Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:In the news

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jenda H. (talk | contribs) at 20:14, 27 January 2023 (→‎January 27: Douma chemical attack). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

Srettha Thavisin in 2023
Srettha Thavisin

view — page history — related changes — edit

Glossary

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

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

Nomination steps

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

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

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

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

Voicing an opinion on an item

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

Please do...

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

Please do not...

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

Suggesting updates

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

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

Archives

January 27

January 27, 2023 (2023-01-27) (Friday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Douma chemical attack

Article: Douma chemical attack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ OPCW released a report, that Douma chemical attack was committed by special forces of Syrian Army. (Post)
News source(s): [1][2][3]
Credits:

 Jenda H. (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Sylvia Syms

Article: Sylvia Syms (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): GB News
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Referencing needs improvement! Mjroots (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(closed) Blurb: Tyre Nichols

consensus is that WP:BLPCRIME indicates that this should not be posted at this phase. Check back in again after the conviction. --Jayron32 19:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Death of Tyre Nichols (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Five officers of the Memphis Police Department are arrested for alleged involvement in the death of Tyre Nichols (Post)
News source(s): [1]
Credits:
Nominator's comments: May possibly fall under WP:TOOSOON, however, I think this is notable enough and may be bolstered tomorrow by the potential video. Knightoftheswords281 17:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for Altblurb We don't really do arrests, but we certainly do video-bolstered outrage, if sufficiently bolstered. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless the situation changes. Arrests on their own are not notable, and the response will not be notable unless it escalates into citywide riots. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as said by @Thebiguglyalien Vriend1917 (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Top story at BBC.com right now: Tyre Nichols: Biden urges calm over Memphis police murder case. When the BBC is reporting that the US president is urging calm ahead of a video of police brutality that will be released Friday night, it's an indication. It's likely there will be protests, and it's likely to stay in the news, and we're likely to post it, the only question is what the blurb will say exactly. It's not just the BBC, also The Guardian, Le Monde, El Pais, and of course it's the top story in all US news outlets right now, and the video isn't even out yet. Support, we can update the blurb as events progress. Levivich (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He's not exactly urging calm, he's "calling for peaceful protest", outrage without violence. That could make a good altblurb. Not every day the president calls on citizens to protest a criminal matter rather than just let the judicial system do its job.InedibleHulk (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • An arrest of a police officer for the killing of a civilian in the United States is absolutely notable, and rare. From the NYT in 2020: Law enforcement officers kill about 1,000 people a year across the United States. Since the beginning of 2005, 121 officers have been arrested on charges of murder or manslaughter in on-duty killings, according to data compiled by Philip M. Stinson, a criminal justice professor at Bowling Green State University in Ohio. Of the 95 officers whose cases have concluded, 44 were convicted, but often of a lesser charge, he said. Shades of Laquan Mcdonald in the arrest only coming when the video is ordered released, but absolutely notable, absolutely in the news. Support. nableezy - 05:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Main page should adhere to WP:BLPCRIME policy:

    For individuals who are not public figures...editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.

    —Bagumba (talk) 06:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per this policy. This is a mere allegation and should not be in the mainpage. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 06:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No police officer is named in the article. The police officers that have been charged have indeed been charged with a crime. That is verifiable fact. And nothing in BLPCRIME says we cannot say so. If you feel it does, then it is a BLP violation to include the charges in the article. Do you actually think that is true? nableezy - 07:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just read the article and the five officers were named. You can't rely on the state of the article unless it is completely locked. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure people Joe Biden and Al Sharpton highlight in federal public safety reform campaigns become public figures. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:BLPCRIME. Btw, this is another case of police abuse in the United States. It did not have the same international impact/coverage as George Floyd. So no, it’s not ITNR worthy. Not now, not later. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    George Floyd also wasn't on George Floyd's level until after the viral violent video, so it's not fair to compare yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:BLPCRIME, which articles featured on the main page should adhere to. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 10:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • BLPCRIME? For internationally-reported arrests of police officers? That didn't stop us from posting about George Floyd, and we create these articles all the time. Tonight there will be protests, give it a minute. Levivich (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The key part is that as these are not public figures as BLP defines, their mere arrest is not something we should be shouting from the rooftops by plugging it in an ITN box. Masem (t) 14:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mere arrests; even a conviction seems unlikely to be significant enough to justify a blurb. So far there are minimal signs of broad impacts. If major protests erupt, then we can consider those on their own merits, in a separate nomination. WP:CRYSTAL applies. Modest Genius talk 13:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why a separate nom and not this one? Levivich (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Likely as there was nearly no protests comparable to the Floyd ones from this event - the PD took a rapid step to outright fire the officers than cover up anything, and given the racial makeup of the fired officers, its hard to bring in racial motivation as it was in the case of Floyd. So there's nothing to report beyond the remaining legal trials from these arrests, yet. If they all get off completely free, there could be riots from that, but that's not going to happen until the trials happen. Masem (t) 14:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's still top news today, 2nd news cycle, and it will stay in the news all weekend. The video is being released tonight. There will be protests tonight and this weekend. My question was: why a new nom and not this nom? I don't see the point in closing this today and making a new nom tomorrow. Levivich (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • And ITN doesn't care how much a topic dominates the news, otherwise we'd only be covering US and UK politics and pop culture. And if riots actually break out, we'd likely need a rescoped article, but they might not even happen. It would be better to start a fresh ITNC if the riots are the key story. --Masem (t) 14:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The notable aspect of events like this is what happens afterwards, from possible unrest to criminal proceedings/convictions. The arrest itself is too soon to post, as we do not yet know the impact of this case. Kafoxe (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The BLPCRIME votes make zero sense to me, if you feel it is a BLPCRIME issue then nominate the article for speedy deletion. This is widely reported, BLP does not exist as something to suppress uncomfortable material if and when it is widely reported in reliable sources. nableezy - 18:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unless a conviction is secured, this article is not ITN-worthy. Editor 5426387 (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

January 26

January 26, 2023 (2023-01-26) (Thursday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

(Closed) ChatGPT passes graduate level exams from law and business schools

Consensus to post is unlikely to develop.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: ChatGPT (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ ChatGPT passes graduate level exams at the University of Minnesota and at Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:

Article updated
 Count Iblis (talk) 06:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's an interesting story but ChatGPT is already a top-read article since the tool was announced – #4 yesterday, for example. We can expect a stream of such achievements and so it's more of an Ongoing item now. I asked it what it thought and it replied, "As a language model, I do not have the capability to take exams or have qualifications. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to announce this news on Wikipedia or any other external platform." So, it's modest too. I'd like to see how it does with some other tests such as the senility test which Trump boasted of passing. Or those common, "are you a bot?" tests. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Niratias! This language model didn't "pass", it simply provided more of the correct answers while utterly failing the part where it advances in some meaningful way, like a human would. No qualification, no new job opportunity, not even a feeling of accomplishment. No class would accept it as a colleague, only a tool to pitch out first drafts really quickly, like the way "real" artists feel about very talented but creepy image generators. It's not being modest, it's being honest, and that's another problem. Without reason to lie and get ahead, I believe it when it says posting would be inappropriate. It knows things we don't about why. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose really Count?? _-_Alsor (talk) 07:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what I expect from Count. -- Kicking222 (talk) 08:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Assume Good Faith. No need to be patronising. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nor can we ignore the obvious and the facts. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Jessie Lemonier

Article: Jessie Lemonier (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Not missing too many citations, but the sources needed to be checked, and it seems as if the article could be expanded. Mooonswimmer 17:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 25

January 25, 2023 (2023-01-25) (Wednesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(closed) 2023 BU misses Earth

Consensus is unlikely to develop to post this on the main page. --Jayron32 12:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
The projected path
Article: 2023 BU (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Near-earth object passes 2,178 miles (3,506 kilometers) above the Earth's surface (Post)
News source(s): BBC; Space.com, Gizmodo
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Closest approach is this Thursday 2607:F470:E:22:C547:4EE8:EF72:5589 (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Unlike the other astronomical story nominated, this doesn't really have any noteworthy value. The object wasn't visible from Earth, and had no real significance. Good faith nom, but I don't think this should be posted. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Opening of East Side Access

Good faith nomination but consensus not to post. Try TFA, perhaps. --Tone 11:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Articles: East Side Access (talk · history · tag) and Grand Central Madison station (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Construction of the East Side Access project and Grand Central Madison station in New York City is complete and open to the public. (Post)
News source(s): New York Times, Forbes, Bloomberg
Credits:

Both articles updated
Nominator's comments: One of the largest and most significant transit infrastructure projects in the United States, complete after many years of planning and construction. Full service did not start yet, but the station is fully open and being served by temporary train service, which is not relevant to the project itself. VarietyEditor (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Quality and significance seem met. Only question is timing.GreatCaesarsGhost 21:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The news coverage is there, and the article is in excellent shape, but- and I say this as an NYC resident- I'm not sure how important this is to anyone besides Long Islanders? -- Kicking222 (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Insignificant to no NYC resident and its impact and international coverage is nil. Bona fide nom. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I love trains and public transit, and I personally find this super cool, even as a non-NYC resident. However, major construction projects happen all the time. If this project had some kind of notable fact - e.g. predicted to be the most trafficked route in the world, most expensive rail project of all time, first use of a new rail innovation - I might consider it blurb-worthy. I think this is better suited for DYK. e.b. (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - This is interesting news, but, per above, I don't think it qualifies for ITN. I'm going with Weak Oppose, however, as I don't think large infrastructure projects should immediately be discounted for ITN. I don't think 'East Side Access' really qualifies as a mega project (though it will certainly transform transit in NYC!), but something like a brand new high-speed rail line in the US could be notable. I think once/if California High Speed Rail, or Texas Central Railway, or something of the sort is completed, we should consider it for notability. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also think we should seek to diversify the stories we post, as it seems like 90% of nominations are either sport-related, changes in head-of-state/government, or X tragedy kills Y people. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dissolution of the Moscow Helsinki Group

Article: Moscow Helsinki Group (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Moscow Helsinki Group, Russia's oldest human rights group, is dissolved by a court order. (Post)
News source(s): RFERL, Euronews, Bloomberg
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: We posted the dissolution of Memorial as "Russia's oldest... human rights group", but the Moscow Helsinki Group appears older, being founded in 1976. Article needs some more work, but update is there. Brandmeistertalk 16:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Definitely news worthy, it shows that human rights in Russia are degrading each day, I also agree with the other supports. Vriend1917 (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The article is good quality, news is newsworthy. Editor 5426387 (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Age Matters, the group by this name that started in 1976 lasted six years and the one shut down today began in 1989. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While broadly associated with the blanket term "human rights", the original group's main purpose was annual reporting on Helsinki Accord violations by the Soviet Union. In 2023, this job has largely been taken over by a much larger and hourly collective of reporters and international information agencies, commonly called "the news". The "2010s and 2020s" section mostly has it defending itself from accusations that it's a Western tool, not defending the sort of people that "human rights" came to closely stand for in the same period. Basically, it was already dying and this court ruling was as formal as it seems. Perhaps we can still watch for news on whether any board members are convicted of crimes in the wake. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per @InedibleHulk. I would also argue this is partly covered by ongoing. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 24

January 24, 2023 (2023-01-24) (Tuesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

2023 Afghanistan cold wave

Article: 2023 Afghanistan cold snap (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 124 people are killed in a cold wave in Afghanistan. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In Afghanistan, at least 124 people are killed in a cold snap
Alternative blurb II: ​ A cold wave causes at least 124 deaths in Afghanistan
Alternative blurb III: ​ A cold snap causes at least 124 deaths in Afghanistan, during an ongoing humanitarian crisis.
News source(s): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-64386145
Credits:

Nominator's comments: This is gaining significant coverage In The News. More people have died than in the North American storm last year, which was blurbed. I think we could even make an argument this qualifies for ongoing. I do think an article is urgently needed if this is to be posted, but the subject is definitely notable and we should get this up as soon as possible. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose This does not belong on the mainpage in this state. Support in principle if expanded.
NoahTalk 21:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on Quality per above. Article is in need of serious expansion. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality, support on notability. Will change vote when article's cleaned up/expanded. The Kip (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Browsing the news, it appears that heavy snow is currently disrupting a long list of countries including Austria, Italy, Japan, South Korea and more. This appears to be wintry weather typical of January and it's quite cold here in the UK too. If deaths are what really matters then 124 is not a large number for an entire country. In China, they are running out of coffins as the death toll from their COVID wave bites. The numbers there are over 100 times greater. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So why did we blurb the December 2022 North American winter storm then? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We shouldn't of, but unfortunately, ITNC is often swayed by popularity votes or claims "it's all over the news" ([2]). Average death tolls in nearly annual events like winter storms or flooding (which kills thousands each year in China and India as another example) should be taken as routine stories, just like the NA winter storm. I don't know if this specific storm in the Middle East is typical or unusual, but if its typical, we probably shouldn't be blurbing it. Masem (t) 13:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost every weather event occurs annually or multiple times a year and does not have an unusual death toll. If this is the case, we shouldn't be blurbing ANY of them as their death tolls are typical and expected. NoahTalk 15:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I don't agree with Masem here. I think there was a solid consensus to post the North American winter storm, and I also believe that particular storm needs to be the barometer by which we measure other storms in terms of death toll and significance, regardless of which region they occur in. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that using the NA storm feeds on more systematic bias. Because it affected the US, it got *lots* of coverage, while its still apparent here that this storm in the Middle East - far away from the US and UK, is getting next to no coverage. From an encyclopedic topic aspect, the storms should be treated equally, but we let too much of the media's bias affect how we cover weather topics in ITN. Masem (t) 13:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's kind of unavoidable, don't you? WP:ITN's stated purpose is to showcase quality content on current events/items that are in the news. More often than not, quality correlates with reliable source coverage. I'd rather it be otherwise, but I don't think denying both stories is the answer to that. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We should strive to still cover (both in general and at ITN) news events that may only get a few stories in major papers, with stories that get wide coverage. We need some coverage to be notable, and that is a systematic bias already, but once past that, the number of RSes covering a topic shouldn't matter or come into play, beyond the ability to write a quality article. Hence why we need a review and consensus of topics that try to fight against systematic bias. Masem (t) 17:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know but most of the country is at least as high as the South Appalachians (their mountain passes even go high enough to cause low antigravity in bin Laden-killing helicopters and hypoxia in healthy young drivers, Earth's first mention of altitude sickness is from the ancient Silk Road from China to Afghanistan or nearby and points west) and about that latitude and they get lots of snow without the benefit of Afghanistan's possible Caspian Sea effect snow (don't know if it's still after crossing Turkmenistan) and total mountain protection from air lower latitude than them. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By that logic shouldn't we refrain from blurbing most extreme weather events because they are somewhat routine (i.e. the Atlantic and Pacific seeing a few major hurricanes/typhoons a year)? DarkSide830 (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The article will never get posted if it remains in this state, and unfortunately, I'm not sure what can be done to resolve that. Storms that occur in the United States have the benefit of being in an area with excellent English-RS coverage, with reporters that can go door-to-door to assess storm impacts. There's no benefit of that in Afghanistan. Indeed, this is why systemic bias is such a problem on ITN. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Winter draws on I browsed a physical newspaper on the tube just now and the weather headlines there were about the local weather here in the UK (where the south is unusually colder than the north). And more impressive was that in China's most northerly city, they have a record low temperature of -53°C (-63°F). CNN explains that From China to Japan, extreme cold is gripping East Asia. So, Afghanistan doesn't seem so special as it's not in this especially cold zone. Its problems are more to do with the Taliban and the withdrawal of international aid. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Still, the deaths of so many people, and the resulting humanitarian crisis, should definitely be posted. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The blurb and article seem mistaken. The sources say these dead accumulated over the last fortnight, across the country, due to cold and generator poisonings. No mention of a storm, especially an ongoing one that started on January 17. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've corrected the article, making this no longer a storm, but a cold snap. I didn't change the nom stuff because the replies would have stopped making sense and someone else might prefer the term "cold wave" soon. But it's worth reconsidering (I still oppose). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Cold Wave sounds better personally PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A likely story! I won't mind if you move the article there (lowercase, of course). But always remember, trees and water tend to sound snappy in the cold while air and animals appear wavier in the heat. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, now I've changed the nom stuff, replies still make sense enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality. Article is still marked as a stub. Support once expanded though. Vida0007 (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's worthy of ITN but three days in, it's still a stub. Schwede66 07:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Needs expansion. Alex-h (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose until expanded The article quality is disgusting. Should be at least the quality of November 2022 Great Lakes winter storm to even consider posting. 108.58.9.194 (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Titewhai Harawira

Article: Titewhai Harawira (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New Zealand Herald
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Not missing too many citations, but the sources needed to be checked Mooonswimmer 17:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Victor Navasky

Article: Victor Navasky (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Article requires some work Mooonswimmer 17:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Dark chocolate

LET THEM EAT CHOCOLATE
Consensus will not develop to post this item.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: Health effects of chocolate (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Dark chocolate (pictured) may contain high levels of cadmium and lead (Post)
News source(s): Reuters; BBC
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: This gave me a shock when I read about it just now as I have a deadly brick of 85% right here. There's work to do, of course, but that's what we're here for, right? Andrew🐉(talk) 16:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. This is the type of high-engagement, low-impact stuff you find in the "health and science" sections of newspapers. Can't really see any evidence this is major news; it certainly isn't a top-flight story on any of the major services. --Jayron32 16:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This makes it sound like this is a WP:POINT nomination. I was actually just looking for science articles to post today to try and create some balance among news topics, but I decided that little things like this aren't sufficient. It would need to be something like a new element being discovered, the extinction of a well-known animal, a cure for a major disease, etc. Some sort of major breakthrough or discovery. I wonder if a new major iceberg is significant enough, but it currently doesn't have its own article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is much bigger news than any sports event AFAIC and there are so few nominations of any sort that it seemed better than than nothing. See the talk page for discussions of the general state of ITN and what might be done about. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The news that a food "may" have lead is certainly not a bigger news story than sport event. This story is barely even in news outlets let alone notable for a blurb. Jbvann05 17:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Consumer Reports, there's no may about it as they tested 28 brands and found cadmium and lead in all of them. Of course, you then get into the weeds about the exact levels. But this reminds me of lead in petrol which was quite scandalous before the vested interests were faced down. There was an ITN nomination about the last country to use leaded gas/petrol -- Algeria iirc. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comet C/2022 E3

Proposed image
Article: C/2022 E3 (ZTF) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A green comet (pictured) makes its closest approach to the Earth (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Comet C/2022 E3 (ZTF) makes its closest approach to Earth
Alternative blurb II: ​ Comet C/2022 E3 (ZTF) will make its closest approach to Earth on February 1.
News source(s): The Guardian; NYT; BBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is borderline ITN/R which is fuzzy about naked-eye comets. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Interesting news, ITN/R PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and Support Altblurb PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait – The closest approach will be on February 1. It seems like a good plan to post it on that day and not too much earlier. I hope in the meantime, the article will see some more expanding. It feels alright for blurbing, but a bit short. (I have to say that it being nearly 0.3 AU away from us is quite far. Will this be visible without a telescope?) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You know closest approach isn't always best time to see something right? Best night for most of our North Hemisphere readers (comet is above the Arctic) might be Jan 26-27. Assuming you can't see later than midnight (when it's still rising or fucked up by moonlight which starts happening all evening even before half moon this time of year) and taking into account moonlight, when the model says it'd be brightest from Earth if Earth didn't have an atmosphere and how much atmosphere you have to look through. You'd be surprised how far you good see Comet Hale-Bopp but this is no Hale-Bopp. Some people can see it with just their eyes but most first worlders live under nighttime light pollution, the same scattering that makes the sky blue except light bulbs instead of sunlight. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll accept that we should probably post it now if we do post it. Now I'm just not entirely sure about the quality of the article and of whether it's visible enough for a listing. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - The article says Feb 1 is when this happens, so we shouldn't be in a rush. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 12:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unbelievable, it'll be fucked up by moonlight by then. When this happens is actually like Jan 26, assuming you can't wait for it to stop rising before trying to find it which happens after midnight till like the 31st. As 0.28 AU is not close by near-Earth comet standards. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "THIRD REPORT BY THE OPCW INVESTIGATION AND IDENTIFICATION TEAM PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 10 OF DECISION C-SS-4/DEC.3 "ADDRESSING THE THREAT FROM CHEMICAL WEAPONS USE" DOUMA (SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC) – 7 APRIL 2018" (PDF). OPCW. Retrieved 27 January 2023.
  2. ^ "Watchdog blames Syria for 2018 Douma chemical attack". BBC News. 27 January 2023. Retrieved 27 January 2023.
  3. ^ "Watchdog blames Syrian gov't forces for 2018 Douma gas attack". www.aljazeera.com.
  4. ^ Bogdan, Dennis (20 January 2023). "Comment - How to Watch the 'Green Comet' in Night Skies". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 24 January 2023. Retrieved 21 January 2023.
I only just read Andrew's comment about everyone who is saying to wait on it, so changing to Support. If it is currently viewable, then it should be on ITN. Sorry about that. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb. It is currently visible from earth! And currently in the news! APOD posted a picture of Comet ZTF three days ago. Today APOD linked to an entire gallery of ZTF pictures. Why wait for the actual day of peak visibility? It won't come around again for 50k years, which I'm assuming is longer than most Wikipedia users' lifespans. My only complaint is some awkward phrasing in the top section of the page, but that's a quick fix. e.b. (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Sex and sadism"! Come to TFA for the good stuff...
  • "It's not easy being green" Most of the news headlines that I see about this use the word "green" and so this is an especially notable feature of the comet. And the article does a reasonable job of explaining the science of this. The ALT2 blurb seems deficient in this regard and its emphasis on the exact code string for the comet doesn't seem so interesting. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the original blurb is optimal. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We're reporting topics in the news, we are not looking for grabbing readers' attention with headlines (eg being clickbait). DYK is perhaps where we have the most "clickbait-y" information and that's why those blurbs are carefully worded to avoid that most of the time. Masem (t) 13:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling it the green comet is just following the sources which all refer to it as such. See WP:COMMONNAME. For clickbait, see TFA which today features a lurid picture of a naked woman being sacrificed to blood-drinkers! (right). ITN is no contest as it is running the same picture of Chris Hipkins as it has for 6 days straight now. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with green comet is that it is ambiguous and "ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." (WP:COMMONNAME). For example see how many comets are refered as green comets by reliable sources: Comet Machholz, 45P/Honda-Mrkos-Pajdusakova[3][4][5][6], 46P/Wirtanen[7], C/2007 E2, C/2014 Q2[8], 103P, C/2009 R1, comet Lulin, comet Holmes etc. C messier (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A green coma is unusual but not rare. 'Green comet' certainly isn't the WP:COMMONNAME. See also WP:NCASTRO#Comets. Modest Genius talk 15:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not ITNR. This has not been widely referred to as the 'Great Comet of 2023', nor is it 'clearly visible by naked eye even to those who weren't specifically looking for it', which are the requirements listed on ITNR. At present it's about mag 5.5 - just about visible to the naked eye from a very dark site (no light pollution), but only if you know where to look. The article is correct when it says "most viewers will need binoculars". I've removed the ITNR flag from the nomination template. That doesn't mean we can't post this anyway, but there needs to be something remarkable about the comet to justify doing so. Lots of comets have green emission, so that isn't a distinguishing feature, and nor does it come particularly close to Earth or the Sun. I know this is a slow news period, but I don't see anything exciting here. Readers who are amateur astronomers will already know about this, and those that aren't won't be able to see it. The article is adequate, nothing more. So I won't oppose, but I can't support either. Modest Genius talk 14:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You appear to have been reverted. It would be useful to for me know if this is actually ITN/R or not before deciding whether to support. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verb tense comment For alt2 with "will make", WP:ITNBLURB says: Blurbs should describe events...in the present tense.—Bagumba (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support posting the original blurb now This seems notable enough to post, it seems like now would be the best time to post this & the original blurb seems like the best blurb. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not ITNR I don't see why this is marked as such, per Modest Genius, so I am switching the flag. I am ambivalent on posting it as well. It is a minor astronomical event, but it is an astronomical event that anyone around the globe can go look for. Banedon (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: B. V. Doshi

Article: B. V. Doshi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New Indian Express
Credits:

Article needs updating
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 architect. News just coming-in. Article requires some work before it can be ready for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 07:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 23

January 23, 2023 (2023-01-23) (Monday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology

RD: Lloyd Morrisett

Article: Lloyd Morrisett (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety, tweet from Sesame Workshop
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Co-creator of Sesame Street. Article looks mostly passable. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 20:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now Major issues with this one. Tons of unsourced claims in the prose (the Honors and awards section is also mostly unsourced), excessive quotations (WP:OVERQUOTE), and usage of curly quotation marks in a number of spots (MOS:CURLY; this one can also be implicitly dealt with by cutting the number of quotes). Curbon7 (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Álvaro Colom

Article: Álvaro Colom (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Former president of Guatemala. Working on his article. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Half Moon Bay shootings

Article: 2023 Half Moon Bay shootings (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Seven people are killed in a mass shooting in Half Moon Bay, California. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the U.S. state of California, 18 people are killed in separate mass shootings in Half Moon Bay and Monterey Park.
Alternative blurb II: ​ In the U.S. 27 people are killed in three mass shootings since January 4.
News source(s): BBC, The Guardian
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Second mass shooting in California in three days. Front page on multiple news agencies worldwide.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 05:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose this, as unlike the Monterey Park shootings, this does not appear to have any racial or hate angle too it (the shooter appears to have been a worker at the site, making it a domestic crime). Also, just because a news story appears on multiple front pages of newspapers does not make it suitable for posting at ITN. Masem (t) 05:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What racial/hate side is there to the Monterey shooting? I thought that went away when it turned out the shooter wasn't white. Nfitz (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being a member of a group doesn't automatically rule it out as a hate crime. And it's not limited to whites either. But I agree, it's been ruled out for the Monterey Park one (last I checked).—Bagumba (talk) 06:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had not seen (at the time I posted the above) that the MPark one was dismissed as a hate crime (just being non-white doesn't mean it couldn't be a hate crime). As such I would also consider the MPark shooting a domestic violence case that shouldn't be posted either. Masem (t) 13:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't saying it could only have been white. I was commenting that the claims it was a hate crime vanished at that time. I was subtly and ironically critiquing those who keep jumping to "hate crime". In both cases though, the shooters were closely associated with the places they attacked. In neither case was it terrorism, hate, random, ... Nfitz (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Interpersonal crimes are typically not significant or even notable. Would need to see evidence that there could be sustained national or regional effect. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - like the Monterey Park it isn't notable - both are interpersonal crimes, with a relatively low death toll. Nfitz (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support combined blurb "Eighteen people are killed in two mass shootings three days apart in Monterey Park and Half Moon Bay, California" or something like that. Levivich (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Only if reliable sources are doing the math and reporting on the overall situation as such. —Bagumba (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Guardian links it with a recent mass-shooting in Goshen too, "The shooting followed the killing of 11 people over the weekend at a ballroom dance hall in the southern California city of Monterey Park, near Los Angeles. It also comes on the heels of a shooting in California’s Central Valley last week, where six people, including an infant, were killed in the small town of Goshen." There's then some commentary about the frequency of such events, "Other public figures spoke out in shock at the killings, which also mark the nation’s sixth mass shooting just 23 days into the new year. ..." Andrew🐉(talk) 09:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Not as notable as it's aforementioned predecessor, which in and of itself is borderline at best notability-wise. DarkSide830 (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote to Oppose Combined Blurb. We should not be posting combined blurbs for events without a specific relationship. This follows for something like "killing of x causes y protests" or "x resigns and is replaced by y". This is not such a situation. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) Those news items are not nominated, so they are not relevant to this discussion. 2) There is no number 2. Bringing up irrelevant information distracts from the current discussion. --Jayron32 18:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support combined blurb Both shootings are getting news extensive coverage. Same state within an unusual brief time period. I also wouldn't oppose including the even more recent shooting in Yakima, Washington in the total death count. All very tragic. Estar8806 (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 22

January 22, 2023 (2023-01-22) (Sunday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Needs attention) RD: Taufikurrahman Saleh

Article: Taufikurrahman Saleh (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Jawa Post
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Former MP. Date is burial date. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 05:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Lin Brehmer

Article: Lin Brehmer (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/wxrt-to-pay-tribute-to-lin-brehmer-with-celebration-of-life-broadcast-monday/3051632/
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Long-time Chicago radio personality KConWiki (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Agustí Villaronga

Article: Agustí Villaronga (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): La Vanguardia, El País
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Spanish film director, known for Black Bread. He was also a screenwriter, actor and documentary director. Article needs some work. Alexcalamaro (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Monterey Park shooting

Article: 2023 Monterey Park shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In a mass shooting at a Chinese New Year celebration, a gunman kills eleven people in Monterey Park, California. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In a mass shooting at a Lunar New Year celebration, a gunman kills eleven people in Monterey Park, California.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Eleven people are killed in a mass shooting at a Lunar New Year celebration in Monterey Park, California.
News source(s): CNN, LA Times, BBC, NY Times, CBS News
Credits:

 – Muboshgu (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the blurb.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What a bizarre argument. To act like any "mass shooting" (which is a loosely defined word as is) is similar in notability is insane. I live near Philadelphia and basically every day on the morning news is another report of a shooting in the city, many of which involve multiple fatalities. I would not think these events blurb-able, but it's hard to argue such events are even close to as notable as this one. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't mean to, but you reinforced my argument perfectly. Thank you so much. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Every year has a lot of natural disasters and elections. Should we then chose to post none of these? DarkSide830 (talk) 01:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak support As terrible as this is, unfortunately the US has many, many ass shootings a week, but with the amount of people, this may be ITN worthy. Vriend1917 (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - mass shootings that kill 10 people are uncommon in the US, and this is indeed ITN. This should be posted. --RockstoneSend me a message! 18:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Another US mass shooting. Ericoides (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Another X" applies to just about every nomination. What is your point? —Bagumba (talk) 04:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See TRM, 23:09. ("Once again we have yet another shooting in the US which amounts to nothing, will come to nothing, achieves nothing, "thoughts and prayers" and all that kind of crap, yet because we're 60% yank, we feel obliged to post this kind of crap non-story, week in, week out. Boring, useless, not even encyclopaedic.") That's my/his point. Ericoides (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    not even encyclopaedic would be more credible if these pages were regularly deleted, or even respected if one actually nominatated it for WP:AFD, instead of adding mere innuendo. —Bagumba (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article and news reports seem quite uncertain about the details. If we can wait for the future of the NZ PM to become clear then we can wait on the outcome of this mayhem. But that's then likely to turn into an arrest/trial and so we will have to wait upon a conviction. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article and news reports seem quite uncertain about the details: No, the deaths and injuries are quite certain, as is everything else stated in the blurb. Sounds like a WP:POINTy rationale to propose a wait based on an unrelated future resignation announcement. —Bagumba (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is full of vague terms like "suspect", "did not specify", "estimated", "possible scene", "reportedly", "appeared to be". I just took another look at the NYT which has a live feed of the current SWAT team assault/siege so this is clearly an ongoing situation. We're an encyclopedia not a live news feed and so there's no rush. Let the news media do their job and we can get to it when the details and verdict is clear. Per WP:NEWSEVENT, "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths... – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Andrew🐉(talk) 22:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mass shootings resulting in multiple deaths are inherently notable. --RockstoneSend me a message! 05:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These happen every day and so we need something more. For an example of enduring notability, see the Tottenham Outrage which is in the OTD section today. That passes my personal test for enduring notability -- is there a book or movie about it? Andrew🐉(talk) 08:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't see how yet another mass shooting in the USA is notable, without any indication that there will long-term notability, like that occurred at Sandy Hook or Kent State. It's almost as if, that if a shooting is notable enough to get it's own article, that a nomination ends up here. In any other country, an event like this would lead to massive changes in gun law. If this finally happens in the USA because of this, then perhaps it would be ITN - but I don't see any indication that it would for this LA shooting. About the same number were killed in a shooting in Utah a couple of weeks ago, and there's been no ongoing coverage. Nfitz (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't think it's notable, nominate it for deletion. If you think it needs "long-term notability" on par with Sandy Hook or Kent State, which can't possibly be determined this early, that shows how off base people's thresholds for posting are. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think that if something isn't quite notable enough for ITN, then it's not notable enough for Wikipedia at all, then you shouldn't be here. Nfitz (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're the one who said you don't see how it's notable. I tend to think that articles on subjects that are "in the news" are appropriate for "In The News", but that's just me. The Kent State shootings had four deaths, and I bet many here would have opposed posting it for not meeting their WP:MINIMUMDEATHS criteria. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's clear from the context that I'm discussing ITN, and not something else. And beyond context, I actually used the ITN acronym in my comment. Not that I support MINIMUMDEATHS, but presumably it would be quantified differently back then. There were only 3 incidents in the preceding decade in that country where more victims were murdered at Kent State. Heck, there were only 3 incidents in the preceding TWO decades! Heck, you have to go back to the 1920s, to find a significantly higher number of incidents - and most of those were white Americans massacring blacks, or labour unrest. So I disagree that there'd be many opposing it for not meeting Minimum Deaths; also it was particularly noteworthy, as it's the first time in that nation that the military was used to murder peaceful white protesters. Similarly the 1985 aerial bombing by police in Philadelphia didn't have a particularly high death toll (9), but the way that police mass murdered the victims would have made that noteworthy. Nfitz (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In terms of anything in the news being appropriate for ITN, looking at the local state broadcaster, things that rank higher than this currently are Tik-tok cybersecurity concerns, ChatGPT, AI Chatbot, vehicular impaired driver restrictions, and the invasive species Phragmites australis subsp. australis. Which ones should I nominate User:Muboshgu? Nfitz (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominate what you want, as OTHERSTUFF arguments are unhelpful and each nomination should be considered on its own merits. And what the U.S. was like 100 years ago isn't relevant to how it is now, either. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an OTHERSTUFF argument. It's an indication of just how insignificant this event is, even in neighbouring countries, that media coverage is already vanishing. Yeah, it will be in the national papers here tomorrow, but there'd unlikely be ever a mention of it afterwards, unless there are some unexpected developments. Nfitz (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's bygones already. No-one cares about it, it's not encyclopedically significant. Yet another mass shooting in Amurica, nobody, not even most Americans, care. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "The mass shooting, one of California’s worst in recent memory, has left Angelenos — and the nation — struggling to make sense of the violence."—Los Angeles Times. —Bagumba (talk) 07:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless it was motivated by an ideology. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Bagumba. Seems callous to skip this when a darts competition gets a rubber stamp. Zagalejo (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That speaks more to the lacking notability of the darts than the notability of this event, and either way that's a discussion for the ITN criteria talk page, not here. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Awwww we replaced the boat race with darts in regards to this argument? Forget 10+ Americans dying due to gun violence, 50+ brown people dying on disasters is still enough enough while we allow darts to get a free pass. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to have me incorrectly measured. I support an ITN sports cleanup and darts would be one of the items most clearly on the chopping block. Again though, this is not the place to discuss this though. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hatting heat > light
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment the sheer ignorance of people attempting to compare this commmonplace event in the good ol' US of A (33rd mass shooting of 2023) with a sports event which is on the ITNR listings is a clear demonstration that we should probably seek a minimum threshold of WP:CIR for people who "vote" here. Ridiculous. Once again we have yet another shooting in the US which amounts to nothing, will come to nothing, achieves nothing, "thoughts and prayers" and all that kind of crap, yet because we're 60% yank, we feel obliged to post this kind of crap non-story, week in, week out. Boring, useless, not even encyclopaedic. "Man in country full of guns uses gun to kill to kill other people with loads of guns". Derisory. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I see you took WaltCip's admonition to heart. (sarcasm) Don't be rude or insult people by saying they're not competent to vote here. This was exactly what WaltCip was warning all of us about. Anyway, no, mass shootings that kill 10+ people are not "commonplace" in the US, even if they do take place far more often than they should. The last mass shooting that took place in the US that was posted here was Uvalde, and the last mass shooting that killed more than 10 people in the US was also Uvalde. That there were 32 other mass shootings in the US this year is irrelevant, we didn't post them and no one proposed to post them, because they were not notable enough for ITN. This isn't a "non-story", and I'm tired of these false comparisons. --RockstoneSend me a message! 23:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest you take a break. The very fact you're telling me "the last mass shooting that killed X" is the very reason it's a non-story. Get a grip Rockstone, you need to grow up and stop trying to convert this Wikipedia to US-shooting-events-pedia. It's grim reading every time some nutbar in the States uses his second amendment rights to shoot up a load of people. Thank goodness this time it wasn't kids. But all we do when we publicise this crap is encourage more stupidity from gun-wielding maniacs who have the blessing you lot. Weird, but not encyclopedic, not enduring, just sadly tragic. One day you'll realise that. The rest of the world looks on in total abject pity for your situation. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever the Olde Englishe means it doesn't include murder. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, you have GOP "elected representatives" in Amurica saying "If you hear Democrats fantasizing about banning a specific type of firearm, run to your nearest gun show and buy one to find out what they don’t want you to own." That's enough. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe WP:NOTFORUM applies to this page, kindly stop abusing the purpose of Wikipedia. Thanks in advance. nableezy - 00:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, so stop trying to justify this kind of non-story. So a few more people have been shot to death in America, it's not encyclopedic in any sense. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No your opinions on American politics are of no relevance to literally anything about this page, and of interest to likely nobody else on this page. Your dismissal of ten people being killed would, in any sane administration, get the same treatment something like this eventually got. But youre too popular here for that to ever happen, at least among a cohort of old-timers, and you know that, so you abuse this page with impunity. Toodles, nableezy - 00:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TRM Comments like this are what make it obvious to most people that you have only a thin veneer of actual sympathy for victims of gun violence, and mostly just seem to enjoy using our tragedy as a fun little bludgeon against your wiki-enemies. So fuck clean off with your fake fucking sympathy and 'outrage', from the people who actually have to live with the horror of having loved ones die to this, and do their best to stop it from happening again. I've read too many of these snide little comments to let this one slide. The deaths of our family members might be a fun little game to you to hit back at all the people who annoy you here, but they're real to us. Parabolist (talk) 07:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So much for civility. Also try WP:AGF. Effy Midwinter (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, we entered into WP:PACT territory somewhere in the last dozen times he made these sort of snide, gross "Oh, are the little Amurricans shooting each other again? Yawn. It's your own fault, you know." whenever a tragedy like this occurs. I'm done. Parabolist (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're strange Parabolist. This isn't a forum for you to berate me about my personal feelings of gun violence. In civilised countries, we have had outrageous gun crimes, and then we fix the situation. In the US, there are multiple outrageous gun crimes every day, week, month, year. Nothing changes there. I have sympathy for the dead and their families, but the abject stupidity and "thoughts and prayers" bullshit means we're all somewhat done with "gun crime" blurbs in an encyclopedia. This isn't US Wikipedia, this isn't guncrime Wikipedia. Y'all object to a bomb killing a few dozen Afghans but hell, if a dozen Americans get shot, it's *so important*. Get a grip, wake up. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a forum for you to share your personal feelings about gun violence. Im glad you recognize your earlier thoughts and prayers was bullshit though. nableezy - 23:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Rambling Man Did you ever stop to think why I may have taken your repeated, years long disgusting posturing so personally, before responding by once again claiming your bizarre higher ground. I'm responsible for bombing Afghans now? I'm not sure you want to really start adding up historical war crimes. My point is that people on this website have skin in the game, and while it's fine to oppose this on notability grounds, to take the tactic and make the comments you have is gross, puerile, and unbefitting of anyone outside of a child. So go ahead, lay the blood of a dead loved one at my doorstep, I'm led to understand someone was rude to you about your rowing article. You deserve to let off steam. Finally, I think the world has enough of the British calling other countries "less civilized" for a lifetime. Parabolist (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And yet we don't post shootings for some countries where hundreds are dead. Nfitz (talk) 04:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Celaya massacre and Vila Cruzeiro shootout for 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.163.242.208 (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Celaya massacre would have had trouble getting posted as it is a stub. Vila Cruzeiro shootout could have been posted based on length and quality (based on a quick glance). The problem is that I see that neither of them were nominated. This is a problem related to systemic bias and I do not know if they would have been posted if they were nominated (and in Celaya massacre's case, nominated and expanded). But I probably would have supported them both. We need more nominations for articles like these. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't see why being commonplace or routine is a reason not to post mass shootings. Sporting events are also routine, yet we post many of them on a recurring basis, some of them annually such as the Super Bowl, NBA Finals, and Premier League. Sure, the result might not be known ahead of time, but the location and time of a mass shooting is also not known ahead of time. Mass shootings that kill 10+ people happen on average once or twice a year; if we think that the topic of mass shootings in general is as important and newsworthy as 1-2 domestic sports leagues, then we should be posting routine mass shootings. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There were shootings last year where over 100 were shot - and not all were even ITN. Let alone small shootings like this, User:King of Hearts. I'm not sure why you claim that shootings that kill 10+ only happen once or twice a year! Once again, this nomination is highly centred around a single country. Nfitz (talk) 04:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because 1) Shootings that kill 10+ in the US DO only happen once or twice a year. 2)"Please do not oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive." --RockstoneSend me a message! 04:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two in 2022, two in 2021 (6 over 7!), three in 2019 (18 over 5!) - some of which got posted, 4 in 2018. Not surprisingly, 2020 was down because of the Covid restrictions, etc. I really don't think two to four postings a year from a single country is necessary. The issue isn't me, the issue is that frequent, and expected, events shouldn't be here, unless there's some other factor (such as a hate crime). And it's really not about 10, per se, we've posted a lot lower than that, for that country. Nfitz (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through last year's ITN/C archives, and could not find any nomination of a shooting with 100+ deaths. I did find Izhevsk school shooting (18 deaths) and Las Tinajas massacre (20 deaths), which failed to be posted due to quality and then staleness. But failing to get posted for reasons other than significance does not say anything about our threshold for significance; I don't see any opposition on those two candidates on the basis of significance. We did, however, post 2022 Buffalo shooting (10 deaths); I think 10 is a good cutoff since otherwise we're just randomly crystal-balling about "lasting impact" when often that is not apparent in the week immediately following the event. As for as my aggregate statistics, I could not find a global list of mass shootings, so I was going off of List of mass shootings in the United States. But I think it is fair to compare a single-country mass shooting list to the domestic leagues of that country (especially for a sport played almost exclusively in that one country). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even worse that some of the 100+ weren't nominated! Surely that goes even further to my position that nominations are unnecessarily American-centric.But hang on User:King of Hearts, the 400+ person [[WP:In the news/Candidates/June 2022#Gimbi massacre] was nominated - there was ZERO support, and little interest (admittedly it was only 200+ at the time); it's not like it was a stub! The 130+ 2022 Bankass massacres weren't nominated, but were mentioned in opposition to WP:In_the_news/Candidates/June_2022#(Posted) 2022 Oslo shootings, where a killing of TWO white people people was posted! We have huge WP:BIAS issues here. Nfitz (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, no one opposed over significance. Why did you not support the Gimbi massacre / nominate the Bankass massacres when you had the chance? In any case, while we definitely have a Western bias from a global perspective, we also have an anti-American bias from a Western perspective. There's no chance a shooting of 2 people in the US could possibly be posted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is that an appropriate question, User:King of Hearts? If you must know, if you look at my editing history, there's a 10-day or so gap during the time Gimbi was posted. I had Covid, which caused a blood clot in my leg, and wasn't doing much of anything! Also, I don't do nominations ... it's just not my thing. Though I'll certainly add to a deficient article. Nfitz (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above Editor 5426387 (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Error I just took another look at the article and noticed an immediate WP:REDFLAG, "It is the deadliest mass shooting in the history of Los Angeles County". It then took little time to find a counter-example: the Los Angeles Chinese massacre of 1871 in which 11+ Chinese were shot to death and then lynched. I'm not planning to join the scrum of editors jostling over the article but give it here as an example of the quality issues you can expect with breaking news based on journalism. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been removed. And old pages have errors too, and likely even new pages that you've supported. Yes, surprising. —Bagumba (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I say this every time, I am utterly saddened by the loss of life here and the trauma for friends and family that follow that. But that doesn't mask the fact that shootings in the US are routine, and will seemingly remain so until someone gets a proper hold of the gun issues. There are too many of these per year to post them all, and this one is only really separated from others by a slightly higher death count.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I really have to push back on this routine argument. Some deadly shootings in the United States are routine. Indiscriminate mass killings are very much not routine in the United States. Mass shootings involving gangs and families, yes, that happens on such a regular basis that it would overwhelm ITN to post them. But mass indiscriminate killings by guns are not routine in the United States. And the mantra that they are is false. nableezy - 17:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This shooting was not indiscriminate as it seems that the culprit had a long history of attending this place and was known for his hostile attitude to others there. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just mean the person shooting did not know his victims. Most shootings in the US are carried out by family and acquaintances. These public mass shootings of strangers are not routine. And that is why they are so widely covered when they happen. nableezy - 17:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They are widely covered because, well of course they are. And such shootings are routine when compared to the rest of the world, bar possibly a few countries involved in serious political violence. There were eight such events with a death toll of 5 or more where the shooter did not know their victims in 2022, for example. Black Kite (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Take out the gang violence ones as well, those never get this wall to wall coverage. But the others, Buffalo, Uvalde, Highland Park, and Colorado Springs all merited posting IMO. Sure, routine compared to the rest of the world, but I didnt know that was the yardstick to measure by. We have users saying this is the 30th this year, and that is just not true. 4 in a year is not routine IMO, and the argument that by including four blurbs about mass killings would turn ITN in to a crime blotter for a gun obsessed nation is likewise not true. nableezy - 19:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't say that 30 is correct or not, but the problem is the "mass" part of a "mass shooting" is nebulous in definition. I'm guessing that the low bar being used here is 2, but either way there is an issue with a sentiment that seems to be present that because some number of people are killed in shootings with frequency that any number of deaths in one does not matter. I can understand one desiring a number beyond 11 to consider the shooting ITN-worthy, but it seems like some have chosen to unilaterally oppose any such nom. DarkSide830 (talk) 06:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Its correct for all shootings that have more than 3 injuries and/or deaths. But the overwhelming majority of those are cases where the shooter knows their victims, either family, friends, co-workers, and gang violence. Those are absolutely common. Chicago, a city I love deeply, had 24 mass shootings in the first 7 months of 2022. Twelve people were killed in those 24 shootings. Mostly as a result of gang violence on the south and west sides of the city. Those are unfortunately extremely common. A little less than once a week in a single city is definitely routine. Highland Park had one. And one person killed eight strangers at a July 4th parade there. Uvalde had one, a school massacre of 22 people. That is not common. It is not common anywhere in the United States for multiple random people to be shot and killed by a stranger. Even in Chicago. nableezy - 15:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very significant due to the loss of life and the time and place in which it happened - a state holiday in California. Might as well replace the plane crash article with this, that happened a week ago now and there's been no new developments. Flyingfishee (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose per Nfitz. I was previously of the mindset of avoiding a direct vote on this one as I prefer to with events like this, but Nfitz did raise an important point about inconsistency in posting certain loss-of-life events (in particular ones that could roughly be described as "killings"). 10 deaths in a shooting is far from "routine" in a shooting even in the US, but it seems this event is dwarfed by countless other such events that happen elsewhere in the world. If we want to counter bias in ITN, recognizing this is a good way to start. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it looks like there is consensus to post --RockstoneSend me a message! 19:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it looks like there is no consensus to post. Ericoides (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb 2 per Vida0007. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - was on the fence about this, and if there had been some evidence of a hate crime then I would have supported, but from what the mayor has said I dont see it here. I dont think the opposes that resemble "boo hoo another American gun killing" should be taken into account here, but I dont think this goes past somewhat notable crime to ITN blurb worthy. nableezy - 20:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The 2023 Beninese parliamentary election has been on ITN for a while & is starting to get crusty. This can replace that. Silent-Rains (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as this is a result of a systemic deficiency. In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally protected, with only Mexico and Guatemala being in the same boat, so the criteria applied for shootings anywhere else don’t apply to this case. Yes, it’s sad to read that human lives were lost in such incidents, but there’s no excuse when the authorities pave the way for that to happen. Some may argue that it’s difficult to exert constitutional changes, but that shouldn’t be a problem for a country that pretends to be a democracy. Those that could change the constitution are people voted by the electorate in a fair and free election. The indolence of those people to make a change that would save human lives indicates that: 1) most of the people are fine with the status quo, 2) most representatives weigh human lives below the profitability of gun-producing companies, or 3) there is a clear lack of democratic capacity in the country’s institutions to solve a basic problem. However vocal a bunch of Wikipedians may be that all this is tragic and something must be done, they don’t seem to form a representative sample.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the exact type of comment that should be dismissed with prejudice. Nobody cares about your view on if the United States pretends to be a democracy, or your view on if the profitability of gun companies is given greater weight than human lives. The vocal bunch of Wikipedians are the Europeans (no strangers to violence lol) tut-tutting with their air of superiority. I might as well oppose the Ukraine War being in ongoing because European nations slaughtering each other's civilians is routine. nableezy - 20:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think this is a real problem, you should try hard to find a solution. Seeing this posted on the English Wikipedia’s main page will hardly make any difference. In most European countries, if you’re caught possessing a gun without a licence, you’ll most likely get imprisoned, not to speak about protecting that right by constitution. That’s the reason why such incidents are rare. You can try to make this notable as much as you want, but this isn’t a natural disaster that comes totally unexpectedly with huge casualties. It’s merely a consequence of a repeated human error.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You have no earthly idea what I do in my life, and you have the purpose of Wikipedia severely misconstrued in your head. This is not a project to promote whatever cause, be it pro-choice or pro-life, gun control vs a freedom to bear arms, or any other topic you can dream up. Your comments here are a blatant violation of WP:NOTFORUM and should be ignored by any closer, and if they continue you should be brought to ANI and be blocked from this page. Of all the things I do not care about about, your views on American politics is at the top of the list. nableezy - 21:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. If you feel so inclined, report me and block me, but please don’t threaten me. At least, this is a civil society.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This violates WP:NOTFORUM. It should be struck and ignored by whomever determines consensus. Kiril: no one cares about your opinion, it's irrelevant to whether this should be blurbed. --RockstoneSend me a message! 22:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rockstone35: I’ve stricken the part that seemed to violate WP:NOTFORUM. The remainder is a clear fact used as an argument to support my vote.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kiril Simeonovski: Thank you! Now that argument (though I disagree with it) no longer is just a polemic. --RockstoneSend me a message! 23:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose This is a sad event that should be condemned, and as an Indonesian of Chinese descent, or Chinese-Indonesian, this is a black mark in what should have been a time for celebration. Personally, I found out about this event just after the end of celebrations with my family in Indonesia, and I was shocked to hear the news. Despite this, I concur with DarkSide830 regarding mass shootings outside US, which would be a good start. MarioJump83 (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: the onion has republished its 'No Way To Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens article, suggesting that this may not be a run-of-the-mill event. dying (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Juxlos: FYI. You were asking about this earlier. —Bagumba (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Aware, see the other shooting subsection. Juxlos (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Eleven people dead in a shooting not related to gang violence or war-like conditions merits posting, no matter the country and no matter the politics of that country. Khuft (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support US mass shootings with a two-digit death toll happen roughly 1-3 times a year per List of mass shootings in the United States. While it is sick, for ITN purpose I do not consider this too frequent, even 3 times a year - they are typically several months apart and receive enough editor attention for postable shape. Another thing is that by underreporting US mass shootings we're effectively playing into hands of US gun lobby. It is by consistent reporting of such high-casualty shootings that we as an encyclopedia can show the true nature of this problem and perhaps contribute to its solution in the future. Brandmeistertalk 21:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't worrying about playing into the US gun lobby be bias? It's not our job to the morality police. Nfitz (talk)
  • A lot of these votes (like the one below me) don't actually add anything useful to the discussion, either. Whoever is going to close this, I really hope you will discount the !opposes who don't add anything useful to the conversation (or even worse, make the environment here in ITN even more inhospitable). --RockstoneSend me a message! 06:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, WP:PERX has been mentioned before:

    Comments adding nothing but a statement of support to a prior comment add little to the discussion (and are a form of § I like it, just directed at someone's vote instead of the article itself). Participants are always encouraged to provide evidence or arguments that are grounded in policy, practice, or simple good sense to support their positions.

    —Bagumba (talk) 07:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what the "unique circumstances" have got to do with anything. There are always going to be unique circumstances with any event. The next US massacre, the 2023 Half Moon Bay shootings, took place at a mushroom farm. That's unique too, as far as I know. Ericoides (talk) 07:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Judge each one on its own merits. Someone saying it's the 33rd mass shooting doesn't say anything about this specific one, and hints of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Bagumba (talk) 08:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per The Rambling Man. TheScrubby (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I would support this article being mentioned for ITN on the grounds that the article get expanded which means waiting until new information gets out over a day or two. Given that there was another mass shooting within two days. I'd suggest mentioning both incidents.
--Birdienest81talk 09:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Tone gave me permission to revert the closure. --RockstoneSend me a message! 09:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not let things take their course? You seem determined to insist there is a consensus for support when as I and others have pointed out, no such thing exists. Half of your comments on here at least are of the form, "What I want to happen simply has got to happen"! Ericoides (talk) 10:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not like they went and directly filed at Wikipedia:Administrator review. They asked the closer, and they agreed. This is running its course. —Bagumba (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. 12 deaths is well-within the so-called "WP:MINIMUMDEATHS" discretionary zone. The circumstances here (Lunar New Year, multiple locations, public reaction, international reaction) would push it over the edge in my opinion. There's also the possiblity of having a combined blurb with the Half Moon Bay shooting in the same state since reliable sources are making that connection. The oppose !votes about this just being another mass shooting are missing the difference in scale between this and most mass shootings. Per List of mass shootings in the United States,1-2 occur daily, but since 2000 there have only been 26 shootings with 10+ fatalities, (21 if excluding perpetrators), or about 1-2 a year. The oppose !votes that mention how similar or worse events in other countries dont't get blurbed, do have a point, but the issue there typically isn't a different standard, but systemic issues around a lack of nominations, familiarity with non-English sources, and prompt updates, not with ITN !voters. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 10:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The above discussion on the Half Moon Bay shooting has developed into a situation where most (more like all) !voters oppose the posting of that event on its own, but some are willing to support a blurb which combines that shooting and this one. Accordingly, I move my above oppose !vote into the support combined blurb column. I suggest re-closing this discussion, as it's pretty clear that consensus seems currently difficult to develop, and users who supported this nomination, or would support a combined blurb, would be able to express their opinion on the above discussion. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 12:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Unfortunately the shooting nominated above seems to defeat the argument made by some that these kinds of shootings really aren't that common at all in the U.S. YD407OTZ (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're in a desert and it rains two days in a row, would you conclude that it's not a desert? Levivich (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Arguably the most misguided attempt to post mass shooting blurbs I've ever seen. American mass shootings is not equivalent to rain in a desert, and the likelihood of people owning guns and shooting other people in America is known to be off the charts high since hundreds of mass shootings occur in that country every year. Levivich, you've destroyed any kind of standing you had here with such a stupid comparison. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you get 1-2 hurricanes per year and a steady drizzle ever single day, then yeah. YD407OTZ (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The shooting nominated above is nothing like this. You only get these ignorant arguments about commonality if you ignore what actually happened. The shooting above is a case of workplace violence. That is common. That is not the same as this one. nableezy - 19:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing much difference between shooting up the place you work, compared to shooting up the place you frequently dance, User:Nableezy. Both are non-random. Both are personal. Both would be mental illness (surely). Both involved guns. Both were in the same state. What are you seeing as the big difference? Nfitz (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The targets are not random at work, the person doing the shooting knew his victims. If the person who killed 11 people at the dance hall knew his victims then Id say that would fall under the more common bucket of murders we have in the US. I wish that hadnt been nominated tbh, because even though I weakly opposed this nom I think nominating what actually is fairly commonplace gave the "this is routine" crowd a leg to stand on. But mass murders of multiple strangers is still not common or routine in the United States. Half Moon Bay is not that. There were 17,865 workers killed in a workplace homicide in the US between 1992 and 2019. More than one a day over the span of decades is indeed routine. nableezy - 23:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 21

January 21, 2023 (2023-01-21) (Saturday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Simon Dunn

Article: Simon Dunn (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): sports.yahoo.com, starobserver.com.au
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Australian bobsledder and amateur rugby player; first gay male to represent a country in bobsled. Happily888 (talk) 06:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 20

January 20, 2023 (2023-01-20) (Friday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Sports

Trinidad and Tobago's new President

Proposed image
Article: Christine Kangaloo (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Christine Kangaloo is elected as Trinidad and Tobago's new President (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Christine Kangaloo is elected as President of Trinidad and Tobago
Alternative blurb II: ​ Christine Kangaloo (pictured) is elected by the Parliament as the new President of Trinidad and Tobago
Alternative blurb III: ​ In Trinidad and Tobago, Christine Kangaloo is elected president by the Parliament.
News source(s): Trinidad and Tobago Guardian, White House, Loop
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Currently the pictured news story on French Wikipedia 744cody (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose on quality, very weak support on notability. Target articles are stubs, I can semi-justify supporting on notability due to precedence but the President appears to only have very nominal/symbolic powers. The Kip (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Kip. I would fully support if we had a quality article to highlight on the main page. The current article on the new President is shockingly light on details for someone who is the head of state of an independent nation, and the election article is similarly light on prose. If we want to post either article on the main page, some major work on expanding the articles is called for. --Jayron32 19:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Currently 1641 B readable prose size, but most of the body is more or less repeated text from the lead.—Bagumba (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to support but it really is like 800 characters of prose repeated twice as Bagumba points out. If it had twice as much well-cited prose, I'd support. Levivich (talk) 05:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Clytus Gottwald

Article: Clytus Gottwald (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): SWR
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Influential German composer and choral conductor. Refs needed update. Death known 20 Jan. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Gwen Knapp

Article: Gwen Knapp (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Award-winning American sports columnist, frequently cited by peers at other media outlets, ~40-year career as journalist Cielquiparle (talk) 10:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Stella Chiweshe

Article: Stella Chiweshe (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [9]
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Chiweshe is an internationally known Zimbabwean mbira player. Also this is my first ITN nomination, so apologies if I have done it not quite right. Lajmmoore (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for nominating this. I learned about the mbira when I visited Zimbabwe! The article is good, too (I think). -TenorTwelve (talk) 07:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Sal Bando

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

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

Nominator's comments: Just announced, so not ready yet, but I'll get it ready this weekend. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Nano Riantiarno

Article: Nano Riantiarno (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Jakarta Post
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Indonesian actor, director, and playwright Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 01:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Harunata

Article: Harunata (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): RMOL
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Former head of Lahat and bureaucrat in the ministry of home affairs. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 00:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing removal: Peruvian protests

Consensus to remove seems unlikely to develop. NoahTalk 03:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

Article: 2022-2023 Peruvian political protests (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)
Nominator's comments: I don't think the updates are frequent or substantive enough to merit continued inclusion in the Ongoing section. Even the more significant edits are mostly about "sideline" issues and not the protests themselves. Plus, coverage of the protests, while still present, has decreased. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 14:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Unlike the Mahsa Amini protests, these are definitely still occuring in a large scale. As Curbon pointed out, yesterday alone there was a 10,000-strong protest. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The linked article has covered events from nearly every day in the past week. That's literally a textbook definition of an article that qualifies for an "ongoing" link. --Jayron32 19:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It’s still definitely a large thing going on, many media outlets still covering it, and still large scenes of the protest, unlike the Mahsa Amini protests. Vriend1917 (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) Brahim Ghali re-elected

Proposed image
Article: 16th Congress of the POLISARIO Front (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The 16th Congress of the POLISARIO Front concludes with the re-election of Brahim Ghali as Secretary-General of the POLISARIO Front and President of the SADR in the first competitive race in the history of the SADR. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the 16th Congress of the POLISARIO Front, Brahim Ghali is re-elected as Secretary General of the POLISARIO Front and President of the SADR in the first competitive race in the history of the SADR.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Brahim Ghali is re-elected as Secretary General of the POLISARIO Front and President of the SADR in the first competitive election in the history of the SADR.
News source(s): Sahrawi Press Service, RTVE, El País
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Updated blurb as the Congress has finished, I consider that it's relevant enough for Wikipedia to have in its main as its the re-election in a competitive race of the President of the SADR, a state recognised by 45 country (including two of its neighbours) and with the POLISARIO Front considered as the legitimate representative of the Sahrawi people as per UN resolutions. Tidjani Saleh (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tidjani Saleh (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC) (updated)[reply]

  • Oppose: no significance even in the region this territory is situated. We need to stop prioritizing political articles over all other classes of articles. Colipon+(Talk) 02:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How does it not have significance in the region the territory is situated in? Tidjani Saleh (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This has some significance in Western Sahara itself, but this was not even a top-10 news story in, say, Tunisia, when it happened. It has very limited impact. Colipon+(Talk) 15:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The Congress didn't happen in Tunisia, but in the Sahrawi refugee camps in Algeria, where they've been the top story in Sahrawi press (see ECSaharaui or the Sahrawi Press Service. As linked, it was mentioned and covered by the press of other neighbouring countries.
    I think that POLISARIO getting a competitive race in the middle of a war and it having a mandate to further escalate the war is relevant enough. Maybe not in your home region, but it does affect the Maghreb region and recently Morocco-EU relations. Tidjani Saleh (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as said by @Colipon Vriend1917 (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose That Polisario Front is something I've never heard exists. As such, it might be important for others in my boat to read. But the lack of citations could mean we're all learning a bunch of bullshit. Fix those up and we'll see. But it's not going to be easy. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You not hearing about it doesn't mean it's less important. Wikipedia is currently showing elections in Antigua and Barbuda and Benin, why not one in Western Sahara especially when it has done a significant change for the political situation of said country? Tidjani Saleh (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say it was less important than anything, I said it seemed interesting and needs more citations for verification. Antigua and Barbuda's elections made for the most boring story I've ever read, but the article didn't have an orange tag. Orange means bad, so far as educational values go. Anyway, can you elaborate on this "significant change for the political situation"? It seems vague. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1. What do you exactly mean by orange tag in this context?
    2. The Congress has given a mandate to the newly-elected president to "intensify the armed struggle" (unprecedented language since 1991) in the first Congress after the ceasefire was broken in Western Sahara in 2020, apart from being a competitive race for the first time ever in the country (the president also got the lowest score ever obtained by a winner).
    3. The Congress has got decent coverage in Western Sahara, Morocco (which is far from friendly towards Polisario), Algeria, Spain and Mauritania. It has also been covered by big-sized African media such as Jeune Afrique or Africanews and bigger international one such as RFI or EFE. Tidjani Saleh (talk) 04:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll need some time to wrap my head around that. Meanwhile, the orange tag is the box before the article starts, saying "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." It's not a good sign. It's also not technically the target article, which seems to work as a loophole sometimes. Good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that orange box in this article, and I've got it for others ^^ Tidjani Saleh (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd linked the article I'm talking about above, but it was easy to miss. Polisario Front. Can't miss it. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the article I want to be nominated isn't Polisario Front (which will never get rid of that due to the constant Moroccan vs Sahrawi edit wars), but the 16th Congress of the POLISARIO Front. Polisario has enough literature to write books about it (I already have some in my shelves) and it's a national liberation movement that's recognised by the UN. Tidjani Saleh (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, intentionally or not, you've proposed two blurbs containing a link to that article. If it wasn't central to understanding what Brahim Ghali did here, I'd say just unlink it. But people who don't know the bookshelves you do are probably going to want that for background first. This nom is doomed, I think, though it was nice meeting you and opening my eyes to a world I've mostly just thought of as sand till now. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, fair enough, POLISARIO Front being linked isn't necessary for the blurb. I get the "Western Sahara is just empty sand", but if it was only that then it wouldn't be at the centre of who knows how many diplomatic crisis between Morocco and X countries. Tidjani Saleh (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I'm very conflicted on this story. On one hand, I think an election for a head of state is notable, but on the other hand, this is a partially recognised state which doesn't get too much coverage. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has got decent coverage in Sahrawi, Spanish, Moroccan, Algerian, Mauritanian and pan-African media, apart from being carried by press agencies such as RFI. I do think it's a bit more relevant than the Antiguan election tbf ^^ Tidjani Saleh (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Weak Support, I guess there's a good argument for notability here. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should WP:ITN/R exclude elections entirely?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • The ITN/R on elections of heads of state never had consensus and I do not regard it as legitimate. Why are we always prioritizing heads of state and heads of government? A CEO leaving one of the top American tech firms is probably more consequential (and newsworthy) than a change of government in most of the world's sovereign states, let alone a mere continuation of a specific incumbent. Why do we prize political leaders more than other subjects? I don't get it. Colipon+(Talk) 15:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      If you feel the heads of state ITNR is illegitimate, please start a discussion on WT:ITN to remove and/or validate it. But until that happens, we assume that that ITNR is legitimate. Masem (t) 15:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      With respect, can you please find me the diffs or collective discussion where it was originally established as consensus that head of state/government changes and elections in all sovereign states automatically qualify as ITN/R? I have attempted to find this myself many times but could not find in our archives. For such an important rule there should at least be a paper trail on how the rule was first established. Colipon+(Talk) 15:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      As a sign of my goodwill, linking you to my original good faith efforts at reaching consensus with other editors from ten years ago. I spent an untold amount of time attempting to 'reform' this framework back in the day. :) Colipon+(Talk) 16:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That there was no resulting consensus either way from that discussion implies that the status quo (that is, keeping the ITNR item on elections) should remain. I agree that there was probably no RFC-type consensus where it was originally added to the list - several of ITNR items are like this - so it is fair to ask the simple question "Is there support for the election allowance on ITNR?" as to remove it. If that has consensus, then elections would be removed. If not, then that RFC would likely be established as the reference discussion for including elections. That's how we've been handling other ITNRs that have no clear discussion where they were allowed but have been on the list seemingly forever. Masem (t) 20:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I suppose whether you subscribe to the logic of "this was not clearly overturned in previous discussion so it remains part of ITNR" vs. "this was never clearly established as consensus in the first place so the rule itself is illegitimate" is honestly a matter of interpretation and personal preference. I'm not going to insist I am right, only that I hold this view myself and have good reason for it. Colipon+(Talk) 21:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Hear, hear. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I'm making no judgement as to whether this is ITN/R or not - it seems highly newsworthy in its own right. And if edit-warring around SADR topics means they're always flagged, and that means they can't be bold links on the homepage, doesn't that worsen our systemic bias? GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are plenty of articles about all manner of people and things, from all walks of life, that don't let edit warring stand in the way of citing paragraphs at least once at the end. Two entirely distinct core policy issues. Since yesterday, I sympathize with these rebels' plight more than ever, but we're not about to start holding the Polisario Front's en.wiki article to a different quality standard than David Crosby or Gina Lollobrigida's simply because they've had a harder time finding acceptance in the wider Western zeitgeist. Get good, all articles what dare enter here! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose SADR/Polisario Front is an ethnic liberation movement that controls less <25% of the territory they claim - the majority of the land they claim is governed by Morocco. Additionally, SADR is a government in exile based out of Algeria, and this election took place in a refugee camp in Algeria. I do not think this counts as ITN-worthy for two reasons:
1. Whether or not Ghali is a head of state is contentious, but he is definitely the leader of a nationalist/separatist movement, and to the best of my knowledge ITN has never before posted change of leadership (or re-election) for a nationalist/separatist movement.
2. The situation in Western Sahara is far too complicated to sum up in 1-2 sentences. I don't think either of the blurbs fully cover the situation, as they both exclude SADR's status as a government in exile and the location of the voting in Algeria. The page for the 16th Congress needs significant expansion and improvement in order to provide adequate context. e.b. (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is the head of a state that's internationally recognised by at least 45 countries and the African Union. The article covers both concerns you said about the government-in-exile and the vote being held in Algeria (and it being a first provoked by the war, as they're usually held in Tifariti). Tidjani Saleh (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For the reasons laid out by Ebacas. I think for a state like Somaliland or Abkhazia or Northern Cyprus (i.e. stable, self-governing, controls the vast majority of their claimed territory), it is generally ok to post ITN/R elections. However, the situation is so complex in Western Sahara and the SADR controls such a little portion of territory. Curbon7 (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moving to support. After mulling it over, exceptions beget exceptions and could become a slippery slope. As this is on the list of sovereign states, even if it only controls a portion of its claimed territory, it is ITN/R. Curbon7 (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The List of current heads of state and government does not differentiate by amount of territory controlled. It classifies Western Sahara as one of the states that "control at least part of their territory and are recognised by at least one UN member state". Joofjoof (talk) 10:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if Western Sahara was as recognized as South Africa (or pick one), this wouldn't be an ITN/R nomination. There was no change in leadership or general election. A Secretary General election isn't close enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Constitution of the SADR stipulates that the president is whoever is elected General-Secretary by the Congress of the POLISARIO Front. The Congress includes representatives directly elected by the population of the refugee camps the SADR administers and representatives of the army, diaspora and occupied territories. I didn't add the full origin due to POLISARIO's reticency to give detailed numbers of where they come from but I will add this information to the article if that helps.
    TL;DR: This counts as a general election as it renews indirectly (and democratically) the top leadership of the SADR and it's relevant enough due to it being competitive and not consensus-driven as previous elections. Tidjani Saleh (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You may be right. Wikipedia's article on general election describes different deals from this, but is also almost exclusively focused on the US and UK. It's probably missing something very relevant to this political situation. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In this political situation it is, as the Congress determines a broad main line of action SADR politicians cannot change until the next Congress. For example, this Congress demands more military action and the SADR will have to provide that or else they won't be reelected in the next Congress due to failing to answer to the priorities set by the national liberation movement (not a party). Tidjani Saleh (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ITNR already covers a lot of ground for elections and there is a reason states with limited recognition are not included therein and have not been posted including the recent Northern Cyprus, Hong Kong et al etlections. Gotitbro (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The way I see it, we have a real serious grey area here in regards to if partially-recognized states are eligible for the INT/R elections item. To me, I don't see any good way to fix the problem, in large part due to the status of the ROC, which is largely recognized and agreed as an item for posting by the editing base here, but from what I can see is only recognized by 13 UN member states (many of them regional allies). By contrast, the SADR is recognized by 45 UN members. Taiwan's position as an item of desire by the CPC may elevate it here in regards to international attention, but I believe it stands to reason that the SADR's elections should land in the same bin as far as notability. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Wikipedia editors dont determine what is a state, other states do that, as this is a state that has won some recognition as a state and since it does control some territory, this qualifies as ITNR and should be posted. nableezy - 03:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, without a general election or change in leader, the Polisario Front could control the entire galaxy and still be ineligible for the R boost here. If you want to support it, fine. But it needs to be because you think it's the right thing to post. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why did we post Xi Jinping? That was not a general election and the post did not change hands. I dont think the only thing we should be blurbing is when Western style democracies have an election, that just reeks of systemic bias. "Our" way is the only way we recognize, the end. nableezy - 17:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If I recall correctly, Xi was posted due to being the first Chinese leader to serve three terms. If it’d been his second it probably would’ve been ignored. The Kip (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case this is the first competitive election ever held for the office, which I deem as post-worthy. Tidjani Saleh (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem then is that when ITN posts worthy competitions, it's naturally in the style of x beating y in the z. In this case, y equals Bachir Mustafa Sayed. I don't remember ever seeing a redlink on the mainpage, but someone here longer than I might correct me. If you hurry, you can create a new biography for this gamechanging challenger. But it won't be easy. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is WP:ITN/R, per elections bullet point 1, because the country appears in the List of sovereign states. ITN/R does not tell us to only consider states in the top part of the sovereign states list. And yes, it also has a clause later on about dependent territories and disputed countries, but that does not say it overrides bullet point 1, it would merely cover cases not already covered by bullet point 1. If editors wish to change what's ITN/R they should do so at the talk page, not by opposing individual noms.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support – Article looks a bit messy, but I've seen worse posted. Western Sahara is likely the country most strongly on the ITN/R edge, but in the spirit of the guideline and this quite competitive election I would definitely include this. I'm still a bit concerned about the article's quality... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it's a bit hard to explain the very complex situations so I'm doing my best to better explain it :) Tidjani Saleh (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit: the very complex situation of Western Sahara and its politics* Tidjani Saleh (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No prose summary of the election and its results. Would support if someone fixed that. --Jayron32 14:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can add that, should I add it in results or aftermath? Tidjani Saleh (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. It is definitely something interesting since their leader got elected by less 70% Braganza (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Theoretically support since this seems important enough to post, but weak oppose on quality due to the lack of a prose summary for the election results (the article’s quality is good enough otherwise). Support Now, that there's a prose summary, I think it's important enough & good enough to post. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean exactly? I'm currently expanding the article with stuff such as international delegations/reactions and results for the National Secretariat (with the vague information we're getting), so I don't mind adding more text :) Tidjani Saleh (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tidjani Saleh: The prose summary I added to the "General-Secretary" section was what I thought needed to be added. I think it's now good enough to post. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yeah, that looks great, thank you! Tidjani Saleh (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I reworded that a bit if that's alright :) Tidjani Saleh (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks good. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I largely echo the comments of Nableezy and Braganza, this seems like a significant election in the region at a point which has the potential to have major consequences. SADR is recognised by quite a large group of countries from my understanding as well. Quinby (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - it's on List of sovereign states, so it's ITNR, and the article quality is more than sufficient. Levivich (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Rough consensus to post. A couple of the opposes were due to quality, which no longer appears to be a concern. Tangentially, the point about WP:ITNR being met was not rebutted, yet another path to posting. I didn't include the "the first competitive" portion to the blurb, as "competitive" was not directly worded as such on the page, and the word is a bit ambiguous when the vote was also 69–31. Feel free to discuss the point, if needed.—Bagumba (talk) 09:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there'll be time before archiving. I've been wrong before, though. In the meantime, can you replace Chris Hipkins' photo? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Switched. It wasn't protected yet when the blurb was posted. —Bagumba (talk) 13:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I'd still add competitive but I thought that "For the first time ever, the candidate for general-secretary wasn't agreed on before the Congress" made it clear enough ^^. I will reword it in the article if that's alright, in that case you can feel free (or not) to update it! @Bagumba Tidjani Saleh (talk) 11:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Changes done, should be clearer now :) Tidjani Saleh (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    actually, my biggest concern with "competitive" in the blurb was that 69–31 wasn't very close (i.e. competitive), as opposed to the intended meaning that there was another candidate. —Bagumba (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, fair enough. Tidjani Saleh (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull. Not of global significance, and does not qualify from a WP:ITN/R perspective. Much like Somaliland elections, these aren't the sorts of elections that belong on the main page; merely being a representative of a Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization group does not qualify one for the main page. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note, neither "global significance" nor being listed on ITNR is a requirement for being posted on the main page. We post many items not on ITNR all the time, and as noted in the instructions on this page "please do not...Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive." Your objections are hollow as neither can be used to disqualify something from posting. --Jayron32 16:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The SADR is not part of Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization but of the African Union + the POLISARIO Front is a national liberation movement and the only recognised as such by the UN together with the Palestinian OLP. Palestine would be a better comparison than Somaliland, not recognised by any other country (unless you count Liberland) while the SADR is recognised by at least 45 countries. I don't mind it being pulled down but I consider the comparison provided to be wrong. Tidjani Saleh (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=1135939258"