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 QueensanditsCrazy (talk | contribs) at 18:08, 18 October 2023 (→‎Al-Ahli Arabi Baptist Hospital explosion: Reply). 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.

Ebrahim Raisi in 2023
Ebrahim Raisi

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

October 18

October 18, 2023 (2023-10-18) (Wednesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

October 17

October 17, 2023 (2023-10-17) (Tuesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Carla Bley

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

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

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

Al-Ahli Arabi Baptist Hospital explosion

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

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

It is a part of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, but 500 casualties is enough to be on the ITN in my opinion. Thats, just, a lot. Lukt64 (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
support Lukt64 (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
we didnt post every massacre done by Hamas when they were attacking, we just had a general terrorist attack blurb which then became a war. so why should we put every attack done by Israel when we already have the general war in ongoing? JM2023 (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this is more deadly than the entire Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. This is a big deal. Lukt64 (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There were roughly 1,100 Israelis killed in the initial wave of attacks; I'm not sure what you mean. The Kip 18:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, this is not more deadly than that; over 1,100 Israelis, including many children, were slaughtered during that attack, and last I heard they were still finding bodies. Secondly, this event did not start a conflict. Thirdly, it's still included in the war. Fourthly, the article now has a POV tag and it's alleged this could be a Hamas rocket blamed on Israel; we should be especially cautious of Hamas and allies considering their massive outbursts of genocidal antisemitism recently. Unless we have a Srebrenica situation of sufficient magnitutde then I'm opposed to adding events like this. JM2023 (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support publishing it soon, but make sure it is definitively known whoever launched the attack. Most sources are saying that Israel bombed the hospital but there's claims that it was actually caused by PIJ. Either way, the destruction of over 500 lives is unimaginable and as newsworthy as the most horrible losses of life of the 21st century. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 22:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose we have ongoing for this reason, and I do not see why we need a separate article for this. --Masem (t) 18:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the entire Israel-Hamas War is covered in Ongoing. Also I noticed this said "massacre" before being changed to "airstrike", good because it would be POV to call it a massacre when the actual article is titled an airstrike. JM2023 (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for several reasons: what's stated above (which is debatable, imo; we blurbed the Bucha massacre, and sometimes casualty count/impact can override the ongoing item), the fact the article is currently a stub, and most importantly, the fact that for the moment it's Hamas' word versus the Israeli government's, and neither are exactly neutral actors; independent and reputable press verification, if possible, should be sought out before blurbing. The Kip 18:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Article is also now orange-tagged for POV, given assertions of responsibility versus reporting from reputable media. The Kip 18:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Kip, any update on this vote, given that your concerns have mostly been addressed at the article's talk? AryKun (talk) 06:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ll strike my NPOV concern and the stub concern, but the responsibility one (which we can’t control) is still existent to a degree. The Kip 15:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. If it is an airstrike on the hospital and the purported death toll is as sources are reporting, it is certainly blurbable regardless of the ongoing status. Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Terrible tragedy but this sort of thing happens in war and the war has been posted in ongoing. On a side note we don't have a lot of hard facts from reliable sources. The numbers being quoted are almost entirely coming from Hamas or affiliated entities, none of which would pass WP:RS. I don't doubt that something dreadful has happened, but it is likely to be sometime before we get details from sources that can be trusted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait (leaning oppose) for reasons mentioned above. Covered in ongoing and it's not entirely clear who is responsible at the moment. This tragedy just happened and there are already unverified reports that it may have been a failed Hamas rocket (which is, imho, no more reliable than Hamas officials reporting it was an Israeli airstrike). Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support for alt-blurb. Given the significance of media coverage and resulting events this is very much ITN-worthy. It's not even clear what the death count is at the moment, however, that's secondary to the tertiary events that unfolded immediately after the incident which are still unfolding. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - we posted the Bucha massacre, which saw similar body counts, and although it may be accounted via ongoing, there are always certain stories such as the Crimean bridge explosion and the like that are unique/major enough to warrant a blurb, regardless if the parent article is in ongoing. I would wait for more sources to come out and for the article to be expanded however. — Knightoftheswords 18:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - HUGE incident, despite the war being in ongoing already, this war crime against humanity deserves a blurb CR-1-AB (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't even know who did it yet. Some now allege it was a Hamas rocket. You shouldn't jump to conclusions and call it a crime against humanity to support significance. Also "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity" exist but not "war crimes against humanity". JM2023 (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - The scale of this atrocity makes it important to include. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:84CE:346A:7D23:D4F5 (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait: Initial reports of casualties and perpetrator are still uncertain. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 19:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait The real authorship of this execrable massacre is not confirmed by the RS sources, which only include the communiqué of the Palestinian Ministry of Health. I don't think it’s comparable to the Bucha massacre either in a war context, nor in an operational or significant context. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, however unfortunate it may be, lines have often been drawn by nations between the civilian bombing campaigns of total war and the personal door-to-door massacres of genocidal actors. And no wars are being started over this. JM2023 (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You’re totally right. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Truly shocking to read, RIP to all those poor people - a war crime and a crime against humanity. Similar has also been posted relating to the Russo-Ukraine war. AnthonyIreland 19:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Israel is now formally denying responsibility. They are claiming that the Palestinians blew up the hospital, probably by accident, while using it as a launch site for their own missiles aimed at Israel's civilian population centers. I reaffirm my oppose. But if this is posted, the currently written blurb assigning blame to Israel cannot be used. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Russians denyed the Bucha massacre but that wasn't enough for it not to be included in ITN section at the time. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 20:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Israel is probably more credible than Russia. Bucha's responsibility probably had more sources than Hamas press releases. JM2023 (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. Israelies have long long records of violating human rights records and using internationally prohibited weapons like white phosphorus and lying. So it's definitely not "more credible" than Russia. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 10:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In a competition between Hamas and Israel in terms of human right violations and lying, I think I choose Israel as the more credible source. For various obvious reasons. Also those sources are pretty one-sided, ignoring Palestinian actions. You have to look at the two sides of the war if it's a credibility contest. A few examples of various allegations is not systematic enough of an analysis to show Israel lies on the level of Russia. JM2023 (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Bucha massacre has been independently investigated by international authorities who have formally accused Russia of the atrocity. I think there is a pretty strong consensus within the community that both Hamas and the Russian government are not reliable sources on any matter of controversy. To be sure the Israelis are not saints. But when they have screwed up in the past, they have typically owned their mistakes. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, they never had. Drop it already. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 11:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One example is not enough. JM2023 (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They mean when they screw up in their press releases and stuff, not human rights which is pretty much universally known Aaron Liu (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • even besides the POV issue, the currently written blurb also has several typographic errors ("israel airstrike" instead of "an Israeli airstrike") JM2023 (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In conjunction with the disputed responsibility and NPOV edits on the article, I've proposed a more neutral altblurb for now The Kip 20:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Covered in ongoing. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respectful oppose Part of the reason for having an ongoing section is to avoid the inevitable tit-for-tat "we posted this attack so why can't we post that attack". Bucha was by far the exception rather than the norm. Curbon7 (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per KoTS. Not sure how Bucha clears our bar but this doesn't. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's an ongoing event and it's worthy of coverage in international news. Rager7 (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. Death toll is comparable to the Bucha massacre which we posted. Very notable event no matter who perpetrated it (The Guardian says the explosion was too large to have been Hamas), though it's probably best to wait and see if there will be more clarity on that in the coming days. Davey2116 (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While people may compare the death toll, the significance in terms of what the event actually was is not comparable (not to imply that you did so). Bucha featured indiscriminate shooting of civilians and torture-murders of civilians including minors. There is a meaningful difference of significance. JM2023 (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Death toll is significant, and the explosion has recent a noteworthy amount of attention as a standalone event despite it being part of the 2023 Israel-Hamas War. TheInevitables (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (partial support). While the attack is covered in the main article, this is shocking and the death toll is very high (per nom), but the attacker is still unknown. Also, I would support the alt blurb per WP:NPOV, as the original blurb says that Israel launched the airstrike, which is currently disputed. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 23:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support posting, but Strong Oppose attributing the attack to anyone until we know more. The first suggested blurb inappropriately assigns blame. --RockstoneSend me a message! 23:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - First and foremost, because several pivotal info and still unknown. Who is responsible for the attack? How many people really died? We need to be responsible here, to avoid becoming a misinformation tool. We are not a news ticker, so why the rush? Let's wait until things get clear and then discuss if this is newsworthy.--Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 23:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The details of the incident are disputed and we have the overall war as an ongoing entry. Note that this is a contentious topic and so we are required to "err on the side of caution". Andrew🐉(talk) 23:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]
  • Comment - I would like to make it clear that I wrote the blurb when the blame was being put on Israel, and that I will not be voicing my opinion on who is wright or who is wrong in the ongoing conflict. FatCat96 (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest you should modify the original blurb. --RockstoneSend me a message! 23:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. FatCat96 (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support one of the altblurbs. While there is still some confusion about the cause of the explosion (though it seems highly unlikely that a Palestinian rocket could do such damage), the high death toll, the singular nature of the event, and the location being a hospital pushes it above the threshold to get something that is usually covered by an ongoing item into a new blurb. This is similar to how the Bucha massacre, which had a similar reported death toll was blurbed despite it being covered by an ongoing entry. For comparison and, while not covered by an ongoing item, the 2015 Kunduz hospital airstrike was blurbed with around 40 deaths. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For the same reason I opposed most Ukraine-Russia proposals: covered by ongoing. The rationale of a massacre is not without ground but unless an actor can be definitively attributed for this I remain opposed. Gotitbro (talk) 03:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until the party actually responsible for the airstrike is confirmed. After that, consider my vote as a weak support. S5A-0043Talk 03:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the main blurb. Since our blurb doesn't assign responsibility to anyone, I don't see why we need to wait to ascertain the party responsible. Likewise, the casualties have been widely reported[1][2].VR talk 06:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the determination of the responsible party changes the nature from being a mistaken explosion (Israel claim) to a massacre (Hamas claim). Gotitbro (talk) 10:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support war crime with immense death toll regardless of who did it; also, we are probably not going to get immediate clarity on the perpetrator as we did in Bucha, because Bucha wasn't being blockaded and carpet-bombed and thus had independent investigators who could go there. We did mention the hundreds dead from Hamas' attacks in the original blurb; the reason we didn't blurb each massacre separately is the same reason why we wouldn't blurb 5 different hospitals getting bombed individually. AryKun (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Issues with the article and the unknown nature of the attack makes it difficult to make a case to blurb. If the resulting fallout of this is significant enough then I would consider Supporting. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 06:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but wait. Number of casualties is unclear, but the event on itself is significant enough, with multiple world leaders commenting on it, and it is all over the news. Blurb will probably need to be modified. AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, unless we can say who was responsible, in which case Support. If we can't, then we need to include the broader context to avoid NPOV issues from readers making assumptions, similar to WP:CATPOV, and there isn't space for such broader context. BilledMammal (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah if the perpretrator of the attack is found then I would Support PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Abo Yemen✉ 11:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait per Gotitbro. A combination of this being covered by ongoing and also not knowing who perpetrated the attack. If there is definitive evidence on who is responsible, I'd be willing to rethink ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, likely a couple days, as preliminary investigations are still ongoing, both on the perpetrator and the death toll. Then, support. I revoke my earlier stance. —  Melofors  TC 16:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, covered by ongoing whoeveer turns out to have done it QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Same Sex marriage in India

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

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

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

(Closed) Ongoing removal: Russian invasion of Ukraine

(NON-ADMIN CLOSURE)
WP:SNOW, consensus to remove will clearly not develop. The Kip 14:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Russian invasion of Ukraine (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)
Nominator's comments: We have just removed the Sudan war despite the fact that the war was not over. This should also be removed. While the timeline section is being updated, it is more minor events rather than anything major. Interstellarity (talk) 13:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
This isnt a civil war, its a war between the 2 largest nations in Europe. Its a bigger deal, at least geopolitically, than any African wars for now. Lukt64 (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose & WP:SNOW close Here we go again. This war is still ongoing and raging on. Battles around Avdiivka have intensified greatly. We had this exact discussion a few months ago. TwistedAxe [contact] 13:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - article is still being updated and war is still very much going on ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose there is still news coverage near daily of events in this conflict, in contrast to far less significant coverage of events in the Sudan one. --Masem (t) 14:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Eric Tweedale

Article: Eric Tweedale (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [3]
Credits:

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

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

RD: Tim Wallis

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

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

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

October 16

October 16, 2023 (2023-10-16) (Monday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

RD: Martti Ahtisaari

Proposed image
Article: Martti Ahtisaari (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Le Monde, Presidential Twitter
Credits:

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

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

  • Blurb Head of state and Nobel laureate who seems comparable with Jimmy Carter. As an Elder, he seems to meet Mandela standard. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not ready There are some paragraphs with no references. The article also lacks citations for most of the awards and honours. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 09:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb I don't believe in the legitimacy of a Nobel Peace Prize awarded to someone who once said "Belgrade will be just like this tabletop. We'll start the bombing of Belgrade immediately.", so it's definitely not a factor of notability in this case. Apart from it, he was just a mediocre Finnish president, not comparable in any way to Urho Kekkonen.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The authenticity of that quote seems debatable. Be that as it may, the person on the other side of the table was Slobodan Milošević and ITN blurbed his death. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]
      • Milošević on the other side of the table is not a justification for a threat involving destruction. That’s not the language one should expect from a Nobel Peace Prize laureate.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD pending improvements as noted by IP. Neutral on blurb. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb even after looking at WP:ITNRDBLURB and judging based on those guidelines, this is still not a notable enough death in my opinion. JM2023 (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality Article needs some sourcing. I would support a blurb given he's a Nobel laureate and former head of state. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb after BangJan1999 hatted my previous vote and the ensuing discussion. The reasons are as follows. Firstly, his death has close-to-no coverage in the English-language media (for instance, the BBC has not even published a news article that he died by the time of writing this post). It seems like his death isn’t even a major news in Finland, judging by the English-language content published by the Finnish media. Secondly, he was just a mediocre Finnish president, who cannot be compared in virtually any way to his predecessors Paasikivi and Kekkonen. Thirdly, the Nobel Peace Prize like the Nobel Prize in Literature is too controversial and politicised to be considered a notable achievement that qualifies someone for a blurb (almost a half of Nobel Peace Prize is about criticism of the award).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I heard a BBC bulletin about this myself on the Six O'Clock News today. And it's easy to find coverage in other major media including Guardian, NYT, Al Jazeera, Helsinki Times and many more. All such coverage seems quite respectful and so KS's repeated objections seem to be false or fringe. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "false" and "fringe" are strong words for something that you don't agree with. What you're referring to is a minor coverage that prevents us from going beyond a one-sentence update on his death. Just for comparison, the deaths of Italy's Berlusconi and Napolitano, which got a blurb earlier this year, are documented in stand-alone articles (see Death and state funeral of Silvio Berlusconi and Death and state funeral of Giorgio Napolitano), and the Italian government even declared a national day of mourning for each of them. That's clearly not the case with Ahtisaari.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
false and fringe
Must we remind you again that ITN’s procedures, voting, etc are governed by consensus and reason, rather than what Andrew Davidson feels they should be? Shame on you, yet again. The Kip 14:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality due to uncited material. Weak oppose blurb due to some of the concerns expressed by Kiril above. The Kip 16:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has, at best, a single-sentence update that wouldn't be redundant to the blurb: the 2021 Alzheimer's/retirement announcement. Without an announcement of the cause of death (at least not that I've found in English sources; I haven't attempted machine translation from Finnish ones), its relevance is debatable - I mean, we can guess that he died of complications of Alzheimer's, and our article as it stands implies it, but we don't know that. And we really can't post a blurb saying "Ahtisaari died at 86", linking to an article that doesn't say anything more about it than "On 16 October 2023, it was announced that Ahtisaari had died at the age of 86." Oppose blurb, insufficient update. —Cryptic 17:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. Nobel prize winner, former head of state. We blurbed Gorbachev and Jiang Zemin. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Support RD, oppose blurb - the death was not notable enough, per my interpretation of WP:ITNRDBLURB, and some of Kiril's argument above ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't think it's ready to be posted on RD. For example, there are only three inline references in the long section on "Youth and early career", and the last paragraph in that section is completely uncited. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb - I haven't seen any news of his death on my diversified newsfeed or even ever heard of him except here. Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb on principle, weak oppose on quality we've been blurbing a lot of heads of state deaths as of late, and we've probably blurbed too many, but this is the wrong place to start. How many heads of state have won a Nobel Peace Prize? That demonstrates the regional and international impact we look for when blurbing heads of state of minor nations. As such, I see this as a clear and obvious blurb. However, there's a few paragraphs that are uncited. I don't see that as a huge barrier because it's the least important stuff in the article that are uncited, but that should probably be taken care of before posting. NorthernFalcon (talk) 07:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing : 2023 Sudan War (Timeline)

WP:SNOW
We've already discussed this extremely recently. We do not need another discussion now. WP:NAC BangJan1999 16:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: War in Sudan (2023) (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): [4]
Credits:
Nominator's comments: It got removed yesterday [5], and even though it had been updated often it still got removed. I would recommend adding the Timeline to it like the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There was also a wide consensus AGAINST removing it.

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

  • Oppose per PW. Yhe conflict may be ongoing, but the impact is not covered in any great coverage in the media. --Masem (t) 14:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Oppose and SNOW close I weakly supported keeping it, but consensus + guidelines dictated its removal and that’s not gonna suddenly change in a day. Sour grapes don’t constitute a valid reason for reinstatement. The Kip 16:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

October 15

October 15, 2023 (2023-10-15) (Sunday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: M. S. Gill

Article: M. S. Gill (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Times of india
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 Chief Election Commissioner of India Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose three unsourced (or lacking inline citations) paragraphs out of five total in Early Life and Career, the bulk of the article. JM2023 (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2023 Ecuadorian general election

Proposed image
Article: 2023 Ecuadorian general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Daniel Noboa (pictured) is elected President of Ecuador. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, NY Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Almost 90% of the votes counted. Noboa leads by almost 5 points and will win the election. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 00:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support quite table-centric for the second round, only one sentence of prose in the lede about the second round, only one sentence of prose in the second round aftermath section, and the campaign section has one sentence; but per WP:ITNCRIT I think that might be OK if we consider the event to be the entire election and not just its results. Overall sourcing looks fine. Also Comment blurb has a grammatical error: should be "Noba is elected". JM2023 (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Polish parliamentary election

Article: 2023 Polish parliamentary election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ United Right wins the 2023 Polish parliamentary election but fails to get a majority of seats. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Parties opposing the ruling United Right win a majority of seats in the Polish general election.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The opposition (KO, L, TD) wins a plurality of votes against the incumbent Law and Justice in Polish general election.
Alternative blurb III: ​ The United Right led by the Law and Justice party wins a plurality of votes in the 2023 Polish parliamentary election but loses its majority to the opposition (Civic Coalition, The Left, and Third Way).
News source(s): Guardian, Politico
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: An election outcome and likely change in government which will have a significant impact in Europe. I am not quite sure how to phrase the blurb as its not easy to summarise things. So feel free to propose an alternate. Also should only be posted once more of the votes have been counted. Gust Justice (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Official results should be in somewhere around noon Tuesday CEST. The opposition parties will likely be able to independently form the government. Finally. --Ouro (blah blah) 02:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support besides lede, background, and electoral system, has almost no prose, almost all tables. Also Comment the 2023 Polish parliamentary election should be bolded. JM2023 (talk) 03:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Hugely significant. Von der Leyen will be breaking out the special occasion wine tonight. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, but Oppose altburb per WP:POV. The article requires some work before posting, though.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait and Oppose 1st blurb. It's not POV to claim PiS lost; if the trend is confirmed they lost and resoundingly so. The big winners are Third Way and Civic Coalition, the big losers are Confederation and Law and Justice. We should wait until votes are counted and confirmation of the "democratic opposition" government. Added altblurb2. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Abcmaxx: We post election results, not speculations based on personal wishes. How do you determine who's opposition? What if a political party of the so-called "opposition" forms a government with PiS? We should wait until the final results come in and post a blurb including the party that won the most seats (whether they'll form a government or not is completely irrelevant).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because in this instance this was already established pre-election. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Too much WP:CRYSTAL based on exit polls and speculation about possible coalitions. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A variant of the first blurb (PiS most votes and most seats, but loses their majority) that sticks to the facts should be used until coaliton negoations conclude. It's too early to be declaring winners or losers in wikivoice. Iffy★Chat -- 10:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative blurb, because it states the facts, the case is clear by now; PiS is unable to form gvt. No speculation, immense significance for EU. --Wuerzele (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for Alternative blurb. As was said, this has immense significance for EU, as well as Poland. The opposition parties have long held that PiS winning again would be the end of direct democracy. This election is seen by approximately half of Poles as that type of election, and thus hugely significant for the social and political climate of Poland. This no longer suffers WP:CRYSTAL considerations and should be added. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Ready Pretty close to zero prose covering the results. Once the results are clear and the article is updated with an appropriate summary, we can post. But we are not there either in terms of all the results or article quality. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the altblurbs clearly contain original research. The opposition parties that allegedly won the majority of seats didn’t form a united opposition coalition and instead run independently, and there’s really no need to regress from an encyclopaedic to a journalistic style and report something in a suggestive manner. Only the original blurb makes sense and is in accordance with the blurbs on elections posted in the past (PiS will probably win most seats but will likely fail to form a government. That’s exactly what the original blurb tells.).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article is not ready, but, frankly, I don't mind. Basically because, in the context of Polish politics, I find it much more noticeable when those results materialize with Donald (the better one) Tusk becoming Prime Minister, which seems very probable. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for Alternative blurb best description for the outcome in my opinion Braganza (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, seat count is not out yet. Supporting the original blurb as altblurb1 has NPOV issues. No prose regarding reactions or aftermath, nor conduct during election as is usually typical. I'll adjust to support when issues are resolved. Ornithoptera (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to note full results are available as of right now. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - article looks good. I think the original blurb is best. We best not speculate as to who will form a government, even if it seems highly likely that Tusk will lead a coalition. PiS will probably get the first shot anyway since it's up to Duda to pick the first prime ministerial candidate. estar8806 (talk) ★ 11:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Currently there are 7 support, versus 1 wait 1 oppose 1 not ready. The considerations of the 'wait' and 'not ready' were about final results, which are in. Hence those should be counted as null and/or support. This seems to have enough support consensus at this point to post. There are 1 oppose alt blurb, 1 oppose 1st blurb, 3 support 1st blurb, 3 support alt blurb. Consensus to post is clear, consensus for which blurb is not. However, I'm willing to change my support for alt blurb to whatever will result in posting the article. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 12:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ambivalent about which blurb should be posted. It seems rather misleading to suggest that PiS "won" the election when every RS is reporting that they "are on course to be ousted", "seem set to be ousted", etc. I could support original blurb, but only if we post another blurb if/when Tusk forms his coalition government as expected. (We did the same thing after the 2017 New Zealand general election; first blurb on September 25 said "the National Party wins plurality" and the second blurb on October 20 said "Jacinda Ardern becomes PM after forming Labour–NZ First coalition".) Davey2116 (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Covered by ITN/R, and the article has enough prose other than the tables to provide context. No opinion on which blurb to choose. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, ambivalent on blurb but I lean ALT1 - the biggest implication of this election is the opposition winning a majority. The Kip 03:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for Alternative blurb. It is misleading to say United Right won the election when they don't have a majority of seats --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing from wait to support given results are in and added altblurb3 in order to reach a compromise and reflect WP:RS without WP:CRYSTALBALL. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update comment on consensus status: Currently there are 12 support, versus 1 oppose 1 not ready. There are 1 oppose alt blurb, 1 oppose 1st blurb, 3 support 1st blurb, 4 support alt blurb, 1 support 3rd blurb. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 11:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Support the original blurb. So far that's all we know. Would support an update after a govenment wins a vote of confidence (probably around 26th December). I think the original "Oppose" votes reasons have already been resolved so this should be posted. Psubrat2000 (talk) 12:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Suzanne Somers

Article: Suzanne Somers (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety
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: Unsourced filmography Mooonswimmer 20:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose article has a giant WP:TONE tag at the top. JM2023 (talk) 03:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 14

October 14, 2023 (2023-10-14) (Saturday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

RD: Lance Armstrong

Article: Lance Armstrong (politician) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://tasmaniantimes.com/2023/10/vale-lance-armstrong-mha/
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: Tasmanian politician. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 09:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dariush Mehrjui

Proposed image
Article: Dariush Mehrjui (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Iranian New Wave film director Dariush Mehrjui and his wife are murdered in Karaj. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Iranian film director Dariush Mehrjui dies at 83.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Iranian film director Dariush Mehrjui and his wife are murdered in Karaj.
News source(s): cafehdanesh.com, AP, Variety, Deadline, NYT, BBC, Guardian
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: Recent Deaths would be acceptable, but given the importance of the filmmaker in Iran (and in world cinema) and given the tragic circumstances, I believe that In the News would be appropriate. 98.225.20.168 (talk) 07:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – Hamid Hassani (talk) 08:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Minor fixes to nom: Added RD and removed ITNR (which this is not). As for blurb would like to see more info on the nature of the crime before commenting. Gotitbro (talk) 08:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality at the very least. There's an unsourced paragraph in the career section, an unsourced statement in the Cinematic style and legacy section, the filmography is wholly unsourced, and the awards section also needs more refs. Also the infobox includes his date of birth, that he has 3 children and that he has had a previous spouse that he divorced, but this isn't sourced anywhere in the prose. Additionally I'm not 100% certain on the reliability of all of the sources, at the very least there's one statement sourced to IMDb which is definitely unreliable. This needs a good amount of work to be ready for RD, and some more work on his legacy and impact would be optimal if we want to blurb it. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 11:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • RD only, but oppose on quality I'm really not seeing a lot of justification here for a blurb, given how little is known around the deaths beyond having been murdered. The article is missing sourcing on the film list and a handful of statements throughout the article. Also, not thrilled how much is sourced to ref #5 there, and makes me a bit concerned if a copyvio check should be made. --Masem (t) 12:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose RD on quality per above, Oppose blurb on notability because there is no way the murder of a single B-list director is world news. JM2023 (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Guardian calls him prominent, Iran's culture minister also hails him [6]. Kirill C1 (talk) 06:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    we didn't even blurb Dianne Feinstein. Prominent people die every day, hence RD. The bar has to be higher than you propose or else ITN becomes an obituary. JM2023 (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Blurb on Notability, Oppose RD on Quality This is simply not enough to be a blurb. As for RD, the article has a lack of reliable sources. TheInevitables (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. It is shocking to see famous film director be murdered in Iran. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Normally yes, but what we seem to know is simply that he and his wife were likely murdered, and that's it. No named suspects, no motives, etc. We hardly are providing any significant information on the death to make the blurb necessary. Masem (t) 21:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural support for RD but oppose blurb, per the recent consensus in favor of restricting RDBs and my own opinion that it should be restricted to heads of state/government of major powers with very narrow exceptions This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There should be an RfC in response to that consensus we found in order to actually change what it says in the guidelines but I don't know what I'm doing most of the time so I'll leave it to someone else for now. In the meantime this blurb can be opposed on notability grounds anyway through current standards. JM2023 (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When did we have consensus on a change to death blurbs? Surely you don't mean the one that's still on the talk page. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Last I saw of it, my understanding was that it looked as though most people were in favour of changing ITNRDBLURB to match ITN standards so that the death itself must be notable, and that a notable life is never necessarily a notable death. Unless it's a different one now. I am talking about the discussion started by Chaotic Enby in response to my comment under an RD blurb discussion for a death a few weeks ago. Even that discussion, despite not having changed the words of the rules, would seem to indicate most people have expressed higher standards for ITNRDBLURB notability by even current guidelines than what people often propose. JM2023 (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominators note: First, its been a while since I've edited, so I'm a bit rusty. Its looking more and more like this was a politically motivated murder, and may become a major news story for broader reasons. There's online chatter comparing it to a series of political murders in the 1990s, allegedly involving the Minister of Intelligence- Chain murders of Iran. I suggest giving it a day or two before rejecting based on standards of quality. I wish I had more time to work on the article myself. The murders seem to have been particularly brutal, its very disturbing. And there are four suspects in custody. I honestly don't know, is www.ncr-iran.org a reliable source?98.225.20.168 (talk) 06:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Piper Laurie

Article: Piper Laurie (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hollywood Reporter
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American actress Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 23:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support looks well sourced Lukt64 (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Article looks solid. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not yet "Television" and "Audio dramas" subsections are without source and I've added a cn tag in the last line of "Career" section. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alsoriano97 I resolved most of these issues, but there are still some TV works unsourced. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 15:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose None of the five television credits I spot-checked were on the bulk citation provided. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Gembong Warsono

Article: Gembong Warsono (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [7]
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: Regional legislator from Jakarta, Indonesia. Juxlos (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

seems well sourced, i support. Lukt64 (talk) 01:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2023 New Zealand general election

Proposed image
Article: 2023 New Zealand general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The National Party, led by Christopher Luxon, wins the most seats in the New Zealand general election. (Post)
News source(s): ABC CNN Reuters 1News
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: New Prime Minister for New Zealand most likely. Ornithoptera (talk) 10:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support article looks excessively long which makes it a bit dense, IMHO. But the most important parts seem to have sufficient prose and the content is sourced.
_-_Alsor (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support defeat of a major Zero-COVID pandemic-era and Maori Power government and transition from leftism to rightism, has a good enough article. JM2023 (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - do we usually make two separate posts for the changing of the legislature and then the changing of the Prime Minister? Because if so, we shouldn't, and instead should wait until the Prime Minister is chosen before posting this. Otherwise, we should post this and update the Blurb once the Prime Minister is chosen. --RockstoneSend me a message! 23:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the above link to WP:ITN/R:

    The results of general elections in: All states on the list of sovereign states; European Union elections. Disputed states and dependent territories should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits. Changes in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government, in those countries which qualify under the criteria above, as listed at List of current heads of state and government except when that change was already posted as part of a general election.

    Hopefully that answers the question. JM2023 (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I.. think so? It seems we will not post a change in prime minister, then? --RockstoneSend me a message! 22:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the guideline is saying that the fact we have posted the general election results means we will not post the PM's appointment, and that general elections take precedence over PM appointments and presidential inaugurations that result from them, which is why they the elections are posted when they occur. JM2023 (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for posting this, Stephen. The editor who, over the last few weeks, has added the most prose to this article was Andykatib and he was missing from the credits. I've added him. Would you please be so kind and issue a credit? Note that because this seems to be restricted to adding five contributors, I deleted one of the others (so that Andykatib shows). Schwede66 00:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2023 Australian referendum

Consensus is in favor of posting and the post-posting discussion isn't accomplishing any useful purpose. Any further discussion regarding the blurb should take place at WP:ERRORS. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 21:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Australians reject constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians and a proposed advisory body in a referendum. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Voters reject altering the Australian Constitution to establish an Indigenous Voice to Parliament
Alternative blurb II: ​ In a referendum, Australia votes to reject the proposal to recognise Indigenous Australians, through an alteration to the Constitution to create a body called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
Alternative blurb III: ​ The 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum (pictured) is defeated.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ The 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice constitutional referendum is defeated.
News source(s): Washington Post Al Jazeera The Guardian Reuters CNN ABC
Credits:
Nominator's comments: First referendum in Australia for several decades, covered in several world newspapers. Alternative blurb is probably needed to streamline ease of reading and word better. Note that the referendum encompasses both the voice and inclusion of Indigenous Australians in the constitution Ornithoptera (talk) 09:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt1. BilledMammal (talk) 10:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ALT1 5225C (talk • contributions) 10:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support DaddySpaghetti (talk) 10:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very significant aspect of Indigenous Australian history. I prefer the original blurb as alt blurb 1 fails to mention constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians which is one of the tenets of the referendum, and alt blurb 2 is too wordy for a blurb. Also see History wars and Indigenous Australian self-determination which lead to this. Gotitbro (talk) 11:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Feel like it's better to be succinct, the referendum has been referred to as the Voice referendum and that's what coverage has been about. The recognition bit is only a small chunk of the proposed amendment, which is contained within the failed Voice amendment. 5225C (talk • contributions) 11:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of my issues with the original blurb is that it could be interpreted as two separate proposals being voted down; we would need to reword it to avoid that. BilledMammal (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A rewording might be required and I would get behind it but a mere listing that Indigenous Voice to Parliament failed to be added to the Australian Constitution will be meaningless to most non-AU readers.
    The blurb at the very least needs to explain what was voted on (as we have done for past referendums that have been posted here on ITN). Gotitbro (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    well the blurb helpfully comes with a link to that article which will be great to inform readers. Perhaps "Indigenous-only federal legislative body" or something could be added before it though. JM2023 (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Had the motion succeeded it would be more newsworthy for Wikipedia, but as is there is no change in circumstance 675930s (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt 1 - I think the Voice to Parliament should be in the blurb. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per above. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt3 (but I've added Alt4 to add one more word as to make it very succinct but clear what was going on). --Masem (t) 13:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt III I've also added one word, "pictured", and that photo contains the "missing" relevant words. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt 1 - Helpful to have the additional context- alt I summarizes it best. Schwinnspeed (talk) 14:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt1 major defeat of an indigenous power campaign and a major blow to the incumbent Labor government, good enough article JM2023 (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No change so it's a non-event. The article is also poor quality as it seems very focussed on the ongoing campaign with lots of opinion polling and position statements which are now all moot. And the tenses are wrong. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:58, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 22:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Far too early. It's only just gone 9:00 am on a Sunday morning here in Australia. (The vote was just yesterday, on a Saturday.) A lot of Australians, those wanting to comment on this, won't be out of bed yet! I don't recognise any Australians in the contributors above. HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As above, nothing is changing. The widely divergent proposed blurbs here reflect what really happened. Massive amounts of misinformation, fear, uncertainty, and doubt were generated by the No campaign, so that in the end millions of voters had no idea what they were voting for or against. Many thought they knew, but there claims were often wrong. I might support a blurb precisely quoting the proposal, and that it was defeated. Anything else is original research — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What's really original research is this comment of yours. Uncited and vague accusations of "misinformation, fear, uncertainty, and doubt" against one side constitute WP:FORUM and MOS:WEASEL and are certainly not grounds to oppose an ITN submission. Anyway, as I said below, The failure of the Scottish independence referendum was posted back in 2014. JM2023 (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My "accusations" aren't vague, and there are plenty of sources for such claims. Not in the Murdoch or Costello media though. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are vague. You say Massive amounts of misinformation, fear, uncertainty, and doubt (texbook MOS:WEASEL), provide absolutely 0 examples at all, and now you just say there are plenty of sources (more MOS:WEASEL) despite not citing a single one this time either. And none of your new comment addresses the WP:FORUM concerns, or how your oppose has nothing to do with the article's quality or notability but instead with off-topic vague allegations against one side's campaign, thereby breaking fundamental ITN guidelines. And what's with the random off-topic potshot at Murdoch [and] Costello media? and you've made a formatting error here, talking to me but replying to your own comment. (fixed) You've been here since 2009, you've had a civility restriction imposed on you from ANI, really you shouldn't be doing this and should know better. JM2023 (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the topic. HiLo48 (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. The topic is the Indigenous Voice to Parliament, which you commented on in a forum-like way with off-topic allegations which broke ITN guidelines, so I pointed that out alongside pointing out why you should know better than this. I believe it's helpful and within bounds of topicality and civility to point out when other editors stray off-topic and break guidelines in the name of opposition to a blurb. Such callouts are regular and help ITN function properly. We should go back to discussing the topical blurb within guidelines, without weasel words or unsourced off-topic claims. JM2023 (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am STILL not the topic. HiLo48 (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've already explained why I said what I said and why it doesn't matter whether you are or are not the topic. Please stop disrupting the project, especially considering your apparent history. Just discuss the proposed blurb without violating anything or going off-topic. Right now it looks like you're telling me to ignore your various aforementioned violations (including going off-topic) and stop telling you to stick to ITN rules when discussing this blurb.JM2023 (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not telling you to do nor not do anything. HiLo48 (talk) 02:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are telling me you are not the topic, the implication being you don't want me to talk about you, despite the fact that all i'm doing is pointing out the fact you were off-topic out the gate alongside some other violations which I point out in order to get you on topic. This looks like a case of WP:LASTWORD. JM2023 (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would presume notability for constitutional referendums whether succesful or not. The very fact of its rejection has generation significant attention. The blurb is, as of writing, very matter of fact and additional commentary for how it exactly played out is better dealt within the article. Gotitbro (talk) 08:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting oppose and Pull -- no change, so nonevent. I suggest pulling and waiting a bit, this was way too premature to post... We wouldn't post a story about an amendment failing to pass in the US or Canada, would we? --RockstoneSend me a message! 23:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If Brexit failed I have no doubt it would have been posted. The failure of the Scottish independence referendum was posted back in 2014. I have very little doubt that if a constitutional amendment was put to popular vote in the US or Canada and failed that it would be posted. Even its failure would be a huge news story with results and maybe aftermath sections in their hypothetical articles and would be of sufficient notability and quality to post. JM2023 (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply not in the same ball park as Brexit. The world had heard about Brexit for years before the poll. That's not the case here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once again a formatting error. Talking to me but replying to someone else. (fixed) The world has heard about the IVtP for at least months, or else you wouldn't be able to allege Massive amounts of misinformation, fear, uncertainty, and doubt (without examples or sources) being promoted in media outlets. And this also doesn't address the fact that we posted the Scottish independence referendum. JM2023 (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The rejection is also notable (and therefore widely reported by the press) and historic with, likely, political consequences in Australia.--Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 00:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell us about these likely political consequences. I haven't heard of any. HiLo48 (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's quite a few. For a start, another referendum in the near future is unlikely, so republic for many years to come. That will have international implications. It may be pretty minor compared with Brexit but will the add to the worldwide perception that democracy is dysfunctional, especially in Asia. The electorates that returned teal candidates in the last election were solidly behind the yes vote, so their chances of reelection are enhanced, which in turn may continue the drift of the conservative side of politics away from the middle class and towards blue collar populism along the lines of what has occurred in the United States. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per JM2023. Just because something failed doesn't invalidate it from being posted. I believe if a Yes would be historic and the counts were close enough the referendum should be posted. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

October 13

October 13, 2023 (2023-10-13) (Friday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

RD: Linda Arkley

Article: Linda Arkley (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/linda-arkley-north-tyneside-council-27907771
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: Mayor of North Tyneside, 2003-2005 and 2009-2013. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 09:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Jaakko Ihamuotila

Article: Jaakko Ihamuotila (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.iltalehti.fi/kotimaa/a/87a2c83d-2bd2-40de-ae75-53f04a84a752
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: Finnish business executive. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 09:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Ronald M. Mottl

Article: Ronald M. Mottl (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://obits.cleveland.com/us/obituaries/cleveland/name/ronald-mottl-obituary?id=53345056
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: Ohio politician who served four terms in the United States House of Representatives from 1975 to 1983. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 09:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Roméo Savoie

Article: Roméo Savoie (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1849597/romeo-savoie-mort-peintre-architecte-acadie
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: Canadian abstract painter. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 09:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Princess India of Afghanistan

Article: Princess India of Afghanistan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://menafn.com/1107240982/Princes-India-Daughter-Of-King-Amanullah-Khan-Passes-Away-In-Rome
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: Afghan royalty. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 09:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Issam Abdallah

Article: Issam Abdallah (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.reuters.com/world/obituary-reuters-issam-abdallah-covered-worlds-biggest-events-with-bravery-2023-10-14/
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: Reuters visuals journalist killed while filming Israeli missile attacks at the Israeli-Lebanon border. 65.94.213.53 (talk) 09:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted to RD) RD: Louise Glück

Posted RD, no consensus for a blurb. Time to close. --Tone 20:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: Louise Glück (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [8]
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: Winner of the 2020 Nobel Prize in Literature. Article appears to be well sourced. BangJan1999 20:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As she had multiple awards, including Nobel Prize, should we propose blurb? Kirill C1 (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s clear that Nobel laureates enjoy a notability that few people have, a fact that we all share. But Glück having a blurb would open the pandora's box for other laureates to have a blurb as well, making Main Page impractical and useless. It’s a proposal that I fear its results. _-_Alsor (talk) 00:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
agree totally JM2023 (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, but Oppose a blurb. Well cited, no tags, comprehensive coverage of her life. The article would probably do better with more sections, though I'm nitpicking at this point. Concur with above that blurbing would open a Pandora's box. Bremps... 04:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb The talk above of Pandora's box is nonsense. It seems that about one Nobel laureate dies per month on average but many or most of those don't get nominated here. For example, Harry Markowitz died in June but didn't even get a nomination or RD. And it was the same for K. Alex Müller who died in January. But we blurbed Milan Kundera who didn't win the Nobel Prize for Literature. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Nobel Prize in Literature has very low regard in world literature circles (not to mention that it's considered a joke).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, Oppose blurb. Not significant enough for blurb IMO. Nigej (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb primarily because she wasn't a household name that entered the literature education around the world.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb No question her writing was profound (hence the Nobel), but I'm not seeing a lot of what her writing has influenced, nor what she otherwise had done to be influential outside of that. Being a Nobel Laurate is not automatically a bar for inclusion as a blurb. The article otherwise looks good for Support RD. --Masem (t) 13:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Admins willing to post ITN: BangJan1999 15:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Blurb per above. Few people want ITN to become an obituary. JM2023 (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 16:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Blurb - 50,000+ pageviews the last 24 hrs suggests that this is no ordinary RD. The article was ready to go as is. So what’s the issue? ITN should consider doing “time sensitive” RD blurbs. Ie.: 4 hours/24hours/indefinitely. Just as a tip-of-the-cap to a noteworthy RD. Like the flag lowered to half-mast. Time sensitive blurbs should be at editor’s discretion to avoid all this endless wrangling. Trauma Novitiate (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • At least part of the issue is that the article provides less than a sentence of additional information about her death besides what would be in the blurb. WP:ITNUPDATE demands more, and there really isn't anything to put there to satisfy it. —Cryptic 16:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Presumably becuase the RD was posted, which is why it suddenly has so many views probably? What are the pageviews on the other RDs for context? For all we know, they could be double. And like Cryptic says, this doesn't even meet the guidelines for a blurb anyway. Also Just as a tip-of-the-cap to a noteworthy RD. Like the flag lowered to half-mast ITN is not an obituary or a way to pay tribute to dead people. JM2023 (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For context, Milan Kundera received a death blurb with pageviews peaking at about 100k views. See here for a graph. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 20:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) Psyche launch

Proposed image
Psyche is the first mission to use a Hall-effect thruster (pictured) beyond the moon's orbit
Article: Psyche (spacecraft) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ NASA's Psyche spacecraft is launched to explore the metal-rich asteroid 16 Psyche (Post)
News source(s): [9] [10]
Credits:

Article updated

 Jolielegal (talk) 06:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support It's an interesting mission to establish whether the asteroid is like the Earth's core but will take many years to produce results. And the use of a Hall-effect electric drive is significant too. As it's in the news now, we should run it now. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Important and interesting mission, but I prefer this image File:PIA21499 - Artist's Concept of Psyche Spacecraft with Five-Panel Array.jpg. We can also add that it'll arrive in 2029. Artem.G (talk) 11:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Look, I know we love our space missions here, but can we just...not post every single new mission. If/when this mission returns important information we should post THAT news. But this feels like another one where we're posting every darn aspect about the mission with no real certainty of its impact. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose there are guidelines for space related stuff, I don't recall where, but I'm almost certain this launch does not meet the criteria. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you mean the ITN/R criteria? While not *strictly* covering this event (note that it *would* cover its arrival!) it's important to note conflate ITN proposals and ITN/R. Most items that get posted to ITN are *not* covered by ITN/R; the latter merely makes its notability assumed, while for non-ITN/R proposals, the notability has to be examined on a case-by-case basis. Simply applying the standards for ITN/R is kind of redundant, because were it covered under that... It'd be ITN/R already. (of course, this doesn't stop the opposite, from editors trying to debate the *lack of notability* for an item already under ITN/R...)
    Since this is not a proposal to list this as ITN/R, those guidelines are thus pretty irrelevant. - Nottheking (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Because the blurb is about the launch, it might make sense to mention the launch rocket as well. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Launches to any Earth-escape trajectory are particularly rare, and always gather substantial news coverage. This is the third (and final) such launch this entire year, after ESA's JUICE in April, and ISRO's Aditya-L1 last month. JUICE was pretty swiftly posted, though Aditya-L1 was never proposed. (probably an effect of Anglocentric/systemic bias on the English Wikipedia)
I concur with DarkSide830 as well; there has to be a better image than that of a thruster that is merely similar to what's on it; either a picture of the whole spacecraft or of the launch itself tends to be in line with what gets posted for space missions. Mention of the carrier rocket isn't normally covered however, since the rocket in question isn't part of the story's significance. - Nottheking (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 12

October 12, 2023 (2023-10-12) (Thursday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Luis Garavito

Article: Luis Garavito (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [11]
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: No problems revealed after quick skim except for two cn tags Bremps... 23:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Colombian serial killer Bremps... 23:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; possibly the most monstrously evil human who ever lived, certainly the most monsterously evil serial killer I have ever known of, and I am disturbed to be reminded of him. JM2023 (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Holy shit that was a dark read. Genuinely horrifying, may there be a fiery pit of hell waiting for this guy PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I either hadn't heard about Garavito before, or I'd vaguely heard of his atrocities at some point and forgotten his name. But when I read his Wikipedia article, an entirely different identifier sprang to mind: the Devil Incarnate. He truly was malevolence and depravity personified. Kurtis (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I just looked at this and don't feel better for the experience. Respectable news organisations typically warn people when they are going to see something upsetting but RD just lists the link with no clue about what you're going to get. This seems unacceptable in this case. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The inclusion of biographies in RD depends on compliance with strict formal requirements, not on aspects of the content of these articles. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We do not make judgements on RD topics as long as they meet quality and notability guidelines. We've listed other terrorists and mass murderers in the RD line before. Masem (t) 17:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that the editor above frequently and flagrantly disregards those guidelines in favor of personal opinion on how ITN should be. The Kip 19:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really see anything that cites Wikipedia policy about what should or shouldn't be posted. Furthermore, we don't really shy away from posting violent stuff on ITN- we posted the murder of Matthew Shepard, the Mekong River massacre, and the Maxim restaurant suicide bombing on three consecutive days just this month. If you believe the policy should be changed, that would be a different forum entirely. Bremps... 04:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That was just a major brainfart; those were all OTDs. Bremps... 06:06, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think there should be some kind of warning on articles like these for extremely disturbing content, especially if we are going to put a link to it on a front page that is seen by millions of people every day. Some kind of viewer discretion. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead's a bit misleading in that it gives the sensational initial sentence of the better part of two millennia in prison, but not that it was reduced to 40 and then 22 years, nor that he was up for parole this year... and those omissions are so glaring that I can't help but think they were there but were removed at some point, and I really don't have the stomach today to go trawling through the talk page and article history to see why. —Cryptic 17:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support I’ll fully admit I haven’t fully scrolled through the article - it’s not an easy read and at times I simply couldn’t take it. Those sections I did read seemed well-cited though. Truly a monstrous human and we’re better off now that he’s dead. The Kip 19:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support This man was simply evil. I havent read sections of part of the article yet, but it seems somewhat decently sourced. Lukt64 (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I guess, though I certainly regret doing anything close to reviewing this article. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural support can't say I'm sad he's dead This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't think anyone here is. I probably wouldn't have nominated this if it had several CN tags, as that meant some poor soul at ITN would have to do research on this guy to confirm the worst details. Bremps... 04:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support. I've quickly checked the entire article and I have to say that this article is well sourced and written. However, I've noticed that there's a 2 month old citation needed tag located at the "Public response" section, which sort of weakens my full support. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 03:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Midori No Sora I added a citation at the end of the paragraph, but didn't add the page numbers because Google Books decided to get difficult with me. Bremps... 04:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. The article structure already looks decent enough and I don't want to start an argument over a single tag. Changing to Support. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 04:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Not shedding any tears but he meets the guidelines and the article is in decent shape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fixed the final citation needed tag, but it still needs a page number (Google Books apparently doesn't display page numbers). Bremps... 04:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 11

October 11, 2023 (2023-10-11) (Wednesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Rainer Gut

Article: Rainer Gut (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.nzz.ch/wirtschaft/nachruf-rainer-e-gut-der-manager-der-die-credit-suisse-gross-machte-ld.1731609
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: Swiss bank manager, chairman of Credit Suisse (1983–2000). 65.94.213.53 (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: D. J. Gokulakrishnan

Article: D. J. Gokulakrishnan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Times of India
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.

 Cricketer and coach. Ktin (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Posted Stephen 22:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment , Step how is this posted in RD? There are no comment from other users? Also this is very short article? Fahads1982 (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am an involved editor here, as the nominator, so take my words with that context. I personally do not see an issue with the article's length. At 2391 characters it definitely is not a stub. It is a start-class biography that meets minimums for homepage / RD. I personally have seen better biographies, but, what is there meets our homepage expectations. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 02:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's a referenced start class article, nominated by an editor with a history of quality work who understands the requirements. Stephen 03:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Rudolph Isley

Article: Rudolph Isley (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The 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.

 elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Close, but a bit short There's a few uncited sources, but most of them appear to be obvious fixes, like linking to the Rock Hall class list or info on them, for example. TheCorriynial (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A lot more work needed on referencing. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) North East Express

Consensus will not develop to post. Stephen 22:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: North East Express (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A train derailment of a major train in India. More than 12 coaches derailed, 6 dead and more than 100 injured. (Post)
News source(s): The Quint, , Live Mint, Reuters, The Indian Express
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Train derailment in India Leoneix (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: No article specific to the event Prodrummer619 (talk) 05:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per above, plus death rate is not significant enough. Editor 5426387 (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No article and minor impact. The Kip 16:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not notable enough, doesn't have its own article. Unknown-Tree (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not notable, doesn't even have an article, blurb doesn't even follow ITN format, it's even missing a bolded link. Also not even proposed in the right day section. JM2023 (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per JM2023. Also great blurb lol
Elisecars727 (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Cal Wilson

Article: Cal Wilson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Age
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: New Zealand comedian who worked in Australia in her later years HiLo48 (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The Television section needs more citations. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 15:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Notable enough. RIP Cal. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Therealscorp1an, please note that a recent death nomination is NOT about notability. It is only about article quality. Please read Wikipedia:In the news/Recent deaths if you want to contribute to these discussions. Schwede66 23:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is much improved and ready to go IMO. Nigej (talk) 05:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Oppose Article is mostly a list of "bullet points". It needs substantial rewriting before posting. Nigej (talk) 12:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This wikibio appears to have been revamped. Time for a re-review, please? --PFHLai (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a IMDb source in the article, which is unreliable, and the lead needs work. Working on it. Tails Wx 20:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 03:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I was late to the party here. Yes I updated it :) Thank you for posting! ArleneHerman (talk) 21:02, 15 October 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=1180765263"