurb Carey, but Tutu was more well-known & influential overall (including his activism). No-one's claiming White was at Streep's notability level. The main arguments for including White are her popularity, domestic awards & career length, which aren't enough to justify a blurb. Jim Michael (talk) 12:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Tutu technically worked under two Archbishops of Canterbury, one of whom might die soon. Show some respect. What made Tutu bigger than White (in this life) was helping end apartheid. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Tutu was blurbed less than an hour after being nominated because he was at the top of his field. Is anyone honestly claiming that White is on a par with Streep, or even anywhere near her level? Jim Michael (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's OK, they're both Christians, Christians dig unity in the hereafter. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- If being responsive to current events and what readers might be looking for is a "fan posting", so be it. The JWST must have fans to, as did Desmond Tutu and those interested in cricket. 331dot (talk) 11:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have not said I know all about it. I have simply refuted one of the more misleading claims that have been made to attempt to justify the posting. There is no justification for the fan posting here, and the sooner it is taken down, the better. 213.205.194.165 (talk) 11:08, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Since you know all about it I suggest that you review the article for possible corrections that need to be made. I have nothing else to add. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- My original comment quoted Kingsif: s/he was wrong in making the claim “she was on television before television existed” whether you take it as television or the television industry. You have tried to move the goalposts to claim “she was on television before it existed as an industry”: that is also incorrect. There was a television industry in the UK in the mid to late 1930s. Making up unverified claims to try and get someone on the front page seems a bit desperate. 213.205.194.165 (talk) 10:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't say "before it existed", I said "before it existed as an industry". It was not widespread in the 1930s. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- You don’t know what you’re talking about on either point. Yes, of course I read the article. The television industry began in 1936 in the UK (although we began broadcasting in 1932) and white appeared in a very minor piece in 1939, then not appearing in the medium for another decade. So no, she didn’t appear on television, or even in the television industry, “before television existed”. These arguments are all a very, very long stretch to try and get someone up as a blurb. 213.205.194.165 (talk) 10:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced you even glanced at the article. And yes, she was on television before it existed as an industry. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Stats The first day's numbers are in now and it seems clear that, for our readership, this is one of the biggest deaths of the year. Here's a comparison with some other famous names who died in December. The spike of 3.7M views is superstar level – no-one else comes close. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- ITN doesn't care about readership figures at all (as we are not a newspaper and readers coming here to catch up on news are in the absolutely wrong place). And remember that she was up as an RD as soon as her article was fixed up +/- 15 minutes. --Masem (t) 13:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, it merely indicates popularity & interest by readers - not level of notability. ITN doesn't post most things that are among the most-read on WP that day/week/month/year. If we did, we'd post a lot of stories about domestic sports, politics & entertainment. Jim Michael (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Isn't ITN intended for popular topics that are of interest to our readers? - Floydian τ ¢ 13:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. Otherwise we would just be celebrity and entertainment and sports stories. Popularity should not at all enter the picture. --Masem (t) 13:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Crime, sex, disaster...animals. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. Otherwise we would just be celebrity and entertainment and sports stories. Popularity should not at all enter the picture. --Masem (t) 13:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Isn't ITN intended for popular topics that are of interest to our readers? - Floydian τ ¢ 13:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, it merely indicates popularity & interest by readers - not level of notability. ITN doesn't post most things that are among the most-read on WP that day/week/month/year. If we did, we'd post a lot of stories about domestic sports, politics & entertainment. Jim Michael (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Post-posting comment – I would have opposed a blurb, but it was evident the subject's faithful fans, venting their views in a cyclone of 5,000 words, would prevail. Incertum quo fata ferunt. – Sca (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Rem acu tetigisti. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Or, Quo tendimus? – Sca (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Like White, David Jason is an elderly actor who has a very long career, is a national treasure, is best-known for sitcoms, has domestic but not international awards & has millions of fans abroad as well as at home. However, he won't be blurbed even if his career continues well into his 90s. Jim Michael (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps ironically, gender may possibly make a difference here. It is fairly effortless to name multiple major male actors whose careers started young and who were still acting into their 90s. It is quite a bit more difficult to identify other female actors fitting the same parameters. In a comment on a different part of this thread, I must admit that I find the use of Latin, in a thread discussing prominent actors using modern technology mediums, to be rather ... odd. As a consequence, the nail hit on the head may not actually have been the nail aimed at. - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Gosh, ITN has become so terribly vulgar recently. Plene confirmo notionem wikipediae Latinae, in qua callidissimi esse possumus. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Did Pogo the Possum say that? – Sca (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Like White, David Jason is an elderly actor who has a very long career, is a national treasure, is best-known for sitcoms, has domestic but not international awards & has millions of fans abroad as well as at home. However, he won't be blurbed even if his career continues well into his 90s. Jim Michael (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Or, Quo tendimus? – Sca (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Rem acu tetigisti. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
December 30
December 30, 2021
(Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime
|
December 29
December 29, 2021
(Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Science and technology
|
(Ready) RD: William Moncrief
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Fort Worth Star-Telegram
Credits:
- Nominated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Ackatsis (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: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support RD I wrote most of this article back in 2014. Many of the links were dead, so I've just updated all the citations with archived versions. Ackatsis (talk) 11:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support article looks great. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment If someone has time to get to it first: (1)Present tense still used in some places ("he has strictly adhered..."), and (2) needs editing in Personal Life ("Moncrief was said to have..."). Joofjoof (talk) 10:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- No opinion, but the "Moncrief was said to have ..." verbiage remains.—Bagumba (talk) 09:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment How reliable is the Weekly Wire source that's used over a dozen times? It's in the "News and Opinion" column and is laced with "an anonymous ex-employee said that ..." quotes. Black Kite (talk) 09:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- The linked page displays "FWWeekly", which seems to be the present-day Fort Worth Weekly, a local, weekly paper.—Bagumba (talk) 10:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
(Closed) 2022 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships
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 2022 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships are cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The 2022 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships were cancelled several games into the tournament due to players from multiple teams contracting COVID-19.
News source(s): Globe and Mail, Associated Press
Credits:
- Nominated by TheSandDoctor (talk · give credit)
- Oppose Even if this rises to the importance level of us putting the WJC on ITN, the postponement isn't big enough, especially given indications that it may just end up being postponed. DarkSide830 (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Lot of events are being cancelled due to virus surge, and this event isn't even on WP:ITNR either.—Bagumba (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
RD: Nancy Worley
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Independent
Credits:
- Nominated by Kafoxe (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: Former Secretary of State of Alabama. Kafoxe (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support article looks to be in good shape. Thryduulf (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. Is the article balanced? It seems to me to concentrate on her removal from office and prosecution, with very little else. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
(Closed) Ghislaine Maxwell
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: Jeffrey Epstein's former associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, is found guilty in a U.S. federal sex trafficking trial on 5 of 6 charges. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Jury reaches guilty verdict in sex trafficking trial of former Jeffrey Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell.
Alternative blurb II: Jeffrey Epstein's former associate Ghislaine Maxwell is found guilty in sex trafficking trial.
News source(s): Reuters, The Guardian, ABC7 Chicago, The Hill, The Independent, Le Monde, El Pais
Credits:
- Nominated by Mooonswimmer (talk · give credit)
- Created by Cj1340 (talk · give credit)
- Support -- definitely ITN. Also, fixed up blurb. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 23:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support major trial with lots of publicity. I imagine a lot of users are going to be coming to Wikipedia over the next week looking for information on her charges and what they mean, as well. --PlasmaTwa2 23:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - "Who is Jeffrey Epstein?" is a reasonable question to expect from non-US people, let alone his former associate. Banedon (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Is it? His suicide was on the news everywhere. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 23:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- From a quick survey of major English-language news sources, I think it's more accurate to say that British news sources are covering this the most comprehensively (likely due to the defendant's nationality, where her family has already been, er, well-known for a long time). As of right now, it's a main page story on the New York Times, LA Times CNN websites, etc., but it's full-sized, banner headline Big News on The Guardian's international homepage and the Telegraph's, for example.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Front page for Sydney Morning Herald and The Globe and Mail. Not only is "international significance" a totally made up non-criteria but to claim en wiki readers would have no idea who Epstein and Maxwell are requires a level of ignorance that has to be (or is at least hopefully) willfully ignorant. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Are you in the US? If you aren't, I suggest running a random check on people you meet to see if they know who Jeffrey Epstein is (I'd suggest not bothering with Ghislaine_Maxwell). Also, when you look at some headlines like the "Ghislaine Maxwell found guilty in Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking case" headline from The Globe and Mail, it's obvious that most people don't know Ghislaine Maxwell, because Ghislaine Maxwell needs to be anchored to Jeffrey Epstein before people can place the context. Banedon (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Neither of the British outlets I mentioned (Telegraph: "Ghislaine Maxwell facing 70 years in prison for sex trafficking" / Guardian: "Ghislaine Maxwell found guilty in sex-trafficking trial") feel the need to mention Epstein alongside Maxwell in their banner headlines (and neither does the Sydney Morning Herald headline!) Using your metric, that means they assume their readership is more likely to know who she is than two of three American news headlines right now. (Though regardless, rule 2 makes this a counterproductive argument anyway.)--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- I read this comment this morning and took Banedon up on the suggestion. The first person (an elderly neighbour) I asked "do you know who Jeffrey Epstein was" responded with a confused look. "Of course," - confused I thought she might not! Then her face changed. Oh, did I not know and needed explanation? - "his ex girlfriend was just found guilty of sex trafficking, terrible business. Killed himself in prison because of it."
I politely went on my way before she got gossiping, but asked another three people in town and got similar responses. It was the headline on the evening news yesterday... I followed up with two of my unwitting survey respondees by asking who Kamala Harris was and they didn't know. So, it is American ignorance to assume only Americans have heard global news about a British woman. Kingsif (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Which country are you in? Banedon (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support. per above I got multiple push notifications about this from BBC News, where the website features live coverage as the main news and two other related stories are in the top 6, so it's clear this is internationally significant (but also "Please do not... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one."). Thryduulf (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment If and when this gets posted, could the posting administrator please also post the Ashes Series ITN item as well? Chrisclear (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose The connection to Epstein is really the only part that elevates this story. If there was no conection to Epstein - but still resulted in arrest and this conviction - it likely would not be anywhere close to groundbreaking. This is the media's bias on bad actors showing here and not the type of story we should give front page coverage of. --Masem (t) 01:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support front page around the world, decent article, not a DISASTERSTUB for a change. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support US news should not dominate ITN, I think we can all agree on that. But the reasoning presented thus far by oppose votes, isn't convincing to me. Yes, of course her relationship to Epstein is a boost of relevance to this story - the alleged crimes occurred in partnership with him! "x news is only famous/significant because of y" is too broad a standard to apply, and would disqualify just about everything, because things do not just occur in isolation. As for media's bias, we don't lead, we follow - WP:RGW. Arguing that this is getting attention because of bias and that we should correct for it, isn't neutral. Lastly, if there's genuine concern about people not knowing who Jeffrey Epstein is, then we can simply tag the appropriate article. Canadianerk (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Particularly for ITN, we don't follow blindly (we are not a news ticker), and need to be aware of systematic bias that does exist. This isn't a case of RGW, nor a case of "opposing due to one country", but simply that this is media jumping on a figure who has been convicted, and who was connected to a figure that was already under the press's microscope. Take away the Epstein connection, and this really isn't a major story. --Masem (t) 05:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- You are right, if any ordinary person did equivalent crimes for their boyfriend, it would probably reach regional/national news at best. But Ghislaine Maxwell is not an ordinary person, nor is her then-boyfriend, Epstein. Take any major story involving a celebrity and take away the celebrity - and unsurprisingly - it won't get as much coverage. There is bias influencing that outcome for a variety of reasons, but the celebrity of a person contributes to the newsworthiness of a story for the press. Hence, I find it hard to understand why pointing this out accomplishes anything, nor why it means the story is not ITN worthy. Epstein is in this story, and this woman has been convicted of crimes she committed in collaboration with him. Because of that, the allegation that systemic bias is too widespread in this story, means that it shouldn't run? Canadianerk (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- You've basically proved the point that news jumps on "celebrity" coverage and elevates certain stories to importance levels that for an encyclopedia, where we are more interested in endurance of topics rather than news bursts, doesn't make it a good fit. --Masem (t) 14:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- And the press does the same thing for politics, sports and just about every story they cover, wildly adjusting importance levels. Does that mean we should stop covering things that the news covers, thereby completely defeating the point of ITN? Overcorrecting for perceived bias by choosing not to cover something at all is an extreme reaction I'm struggling to understand. One that at this point, for this piece of news, does not read as justified with simply "not groundbreaking", nor the bias you're citing, or most of the arguments I've seen presented thus far. The vast majority of news we cover is covered in news bursts... It's how the news cycle works? If it's the standard to correct to this extreme for both celebrity and news cycle, we've got a lot of changes to implement - including ditching most of ITN/R - because applying this standard unequally is arguably worse than just killing well-covered stories for this reasoning, and letting through random sports tournament #43. Tl;dr - this nomination appears to already have been killed, so there's not much point in continuing this. Thanks for trying to explain your perspective politely, I appreciate it. Canadianerk (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- You've basically proved the point that news jumps on "celebrity" coverage and elevates certain stories to importance levels that for an encyclopedia, where we are more interested in endurance of topics rather than news bursts, doesn't make it a good fit. --Masem (t) 14:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- You are right, if any ordinary person did equivalent crimes for their boyfriend, it would probably reach regional/national news at best. But Ghislaine Maxwell is not an ordinary person, nor is her then-boyfriend, Epstein. Take any major story involving a celebrity and take away the celebrity - and unsurprisingly - it won't get as much coverage. There is bias influencing that outcome for a variety of reasons, but the celebrity of a person contributes to the newsworthiness of a story for the press. Hence, I find it hard to understand why pointing this out accomplishes anything, nor why it means the story is not ITN worthy. Epstein is in this story, and this woman has been convicted of crimes she committed in collaboration with him. Because of that, the allegation that systemic bias is too widespread in this story, means that it shouldn't run? Canadianerk (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Particularly for ITN, we don't follow blindly (we are not a news ticker), and need to be aware of systematic bias that does exist. This isn't a case of RGW, nor a case of "opposing due to one country", but simply that this is media jumping on a figure who has been convicted, and who was connected to a figure that was already under the press's microscope. Take away the Epstein connection, and this really isn't a major story. --Masem (t) 05:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support Article in good shape. Reading the comments above, I would say this is an Anglo-American story. It's there on the home page of France24 in English and De Telegraaf, to further add to international coverage. Mjroots (talk) 05:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support Article is okay. For our purposes it suffices that the subject is in the news worldwide. Would have more difficulty if I had to explain why. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support definitely ITN and article is decent. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support. I would actually suggest splitting out a separate Trial of Ghislaine Maxwell article, as there is substantially more coverage than is currently reflected in the article. I disagree that the connection with Epstein is the only thing that makes this international news. This is, as one source put it, "the woman who ties Jeffrey Epstein to Trump and the Clintons"; in other words, a major figure in her own right. Those famous names came up during the trial itself, so even if "Epstein" was removed from the equation, we would still be discussing a woman with ties to top-tier international figures being convicted of sex trafficking minors. BD2412 T 06:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. As U.S. based court trial stories go, this one is not particularly important. This trial is mostly celebrity tabloid fodder. The Kyle Rittenhouse and Ahmaud Arbery verdicts were much more consequential (both in November 2021) and both of those were declined at ITN. Nsk92 (talk) 06:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- How were the Rittenhouse & Arbery verdicts more consequential? Rittenhouse was acquitted & there were no consequences. Arbery's killers were convicted but it was a fairly standard trial which received excesssive media coverage because of its racial angle. Jim Michael (talk) 10:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support Even with concerns over the impact of this specific trial, the magnitude of what these verdicts stand for and what they mean for the general Epstein situation are of significance. The idea that something like this is US-centric when supposedly so many countries were probably touched by this scandal is absurd. Not too big on any of the blurbs though. DarkSide830 (talk) 06:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Ghislaine Maxwell is not Jeffrey Epstein. She has not implicated any major figures during her trial and there is no indication that her conviction will have significant further consequences for anyone else other than Ghislaine Maxwell. By comparison the Kyle Rittenhouse and Ahmaud Arbery verdicts have had major impact on race relations and on gun related debates in the U.S. Nsk92 (talk) 07:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Respectfully disagree. Obviously nothing is proven as far as further charges and individuals being implicated, but the initial comment is somewhat misguided. Yes, Maxwell isn't Epstein, but the link between these two is undeniable and to act like the allegations against Maxwell are completely separate from him is silly. DarkSide830 (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- I disagree. There may be consequences, if not direct, for Prince Andrew, Duke of York, who made it abundantly clear, in his 2019 interview with Emily Maitlis, that it was for Maxwell he had organised a special
birthday partyweekend pheasant shoot at Sandringham House. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Ghislaine Maxwell is not Jeffrey Epstein. She has not implicated any major figures during her trial and there is no indication that her conviction will have significant further consequences for anyone else other than Ghislaine Maxwell. By comparison the Kyle Rittenhouse and Ahmaud Arbery verdicts have had major impact on race relations and on gun related debates in the U.S. Nsk92 (talk) 07:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support Significant event and gaining global coverage. Article also looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose This isn't a truly major verdict. Riots won't be happening in the streets, but many tabloid newspapers will be sold. If this were a certain member of the British royal family, then perhaps the story would make it to the front page. The recent Kyle Rittenhouse and Ahmaud Arbery verdicts did not make the cut, this should not either.Thriley (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per above and, especially, per Thriley. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per Thriley. Where exactly is the world-historical importance here? ITN would become a pure tabloid if we posted individual criminal trials merely because they receive media attention - and this one, ironically, is particularly unworthy because it merely establishes the involvement of one not particularly famous "socialite" in abuse already proven to have taken place in another criminal trial. I do not doubt the significance for those involved but I am yet to see a convincing argument that its implications go any further. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per Thriley, not a ground breaking trial, not important enough for ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
CommentOppose – Leads many prime RS sites Thursday: AP, BBC, Guardian However, the verdict was a foregone conclusion given the highly publicized testimony in this sordid affair. Leaning toward oppose. – Sca (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)- Support Biggest news story in the English-speaking world right now, and I suspect it will remain at the top of the headlines for at least another week. It seems strange for us to be imposing our own standards of importance over the media's when Wikipedia is intended to follow, not to lead. Mlb96 (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- The biggest news story in the world right now, both in the English speaking world and non English speaking world, is the Omicron variant. It's also by far more important than the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. Nsk92 (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Not if you watch or listen to the BBC. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- The biggest news story in the world right now, both in the English speaking world and non English speaking world, is the Omicron variant. It's also by far more important than the Ghislaine Maxwell trial. Nsk92 (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support Huge press coverage. True "cross continent" story, that may yet have implications for other ongoing criminal investigations. Even gets a look in from everyone's favourite conspiracy theorists. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per Thriley. And not even a top story here in the Czech Republic. Pavlor (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Is the "top story in the Czech Republic" nominated elsewhere on this page? Isn't that more the province of cz.wiki? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- That is one of my measures to alleviate "systemic bias". It is a top story inside a subset of English-language media, outside that, nobody really cares. Just compare this verdict to the Chauvin trial, which had universal media coverage across the globe. This one is a tabloid-like triviality in comparison. Pavlor (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, of course, the Chauvin trial was a bigger global news event. But are you suggesting all future nominations are compared against the top story in the Czech Republic? And I'm not sure the estimated "few dozen to over 100" victims of Epstein and Maxwell would consider it "tabloid-like triviality". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Why not consider what makes the news in the Czech Republic? English Wikipedia is "Wikipedia in the English language", not "Wikipedia for Anglo-Americans". For reference, it has barely made it onto the front page of Le Monde and is not even one of the top three American-related stories there (1) and ditto El Pais (2). This does not mean that we should not feature this story, but it does mean that the onus is on the supporters to find a better argument than "lots of press coverage". —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Nothing against Czech news. But yes, I am assuming en.wiki ITN is primarily about what's in English language news (and certainly not just "Anglo-American"). Do you think we should always check what's the top story in China before posting at ITN? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- In the U.S. media none of the news sites I looked at currently lead with the Ghislaine Maxwell story, with the exception of a couple of yellow rags like NY Post. Quite a few U.S. newspapers with national circulation currently don't have the Ghislaine Maxwell story on their front pages at all, including Chicago Tribune[4], Boston Globe[5] and Atlanta Journal-Constitution[6]. WaPo does have the story on its front page right now[7] (not as the lead, the lead story is Omicron, of course), ironically with the headline critical of BBC's coverage: "BBC criticized for having Dershowitz analyze Maxwell case despite allegations against him." That shows where the story ranks in the U.S. right now in the order of importance. Nsk92 (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough. The verdict was delivered about 5pm EST yesterday? Unlike ITN, most news outlets move on as fast as they can to the next breaking story? But yes, I guess less significant stories will tail off more quickly. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, seven of the ten most popular stories on the Guardian's US site right now are about the Maxwell trial. The others: Tiger fatally shot at Florida zoo after biting man's arm, Record snowfall in California, Denver shooting suspect wrote books describing similar attacks..-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- I'm curious why there is apparently no coverage of this in Chinese-language (which is a language I picked at random) US newspapers, e.g. [8] and [9]. A uniquely English thing, maybe? Banedon (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support Story in the public's interest which has lasted many months. 2600:1700:FC10:48C0:4858:9F69:7869:1B3 (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. Story is not in the international public interest. Story is not notable outside of the United States. Story is not important. Wikipedia is not a celebrity gossip magazine. Personally, I would have to look up who Mr. Epstein is or was, and his associate is even less important. For a US site, maybe. For an international site, no, certainly not front page news. The English language Wikipedia is in English, but its coverage should be worldwide like its audience is — it should not be specific to English speaking countries. --Gerrit CUTEDH 21:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- "not notable outside of the United States"?? I think the BBC and ITV would beg to differ, as it's been wall-to-wall since abut 10pm last night.... Or is your comment intended as a public service instruction? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- To consider that an event occurring in the U.S. is internationally notable because the BBC talks about it a lot seems foolhardy to me. They are still "brother" countries and it's not at all unusual for something important in the US to be picked up in the UK with the same or similar impact. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Well, um yes, it's "picked up". It's between nations.... so "international". It's.... in the news. lol. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Why does it matter if it's international? Read rule 2; who cares? Soccer isn't in the international interest (in my opinion), but it's still posted here because it's ITN. So is this story. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 00:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- This is the most American comment I've seen here. Check out the viewership of the FIFA world cup finals and compare it to your so called football competition. 182.3.37.93 (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. Tabloid stuff. No global significance. This case should have 2 ITN only: him going to jail and him dead. Tradediatalk 21:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support I don't know where all the "gossip" and "tabloid" arguments are coming from. Is this covered in broadsheet, TV, major news outlets? Yes. Is it a high-profile criminal conviction, something that we get enough of we have actually brought in guidelines on when to post them? Yes. I can see oppose reasons like "wait for her to be sentenced" being made seriously, but not "unimportant celebrity gossip". Damn. Also, anyone saying it's only in America don't seem to notice that she is British and not exactly unknown in the country - arguably, more infamous in the UK than the US - and that this side of it (i.e. the not-Epstein notoriety) has spilled into France/Aus/NZ news at least. If you actually look at the global news. Of course, something doesn't have to be reported internationally (as long as it's ITN somewhere) for international interest, not something I think I've argued before but have conceded when other have - fascination with criminals is universal. Kingsif (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- This type of news is where even quality sources like NYTimes and BBC enter a "tabloid" mode. I have no feelings about Maxwell here, but this is clearly a person that, like Epstein, the media show no issue with portraying in a negative light. It is a similar problem to missing white woman syndrome, that these are people they love to hate and thus a ruling like this is one they love to harp on. If there were no ties to Epstein, the trial would still have been covered, but with far less importance or coverage. That's the basic problem here is the artificial inflation of this story due to the celebrity nature of it - basically acting like tabloids. --Masem (t) 02:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support I cannot remember a more obvious candidate that encountered more than trivial resistance. I encourage anyone considering opposition to go re-read the ITN criteria. It sounds like it was written with this nomination in mind. Then read the opposition !votes here; you will find none are applicable to the standards. That is quite telling. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Known in Canada. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment is there a procedure to define "consensus" when the vast majority of oppose votes are coming from people who apparently haven't read the actual rules of ITN? I'm not even certain if I'm supportive or opposed (I think there is a good argument against posting this specific development in the whole saga of this case to this point) but nearly all of the opposed !votes here have been completely unconvincing to anyone who's read Rule 2—and regardless, I think the claim that this is news in only one country has been materially disproven. (And, if I may be so presumptuous, if there is one country where this has received more encompassing news coverage than anywhere else, I really don't think it's the one people here think it is...) --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Well, this isn't a democracy, the !votes that ignore rule 2 by complaining that it's only relevant to the United States (which isn't even true... Maxwell is British) could just be ignored. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 02:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry but this is nowhere near significant. And we should have some editorial judgement on significance beyond how popular the story is currently. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Those preceding opinions are our judges' findings on significance as news. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. Interesting, if all a bit tabloid-y, but a very long way short of global significance as news. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment – The AP's second-day story begins: "The Ghislaine Maxwell sex trafficking trial was a four-week winding road featuring sordid testimony by four women ...." (my emphasis). An apt description of a legal circus. – Sca (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- PS: – At 4,000 words, this discussion seems to have run its course. – Sca (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- How much do US attorneys get for a four-week sex-trafficking trial these days? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure, but probably more than we get for editing the online encyclopedia that is not a news ticker. – Sca (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oooh, is that sour grapes, or just hard cheese? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Please! Civis orbis sum. – Sca (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oooh, is that sour grapes, or just hard cheese? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure, but probably more than we get for editing the online encyclopedia that is not a news ticker. – Sca (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Even while discounting some of the !votes, this is still a borderline call to post. Discussion seems to have hit a New Year's lull.—Bagumba (talk) 08:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- I think it probably should have been posted, but honestly, it's somewhat stale at this point. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 09:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- A story TMZ broke on an American TV personality's personal trouble passed easily tonight, so it's still a good year for Western gossip journalism, just not looking good for the heels. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- The Stand News nomination (below) from the same day was just posted essentially today, so it's not stale for ITN purposes.—Bagumba (talk) 11:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support - Clearly for ITN. Article is sourced and ready. Has recieved extensive coverage for months and years actually. The opposing sides strongest argument seems to be ”it’s trivial”, which is just an opinion not a fact. BabbaQ (talk) 10:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment On the other hand, if we wait a few days we can bundle it up with the inevitable RD nomination. (Sorry) Black Kite (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Trust ITN. Always looking for the easy way out. (Not sorry) Martinevans123 (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) Stand News
Blurb: Stand News closes down after its staff are arrested by the HK Police for sedition. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Stand News closes down after its staff are arrested by the HK Police for sedition.
Alternative blurb II: Stand News closes down after its staff are arrested by Hong Kong Police for sedition.
Alternative blurb III: In Hong Kong, Stand News closes down after its staff are arrested for sedition.
News source(s): BBC; NYT
Credits:
- Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
- Created by Ara11183 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Ohconfucius (talk · give credit), EastThermopolis (talk · give credit), Feminist (talk · give credit), Billytanghh (talk · give credit) and Yeeno (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: This is rather like the Memorial item below; yet more authoritarian suppression... Andrew🐉(talk) 20:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - I have linked to the article for the actual police raid instead, which I have copyedited. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 21:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion. I have shown this as an alt blurb for clarity and choice. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support -- definitely ITN and indicative of the deteriorating situation in Hong Kong -- RockstoneSend me a message! 23:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - I'd have supported, but there's precedent against it. Banedon (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I've suggested Alt2 as a tweak of alt1 as I think we generally use "Hong Kong" rather than "HK" in blurbs. Thryduulf (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- ...Except it isn't showing up and I can't figure out why? Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose The notable news was closure of Apple Daily, this is less widely known media, and thus covered less in the news. 99.247.176.90 (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Support, the article looks good and the news is widely reported globally. I'm not sure why Today's Zaman would be considered precedent against posting government raids on newsorgs considering that editors participating in that ITNC were supportive of its posting. Also there is no conflict between posting the closure of Apple Daily and the closure of Stand News; indeed, both were the most popular news websites in Hong Kong that aren't editorially pro-government at their time of closure. feminist (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Global reporting: Nikkei; CBC; France 24; Straits Times. This is no less notable than the Apple Daily closure, which took place over a longer period of time. feminist (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose zero information about the subject beyond its conflicts with the CPC fails WP:N. If this were a notable publication, the article would look more like the Toronto Star. Nom and supports feel like WP:RGW to me. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support Altblurbs, so the article with expanded/higher quality is bolded. Not convinced by the arguments that oppose votes have presented. This event has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. An event occurring because of a "conflict" with a government is so trivial it violates WP:N? Then there's "x thing is more significant than y" so y shouldn't be covered? Both, no offense meant, are not convincing to me, and are stretches at best. To address the final oppose argument thus far, the precedent cited is a case where something was closed because it was nominated late, and thus stale - no offense, but that precedent is meaningless, and only has relevance if this nomination stalls. That is not currently the case. Canadianerk (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support This is evidently more important than the closure of Memorial and the article is in very good shape. I like the wording of the suggested blurbs to reflect both the raid with arrests and the closure.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support Article is well sourced and this echoes the Memorial blurb case that was just posted. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support ALT3 Though the news org is smaller than Apple Daily, it is notable per the reporting above. Article on the raid is now well sourced, and has gone through quite a bit of copyediting. ALT3 is short and to the point. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 19:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Strong Support notable event, covered widely across globe Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support ALT2 or ALT3 Enough global significance. Tradediatalk 22:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Marking as ready, current vote is 8-3 in favour of posting. Canadianerk (talk) 05:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Editors and awards are not referenced. Stephen 07:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Referenced them' Bumbubookworm (talk) 07:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose – Another footnote in the story of China's total takeover of Hong Kong. – Sca (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support ALT2 or ALT3 Earth-shattering significance, widely reported. -- Ohc revolution of our times 15:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- In HK's case, the Earth was already shattered – and shuttered too. – Sca (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Just for everyone's reference, one of the pieces that they wrote in May is widely considered as one of the trigger points of the September Office Action (though unconnected in reality) but the aftershock of the May one led to the July Signpost "National Security Threat", which in turn got into September and October's Signpost again.--1233 ( T / C) 15:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Additional note: The piece was archived here--1233 ( T / C) 16:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Posted Alt3. SpencerT•C 23:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Dumb question -- isn't the correct grammar "is arrested"? Or is that specific to American English? -- RockstoneSend me a message! 01:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- "Staff" generally refers to plural and is appropriate with "are" in the same way that "data" is often plural as in "the data from the experiments are..." but can probably be interpreted either way stylistically. - Indefensible (talk) 03:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- As a Brit, I think it would be wrong in the singular; "staff" as a collective can't be arrested, only the individual staff members. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, it would be "is" in American English, but HK English is presumably closer to BrE and also colonial MOS:TIES.—Bagumba (talk) 07:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- With regards to spelling, HK English is British English, especially in official and/or professional settings. feminist (talk) 11:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Dumb question -- isn't the correct grammar "is arrested"? Or is that specific to American English? -- RockstoneSend me a message! 01:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
December 28
December 28, 2021
(Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Michael R. Clifford
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.space.com/nasa-astronaut-rich-clifford-obituary
Credits:
- Updated by 20chances (talk · give credit) and Pachu Kannan (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: NASA Astronaut in 3 Shuttle missions. --PFHLai (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Everything looks sourced, although that NASA Bio is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting. Thryduulf (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support article is fine, well sourced and an interesting deep coverage of his career. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support Article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. There are two different names given for his father. Also overreliance on NASA bio, much of the article is just a copy and the tone was not all suitable (I've edited). I'd suggest waiting until there are independent obituaries published in sources that do proper fact checks. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) Memorial (society)
Blurb: The Supreme Court of Russia orders the closure of Memorial, Russia's oldest and most influential human rights group, for alleged violations of the country's foreign agent law. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The Supreme Court of Russia orders the closure of Memorial, Russia's oldest human rights group, for failing to mark social media posts with its official status as a "foreign agent".
Alternative blurb II: The Supreme Court of Russia orders the closure of Memorial, Russia's oldest human rights group, for violations of the country's foreign agent law. Its sister organisation, the Memorial Human Rights Center, was ordered shut in a separate court case the following day.
News source(s): CNN, The Guardian, BBC, DW, FT, Reuters, Politico, France24 etc.
Credits:
- Nominated by Jr8825 (talk · give credit)
- Created by Altenmann (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Mx. Granger (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Memorial was synonymous with Russian civil society. It was one of the earliest civil organisations to emerge during Perestroika in the 1980s Soviet Union, and was undoubtedly the most influential. It educated Russians about Soviet-era gulag, but just as importantly documented modern rights abuses, such as violence in Chechnya against journalists covering the repression of gay people. Its closure marks a significant moment in Russia's descent to authoritarianism. This is reflected in the tone of coverage in RS news media, which use language such as "watershed moment". The article is partially updated, but could do with additional details about the court case and the closure of the sister organisation in a separate court case today, per the CNN article. Jr8825 • Talk 11:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support - The blurb must be politically neutral, but nevertheless a pretty important moment. (PenangLion (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC))
- @PenangLion: I believe it currently is? The only subjective label is "most influential", which I don't think is particularly controversial (and is supported by the weight of sourcing). I don't object to removing "most influential", though; my rationale was that "oldest" doesn't convey how significant its role is within Russian civil society, but it's not essential. Do you have any particular suggestions for the wording? Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 12:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- It's definitely one of the most influential, but the part needs to be sourced, that's all. The blurb is perfectly fine beyond that. Peace out. (PenangLion (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC))
- Support. Significant for Russia and widely covered internationally. The alt blurbs are too wordy, but the original blurb is basically OK. Nsk92 (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Conditionalsupport, has been operational for 32 years. Someone, however, has tagged the article for copyediting, full suport once the tag is resolved one way or the other. Brandmeistertalk 13:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)- @Brandmeister: I'm not familiar with ITN processes, but is it always necessary to resolve all article cleanup tags? I added the copy edit tag as I listed it at the guild for a read over, and I think it's helpful for the tag to remain until that's done (which will likely take some time). I spent this afternoon whipping the article into better shape and copy editing egregious issues with grammar and content, but it could still do with a thorough review of the English as some sections look like they were translated from Russian. The article is still in much better shape than it was. Jr8825 • Talk 17:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Revisiting Wikipedia:In_the_news#Article_quality, it says:
Articles should be well written with clear prose
. But since some copyediting has been done, I will not nitpick, appearance on the main page will bring more (copy)editors. Brandmeistertalk 18:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Revisiting Wikipedia:In_the_news#Article_quality, it says:
- @Brandmeister: I'm not familiar with ITN processes, but is it always necessary to resolve all article cleanup tags? I added the copy edit tag as I listed it at the guild for a read over, and I think it's helpful for the tag to remain until that's done (which will likely take some time). I spent this afternoon whipping the article into better shape and copy editing egregious issues with grammar and content, but it could still do with a thorough review of the English as some sections look like they were translated from Russian. The article is still in much better shape than it was. Jr8825 • Talk 17:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support ... in principle, pending edit. Seven prime RS sites on Wed. list this ham-fisted blow for further govt. autocracy as their lead article. Once again, the Russian state owns history, too. Спасибо, товарищ! Favor succinct first blurb. Suggest use of "Мемориал" logo. – Sca (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Just another footnote in the story of Putin's Russian autocracy... Fakescientist8000 (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support Once the article is fixed up. This is gaining global coverage. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree that there's global coverage of the story and sharp criticism of the order, but it seems like the right time to post this was when the foreign agent law came into force in 2012. Russia-based NGOs are literally unable to receive funding from abroad as a result of the law and those with international connections have been under continuous supervision by the government, so the closure of a human rights organisation, even the oldest and most notable one, is a logical consequence of what has been happening in the recent years. This might have been a notable story had it happened in a country with liberal laws on the NGO sector, but that's clearly not the case here. However, we should pay attention to the development of the story because it may get important if it results in international sanctions against Russia.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, please. The story is about the ban of Memorial, which happened this week, not in 2012. Nsk92 (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- My view is that even if this move was expected, perhaps inevitable given Russia's trajectory, Memorial's status and influence makes it a historic (and grim) milestone anyway. Jr8825 • Talk 15:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Memorial had been an organization with considerable global stature and influence, and rather iconic and venerable stature in Russia itself, which is why this move was not inevitable and is somewhat unexpected even given Russia's continued slide into totalitarianism. Nsk92 (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Memorial was established to herald the democratic transition from a repressive socialist society to a liberal democratic one. Given the historical developments in the country over the past three decades, the organisation clearly failed on its mission. That being said, its "iconic and venerable stature in Russia" probably applies to a very limited group of people with no impact in the Russian society. And this story is a big farce. However loud the international reactions are, there's unwillingness to take anything concrete in order to counter it. That's why this should be taken seriously only in case international sanctions are imposed against Russia as a result or, at least, if an international court rules against the order made by the Supreme Court of Russia.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Memorial has been an organization with an iconic and venerable status in Russia, and it has had major impact on Russian society over decades. Requiring that there be international sanctions on Russia before we post a story of this importance to ITN is complete and utter arbitrary nonsense. Nsk92 (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- RS say Memorial is (in similar words) iconic and venerable; for example, look at the tone of the Financial Times' coverage. It's what the sources say which matters (not editors' personal views/cynicism on the matter). Jr8825 • Talk 16:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Memorial was established to herald the democratic transition from a repressive socialist society to a liberal democratic one. Given the historical developments in the country over the past three decades, the organisation clearly failed on its mission. That being said, its "iconic and venerable stature in Russia" probably applies to a very limited group of people with no impact in the Russian society. And this story is a big farce. However loud the international reactions are, there's unwillingness to take anything concrete in order to counter it. That's why this should be taken seriously only in case international sanctions are imposed against Russia as a result or, at least, if an international court rules against the order made by the Supreme Court of Russia.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Memorial had been an organization with considerable global stature and influence, and rather iconic and venerable stature in Russia itself, which is why this move was not inevitable and is somewhat unexpected even given Russia's continued slide into totalitarianism. Nsk92 (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment – Copy-edited the first 1,000 words (down to 'Mission and activities'), rather extensively in places. Alas, that's less than a quarter of the rather bloated text. Any other volunteers? I'd very much like to see other eds take a crack at cleaning it up and boiling it down. – Sca (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- PS: Kiril Simeonovski, Nsk92: Please note that editing of this important article is in progress. – Sca (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Sca: I've done some heavy copy editing of the entire article, including the sections after "Mission and activities". I've also requested a guild copy edit to improve the standard of English, although this will likely happen after any potential ITN listing. Overall though, I think the article's now in a reasonably presentable state. Jr8825 • Talk 17:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
WP:NPA. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Comment – Perhaps an admin could convey semi-protected status to the article? – Sca (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Weak OpposeSolely on article quality. There are a number of unsourced claims.Once corrected I favor blurb I. Keep it short and to the point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)- Support Looks good enough for posting. Well done to all those who worked on it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- The offending unsourced sentences have now been removed by another editor. Jr8825 • Talk 22:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment – Jr8825: Wow, a huge improvement. Thanks for your quick work. At 4,200 words, the article has been pared considerably, although arguably it's still a bit long – but acceptable for such a complex topic. Спасибо. – Sca (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Sca: I noticed you adjusted the blurb to "alleged violations of the country's foreign agent law". I'm not sure whether these violations should be described as "alleged" – it seems as though Memorial may well have failed to comply with the restrictions placed upon it, regardless of how unjust they are. Is it appropriate to act as though the Supreme Court's ruling isn't authoritative, even if it may have been politically influenced? Particularly as Memorial's defence appears to have been along the lines of "yes, we failed to do some administrative formalities correctly, but our group is a massive net positive for the nation". Jr8825 • Talk 21:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support It's in the news and the article is getting lots of attention. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Posted. Black Kite (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Harry Reid
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Politico, AP, Guardian
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)
- Updated by 力 (talk · give credit) and Sunshineisles2 (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.
– Muboshgu (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Strong support considering I made the same nomination while this one was being posted. jonas (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support Not a fan of that controversy section, but good enough to post. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support -- and maybe consider a potential blurb. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 01:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support article is in decent enough shape, Reid was certainly quite significant. Not sure if we should do a blurb here, he was a politician of national importance, but perhaps not quite the level we'd look for (if we generally only blurb heads of state). Elli (talk | contribs) 01:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support article is in fair shape and whatever's not looks to be an easy fix. I think the contents of the criticism section could be worked into career/political positions/etc if there's a POV problem there. I would oppose a blurb at this stage: as far as political leaders/elected officials go, I think we have a good, informal threshold of head of state and/or government and don't see a real need for an exception here.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: The orange {{Criticism}} tag needs to be addressed and removed before this nom can proceed. --PFHLai (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support considering the article is in good shape, with nothing that needs major renevations. Maybe consider a blurb as well. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 02:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support also not a fan of the "criticism" section, but the rest of the article is in very good shape. (The subpage Political positions of Harry Reid is mediocre.) Most of the content in "criticism" should stay in the article somewhere. Does not quite reach the threshold for a blurb. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Criticism top-level section (and the associated tag) is now gone, and the content has (mostly) been moved within the article. Not perfect yet but certainly better. Feel free to edit further - you will not edit conflict with me. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support He was clearly impactful enough in US politics for an RD. However, I would oppose blurb as I don't believe he had that level of direct impact on the world. Psfiseditingwp (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support RD now that the "Criticism" section is gone. Not transformative enough for a blurb, in my opinion. Kafoxe (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support RD as straightforward. Oppose blurb as not significant enough within the context of world politics. feminist (talk) 04:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support RD Article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Posted—Bagumba (talk) 08:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Post-posting comment Cn tags must be fixed. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
(Closed) (RD posted) RD/Blurb: John Madden
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
Blurb: Former American football coach and broadcaster John Madden dies at the age of 85. (Post)
News source(s): Yahoo Sports, NYT
Credits:
- Nominated by Muboshgu (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.
- Strong support What a legend. Maybe blurb? KingOfAllThings (thou shalt chatter!) 00:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment the article needs some work, but there's too many edit conflicts to do that for at least an hour. It should be cleaned up fairly easily, though. I'm currently neutral on a blurb - it certainly should be discussed (he was "transformative" to both "sports broadcasting" and "sports video games"). User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- It shouldn't take too long to get to main page standards, but yeah we're gonna need to wait for the rush of editing to slow down. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Strong support Definitely should be mentioned, the man was an integral member of the NFL and of the world of American football and sports in general. May he rest in peace. xdude (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Largely unsourced.—Bagumba (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment as stated above, this can be fixed. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support with caveat - Even I know how this is and students made fun of me for not knowing Aaron Rodgers. Article does need work. Personal life section is mostly unsourced. Currently 61 sources in the article though. With some clean up I would say it's adequate for blurb. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Strong oppose blurb Not more notable than other coaches (he won one title and no tactical/strategy innovations disclosed); nothing special about being a commentator (if this is a large enough field) and his voice/catchphrases were used in a sports video game. Again very, very obscure Bumbubookworm (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- The billions of dollars his namesake video game series have made over the decades proves that calling him "obscure" is ludicrous. And the fact that he was the definitive game analyst voice for NFL football broadcasting for decades as well (the whole reason his endorsement for the games was sought in the first place) only reinforces that. Does he rise to a blurb? I'm not sure I'd put him on the same level as Desmond Tutu, but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. oknazevad (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- "Obscure" is laughable. What you meant to say was "well, I never heard of him." --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- In what universe is he "very, very obscure"? He's as obscure as Desmond Tutu was (I didn't know who he was until he died -- still not an excuse not to blurb him). There is an entire video game franchise named after him. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 01:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Strong support Significant figure in American football, video games, sports broadcasting. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- 'Strong support' = support. – Sca (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support Blurb Neither holding the highest winning percentage by a coach in modern history nor being the #1 commentator for several decades would quite clear the blurb bar, but being both certainly does. I don't think the video game adds anything to his qualification, but it does certainly reflects his place in the game. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality (lack of sources). Oppose blurb as while a household name in regards to American football, he wasn't top of the field for all purposes nor does the article articulate any greatness. There are absolutely great sports coaches out there that would qualify or would have qualified if we did blurbs (eg Vince Lombardi). --Masem (t) 01:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- To a non-fan, it seems Bill Belichick is the Margaret Thatcher of this bubble, with six championships. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support Blurb for above mentioned reasons. DrewieStewie (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support Blurb One of the top coaches in NFL History and a legend of the game. Rest In Peace. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 01:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support Blurb -- well known household name. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 01:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb - we should make the blurb threshold higher, not lower. Harry Reid was probably more impactful. - Indefensible (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support posting, weakly support blurb. I'm not an ardent follower of the NFL but I knew who John Madden was, he certainly was one of the most well-known NFL-related people. I think a blurb is warranted here but I can see the argument against it too. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- No Blurb Old man dies, end of story. His name alone has promotional value. It sells games and it can as easily advertise his updated article (with picture inside). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- It was stated that his death was highly unexpected[2]. KingOfAllThings (thou shalt chatter!) 19:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support Blurb, one of the most well-known figures in American football history. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Oppose on quality, still lots of uncited material.Oppose blurb, he was it seems very famous among fans of one sport, but he doesn't seem to have achieved overly much even in that one narrow field. Unlike Desmond Tutu who was strongly impactful for his country and in the wider world. Thryduulf (talk) 02:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)- Support RD now the quality issues have been resolved. Thryduulf (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support RD: It seems like a lot of the arguments for/against blurb are more personal rather than focusing on the overarching objective of the blurb. I lean oppose blurb on the basis that the article doesn't really impress upon me the notion that he quite reached that level of notability. But regardless of the ultimate decision, I think his name being franchised onto video games is certainly no justification for blurbing. Psfiseditingwp (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delay blurb this is one of those topics where we should really wait for the non-US editors to comment. Regarding quality - there are still a few issues, I may do a {{cn}} tag run. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 03:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- 4 {{cn}} tags added. I tagged 3 places that I am skeptical of the accuracy, and one which is a direct quote. There are other sentences without inline sourcing, but they are mostly dull facts easily sourced to a sports results directory. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 03:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support RD, I initially considered a blurb as he was certainly at the top of his field, but I agree with the notion that the threshold should be higher. Kafoxe (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support RD, oppose blurb: it would be overly US-centric to blurb this. Of the Major professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada, (American) football is probably the one with the smallest global cultural impact. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 04:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- That's a terrible argument. Don't oppose blurbs just because the event relates to a single country. See Rule #2 -- RockstoneSend me a message! 05:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Strong support blurb Household name 5.44.170.26 (talk) 06:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb, when article ready Even as a non-football fan, I think John Madden transcended the sport in popular awareness. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 06:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - recognizability or being a "household name" is not a criteria for posting a blurb, in the Internet era and particularly with social media there are increasingly going to be tons of people who go viral or are well-known but should not qualify for a blurb. - Indefensible (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb Top of his field. The article is looking pretty good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- As a coach, Bill Belichick has six times his Super Bowl rings. As a sportscaster, Bob Costas has seven more Sports Emmys. As a video game mascot, he might lead the non-cartoon division. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- But neither Belichick or Costas are at the top of two fields. 331dot (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Neither is Madden. He's tied for distant second in one and above average in another. List of best-selling video game franchises indeed has him edging out the Star Wars stars. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Sounds like the top of two fields to me(leaving aside his name recognition among millions of video gamers), but I appreciate hearing your opinion. 331dot (talk) 08:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- The NFL website currently has a story with the headline "John Madden's unparalleled impact on NFL influenced generations of football fans". The NFL commissioner said "He was football." 331dot (talk) 08:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, eulogies are like that. WWE put Corporal Kirchner over hard recently, too. The top is quite objectively quantifiable. But thank you. Nice to feel appreciated, even backhandedly. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- No backhand intended. ITNC does not function without people giving their opinions. I do appreciate it. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Intended or not, superiority is a measurable fact in sports, not an opinion. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- In my opinion, though, I think the commissioner meant that in a "Nobody loved football more than Coach" way, not like how Triple H is "The Game". InedibleHulk (talk) 08:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- No backhand intended. ITNC does not function without people giving their opinions. I do appreciate it. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, eulogies are like that. WWE put Corporal Kirchner over hard recently, too. The top is quite objectively quantifiable. But thank you. Nice to feel appreciated, even backhandedly. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Neither is Madden. He's tied for distant second in one and above average in another. List of best-selling video game franchises indeed has him edging out the Star Wars stars. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- But neither Belichick or Costas are at the top of two fields. 331dot (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- As a coach, Bill Belichick has six times his Super Bowl rings. As a sportscaster, Bob Costas has seven more Sports Emmys. As a video game mascot, he might lead the non-cartoon division. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment To butt in with this detail. Madden's name was plastered on the Madden NFL video game franchise which has sold 250 million copies and made $4 billion. If his role in American football is too American-centric then maybe his role in the video game industry would warrant a blurb? I first heard of Madden through the video games and didn't learn of his actual career until I was a teenager. Jon698 (talk) 09:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Where'd you read 250 million? Its article could use a source like that. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- @InedibleHulk: It seems that the 250 million sales figure is not fully verified, but a sales figure of 130 million is according to EA themselves. That is still a massive amount which is more than the sales figures of The Legend of Zelda, Resident Evil, Tomb Raider, Halo, Mortal Kombat, Super Smash Bros., and other video game franchises. For some reason the article kept the 250 million sales figure despite it being dispute and I replaced it with the verified sales figure. Jon698 (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Cool. A lot, anyway. Definitely his likeliest angle. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- I wasn't sure of the best way to work his video game aspect into the blurb, so I didn't attempt to, but others may. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Cool. A lot, anyway. Definitely his likeliest angle. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- @InedibleHulk: It seems that the 250 million sales figure is not fully verified, but a sales figure of 130 million is according to EA themselves. That is still a massive amount which is more than the sales figures of The Legend of Zelda, Resident Evil, Tomb Raider, Halo, Mortal Kombat, Super Smash Bros., and other video game franchises. For some reason the article kept the 250 million sales figure despite it being dispute and I replaced it with the verified sales figure. Jon698 (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Where'd you read 250 million? Its article could use a source like that. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb yet another case of centrism. He could have been the top in his field, but in American football, a sport that beyond the borders of that country has little interest and/or popular relevance. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- "Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." It's also not true as the NFL now regularly plays a game in London and other international locations. The hundreds of millions of video games sold are also not just in the US. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb A blurb for a sports coach and commentator? Just what exactly is the limit to the concept of someone being important in a particular field? If someone was transformative in the field of the study of birds with blue feathers, would they be blurb-worthy? Chrisclear (talk) 10:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb I sincerely hope the suggested blurb is a big joke. There's absolutely nothing which sets him apart from many other coaches in the sport, and he died more than 40 years after ending his coaching career. Merely a mediocre coach as per this list with no acclamation as one of the greatest by anyone. So far, the only living coach who deserves a blurb in this sport is Bill Belichick.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- As the writer, I can say it is not a joke. The NFL Commissioner said "he is football", and Madden did groundbreaking work in sportscasting. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- "He was football." Again, that's about it consuming him. We all know a guy who "eats, sleeps and breathes" his job. Anyway, thanks for taking responsibility. Looked like Muboshgu's doing to me! InedibleHulk (talk) 11:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- This guy won 1 title, 13 other coaches won at least 2 titles. If every coach who wins a single major club title/world/Olympic championship gets blurbed then we would probably have 50-100 coach blurbs a year. Nothing in the article indicates any tactical/strategic innovations that he made. Nowhere near the top of a niche sport. Nothing in his commentary career indicates critical acclaim or insight. Being paid a lot doesn't equate to impact or insight. List_of_best-selling_video_game_franchises shows that the videogame that he was the brand ambassador for is ranked #17 in total sales, and since when was being the mascot/front cover face a "field"/"endeavour" and is it possible to "transform" how to look pretty on the front cover. I know that Wikipedia is full of young white males, and I know that many WPians lie about their educational qualifications like Essjay and probably have trouble rearranging a linear equation, but are we going to blurb models/pornstars ranked #17 in front-cover appearances [chuckle, chuckle] ?? This empty rhetoric about "top of his field" is nothing more than fake news and alternative facts Bumbubookworm (talk) 11:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- This comment is ludicrous. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of video game franchises, and you're saying that #17 isn't the top of the field? Mlb96 (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Video/computer games have only been around for 40 years. The game is only ranked 17th and the top one has 6 times as many sales. Modern professional sport has been around for about 120 years. We would never blurb the 50th ranked player in terms of titles etc. Furthermore, he isn't the main component of the games, he's a supporting component. We would never blurb the marketing manager/agent/personal assistant/adviser of the 20th ranked musical band or the like. Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/May_2019#(Posted_to_RD)_RD:_Murray_Gell-Mann invented a new field of physics (a larger field than an icon in a game) and people brushed it off incorrectly as an "old man dies" and here we have guy in a narrower field with no technical improvements disclosed and a bunch of fan supports. Bumbubookworm (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- This comment is ludicrous. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of video game franchises, and you're saying that #17 isn't the top of the field? Mlb96 (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- This guy won 1 title, 13 other coaches won at least 2 titles. If every coach who wins a single major club title/world/Olympic championship gets blurbed then we would probably have 50-100 coach blurbs a year. Nothing in the article indicates any tactical/strategic innovations that he made. Nowhere near the top of a niche sport. Nothing in his commentary career indicates critical acclaim or insight. Being paid a lot doesn't equate to impact or insight. List_of_best-selling_video_game_franchises shows that the videogame that he was the brand ambassador for is ranked #17 in total sales, and since when was being the mascot/front cover face a "field"/"endeavour" and is it possible to "transform" how to look pretty on the front cover. I know that Wikipedia is full of young white males, and I know that many WPians lie about their educational qualifications like Essjay and probably have trouble rearranging a linear equation, but are we going to blurb models/pornstars ranked #17 in front-cover appearances [chuckle, chuckle] ?? This empty rhetoric about "top of his field" is nothing more than fake news and alternative facts Bumbubookworm (talk) 11:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- "He was football." Again, that's about it consuming him. We all know a guy who "eats, sleeps and breathes" his job. Anyway, thanks for taking responsibility. Looked like Muboshgu's doing to me! InedibleHulk (talk) 11:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- As the writer, I can say it is not a joke. The NFL Commissioner said "he is football", and Madden did groundbreaking work in sportscasting. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality, and oppose blurb. Not transformative, as pointed out by multiple editors, and practically unknown outside the US except as a name on a video game. Black Kite (talk) 11:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support RD only If we were to get significant global reaction to his death, then a blurb could be warranted, but as it stands, it doesn't seems probable, even though his impact within NFL circles is incalculable. rawmustard (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support RD only No more, just support. Too much impact, too much to count. (PenangLion (talk) 11:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC))
- More of a comment than a !vote (although I'm leaning towards an RD appearance only, mainly because Madden was probably only known outside of North America as the namesake of the game series rather than his American football career) but I was wondering if the supports here would support a blurb for a death of a famous and iconic association football manager, someone like Alex Ferguson or people of his stature, for similar reasons to their support for Madden getting a blurb. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- ITN is a Commonwealth news ticker, so any semi-famous Brit will get blurbed regardless of Americans' protestations. The people who accuse ITN of being US-centric are delusional; if anything, it's UK-centric. Mlb96 (talk) 13:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed; Alex Ferguson will get blurbed, even if the Americans object (which they won't). Aside, while bias is real, life on Earth is very much impacted by America & English culture, so it's reasonable that they might show up more often than other countries. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's a pretty terrible comparison though, because Ferguson is by far the most successful manager in the English game ever - he won 13 titles (the next highest is six). Apart from the video game thing, the equivalent here is someone like Howard Wilkinson or Howard Kendall. Yes, Ferguson would get a blurb, but I'm struggling to think of another one who would. Black Kite (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- ITN is a Commonwealth news ticker, so any semi-famous Brit will get blurbed regardless of Americans' protestations. The people who accuse ITN of being US-centric are delusional; if anything, it's UK-centric. Mlb96 (talk) 13:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- RD only – A big sports name, but not generally significant beyond U.S. football. – Sca (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - Some of the opposition here seems based on a strawman argument. He wasn't the top coach in the NFL. But he was at the top of his field as a commentator for many years. And, while people outside the USA are commenting that football has less impact than other sports, it is important to point out that NFL games have higher TV ratings in the USA than any of the other major sports. He is also the face of one of the most successful video game franchises of all time, topping other major contenders like The Legend of Zelda. Those are the big arguments, not the coaching career, which is more like the icing on the cake. If anything, the fact that you could describe his career and then add "Oh yeah, and he also won the Super Bowl" is quite telling. I would support a blurb if it included the video game aspect. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure about this. I can imagine that someone who is synonymous with video games, someone like Shigeru Miyamoto, may get a blurb if they die, but others probably would only get an RD mention at most. Outside the US he was probably better known for being the namesake of the Madden series than his coaching career, and I imagine many people didn't even know he was a coach. Being a mascot by itself doesn't really seem worth giving a blurb in my opinion. I don't want to invoke WP:OSE here, but if some American personalities like Barbara Bush or Nancy Reagan only got RD mentions despite arguably being more well-known internationally, I find it hard to justify Madden getting a blurb. And yes, I know that being country-centric is by itself not supposed to be an argument here, but if as mentioned above, it would sound ridiculous if every major coach in every major sport in every country got a blurb when they died. Would people here support a blurb about a famous English football manager or Japanese baseball coach if they were iconic in their home countries? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- You're getting hung up on the coaching again. Nobody is arguing for a blurb based on his coaching career. That's the strawman argument I mentioned above. I said he was a commentator and face/voice/name of a video game franchise. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- So in which case, would supporters here support a blurb for Marv Albert or Hideo Kojima if they died? In addition, "nobody is arguing for a blurb based on his coaching career" is inaccurate as some of the earlier supports indeed cited his American football career as the reason for their support, not simply because of Madden the game series. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Coaching in American football is perhaps the most promising field to justify his notability for a blurb but he clearly fails. If we put coaching aside, sports broadcasting and voice acting in video games are only secondary sub-fields of television and the video game industry in the same way as hairdressing is a secondary sub-field of fashion. We can define hundreds of similar sub-fields and easily identify thousands of people like him. That's not what we're supposed to do for a death blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- You're getting hung up on the coaching again. Nobody is arguing for a blurb based on his coaching career. That's the strawman argument I mentioned above. I said he was a commentator and face/voice/name of a video game franchise. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure about this. I can imagine that someone who is synonymous with video games, someone like Shigeru Miyamoto, may get a blurb if they die, but others probably would only get an RD mention at most. Outside the US he was probably better known for being the namesake of the Madden series than his coaching career, and I imagine many people didn't even know he was a coach. Being a mascot by itself doesn't really seem worth giving a blurb in my opinion. I don't want to invoke WP:OSE here, but if some American personalities like Barbara Bush or Nancy Reagan only got RD mentions despite arguably being more well-known internationally, I find it hard to justify Madden getting a blurb. And yes, I know that being country-centric is by itself not supposed to be an argument here, but if as mentioned above, it would sound ridiculous if every major coach in every major sport in every country got a blurb when they died. Would people here support a blurb about a famous English football manager or Japanese baseball coach if they were iconic in their home countries? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb A major figure in the NFL, yes. Possibly "top of his field" as a commentator. But to me is not one of the rare cases where we make an exception to putting the death of an 85-year-old man in the Recent Deaths section.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support RD only Accomplished on many fronts across three generations (NFL/sports commentator/video game). CoatCheck (talk) 16:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - (Responding to the comparisons between John Madden and Alex Ferguson) Oh come on, comparing Alex Ferguson with John Madden by all aspects shouldn't even be a thing. John Madden is a good manager for his own field, but Alex Ferguson is one of the most coveted managers in, I don' know, 175 years of world football? He has more trophies than any other manager in history. Do I need to repeat the word? History. Adding an RD for one of the greatest of his field, a field that is popular and is followed among billions over the world, is definitely a necessity. John Madden is a great guy, but ask somebody outside the States, ask them who John Madden is, most of them won't even know who the hell that guy is. Maybe a few would point to that guy as the "guy who appeared in rugby games" (sorry). Ask who's Alex Ferguson on the other hand, you'll get a lot of responses, outside the States, in Australia, in Thailand, in Burkina Faso, or even in France. This is what will happen when you have one sport being popular in over 150-countries, and the other sport being popular in only 5 (or one perhaps). Trying to push a blurb for John Madden or even Alex Ferguson isn't going to help the Blurbs (Alex Ferguson might be a bare pass for the Blurb). If Madden is the bar set for the Blurb, for being a typical good manager, and a name that has resonated in video games, then I'll lose faith in it, because it is equivalent of making Charles Martinet's death into the Blurb because he voiced Mario, that famous guy. He's worth for RD, then RD-only it is. No more arbitrary arguments on statuses. It doesn't benefit anyone. (PenangLion (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC))
- I don't think no one's making an argument to blurb Madden solely out of coaching merit. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- It's just a response to the comparison earlier. Again, he's worth for RD, but not enough for his own blurb. (PenangLion (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC))
- Yes, but you are responding to a strawman nobody really argued for. I don't even think 90% of the people who played the game named after him knew that he won a Super Bowl. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- It's just a response to the comparison earlier. Again, he's worth for RD, but not enough for his own blurb. (PenangLion (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC))
- Comment there is a consensus for RD, but there are still two CN tags. Please fix them so we can post. --Tone 17:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb - Good lord, we can't even get the bloody Ashes posted in a timely manner, and yet we're talking about how this American football coach deserves a blurb? I think the bar needs to be especially high for that field, and John Madden does not meet it. Bill Belichick is the only name I can think of who would.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb, Support RD Not at the same kind of Mandela level prominence one would expect for a blurb, but a perfectly fine RD. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose blub not really close to blurb level. Of course support RD if/when article is of sufficient quality. Rhino131 (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: clearly there is not consensus for a blurb (sadly). There is consensus for RD. Can someone add him there? As an aside, I do think that ITN is way too Commonwealth centric. Way too much stuff about soccer. --RockstoneSend me a message! 19:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Rockstone35: Many people apparently have the misconception that football is a Commonwealth-related sport in the same way as American football is US-related. In reality, football is all over the world and zillion times more popular than American football (sport news feeds in most languages are overflooded with football news). A much better comparison would perhaps be to compare American football to cricket or snooker but even these sports are more popular than American football if we consider that India have a strong cricket team and China field very good snooker players. Alternatively, this may be in order to deliberately downplay the other parts of the world (equating 330 million people in the US to 2.4 billion people in the Commonwealth).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Some of y'all's arguments are ridiculous. First of all, I totally agree with Rockstone35, ITN is very much Commonwealth biased and centric. Top of his field = deserves a blurb. A legend to many people = deserves a blurb. This is big news, y'all. Even the NFL itself said that John Madden died unexpectedly and here we are saying it was. He deserves a blurb! KingOfAllThings (thou shalt chatter!) 19:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- "Top of his field" and "legend to many people" is not a valid reason to get a blurb, there are innumerable fields beyond counting in reality. We are not going to blurb the greatest teacher of basket weaving, the champion of brick making, etc. - Indefensible (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- "Top of their field" is a valid reason to blurb but we're talking the best of the best, and that should be readily demonstrated on the article page (which I do not really see for Madden here). However it is absolutely right that "legend to many people" is not reason to blurb, unless we're talking many many reliable sources over the year. Otherwise we're dealing with popularity and that led the problems that have persisted since Carrie Fisher was given a blurb. --Masem (t) 01:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- The problem with that is that he wasn't top of his field, he was a slightly better than average coach, an unremarkable broadcaster and an unremarkable video game voice actor (the game's success, and #17 is not top of the field, did not result in any awards or similar for his role). Being "a legend to many people" is not and should not be a relevant consideration for a blurb. Even if ITN posts too much soccer (which I see no actual evidence of) that doesn't mean we need to blurb a run-of-the-mill "old man dies of old age" story as some sort of false balance. Thryduulf (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- His role in video games is not that of "an unremarkable video game voice actor". It doesn't matter whether he won any awards - he was bigger than the entire video games awards system at the time. That is what makes him a transformational figure in "sports simulation video games". User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- But how important are "sports simulation video games"? In a community like Wikipedia, that category is probably going to be favorably biased due to demographics. - Indefensible (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- I've already said I'm neutral on a blurb. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- But how important are "sports simulation video games"? In a community like Wikipedia, that category is probably going to be favorably biased due to demographics. - Indefensible (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- His role in video games is not that of "an unremarkable video game voice actor". It doesn't matter whether he won any awards - he was bigger than the entire video games awards system at the time. That is what makes him a transformational figure in "sports simulation video games". User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- "Top of his field" and "legend to many people" is not a valid reason to get a blurb, there are innumerable fields beyond counting in reality. We are not going to blurb the greatest teacher of basket weaving, the champion of brick making, etc. - Indefensible (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- To the comments above claiming ITNC has a Commonwealth bias or soccer bias, let's put it into context. I don't know if it really has a Commonwealth bias, but a soccer/association football "bias" is not really unsurprising when you consider it's by far the world's most popular sport. Even the Super Bowl, the cream of the crop of the American games, pales in comparison to stuff like the World Cup, the UEFA Champions League, or arguably even the Premier League internationally. To be fair, it's not as if ITNC is adverse to featuring blurbs about deceased North American sports personalities. Kobe Bryant and Hank Aaron were both blurbs, and I imagine Michael Jordan and Wayne Gretzky will be too once their time comes. It's just that it's really debatable if Madden deserves a blurb given that he's arguably more famous for his game than his sports career, although as far as I can tell almost no one is actually opposed to him being featured on Recent deaths (apart from those opposed on article quality grounds; even most of the blurb opposes support an RD mention), it's just that people are split on if he deserves a blurb. If we're talking about American football, I imagine the only currently-living ones who may get a blurb in the future are Peyton Manning or Tom Brady. Finally, I don't want to invoke WP:OSE, but it should be noted that John McCain, a far more influential and famous person (the latter at least internationally) only got an RD mention when he died, and so have many similar American personalities. Madden may have been a legend among many American football fans regardless of his coaching success, but the question of that's enough to deserve a blurb is another one entirely. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Blurb This really felt borderline here but I think Madden just falls short of notability. If this were US Wiki or Sports Wiki then I think he's an easy blurb candidate. I don't think his notability within the field can be questioned (the "he is football" comment I think holds), the issue simply is the impact of that field. I say it's close because of how impactful and big American Football is in spite of being a largely US sport, due to cultural relevance, economic impact, and impact on forms of media (see the Madden games in this case), but just a little short. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Blurb Regionally notable individual without high profile in the rest of the Anglophone world. Melmann 23:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb, strongly support RD I don't believe Madden was important enough of a figure - in any of the fields he was involved in - to warrant a blurb. Within American football, I can think of several other figures who are more important or successful, and I wouldn't even give them a blurb. However, he's certainly important enough to be on RD, and the fact he isn't by now is ridiculous. At least put in on there in the meantime if people continue to debate a blurb. --PlasmaTwa2 23:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- The reason he hasn't been posted to RD yet is that the article was initially not of sufficient quality with many missing citations. That has now been addressed (there is one incomplete citation, but that's not (imo) a blocker but it's enough I want another opinion before posting). Listing someone on RD while discussion continues about a blurb is not without precedent. Thryduulf (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support RD, Oppose Blurb I agree with Thryduulf. My neutrality on a blurb has run out; this will not obtain consensus as a blurb, so I am opposed. As far as quality, I agree with Thryduulf that it's not spotless but it is good enough. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- RD is ready No more citation needed tags. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- RD posted Quality issues resolved. While there's been a lot of input regarding a blurb already, I'm leaving the discussion open on that front as it's only been one day.—Bagumba (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb - Top of his fields - Super Bowl Winner, never had a losing season, Hall of Fame member. Broadcasting legend, 12 Emmy Awards among other broadcasting honors. Video game institution, with well over 4 billion dollars of Madden NFL sold over decades. A multi-generational icon in numeous fields. Unexpected sudden death. Add it all up, it deserves a blurb. Opposers utterly fail to convince otherwise. Jusdafax (talk) 02:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Unconditional Support Madden reshaped and changed the game of American football in so many ways, words alone don't do enough to explain... Where would the NFL be without him!?!?
CPLANAS1985 (Male • T • C • TW • IG) 04:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
RD: Hugo Maradona
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): SSC Napoli
Credits:
- Nominated by Count Iblis (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.
Count Iblis (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- A lot unreferenced, and two of the current references only mention him in passing. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
RD: Grichka Bogdanoff
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Independent, Le Monde, Europe 1
Credits:
- Nominated by UserDude (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Gianluigi02 (talk · give credit), 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: One half of the Bogdanoff brothers, a pair of French celebrities and television presenters. userdude 17:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support Article is well-sourced. Mlb96 (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support The television career section could use expansion, but it doesn't prevent posting. Kafoxe (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support Article looks good to me. Tradediatalk 11:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose This guy has far less reach than John Madden and John Madden doesn't seem to be notable enough, so this guy definitely isn't. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- All recently deceased people with pages are notable for RD. There is a blurb discussion ongoing for Madden, and there is not one going on here. Your vote makes no sense. Kafoxe (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- The opposition against John Madden's inclusion is only limited for the Blurb, not RD. He is definitely eligible for RD. Don't spill the argument over here. (PenangLion (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC))
- Support Article is in good shape. Mooonswimmer 22:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support per above. Marked as ready. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. Some contentious claims in the article are sourced to primary material (especially the unverified courtesy copies of referee reports on journal articles) or dead links. There is also a personal section cited (unlinked) to simply "Almanach de Gotha". Less critically one of the publications has no source/ID. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Espresso Addict: FWIW, we have a page on Almanach de Gotha. Consider tagging inline to formally contest these points, in case your comments get lost in a pure vote count. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Caliadi
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Jeromi Mikhael (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: Bureaucrat who worked in the ministry of religious affairs. Reached the highest possible office for Buddhists. Died a week after an unfair dismissal by the minister. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 14:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support, a small article but seems sufficient. Kafoxe (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support covers bio details and work, with proper sourcing coverage. Joofjoof (talk) 10:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm worried it's a new article that hasn't yet been patrolled, particularly in the light of strong claims about his dismissal which relate to identifiable living people. Has anyone who speaks Indonesian and understands Indonesian media double-checked the sources? Espresso Addict (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- I can verify that the sources are, well, what it should be. No differences between the article content and the sources as far as I can tell. Juxlos (talk) 06:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Poking @Juxlos and Nyanardsan: to see if they can take a look. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 06:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support seems GNG compliant and length/sourcing ok. Juxlos (talk) 06:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support Per above, no problem on sourcing Nyanardsan (talk) 07:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Posted. Thanks everyone for the reviews. (I finally thought of just asking on the NPP talk page, which got a response within seconds.) Espresso Addict (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) 2021–22 Ashes series
Blurb: In cricket, Australia retains The Ashes after winning the first three Tests against England. (Post)
Alternative blurb: In cricket, England lose the The Ashes to Australia, after scoring 68, their lowest innings total on Australian soil since 1904.
Alternative blurb II: In cricket, The Ashes are retained by Australia after winning the first three Tests against England.
News source(s): The Guardian, Reuters
Credits:
- Nominated by Bait30 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Ktin (talk · give credit), Bait30 (talk · give credit) and Kingjezza (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: Although there are two more Tests scheduled, WP:ITNSPORTS says "In terms of timing, events are generally posted as soon as a winner is determined." Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 03:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support - This a very dramatic result. The series has been won about as quickly as it possibly could have been. It's THE most important and oldest international cricket series. HiLo48 (talk) 06:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support Article quality good as far as I could see. And even though I've never heard of this in the sligthest, I can't question nor say anything about the ITN/R, so "hail ITN/R", I guess. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 08:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose no match summary prose. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per Joseph2302. The importance is not in doubt, but ITN is in the business of featuring prose not just tables or raw results as we are an encyclopaedia not a sports ticker. Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose We don't write in bullet points. Each match needs a prose summary. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- The bullet notes are fine, but need supplementary match summary text to explain the matches. As in 2019 Ashes series. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Historical note: "In cricket, England lose The Ashes to Australia, after scoring 68, their lowest innings total on Australian soil since 1904". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Slight tweak, but makes Alt1 a bit unwieldy, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Weak Opposeon quality - for the second test there simply isn't enough of a summary yet. This is on ITNR and this is the correct time to post the result once the quality issues are addressed. As far as the blurb - England getting bowled out for 68 in the second innings is remarkable, but I think that detail can be left to the article lede and not the front page. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)- Support great work by the updaters. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm slowly working my way writing a prose summary for each day, but if someone wants to help, it would be much appreciated. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 00:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- I will join-in later tonight. Ktin (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Prose summaries have been added to the tests. Good to go. I am ok with either of the hooks. Ktin (talk) 05:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Article has been updated with prose summaries. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 06:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Prose needs to be expanded and flow better (too fragmented), scores need to be in the format wickets/runs (Australian convention). Neutral cricket descriptors would be much appreciated. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 07:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC) - See example, mostly written by me, at Indian cricket team in Australia in 2020–21
- Support and marked as ready. Prose summaries have been added as requested previously. The altblurb is a bit misleading, because The Ashes were held by Australia before the start of the series, and therefore they could not be "lost" by England. Chrisclear (talk) 10:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support seems ready to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment The blurb is in AmEng (it would be "retain" in British & Commonwealth English). Added altblurb2 to avoid this. Black Kite (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- This seems okay to me in Australian English. The TV broadcast in Australia listed it as "Australia wins" and "Australia retains the Ashes" (not win or retain). Probably needs an Aussie to confirm whether wins or win is correct down under. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- If we wait much longer, we'll have to abandon for bad light. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not an Aussie, but the Sydney Morning Herald used "Australia retain". Either way, it's been 12 hours since this was marked ready. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 22:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Are all non-American Admins asleep, and Americans just won't post cricket? This is a bad look, again, again,....... HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- It's kinda crazy actually. The Memorial blurb was nominated after this was marked ready, yet the Memorial blurb was posted before this one. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 01:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Bait30 That was because I posted the Memorial one, but I'd commented on this nomination. Black Kite (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Posted before I hit the sack here in America. No problem posting cricket. Bait30, admins are volunteers here too, working on their own time. There is no need to repeat pleas for posting. Feel free to seek the admin tools if you are more available for posting than others(that goes for HiLo48 too). Good night. 331dot (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- 331dot, sorry, being stuck at home with family over the holidays has me going a bit stir crazy. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 01:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- I reckon I'd make a great Admin, but there are far too many existing Admins whose blatant POV pushing I've called out over the years for it to ever be likely to happen. HiLo48 (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: can you check this again? User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- @力: what am I being asked to check here? Note that I'm going to bed shortly (I'm on UTC), so may not see replies until the morning. Thryduulf (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Is it about the image that was not posted? Ktin (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't do anything with the image because the proposed blurb didn't indicate what the image referenced(specifically, I assume an MVP or something but I know nothing about cricket matches). 331dot (talk) 08:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- @331dot: No problem. Root is the highest run scorer in the series, so far. He is also the losing (i.e. England) captain. Feel free to use as appropriate. Would have been good to have the Australian captain, but, they have had Pat Cummins as a captain for two matches and Steve Smith for one match. Will be awkward to split that way. So, might be worth going with highest run scorer, Root (pictured). PS: This performance of England notwithstanding, it is a beautiful game to follow. Ktin (talk) 08:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe it's my American bias but it seems odd to me to post an image related to the losing team(for comparison, only once has the Super Bowl MVP been from the losing team, and I don't think that is even possible any longer) so I would be happy to defer to someone else in that regard. 331dot (talk) 08:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Or, we could just go with Pat Cummins's picture. He is the announced Australian captain for the series. He could not play the second test due to a COVID exposure and subsequent quarantining. Ktin (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- I like that better. I've started the process. 331dot (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Not a huge deal, but I'm tripping a bit on seeing the advertisement image promoted to the MP. Given our general practice of not using sponsor names for stadia and events, this seems less than ideal. Less a concern if we were posting a club championship, but that's not even the right kit for this event. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Is it possible to either crop Cummins' photo to remove the off-topic club uniform, or switch to another photo in commons that has him wearing the Australian uniform? Bumbubookworm (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Or, we could just go with Pat Cummins's picture. He is the announced Australian captain for the series. He could not play the second test due to a COVID exposure and subsequent quarantining. Ktin (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe it's my American bias but it seems odd to me to post an image related to the losing team(for comparison, only once has the Super Bowl MVP been from the losing team, and I don't think that is even possible any longer) so I would be happy to defer to someone else in that regard. 331dot (talk) 08:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- @331dot: No problem. Root is the highest run scorer in the series, so far. He is also the losing (i.e. England) captain. Feel free to use as appropriate. Would have been good to have the Australian captain, but, they have had Pat Cummins as a captain for two matches and Steve Smith for one match. Will be awkward to split that way. So, might be worth going with highest run scorer, Root (pictured). PS: This performance of England notwithstanding, it is a beautiful game to follow. Ktin (talk) 08:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't do anything with the image because the proposed blurb didn't indicate what the image referenced(specifically, I assume an MVP or something but I know nothing about cricket matches). 331dot (talk) 08:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Is it about the image that was not posted? Ktin (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- @力: what am I being asked to check here? Note that I'm going to bed shortly (I'm on UTC), so may not see replies until the morning. Thryduulf (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
December 27
December 27, 2021
(Monday)
Disasters and accidents Health and environment
|
RD: April Ashley
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Liverpool Echo
Credits:
- Updated by Jkaharper (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: Model, actress and trans-trailblazer, MBE in 2012. Already long enough (4521 characters or 777 words of readable prose), this wikibio could use more footnotes, but looks okay already. --PFHLai (talk) 13:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
SupportOppose Seems well sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Now liberally tagged. Too difficult. Have access to none of the sources. Unable to find anything better online. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support - article in good shape, with no referencing issues. Mjroots (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support Article looks good. An interesting bio. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment (WP:BLPPRIMARY) concerns: there are bio details only supported by autobiographies and a court ruling. Joofjoof (talk) 10:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- It would be very helpful if the relevant claims could be individually tagged. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Well, I did ask... Martinevans123 (talk) 10:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support One CN tag shouldn't hinder an article's nomination. Overall it's in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose It seems that multiple tags have since been added that need resolution.—Bagumba (talk) 10:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support after resolution. Transformative public figure, large nation's first, mysterious circumstances. No blurb, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Only £77.20 (ships from Ammanford, United Kingdom) A "real snip", as they say. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Bruce Davis
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NBC Sports
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bagumba (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Sunshineisles2 (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: Won two Super Bowls with the Oakland/Los Angeles Raiders. —Bagumba (talk) 10:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Info in the infobox could use some footnotes and refs. --PFHLai (talk) 06:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- @PFHLai: The "player stats" links at the bottom of the infobox typically support most of what's in the infobox, if it isn't already cited in prose. At any rate, I've also added more prose for his birthplace, high school, and career stats. Let me know if you there are any remaining gaps.—Bagumba (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the new additions, Bagumba. I think this wikibio is now READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 12:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- @PFHLai: The "player stats" links at the bottom of the infobox typically support most of what's in the infobox, if it isn't already cited in prose. At any rate, I've also added more prose for his birthplace, high school, and career stats. Let me know if you there are any remaining gaps.—Bagumba (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support Article is short, but covers life and career. Joofjoof (talk) 10:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 23:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Keri Hulme
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): RNZ, Stuff
Credits:
- Nominated by MurielMary (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: comprehensive and fully referenced article MurielMary (talk) 07:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Second career paragraph needs referencing, then it’s good to post. Stephen 08:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for picking up on that. Fixed. Also, I believe this nom was correctly posted at 28 Dec as that was the date that the death was announced. MurielMary (talk) 08:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- We go by date of death unless there’s a significant delay in the announcement of more than a few days. Stephen 10:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Weak support. The claim in the lede that "Hulme's writing explores themes of isolation, postcolonial and multicultural identity and Maori, Celtic, and Norse mythology" is not sourced or explained in the body. Otherwise it looks good. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback - have added some citations and will add a bit more detail in the body. Should be ready to post. MurielMary (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support Article is in good shape. Schwede66 17:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Posted—Bagumba (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
December 26
December 26, 2021
(Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Health and environment
Politics and elections
|
RD: Naren Gupta
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Economic Times
Credits:
- Nominated by Ktin (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Pending (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: Indian-American venture capitalist. Article requires some edits before being ready for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Tone has been improved. Some quotes can be shortened. Joofjoof (talk) 10:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Phua Bah Lee
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Straits Times
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Seloloving (talk · give credit)
- Updated by TheGreatSG'rean (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: Notable Singapore parliamentarian with 20 years of service; first president of the Singapore Armed Forces Reservist Association. Seloloving (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb Yes as well, there was tribute paid by many leaders, including the Prime Minister of Singapore Lee Hsien Loong. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support RD at the very least. – robertsky (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Strong oppose blurb, support RD A domestic politician, only known in his own country and with a dubious national and international impact. Article meets quality requirements. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- RD only – Per Alsoriano. Lacks general significance. – Sca (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 06:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Manikka Vinayagam
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Hindustan Times
Credits:
- Nominated by Ktin (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: Indian Tamil language singer. Article is a tad on the smaller side. Rater.js, however, classifies it as a start-class biography. Ktin (talk) 06:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose – Stub. – Sca (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Though this one is not a stub (Rater.js does classify this as a start class article), your larger point is valid. Might be a tad too short for the homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 21:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 01:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
RD: Jean-Marc Vallée
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:
- Nominated by Bait30 (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: Canadian television and film director. He directed Dallas Buyers Club, Wild, and directed Big Little Lies and Sharp Objects Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 15:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. Lots of cites to WP:IMDB atm. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- The IMDb cites are all currently used in the same paragraph on the subject's early work in the 1980s. If verifiability is in question, perhaps that paragraph can be taken out till better refs become available? BTW, the Filmography section and the tables after that have no footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
(Posted RD) RD/Blurb: E. O. Wilson
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: American biologist E. O. Wilson dies at the age of 92. (Post)
News source(s): NYT, Reuters
Credits:
- Nominated by AleatoryPonderings (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: American biologist. Long but seems somewhat disorganized. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- No opinion on the article, but support blurb once ready. Wilson was most certainly a transformative figure in biology, even if not all his views have stood the test of time. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb A giant. Thriley (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Proposed blurb.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb, and consider prepending Crafoord Prize-winning. BD2412 T 17:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Please be reminded that all those bullet-points on his publications and awards need references. --PFHLai (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb: There is a recently added main tag in a section (doesn't appear to be entirely founded to me but please review) and a single cn tag, nothing major to not post this to ITN. Gotitbro (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Strong oppose blurb this is not US Wikipedia, nowhere near transformative enough, and shouldn't be replacing Tutu (an actually important person) from the lead ITN. Also oppose RD as way too poorly sourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Tutu cannot stay in the lead forever, the blurb will get bumped down as is standard practice. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Please indicate the areas that are poorly sourced. 331dot (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Two important deaths can happen at a time, no reason for opposing one for the other. If the drop from the lead is a concern, than can be handled by prolonging the stay of Tutu's image but eventually it will have to give space as well. Gotitbro (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- The comment about the US should be disregarded. The work of a scientist will/can be built on by people from any country and benefit all people. It is not like a politician, actor, or a legal issue that can only affect a localised region. There are not enough science stories on ITN, and these should be judged by scientific impact, not whether the average person realises if it is important. Else it would just be filled by sport and entertainment fluff Bumbubookworm (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb. In reviewing his article and the news about him, he seems to be at the top of his field, considered a modern day Darwin. I think the last scientist blurb we posted was Stephen Hawking so it would be good to have some other science areas represented. 331dot (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Blurb or no blurb, this wikibio should not go onto ITN till after the orange OR tag in the Work section is resolved. --PFHLai (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb - Not a high profile individual outside of their immediate professional field and country of origin. This nomination feels like a result of WP:BIAS. Melmann 23:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Melmann I don't think Stephen Hawking or Desmond Tutu were high profile outside of their fields, that's kinda the point here, they were at the top of their field. You seem to be saying that it's impossible to nominate anything to do with the US here without bias. The way to counter bias is to make nominations in underrepresented areas, not to suppress other stories. 331dot (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Both Stephen Hawking and Desmond Tutu have had outsized impact outside of their immediate professional fields, and have at the same time been at the peak of their own professional area of expertise. Systemic bias comes in with the fact that no non-US scientist, only notable for their professional achievements, would ever be posted about in ITN. For example, see Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/February 2020#(Stale) RD: Rajendra K. Pachauri as an example of what happens when non-US scientists die (and this is only a RD nomination, not even blurb nomination). It's not about suppressing US scientists, it's about applying same standard to this nomination, as we would to any non-US nomination. Melmann 00:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Melmann I work to do that every day that I am here, and have for years. We can only consider what is nominated. I hereby invite you to nominate persons equivalent to this one who are also at the tip top of their field and/or also compared to Darwin in inportance. That is the best way to work against bias. 331dot (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Both Stephen Hawking and Desmond Tutu have had outsized impact outside of their immediate professional fields, and have at the same time been at the peak of their own professional area of expertise. Systemic bias comes in with the fact that no non-US scientist, only notable for their professional achievements, would ever be posted about in ITN. For example, see Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/February 2020#(Stale) RD: Rajendra K. Pachauri as an example of what happens when non-US scientists die (and this is only a RD nomination, not even blurb nomination). It's not about suppressing US scientists, it's about applying same standard to this nomination, as we would to any non-US nomination. Melmann 00:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Melmann I don't think Stephen Hawking or Desmond Tutu were high profile outside of their fields, that's kinda the point here, they were at the top of their field. You seem to be saying that it's impossible to nominate anything to do with the US here without bias. The way to counter bias is to make nominations in underrepresented areas, not to suppress other stories. 331dot (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb, support RD - prominent in his scientific field, but not a transformative figure in global cultural context. --Soman (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Strong support blurb The comment about the US should be disregarded. The work of a scientist will/can be built on by people from any country and benefit all people. It is not like a politician, actor, or a legal issue that can only affect a localised region. There are not enough science stories on ITN, and these should be judged by scientific impact, not whether the average person realises if it is important. Else it would just be filled by sport and entertainment fluff. And if 'cultural context' was required then a towering academic who lacks 'charisma' would be passed over for academic entertainers/social icons such as Ruther Bader Ginsburg (which I opposed) while physicists such as Murray Gell-Mann was passed over while Hawking was blurbed despite not necessarily being more notably at a technical level. Bumbubookworm (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- 'Strong support' = support. – Sca (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb it would be really nice to get some academics as blurbs, and Wilson is more than qualified in terms of influence and importance. Aza24 (talk) 05:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose RD, oppose blurb article is not ready for main page - there are numerous awards and honours listed without citations. Also oppose blurb as not internationally influential. MurielMary (talk) 07:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb I'm generally supportive of death blurbs for great scientists, but I need to contest his 'greatness' here. Firstly, biology is a very large and diverse scientific field, with molecular biology and genetics being perhaps the mainstream sub-fields nowadays. Secondly, he taught evolutionary biology, which is another attractive sub-field and used to be mainstream during his life span, but it seems like his main contributions were made to the highly controversial sub-field of 'sociobiology'. Furthermore, it's very strange to get the nickname "The New Darwin" without winning the Darwin–Wallace Medal at the very least. Thirdly, the article's structure looks very odd with the brief section on his career and lengthy section on his works. There are also unreferenced claims and the overall language has a hyperbolic connotation. All in all, he may have been a great scientist who introduced a new field, which unfortunately didn't become mainstream or led to any important scientific advancements, and, if biology in its broadest sense is his field, he was definitely not as influential as some of his contemporaries such as James Watson, Stephen Jay Gould and John Ostrom.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Prizes/honours now referenced Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb Highly influential biologist and death is widely reported (global scale I mean his BBC obit called him "Darwin's heir"). Article up to date. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- RD only – Widely respected by the cognoscenti, but not a household name. (Also, old man dies.) – Sca (talk) 14:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support RD per Sca. Afraid I heard self-promotion, so no blurb. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment There's still an outstanding WP:OR tag for the section Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, 1975 that needs to either be resolved or removed if no longer relevant.—Bagumba (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I removed the one sentence which was cited with Wilson's own book. It appears the rest of the section is good with solid sourcing. The article is ready. Thriley (talk) 08:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb. Although certainly not my field, I was convinced by the same route as 331dot.—Brigade Piron (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Posted Consensus only for RD.—Bagumba (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
RD: Paul B. Kidd
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): 9 News; Yahoo! News
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Vaticidalprophet (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Vox3000 (talk · give credit), MB (talk · give credit), Artegia (talk · give credit) and Editrite! (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: Important figure in Australian talk radio and crime literature. Article is ~500 words, updated, and fully cited. Vaticidalprophet 03:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Long enough and with enough footnotes at expected spots, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Worldcat lists his first book as published around 1991. Could we say anything about his life before? Joofjoof (talk) 10:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- I haven't been able to find anything in either online or offline sources about early bio detail. If anyone can, I'd be happy for them to add it. Vaticidalprophet 09:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Sarah Weddington
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Texas Tribune, AP, BBC, France24
Credits:
- Nominated by Count Iblis (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Vacant0 (talk · give credit), Lamona (talk · give credit) and Iamreallygoodatcheckers (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.
Count Iblis (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support Major figure in a landmark Supreme Court case. RIP. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 03:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Needs major sourcing help, particularly on the RvW section and papers that she co-contributed too. --Masem (t) 04:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support I have expanded the article with a little bit more info and sources. It's suitable now. --Vacant0 (talk) 13:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment – Widely covered. – Sca (talk) 13:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support - looks good to go. BabbaQ (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
(Posted RD) RD/Blurb: Karolos Papoulias
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Former President of Greece Karolos Papoulias (pictured) dies at the age of 92. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Karolos Papoulias (pictured), the former President of Greece, dies at the age of 92.
News source(s): Reuters The Washington Post
Credits:
- Nominated by BastianMAT (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Alsoriano97 (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: Former president of Greece, article looks good, died at the age of 92, also known for his resistance against Nazi occupation during World War Two and against Greece's 1967-74 military junta. BastianMAT (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Please add more refs. There are currently no footnotes in the section on his time as Minister for Foreign Affairs. Most bullet-points in the Honours section are unref'd. --PFHLai (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Can't support a blurb for an article this short (well long enough to post but almost no details to explain why he would be blurb-worthy, compared to today's Desmand Tutu posting which clearly has the breadth of coverage to support a blurb). --Masem (t) 19:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality referencing is not good. Article quality will need to be improved significantly before this can be posted as an RD. I'd also note that according to List of current heads of state and government, it is the Prime Minister in Greece that administers the executive, so unless he's being nominated as a blurb-worthy diplomat--which, based on the article, is a reasonable nomination--I don't think he's blurb-worthy. NorthernFalcon (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: I RD nominated this article, I did not add the blurb. Someone else did, and while his career indeed was impressive, I am personally for an RD due to the signficance not being as high and the article not as good, and thats exactly why I RD nominated it. So that’s where the discussion should be held. I have added citations for his time as foreign minister so the citations for the article should soon be done for a RD post. Cheers, @NorthernFalcon:, @Masem:, @PFHLai: BastianMAT (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- No worries, BastianMAT. Let's all focus our discussions on getting this wikibio onto RD. --PFHLai (talk) 03:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- RD only I believe there is a problem regarding his role as the Prime Minister of Greece due to less international coverage for him, so making this blurb doesn't much blurb-worthy. 36.77.102.62 (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support RD: Looks good for an RD. Blurb has not been justified either by the nom or the person who added it, neither am I seeing the significance from the article or otherwise. Gotitbro (talk) 03:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Weak oppose He was for 10 years president of the republic and his wikibio only talks about his appointment and the end of his mandate. I don't think that a list of government positions he held is the best either. Very improvable article. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)- Support blurb once the article is improved to reflect his political career better (I don't agree with those arguing that he doesn't deserve a blurb because of the article's length and lack of information. Please note that we posted a blurb for Zhou Youguang's death even though the article about him wasn't that detailed.). The death of a head of state of a European country with more than 10 million inhabitants who left his office only six years ago after he had held it for ten years clearly merits a blurb. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Youguang had two clear achievements, creating the Pinyin system and that he lived to 111. Probably nowadays we wouldn't have given him a blurb but his article did document those achievements. For a person that spent 10 years as HoS of a major country, however, Papoulis' article begs the question of what significant impact he had on his country and world politics. I'm sure there's more that can be written towards that, but that would be required to have something even as a minimum for a blurb to make sense. What's there is sufficient for an RD. --Masem (t) 13:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comments: There are still a handful of {cn} tags, and the coverage has a big gap: a biography of the two-term president ought to have at least a paragraph or two about what he did during those ten years in office. Blurb or no blurb, this nom cannot proceed without these deficiencies addressed. --PFHLai (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb In fact, the same was said when I proposed that Jorge Sampaio should have a blurb, and it's only logical that it was rejected, since they are still cerimonial positions, with little less international transcendence than heads of government and, in the case of Papoulias as well, they didn't leave a special legacy worthy of recognition.
As I have free time, I'm expanding his article and adding sources._-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC) - Comment Cn's still outstanding.—Bagumba (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment @NorthernFalcon:, @Masem:, @PFHLai:, @Bagumba: I've been fixing the cn tags and expanding the content of Papoulias wikibio with what I've been finding on the internet with English sources. Can you take a look at it and evaluate how it is now? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support RD Article has been fixed. Good work @Alsoriano97:! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support RD now that it is fully referenced. Kafoxe (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Posted Consensus only for RD.—Bagumba (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment by nominator Added @Alsoriano97: too for the credits as he really did a great job on improving the article. If someone can also give him a credit tag, do that as I think he deserves one too for updating the article.
- @BastianMAT: Much appreciated! _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Done --PFHLai (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Janice Long
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Thryduulf (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Martinevans123 (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 couple of citations still needed, but the article is comprehensive Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support.
Only two cn tags remaining; corresponding text could be commented out if required.Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC) - Support No cn tags remaining as of now, good to go for RD. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. No tags. Good to go. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Posted--PFHLai (talk) 12:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
(Posted, Closed) RD/blurb: Desmond Tutu
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
Blurb: South African archbishop Desmond Tutu (pictured) dies aged 90. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, AP, BBC, Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Muboshgu (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.
- Support A monumental figure in twentieth-century history, and it's a GA. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 07:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb - As Claudine says, "monumental figure" and thus blurbworthy. Mjroots (talk) 07:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb per above. Davey2116 (talk) 07:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb as most famous archbishop. Truly monumental. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 07:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Posted. I thought it should say "at the age of 90" but I wasn't sure if that was the local dialect of English so I left the blurb alone, but it can be changed if I am in error. 331dot (talk) 08:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not opposing this nomination (in fact, I would have readily supported it), but was there a need to post this after just 52 minutes of discussion? Tube·of·Light 08:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Well, the wikipage was reviewed and was deemed ready for use on ITN. Seems somewhat of a no-brainer to me. --PFHLai (talk) 09:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Highly notable figure, GA quality article, heading for WP:SNOW territory. Posting was appropriate. Mjroots (talk) 10:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, I understand that this is a no-brainer, but I still don't think there was a reason to not wait for a bit more participation. Oh well, it's not a big issue to me, so let's leave it at that. Tube·of·Light 12:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Well, the wikipage was reviewed and was deemed ready for use on ITN. Seems somewhat of a no-brainer to me. --PFHLai (talk) 09:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not opposing this nomination (in fact, I would have readily supported it), but was there a need to post this after just 52 minutes of discussion? Tube·of·Light 08:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Endorse blurb Bumbubookworm (talk) 09:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb Highly influential individual, helped take down apartheid and won a Nobel prize for his efforts. Article is in good shape as well. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Post-posting endorsement definitely noteworthy for a blurb. It would be good, however, if the blurb mentioned that Tutu got a Nobel Prize. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:15, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, see the recent one we posted about F. W. de Klerk. Gotitbro (talk) 13:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- We can't list all his accomplishments in the blurb, but WP:ERRORS is the correct venue for proposed changes. 331dot (talk) 13:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- The blurb is very bare bones right now though, apartheid is not mentioned at all (see for e.g. Klerk). I thought alt blurb/blurbs could discussed here? Anyhow a good article has been blurbed so not that much of a bother for forum change. Gotitbro (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- We can't list all his accomplishments in the blurb, but WP:ERRORS is the correct venue for proposed changes. 331dot (talk) 13:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, see the recent one we posted about F. W. de Klerk. Gotitbro (talk) 13:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
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.
- Comment The nomination was opened and closed in 7 hours, whereupon a discussion of a blurb correction commenced at ERRORS which has now been open for 26 hours without action. This discussion should have taken place in the high-traffic venue of ITNC, and shuttling it off to ERRORS where it can be ignored seems to be improper. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- This is under discussion on the talk page, where you yourself have commented. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
December 25
December 25, 2021
(Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Science and technology
|
(Posted) RD: Jonathan Spence
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
Credits:
- Nominated by Ktin (talk · give credit)
- Updated by To be updated (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: American historian. Article requires a round of edits. Ktin (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- This wikibio needs more refs. In particular, the list of publications needs more sources. And in the infobox, the footnote at the end of the list of names of doctoral students does not seem to be a helpful source. --PFHLai (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- There are no more {cn} tags left. This wikibio looks READY for RD to me. --PFHLai (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 18:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
RD: Wayne Thiebaud
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Sacramento Bee,The Guardian, KCRA
Credits:
- Nominated by CoatCheck (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: Internationally-known California artist. Worked past the age of 100, died at 101. CoatCheck (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Under "Notable works", only one of dozens of bullet-points has refs. There are a few footnote-free paragraphs, particularly in the Career section. Please add more refs. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality Adding new cn tags. Article far from ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
RD: Ray Illingworth
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- 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: Former England international cricket captain. Needs a significant amount of work, if anyone has holiday boredom. Black Kite (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- There are quite a few footnote-free paragraphs. Please add more refs. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) James Webb Space Telescope
Blurb: The James Webb Space Telescope launches from the Guiana Space Centre in French Guiana, beginning a planned 10-year mission to study the formation and evolution of the earliest stars and galaxies. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The James Webb Space Telescope is launched, beginning a planned 10-year mission to study the formation and evolution of the earliest stars and galaxies.
Alternative blurb II: The James Webb Space Telescope is launched, beginning a planned 10-year mission to study the formation and evolution of the earliest stars and galaxies, and detailed atmospheric characterization of potentially habitable exoplanets.
Alternative blurb III: Ariane flight VA256, carrying the James Webb Space Telescope (depicted), is launched.
News source(s): The New York Times,The Guardian, NASA
Credits:
- Nominated by 2A02:2F0E:D003:2E00:6898:79D7:D00B:2CE8 (talk · give credit)
- Created by Finlay McWalter (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: James Webb actually got launched. No hitting Santa. Will probably start doing science in about 6 months. Probably most notable non-manned launch since Hubble's last service mission back in 2009. 2A02:2F0E:D003:2E00:6898:79D7:D00B:2CE8 (talk) 13:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: this image is from NASA TV so it ought not to be copyrighted - maybe someone can bother to upload it here. 2A02:2F0E:D003:2E00:6898:79D7:D00B:2CE8 (talk) 13:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- That image was taken by ESA's upper stage and is likely not owned by NASA. May I suggest File:James Webb Space Telescope Launch.jpg instead which was shared by NASA on their Flickr with an appropriate license? Melmann 13:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- BBC use of that image is credited to Arianespace which would suggest it's copyrighted to them. (I don't want to think about copyrightability of a still from a video taken in outerspace on a camera that may or may not remotely operated.) -- KTC (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: this image is from NASA TV so it ought not to be copyrighted - maybe someone can bother to upload it here. 2A02:2F0E:D003:2E00:6898:79D7:D00B:2CE8 (talk) 13:03, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support - YES! Finally after 10 years! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Strong Support - Rushed to here to support, this isn't an RD nomination though. But Strong support for me on this one, the successful launch after many years of delays and one of our finest instruments yet is definitely worth it. Ornithoptera (talk) 13:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - A bit rushed. Added templates for the nominator, I'm not sure if its the same person like last time? If so, please make your own changes. (PenangLion (talk) 13:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC))
- Support - Besides from the comment, definitely a must for the ITN. (PenangLion (talk) 13:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC))
- I have my concerns on the blurb's length though, it should be shortened. PenangLion (talk) 13:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support - Highly relevant, and excellent Wikipedia coverage. Melmann 13:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support I've been waiting for this moment since I've read about this in my childhood!!! Article condition is currently good and all well referenced. And the fact that an IP nominated this is just cherry on the top!!! --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 13:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Shorter alt-blurb provided. Launch site is not as important as the telescope or its mission for ITN purposes --Masem (t) 14:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support Obvious notability, there is some issue as to the when, but if we treated it as a probe arrival is a non-event since it will still need to unfurl. First light is to other option but that is going to be testing and calibration rather than groundbreaking science so I'd suggest now is the best time to post. 3142 (talk) 14:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think it's too excessive if we do one ITN item now for the successful launch and then one ITN item in approx 6 months when JWST is fully deployed at L2 Lagrange and passes all the testing and self checks, and begins the science work. Melmann 15:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support -- KTC (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Strong Support This blurb were basically going to be posted on December 23 but not happen due to WP:CRYSTAL. Altblurb preferred. 125.167.59.84 (talk) 15:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support Historic. I'd also support a second blurb when the telescope is fully deployed per Melmann. Davey2116 (talk) 15:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support per all the above, but preferably with altblurb2, or some shorter variant of it (the current variant is worded as in the article lead). This is because what most excites many of us about the telescope is its alleged ability to find free oxygen around exoplanets, which would seem to be near-proof of photosynthesising plant-life on such planets. Any failure to find oxygen around any exoplanets would also seem to be interesting support for the Rare Earth hypothesis. Unfortunately a perhaps-too-quick glance over our article leaves the initial impression that it does not (or at least not yet) have much to say about this beyond what is said in the lead paragraph and currently repeated in altblurb2. I may try to add some such details myself, but Christmas events are likely to prevent me from doing so. Tlhslobus (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- NASA had this article about it on 6 Jan 2020 (tho I note their qualifier "may" in their title, and "possible" in "possible biosignature" in their text)): New Technique May Give NASA's Webb Telescope a Way to Quickly Identify Planets with Oxygen.Tlhslobus (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Ultra Strong Support This is perhaps humanity's greatest achievement. NW1223(Howl at me/My hunts) 16:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Posting. I'll go with the basic blurb since the alt ones are a bit long. --Tone 16:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Switched to
Ariane flight VA256, carrying the James Webb Space Telescope (depicted), is launched from the Guiana Space Centre.
--PFHLai (talk) 17:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- Switched to
- Some clarification as to who is operating the probe/program would be good for clarity. From what I can gather it appears to primarily be a NASA mission, so adding that in the blurb is welcome. Gotitbro (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- That is too much for a blurb since it's multinational. You certainly don't want to appoint a arbitrary "lead", references to the "NASA" Hubble have been causing annoyances for years on a 50/50 joint venture. 3142 (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- 1.3 million kilometers left to go. Count Iblis (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
- JWST and upper stage observed from Scotland. Count Iblis (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2021 (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: