Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion in Template:In the news (ITN), a protected Main Page template, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.

Ricky Rubio in 2012
Ricky Rubio

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC.
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process. Remember, we use UTC dates.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
    • Preferably use the template {{ITN candidate}} to nominate the article related to the event in the news. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable secondary source. Press releases are not acceptable. The suggested blurb should be written in simple present tense.
    • Adding an explanation why the event should be posted greatly increases the odds of posting.
  • Please consider alerting editors to the nomination by adding the template {{ITN note}} to the corresponding article's talk page.

Purge this page to update the cache

There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN.

Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template.

Headers[edit]

  • Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.
  • Items can also be marked as (Ready) when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked (Ready), you should remove the mark in the header.

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

  • 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.
  • Some jargon: RD refers to "recent deaths", a subsection of the news box which lists only the names of the recent notable deceased. Blurb refers to the full sentences that occupy most of the news box. Most eligible deaths will be listed in the recent deaths section of the ITN template. However, some deaths may be given a full listing if there is sufficient consensus to do so.
  • The blurb of a promoted ITN item may be modified to complement the existing items on the main page.

Please do not...[edit]

  • ... add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  • ... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.
  • ... accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  • ... comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  • ... oppose a WP:ITN/R item here because you disagree with current WP:ITN/R criteria (these can be discussed at the relevant Talk Page)

Suggestions[edit]

September 19[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy
  • A German magazine reports that the chief financial officer of auto giant BMW, Nicolas Peter, plans to cut between 5 and 6 thousand jobs at that company, mostly at the Munich headquarters, before 2022. (Reuters)

Law and crime

RD: Zine El Abidine Ben Ali[edit]

Article: Zine El Abidine Ben Ali (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Euronews

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: President of Tunisia until he was ousted in 2011. Johndavies837 (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing: Rugby World Cup[edit]

Article: 2019 Rugby World Cup (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination
News source(s): BBC
Article updated

Nominator's comments: Begins on Friday, September 20, 2019 87.140.111.165 (talk) 07:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose posting single sport events in progress, which is not what Ongoing is intended for. The one exception is the FIFA World Cup(which I oppose as well) as the most popular sport in the world. The final result of this event can be posted. 331dot (talk) 07:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
2019 FIFA Women's World Cup and 2019 Cricket World Cup were posted as well. A sport event in progress is an ongoing event per definitionem. 87.140.111.165 (talk) 09:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree, we're well past the "is not what Ongoing is intended for" argument now, as proven above. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support assuming that prose updates will be made to the article every match. If the quality of updates is inadequate, it should go. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as I'm not too sure that a sporting event of this length really qualifies as Ongoing (agree with 331dot) and, while I may be acting cynical, I have doubts about this article's prose being updated often. Really I only think that the charts will be filled in with results on a regular basis ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait until completion, blurb the results, and then ONLY if the article has sufficient prose and isn't just a bunch of tables and charts. --Jayron32 13:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Israeli legislative election[edit]

Article: September 2019 Israeli legislative election (talk, history)
Blurb: No blurb specified
News source(s): (National Post), AP, BBC, uardian, AFP, Reuters

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: Official results expected Thursday. Right now the final outcome is unclear, other than that Netanyahu has probably lost. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:B05D:6D6C:4581:976B (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Wait – For outcome. – Sca (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait per Sca.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 01:12, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait - let the results come in, get updates done Kingsif (talk) 01:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Would we specify that this was a snap/do-over election, since after the April one a new government was never formed. I don't recall what we do. 331dot (talk) 07:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I would say no in the interest of brevity/clarity. Best attempt I can muster: "After April elections fail to produce a ruling coalition, the Blue and White party win a plurality in the second Israeli legislative election this year." GreatCaesarsGhost 12:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait until results come in but then support once proper updates are done ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
The nominated event is ITNR; quality is the only thing being discussed. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

September 18[edit]

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents
  • At least 27 people, a majority of them children, are killed in a fire caused by an electrical problem at a boarding school in a suburb near the Liberian capital of Monrovia. (BBC)
  • A Twin Otter cargo plane carrying rice and four people goes missing shortly after its departure from Timika, Indonesia. (The Loadstar)

International relations

Law and crime
  • 2019 Samoa assassination plot
    • Prosecution in the case of the latest attempt to kill Samoan Prime Minister Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi announce that Eletise Leafa Vitale, convicted of the assassination of one of Malielegoai's Cabinet members in another failed attempt at killing him in 1999, will testify in the trial against the conspirators of this year's plot. (RNZ)
  • Crisis in Venezuela
    • The Human Rights Watch NGO publishes details of what it deems to be arbitrary executions and arrests in Venezuela. The Venezuelan government alleges that most of those listed in the report were armed criminals, but admits that it had placed several hundred security agents under investigation for abuses of power and extrajudicial actions. (Human Rights Watch)

Politics and elections

RD: Graeme Gibson[edit]

Article: Graeme Gibson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CBC

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Canadian novelist, Margaret Atwood's partner. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:B05D:6D6C:4581:976B (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

RD: Fernando Ricksen[edit]

Article: Fernando Ricksen (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Professional footballer best known for his time in Scotland with Rangers  The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Not yet: The whole 24 years of his life before joining Rangers are not covered. It will be a challenge to find resources for something outside the English-speaking world in the 1990s, but this is a major absence. The honours are unsourced, some of them coming from this time in Holland in the 1990s as well. 2A00:23C5:E1AB:4500:195F:BAD6:53EC:BC46 (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

September 17[edit]

Armed conflict and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Ye Xuanping[edit]

Article: Ye Xuanping (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): SCMP

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Powerful former governor of Guangdong province. Article is fully sourced. Zanhe (talk) 05:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose I think it's a fairly weak article as far as references goes. Needs many more to be in good shape ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I could easily add dozens of media sources that repeat the same information, but I'm not a fan of WP:REFBOMB and believe it's the quality, not quantity, that matters. In fact, I've removed a source that does not add information that's not already present in other sources, but added scholarly books that provide in-depth research of his career. -Zanhe (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support To me the referencing seems sufficient and covers all major aspects of the article. SpencerT•C 12:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support As usual, AGF on the Chinese sources.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 01:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

17 September 2019 Afghanistan bombings[edit]

Article: 17 September 2019 Afghanistan bombings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Afghanistan, two suicide bombings kill 48 people and injure 80 people.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Article is a stub, but these were deadly attacks which should be notable enough for ITN. Davey2116 (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose for right now I would consider improving the article, add more details-- BoothSift 23:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality . I saw this early, couldn't find any article on it, but clearly an attack that had significant civilian causalities is not something we'd ignore even out of Afghanistan --Masem (t) 23:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose stub. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on notability due to the high death toll, but the article could use some development for now.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 23:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Thin. (There were multiple RS stories about this on Tuesday.) Alas, not particularly notable for Vietnamistan. – Sca (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support It looks like this is barely over the stub threshold, but only by the smallest of margins. It would be nice to see the article expanded some more though. --Jayron32 13:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Cokie Roberts[edit]

Article: Cokie Roberts (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ABC News, AP, WX Post, CNN

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 pbp 14:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Support pbp 14:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
You don't need a support for your own nom.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • That "criticism" section needs to be dealt with first. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. The 'Criticism' section seems gratuitously overlong and detailed. It seems to have been assembled by persons who didn't like Roberts's style or opinions. – Sca (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
100% agreed. It's laundry list of criticisms. There may be something in the paragraph about Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting stuff, but like the last para, about missing some abortion ads in early newspapers, that's human error and was corrected by NPR, so..yeah. I'm not seeing much there that can be kept in the current state. --Masem (t) 14:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I cut the abortion thing and the one Slate.com keyboard warrior's random opinion. we have to figure out what to do with the Guatemala thing and the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting info. If it's legit, it should be relocated. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose BLP concerns over that section.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Three sources, none of which get into dissing Roberts, added above. NYT says full obit to appear soon. – Sca (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Pawnkingthree: Criticism section has been trimmed in the last couple hours pbp 16:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose while there is an orange tag in the criticism section. No other issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Support Looks acceptable to me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose definitely not something we'd feature in its current state on the main page. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 17:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose until the "Criticism" section is dealt with. WP:CSECTION recommends that the problems with these sections can often be dealt with by placing the information into more appropriate places within the narrative of the article rather than collecting the criticisms into their own section, such that the organization of the article creates an undue weight to such matters. If someone did want this posted on the main page, they could see it done quickly if the information was placed chronologically into the main narrative rather than collected like a scarlet letter in its own section. --Jayron32 18:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support (Well, that group of three didn't take long, did it?) The orange tag is gone, and once that one {{fact}} I put at the one uncited sentence is dealt with I'm OK with this. Daniel Case (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Muboshgu:, @Ad Orientem: @Jayron32: I think your concerns have been allayed in the past few hours pbp 22:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Purplebackpack89, I still see two citation needed tags, and one questioning the reliability of a source. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: I resolved one of the CN tags. I switched out the questioned reference for a different one. And it turned out that that source also resolved the other CN tag, so I added it in a second place. pbp 23:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support satis. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support referencing problems have been fixed. -Zanhe (talk) 06:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. Sam Walton (talk) 11:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support Looks like all my concerns have been fixed. --Jayron32 12:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – Good work all. – Sca (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Comet Borisov[edit]

Article: C/2019 Q4 (Borisov) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Astronomers confirm the discovery of the first interstellar comet, ahead of its closest approach to the Sun on 7 December
Alternative blurb: ​Astronomers confirm the comet Borisov as the first interstellar comet, ahead of its closest approach to the Sun on 7 December
News source(s): Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias (IAC), The New York Times, arXiv

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The IAC, to my knowledge, is one of the first major astronomical institutions to explicitly state that this is a confirmed interstellar comet – I suspect most of us astronomy-minded editors were waiting for official confirmation of such, before nominating it for ITN. The New York Times source is to verify the 7 December perihelion date, and the arXiv source is the original paper of the comet's discovery from 12 September. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 05:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Support, significant science story, article in good shape. The previous interstellar object was not a comet. Brandmeistertalk 07:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Provided NYT source says the last interstellar comet was interstellar and probably a comet. It didn't change many lives at all. What's different now, especially to general audiences? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:02, September 17, 2019 (UTC)
@InedibleHulk: Bad argument. You do realise the "didn't change many lives at all" argument can literally be applied to the vast majority of ITN entries ever, yes? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 09:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, "many" is subjective. But next to most anything that happens on Earth, a chunk of ice 170 million miles away that may or may not be faintly visible through a consumer-grade telescope is going to seem relatively dull, just for remoteness from life. Unless you've invested time in caring about astronomy, of course. I'm happy it excites people like you, just concerned most of our readers won't feel they've learned anything useful. Could be wrong. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:32, September 18, 2019 (UTC)
  • Support article looks good, references look good, sources look good, and a neat discovery ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:33, 17 September 2019
  • Oppose/wait on two grounds: i) no peer-reviewed paper has been published and ii) we haven't learnt anything yet. 'Oumuamua was the first interstellar object; the second discovery of something is usually not an ITN story. Whether it shows a coma or not (comet vs asteroid) is not really that important. 'Confirmation' by the IAC does not make up for the lack of peer-review, which we usually require for science stories; in the case of 'Oumuamua we posted when the discovery paper came out in Nature. We could wait for one to come out on this object, or (my preference) not post at all unless & until something surprising is discovered. Modest Genius talk 11:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose principally on the lack of a peer-reviewed paper (its been submitting but not yet affirmed). I will assume that the journal it was submitted to will try to rush the review so that it is published before December and that might be the better time to post, when the comet is in closest proximity to Earth. --Masem (t) 14:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Much of the article is quite technical and won't be understood by most readers. General significance seems negligible. – Sca (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Eh on the technical side. I see a few places that unit conversions and linked are needed like on K2-18b to help establish large distances into more common language, but the article is describing the trajectory of a comet which is using all the proper terms that scientists would use, with blue links and some helpful "(asides in parans)" to assist the terms in context. What would be needed is establishing the revelance of why this would be ITN - eg , what is so important about an interstellar comet compared to one like Haley's ? (eg K2-18b explained the relative importance of finding water vapor on an exoplanet). --Masem (t) 15:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on being overly-specialist rather than general news; equally, the article may need a layman translation. Kingsif (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support article looks fine and a peer-reviewed paper is not necessary. The discovery has been verified by multiple observers; peer review unlikely to show up and say "hey, you didn't actually discover a comet". It's only going to change minor details. Banedon (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support with nods to the above !vote. Article is well referenced, and although technical, it includes directions for amateurs to observe the comet. These might be of interest to Wiki readers, and would not normally be included in a general audience news source. Obviously encyclopedic subject. I think "fist interstellar comet (as opposed to 'object/asteroid')" makes it suitably notable without pigeonholing.130.233.2.183 (talk) 09:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James Robertson[edit]

Article: James Robertson (judge) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Washington Post

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 Neutralitytalk 05:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Posted. He won't be up for very long though, as his death was announced at least on 11 September. [1]  — Amakuru (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Better late than never, especially given delays here at ITN. Appreciate your posting. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

September 16[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Law and crime

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections
  • Brexit
    • UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson abruptly pulls out of a press conference in Luxembourg to avoid an anti-Brexit protest organised and attended by British citizens living in Luxembourg. Luxembourg Prime Minister Xavier Bettel attends the press conference, where, during a short speech followed by questions from journalists, he contradicts Johnson's prior public statements and exposes that the UK government has not submited any concrete proposals for amendments to the UK's Withdrawal Agreement from the European Union, or delivered any alternative to the "Irish backstop" which Johnson wishes to replace. Bettel warns that Johnson "holds the future of all UK citizens in his hands" and that he shouldn't "hold the future hostage for party political gain". (BBC)
    • At the Liberal Democrats conference, party leader Jo Swinson reaffirms that if elected any future Liberal Democrat led government, would halt Brexit by revoking Article 50, adding that in the case of a hung parliament she would not enter a coalition with either the Conservatives or Labour. (BBC)

(Posted) RD: Sakahoko Nobushige[edit]

Article: Sakahoko Nobushige (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Nikkan Sports

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Lotus Tower[edit]

Closed per consensus for oppose. MSN12102001 (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Lotus Tower (talk, history)
Blurb: Lotus Tower becomes the tallest tower in South Asia with an height of 350m
Nominator's comments: The tower is also the 11th tallest in Asia and 19th tallest tower in the world Abishe (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No news sources have been provided to show that this is in the news. I also don't think the tallest structure in a particular region is notable enough, especially when it is the 19th tallest tower. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose 19th tallest in the world is far too low on the notability scale to be ITN Worthy, this would be more fitting on The Current Events portal. 173.128.225.139 (talk) 12:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. But this is clearly a potential DYK! MSN12102001 (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am really sorry and I take the blame for my blunder. I knew this should have only be nominated to DYN instead of ITN. I also didn't get the support from foreign sources. Abishe (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

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.

September 15[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

Sports

(Closed) Purdue Pharma[edit]

Closed per consensus for oppose. MSN12102001 (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Purdue Pharma (talk, history) and Opioid epidemic in the United States (talk, history)
Blurb: ​American pharmaceutical company Purdue Pharma files for bankruptcy following lawsuits around its role in the U.S. opioid epidemic.
Alternative blurb: ​American pharmaceutical company Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of oxycodone, files for bankruptcy following lawsuits around its role in the U.S. opioid epidemic.
News source(s): WaPo

Both articles need updating
Nominator's comments: Purdue Pharma is the multi-billion-dollar company best known as the manufacturer of OxyContin; this bankruptcy filing "is expected to trigger the ultimate demise of the company". Articles need updating. Davey2116 (talk) 03:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support - The cases against Purdue Pharma and their involvement in the opiod crisis is significant to be ITN-worthy, but the situation makes it hard to find where the right point is for that ITN moment given there's multiple suits going on, that this bankruptcy falls after some of the states have reached a settlement with Purdue, and now there's the word about the company trying to shift $1B to international accounts. There could be a more "serious" point in the future, where there could be criminal charges or the like. But in lieu of knowing how those chips will lie, this seems like a significant moment for this story. Obviously, updates before posting need to be in place. --Masem (t) 04:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support original blurb pending updates and serious review. The above makes a very good case for posting. I suggest that Purdue be the only bold link in the blurb, considering that the impetus for posting is their bankruptcy. Purdue's page is very highly weighted towards their role in the opioid epidemic, and someone with more pharmaceutical knowledge than me should determine if that weight is due. The opioid epidemic page is not yet updated. Unlike J&J or Insys (other co's sued and fined for the epidemic), Purdue is at least pro forma bankrupt and was the original developer of the most damaging of the drugs of the epidemic.130.233.3.134 (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Chapter 11 provides protection from creditors and is the usual way that US companies survive such difficulties, rather than going out of business. What's happening here is corporate restructuring along with lots of lawsuits and the matter will be ongoing for years. If you look at a source like CDC, you can see that prescription opiods were a 1990s issue while, two waves later, the issue is now powerful synthetics like fentanyl. People have been using and abusing opiods for centuries and an ITN blurb is not a good place to summarise this complex topic. Andrew D. (talk) 10:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Your description of Ch.11 is not correct. Ch.11 as a means to escape legal liabilities is a "contentious" thing, to put it lightly, and any bankruptcy judge who thought that the filing was motivated by such (as opposed to regular business losses) would not grant it, or would force a Ch.7 with assets going to a trust to pays out to petitioners. The precise substance that is en vouge at this exact moment doesn't change the fact that dozens of people are killed by this drugmaker's product every day, more than all gun deaths combined. The product and company in question were the market-makers of the opioid epidemic and, just because there are other players now doesn't decrease their significance; it increases it rather. Whether the updates are suitably thorough is a separate question, but to describe this bankruptcy as "usual" and the effects of the drug as not an "issue" is factually wrong.130.233.3.134 (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I do consider the concern that Chap 11 to avoid/reduce settlement costs is a key tactic here, but again, the whole mess on Purdue and opoids is ITN-worthy, but there's hard to say where there's a proper point to post it knowing the legal cases out there now. This is the one point that summarizes the results of several trials into one. --Masem (t) 14:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The part of this article on the bankruptcy of the company, which in my mind is the event being cited in this ITN nomination, is only a single sentence and needs major expansion ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 11:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This filing and settlement is going to be challenged by 26 states. There's a whole legal brouhaha that will take ages to get sorted out. Nothing is set in stone yet.--WaltCip (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Ch. 11, etc. Filing a civil suit is not proof of culpability. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

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: Ric Ocasek[edit]

Article: Ric Ocasek (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NBC New York

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Lead singer of the Cars. Some referencing gaps, just needs a bit of work. Spengouli (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - Article is pretty well-sourced and fleshed out. RIP to a legend of new wave. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Article looks in reasonable shape. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Article is good quality. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I added {{cn}} tags where citations are needed, because the article's quality isn't good enough for the main page yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support once all needed cites have been added. Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - and ready to post.BabbaQ (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    BabbaQ, citations still needed. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support pending improvement It'll be ready as soon as the last six CN tags are dealt with.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 01:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I believe I have cleaned up all remaining citation gaps. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Posting – Muboshgu (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

2019 Ashes series[edit]

Article: 2019 Ashes series (talk, history)
Blurb: Australia retains the Ashes after drawing the 2019 Ashes series with England
Alternative blurb: ​In Test cricket, the Ashes series is drawn, so Australia retain the trophy
Alternative blurb II: ​In Test cricket, the Ashes series concludes with Australia retaining the Ashes following a drawn series against England
News source(s): SMH

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: ITNR article about the recently concluded 2019 Ashes Series Chrisclear (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Support. Article looks good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Target article is thoroughly sourced & doesn't have any noticeable problems.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 19:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose no prose summary of the last two Tests, probably the most important two since the fourth resulted in Aus retaining the urn and the fifth resulted in the series being drawn. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per The Rambling Man but this event should not be ITNR anyway. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose at present due to lack of prose summaries of last two tests. It is worthy of ITNR as one of the earliest international sports competitions on earth. The title dates back to 1882 so it is older than the modern Olympics and a very important sports event in both countries. At the moment, I am tired due to late nights watching the Ashes but that is another story. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As per above. Sherenk1 (talk) 08:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Not ready per above. Should definitely go up once those two match summaries are in place. The nominated blurb is clunky, doesn't specify the sport, unnecessarily includes the year, and runs into the singular/plural ENGVAR issue we always try to avoid. Adding an altblurb. Modest Genius talk 10:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Not ready, but worthy of a blurb once it is, per Modest Genius. I've proposed a third possible blurb, and I think we should avoid the grammar used in the ALT0 version, because there is an ENGVAR mismatch - in the UK we'd say "Australia retain the Ashes", while in Australia (and in the US too) they would say "Australia retains the Ashes". Better to word it in such a way that this is not an issue.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I preferred my way around, because the result is a draw, which leads to a retention of the trophy. The retention is secondary to the draw. Modest Genius talk 12:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Australian here, we also say "Australia retain the Ashes" - don't know why you'd think we use American grammar. But agree it should be reworded to avoid confusing US English speakers. -dmmaus (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Needs prose summaries of the last 2 matches, tests, whatever they are. And I agree with Amakuru that altblurb is bad. Use the Australian form (since they won) or use Altblurb2. Rockphed (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all of the above. Article is incomplete, needs prose summaries of the last two tests. Consider this full support once that is fixed without pinging me. --Jayron32 12:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Honestly not a notable sporting event in terms of outcome. I think we all could have predicted this turnout. (SARCASM) Indeed, it would be far more notable and newsworthy if the Krikkiters appeared out of nowhere to steal the Ashes to rebuild the Wikkit-- What? That only happened in fiction? Now you're telling me! In all seriousness, as per the above, will support once updated to include prose summaries.--WaltCip (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
"I think we all could have predicted this turnout." Really? I'm an avid fan, and I certainly couldn't have. And you clearly don't appreciate the significance of The Ashes, even outside the countries directly participating but within the cricketing world. I don't find comments like yours helpful. (Even though you are right about the missing content. But others had already said that.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Jesus Christ, HiLo. I was making a joke, as I thought my reference to a Douglas Adams book would have indicated. Calm down.--WaltCip (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per others -- BoothSift 23:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

RD: Rudi Gutendorf:[edit]

Article: Rudi Gutendorf (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC,

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Rudi Gutendorf,has coached 55 teams in 32 countries across five continents which is a record. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Needs work for now. I'm sure they've had an impressive career, but the "Career" section is one uncited sentence, the "Coaching career" is two paragraphs (one of which is an uncited sentence), and I'm not sure why those are two separate sections. It's also unusual for the list of categories to be much longer than the article itself. I'll support if it's cleaned up, but for now I regretfully oppose.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 19:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's a stub at present. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 FIBA Basketball World Cup[edit]

Article: 2019 FIBA Basketball World Cup Final (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The FIBA Basketball World Cup concludes with Spain defeating Argentina in the final.

Article updated

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: The article has been updated.

  • Updating the Final article. This is the biggest World Cup of the year. You won't see a Spanish-speaking final in the other two... Howard the Duck (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Haha, there might not be any Spanish-speaking countries involved but you might want to look at the global viewing figures for the Cricket World Cup :) Black Kite (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
*Yes, "biggest" was a foolish claim there. And looking at List of International Cricket Council members#Associate Members I see Spain itself, plus several other Spanish speaking nations. Not likely contenders for the World Cup at this stage perhaps, but eligible. HiLo48 (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@Howard the Duck: Nice try with both Cricket and Rugby in 2019. 87.140.111.165 (talk) 09:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Macaca fuscata juvenile yawning.jpg


Sca (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

September 14[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

Sport

(Posted) All-Ireland Senior Football Championship[edit]

Article: 2019 All-Ireland Senior Football Championship Final (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Gaelic Football, Dublin beat Kerry 1-18 to 0-15 in the All Ireland Final replay to become the first male team in GAA history to win 5 All-Ireland titles in a row.
Alternative blurb: ​In Gaelic football, Dublin beat Kerry 1–18 to 0–15 in the All Ireland Final.
Alternative blurb II: ​In Gaelic football, the All-Ireland Championship concludes with Dublin defeating Kerry in the final.
News source(s): RTE

Article updated

Nominated event is listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

Nominator's comments: Wait until if and when the article is properly updated - it has now at least arguably been technically updated, but it still has a very long way to go before reaching the standards expected for ITN. (Also my apologies for any arguably systemic sexism probably inevitably associated with all this - the assumption everywhere that the players are male, the fact that only the men's final is ITNR, and so on; if anybody wants to try to do anything about this, such as suitably rewording the blurb or altblurb, please feel free to try; meanwhile as a starter I've now added See Also links between 2019 men's and women's finals, citing WP:BIAS, the needs of this nom, and existing practice in the (GAA-related) Australian International Rules articles; I've now also amended the blurb as somebody at the article has pointed out that 5-in-a-row is only a record for male teams). Tlhslobus (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose no prose, plenty of tags. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. --CoryGlee (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait Just like last year. Let's wait. MSN12102001 (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait Per the nom-- BoothSift 04:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Not ready. One sentence per game does not constitute a prose summary. I've also added a second altblurb in our standard phrasing (we never include scores). Modest Genius talk 10:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Support altblurb2. Hugely improved, that's good enough for me. Modest Genius talk 19:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
      • I think this is ready as all the oppose !votes have been addressed. Marking as such. Modest Genius talk 11:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose article prose is insufficient, per all of the above. Consider this a full support once that is fixed. --Jayron32 12:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support alternative blurb II. Prose added. Pictures added. Tags gone. --Gaois (talk) 04:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the tremendous improvements you've made to the article, Gaois. Tlhslobus (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I've amended the above box so that it now says Updated by Gaois.Tlhslobus (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as nom, now that quality has been improved (mostly by Gaois's hard work) to the point where, with much prose added and tags gone, it seems adequate to me (tho admittedly I'm not the best judge of quality and I'm probably rather biased here). I'm happy to leave the blurb or altblurbs question to others. Tlhslobus (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT•C 12:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) 2019 Abqaiq-Khurais attack[edit]

Article: 2019 Abqaiq-Khurais attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Drone attacks have set alight two major oil facilities run by the state-owned company Aramco in Saudi Arabia, state media say.
Alternative blurb: Drone attacks on two major Saudi Arabia oil facilities by the Houthi lead the Saudis to halt half of their oil production.
News source(s): BBC, AP, AFP, Guardian, Reuters, Bloomberg

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Article short but referenced. Impact on oil price will depend on just how extensive the damage is Sherenk1 (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Wait – Developing. Effects unclear. (Govt. sez fires controlled, Saudi TV sez no casualties.) – Sca (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait but added alt blurb that I think captures what is a bit larger picture here, given that there were no casualties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talkcontribs)
Rather than "the Saudis," etc., how about "lead Saudi Arabia to cut half its oil production" – ?? (Keep in mind we don't know how long this will last.) – Sca (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The loss of 6 million barrels of oil production per day is of enormous significance. EternalNomad (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
    • (That's 5% of the daily production, which is not trivial, from what sources have said). --Masem (t) 19:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support It's reduced its production by 50%. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per EternalNomad. | abequinnfourteen 23:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I'm afraid this will worsen the Iran-Saudis proxy war. --CoryGlee (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Posted. El_C 23:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Either before or while it was being posted, I had worked to expand bg + stuff. --Masem (t) 23:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • By all means, feel free to still do so. El_C 23:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh sure, I'm just noting - the article in the original state was not great in length, but by the time you posted, I believe I got the bulk of the changes I made in. --Masem (t) 00:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support – Sunday's Guardian quotes several predicting "jolt" in prices. Sca (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Not to take away from this article's ITN importance, but it's surprising to read that as the Saudis said they expect to have the fields back up by tomorrow, and will use reserve oil to minimize pipeline disruption. There is very valid cocner that if the Abquiq facility was shut down for a long time (and the Houthis seem intent on that), it would cause significant jolts, but not now. --Masem (t) 13:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Who knows? Saudi Arabia seems to be an opaque society politically. Sca (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - the blurb should probably be changed to not mention Houthi responsibility, as there is some controversy as to the level of which the Houthi were responsible. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 22:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks, blurb changed. For future reference, WP:ERRORS will probably get a faster response than here for blurb change requests. Best, SpencerT•C 00:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Bloomberg's "Oil Prices Jump Most on Record" added to sources above. – Sca (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

September 13[edit]

Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime

(Posted) RD: Bavelile Hlongwa[edit]

Article: Bavelile Hlongwa (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): News24, IOL, EWN

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Start Class article. Deputy Minister Hlongwa died in a car accident, while trying to assist people that were involved in a previous accident. LefcentrerightTalk 13:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: If possible, could use some information regarding what she did/accomplished as a politician. She took office in May, and I'm not familiar enough with South African politics to know if she would have started involvement in projects/etc. Otherwise, referencing looks reasonable. SpencerT•C 01:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@Spencer: I have expanded the paragraph regarding her appointment to Parliament and the National Cabinet. Unfortunately, Hlongwa was a "new" politician, so there is not much info on her time as a Member of Parliament and Deputy Minister. Despite the lack of political experience, she was a well-known name in the chemical engineering industry here in South Africa. LefcentrerightTalk 13:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paul Cronin[edit]

No further discussion needed for this item. SpencerT•C 15:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Paul Cronin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ABC

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Start Class article. Sourcing needs some work. has been improved after a team effort by multiple editors. DBigXray 06:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The article has undergone major improvements. Must be close to good enough to post. HiLo48 (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

ATTENTION!! ATTENTION!! ATTENTION!! I know this isn't someone important in Wikipedia's biased world, like an American college basketball hero, but a whole bunch of people have worked hard on this article. Can someone who can do something about this PLEASE pay some attention, please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (And can we please do something long term about the fact that work like what has been done here gets ignored so easily by the mass of people running this area?) HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Woah, no need to WP:SHOUT. Your !vote is enough; RDs tend not to need more than a few supporting comments before they get posted.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 23:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
No need to shout? Really? It's now almost a day since the item, IMHO, was ready to post. So how do we get it posted? (See earlier comment about an American college basketball hero.) This place does not work well at all. HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay, wow. Have you ever heard that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar? Or that you should put "(Ready)" in the subject header line in front of "RD: Paul Cronin" to easily denote to admins scanning the table of contents that the article is ready? Your comments are wholly inappropriate and almost made me pass by without doing anything. I'll post it now because it is ready and I'm not trying to make a WP:POINT about your behavior. But don't ever pull something like this again. I won't be so nice the next time. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't follow perfectly correct procedure. I spend very little time here these days because of the arrogant attitude of too many of the owners (and I use that word deliberately) so I don't know all the rules. I only pop up when I know there's something genuinely worth following up, and always find it difficult to get those owners out of their little insular bubbles, and to actually look at items from cultures they know nothing about. HiLo48 (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
HiLo48, wow, great apology. That and your below comment make me regret posting this. If you can't be WP:CIVIL on this part of Wikipedia, maybe don't be on this part of Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
My approach got this posted, didn't it? Nothing else was working. Are you proud of the nomination process being as biased as it is? HiLo48 (talk) 06:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support and @HiLo48: Calm down, the admins have other things to do-- BoothSift 01:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
For twenty-two and a half hours? I really don't believe it would take that long for an American college basketball hero, completely unknown outside that country, to be posted. And nobody forces anyone to become an Admnin. I shall add this to my large list of examples of Wikipedia's inherent biases. HiLo48 (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support And if Australian cinema wants the real world to start giving its most popular some good old-fashioned hero adulation, maybe start awarding something historically and universally better than silver? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:55, September 17, 2019 (UTC)
  • HiLo has a history of believing that WP:CIVIL doesn't apply to him. This resulted in an RFC/U in the past and also led to his being topic-banned from ITN. I strongly advise that he tones down his rhetoric before this happens a second time. If this is how volunteer admins get treated around here, no wonder this project has such shoddy editor and admin retention. WaltCip (talk) 11:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

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

(Closed) RD: György Konrád[edit]

Stale, unimproved. Stephen 02:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: György Konrád (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The New York Times

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.
 Gumruch (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
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: Eddie Money[edit]

Article: Eddie Money (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Variety

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

 Masem (t) 14:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Support plenty of references and well developed article ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Well referenced. Good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Worthy of display on the main page. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 03:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Texas Lawmaker Briscoe Cain issues death threat to Beto O’Rourke[edit]

Closing per WP:SNOW. This has no chance of being posted. Politicans threaten each other every day, everywhere. 331dot (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Beto O'Rourke 2020 presidential campaign (talk, history) and Briscoe Cain (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Texas Lawmaker Briscoe Cain issues death threat to Beto O’Rourke
News source(s): Slate

Second article updated, first needs updating
 Count Iblis (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Are you serious? You can't be serious.--WaltCip (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Nope. --Masem (t) 14:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for obvious reasons ~mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

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.

September 12[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Frederic Pryor[edit]

Article: Frederic Pryor (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Times

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Died Sept. 2, but just reported recently. Neutralitytalk 13:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Referencing looks good, goes into sufficient detail on what he was notable for and his professional career. SpencerT•C 01:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Spencer, can we get this added? This has been lingering a few days with no opposition. Neutralitytalk 04:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

(Pulled blurb) RD: ʻAkilisi Pōhiva[edit]

Proposed image
Article: ʻAkilisi Pōhiva (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Incumbent Tongan prime minister ʻAkilisi Pōhiva (pictured) dies aged 78.
News source(s): Radio New Zealand France 24 ABC.au

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Tonga incumbent PM I'm not sure whether or not he deserves a blurb being an Incumbent PM, up to you Sirs/Ladies. --CoryGlee (talk) 00:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Support blurb since he was the head of government. Banedon (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb There is no need to treat Tonga differently than Zimbabwe or Tunisia. While it may be small and not as well known, Tonga is still a nation in its own right. Therefore, as an incumbent PM, he deserves the blurb. -- BoothSift 02:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Not only the incumbent PM but also a huge figure who brought democracy to the country. Ample global coverage, which is rare for the Pacific Islands region. EternalNomad (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly support RD, oppose blurb Tonga has a population of only about 100,000, smaller than thousands of individual cities around the world and one of the smallest sovereign nations. That being said, an excellent RD candidate, as a well-covered prime minister death, even of a small country. 1779Days (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support RD and blurb - quality is up to par. Marked as ready, given no objections to RD for now --DannyS712 (talk) 06:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - in this case a blurb is definitely called for.BabbaQ (talk) 06:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb on the basis that this represents a change in the head of government for Tonga. Would suggest adding the new Prime Minister to the blurb once the new Prime Minister has been chosen. NorthernFalcon (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support blurb sitting PM dies, sure thing for a blurb, regardless of the population, that's pure bias. Article is good to go too. Let's GO! The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Posted. Image to follow. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • May I suggest using his photo at the front page. Mugabe has been there for a while.BabbaQ (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Posting in a moment. Needed to wait for its protection. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support blurb per above; death of a sitting prime minister is notable enough for a blurb. Also this is a change in head of government, which is (in all but name) ITN/R. Davey2116 (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    It most assuredly is not ITN/R. This has been the subject of discussion and rejected. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • That's why I said "in all but name". There are very few (if any) cases where a change in head of government is not notable enough for ITN. Davey2116 (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose blurb: the amount of prominence we devote to political leadership positions within a nation-state, itself based on an European invention of the 1800s, without any due regard for size, newsworthiness, and encyclopedic value, is completely perplexing to me. Of course I respect that other editors feel differently and I have no hope of pulling this back but I would like to just register my strong dissent on this issue. We use the modern state as an arbitrary measure of value, yet we do not hold other fields, such as science, business, music, technology, to the same standards, is neither doing our readers a service nor good for overall topical balance. Somehow we feel the need to obsess over presidents and prime ministers, many of whom are far less influential than even a second-rate Silicon valley executive, or any published scientist on Nature. Colipon+(Talk) 17:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. Relatively brief article makes no compelling case for broader regional importance that is needed for posting as a blurb. SpencerT•C 04:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb What Colipon said. Also, bias is about promoting "our" version of the world (US/UK/India are more important). Some nations/states are more important than others. It's disingenuous to suggest the goings-on in China and Haiti are equally important because they are both countries. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – Tonga has a population of 100,000. It's all very well to be even-handed in such matters, but this really wasn't in the news much, for obvious reasons. – Sca (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb I don't think we have consensus that every leader who dies in office gets a blurb.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb Yes, he was an incumbent, but Tonga is tiny, and his death wasn't untimely or anything. Mayors of most large cities have had more global influence than he has. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Pulled Consensus to post no longer exists. I will add this to RD for now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • RD only, oppose blurb. If we include minnows of the political world such as AP (rather than the big fish only), we would have to include every head of state or government who dies in office - & perhaps former heads as well. There are hundreds of politicians who are more important than him, including many countries' leaders of the opposition, cabinet ministers, mayors etc.

    Including Mugabe was likewise unjustified - he was ancient, no longer in power, died naturally & was only important in that he ruined the economy of a previously prosperous country. Jim Michael (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I bow to the changing consensus, but this man was important to his country and received outsized coverage for a typical leader of such a small nation. Mugabe was also extremely important to his country's history and world affairs, and not just for wrecking its economy. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Heads of state & government usually are very important to their own countries, but that doesn't make them important to the world. AP was of no major relevance even to the rest of Oceania, let alone the world; the vast majority of people haven't even heard of him. RM was a hate figure rather than an important world leader. Jim Michael (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
"The vast majority of people haven't even heard of him" is not a reason to not post this. This isn't a popularity contest- and maybe people would learn something that they didn't know before. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The population of Zimbabwe is larger than that of Tonga by a factor of about 160; also, Mugabe was a figure in a broader regional conflict which had involvement from all the major powers; as such his influence extended beyond Zimbabwe, too. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia's systemic bias is showing. We do a horrific disservice to our readers when we post a story that was notable within its own rights, then pull it down again two days later because of a sudden development of a micro-consensus. It is an extraordinarily bad precedence to set to decide on an ad hoc basis which deaths of sitting heads of state are "notable enough" based on the population and size of their country. That's not our job. Our established procedure is to post the death of a head of state as a blurb - period, end of story. Re-post blurb ASAP.--WaltCip (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
What makes you think that we have a policy of routinely posting blurbs for deaths of heads of state? We've not done so for the large majority of deaths of heads of state (& heads of government). Jim Michael (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure where you are getting the idea that there is "established procedure" on this issue, perhaps you could link me to this specific policy or procedure? Nothing in the "Recent deaths" policy states that we must post the death of every incumbent head of state or head of government - in fact it encourages discussion, and makes note that only "transformational world leaders" should get blurbs in their own right. Colipon+(Talk) 03:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
His blurb had a picture for Christ's sakes. Why is ITN so bloody fickle to post a blurb with a picture and then pull it down days later because some people got mad?--WaltCip (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
The blurb was posted too quickly; people objected, therefore there was no consensus and it was rightly pulled. That's how ITN works.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • With all due respect: I originally posted it for RD only, other people suggested the blurb. But what I find a disaster is that Wikipedia approves of something at a moment and two days later backs up, it shouldn't happen whatever the news are about. --CoryGlee (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
    I agree. I would definitely support reinstating the blurb. To save the reputation of Wikipedia.BabbaQ (talk) 08:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
The blurb was posted without a real consensus, for the natural death of an elderly, insufficiently notable person. The mistake was posting the blurb. Removing it was the correct action to remedy that. Reinstating it would be repeating the error. Many far more notable politicians' deaths weren't given blurbs. Jim Michael (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Jim Michael Before I posted it, there was only one oppose blurb comment, the rest were in favor, so I respectfully disagree that there was no "real consensus". Yes, the consensus changed, and that's okay with me, but to say there wasn't one initially is incorrect. This wasn't just the death of a "politician", but of a sitting head of state. If there have been other deaths of heads of state or politicians that you feel merit blurbs, please propose them; we can only consider what is nominated. 331dot (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I meant that the discussion was insufficient in length and time before it was posted, rather than that there were many objections (which I acknowledge there weren't). I know what position he was in, but it was of a very small country. The only way it would be justified in giving a blurb to him is if we were to give a blurb about the death of every (sitting) head of state or government, which we don't do. I'm not saying that other heads of state/government should have been given blurbs who weren't - I'm saying that there were others who were closer to being deserving of one than him. Jim Michael (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The I await your nomination of them. There is no arbitrary minimum discussion time for a nomination (which has been suggested and failed many times). 331dot (talk) 14:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
In fact, there have often been complaints (usually from TRM) that we're not posting ready items fast enough. Stephen Hawking's death went up FIFTEEN MINUTES after being nominated.--WaltCip (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
There are some people who are very clearly notable enough for a blurb; Hawking is a very good example of that. Jim Michael (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • May I suggest a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_towns_and_cities_with_100,000_or_more_inhabitants. All of these thousands cities have a population comparable to, and in most cases, greater than that of Tonga. If one of their mayors died in office, would it be blurb worthy? If it was one of those cities with a population of 100,000-200,000, 99%+ likelihood it would not. Could it be RD worthy? Potentially, indeed I've seen quite a few mayors over cities with populations in the 100,000+ range that have died that have made it into RD (and, IIRC, some with smaller cities). This is the kind of death that RD was made for. Tonga may be "a sovereign country", but it's just too small and insignificant to be treated as equally important as, say, Zimbabwe or Tunisia (whose leaders' deaths saw blurbs earlier this year), both of which had populations over 100 times that of Tonga; in addition, Mugabe was leader of Zimbabwe for 37 years and was a household name in the West, and Essebsi was the first democratically elected president of Tunisia following only a few short years after the end of decades of authoritarian rule. IMO, Essebsi would have been eligible for a blurb without the "first democratically elected president" factor, but only just. In my opinion, as a general rule, if a head of government of a country with over 10 million population dies in office, it would be blurb-eligible; 5-10 million, depends on country and circumstances; under 5 million, generally not blurb-eligible unless that leader had an unusually large influence on the world for their country's size and/or the circumstances were extremely dramatic and/or unusual. 1779Days (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
So we should be biased towards heavily populated countries? It isn't Tonga's fault they have a small population(and not too many more could fit there anyway) and are not powerful. Once reason general elections are ITNR is it gives all nations big and small a shot at making it to the ITN box. What is the harm here in other people actually learning something that they might not have been aware of before, such as about this man? The argument seems to be that it is bad for people to learn about this. 331dot (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
This, to me at least, is not about trivializing Tonga, or smaller states. Rather, I am really puzzled by why we, as an encyclopedia ascribe such topical obsession with contemporary political power, whether it is posting the results of the latest parliamentary elections, or blurb'ing deaths of heads of state or government. The notion that any sovereign state passes the test for notability in these types of ITN discussions do not pass the muster of fundamental adherence to consensus; therefore, I'm inclined to believe consensus does not actually exist in both areas. Editors who believe there is consensus on the "sovereign state standard" ought to provide proof that such a discussion took place and consensus has been established. Colipon+(Talk) 17:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
@331dot: "So we should be biased towards heavily populated countries?" Being unbiased doesn't mean giving equal coverage. Some administrative units are larger than others; their leaders naturally have a larger impact, on the world as a whole, than others. We make an exception for elections in ITN/R, but it is an exception that proves the rule; virtually every sub-national event, or event based in a specific country, is from a handful of large countries. We can question which events we post, and we should, because we do have a problem with systemic bias, but the answer to that bias isn't numerical parity between countries. A perfect encyclopedia still isn't going to give Tongan topics as much space as, for instance, Indonesian topics; there's less to write about, and that's not a moral judgement, but a statistical one. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Post-pulling support blurb - All of the arguments whose basis is that "Tonga is tiny" (effectively saying that it's "too irrelevant" of a country for it to matter who leads it) should be ignored entirely per notvote & per idontlikeit. We post all national general elections (or other transfers of power) big and small, no matter what nation they take place in. I think we all know exactly what would happen on ITN if BoJo, Xi, Putin, Macron, or The Orange One™ suddenly dropped dead today. It wouldn't even be controversial. Why is it irrelevant when the incumbent leader dies in Tonga? Because Tonga itself doesn't matter to us? That's exactly the kind of geocentric bias that we all work so tirelessly to avoid on ITN.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 20:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    • It's not that much about Tonga but about the relative lack of information and depth of coverage in the subject's article, which is quite brief. It has just 13.2kb of material, compared to 171.49kb of Robert Mugabe's article or 85.1kb of Toni Morrison's article, both recently posted as blurbs. Trump: 403.8kb, BoJo 223.9kb, Xi 168.7kb, Macron 212.3kb, Putin 268.4kb. Per WP:ITNRD, "death of major transformative world leaders in their field may merit a blurb. These cases are rare, and are usually posted on a sui generis basis", and the length of the article in itself - 13.2kb - clearly indicates that Pōhiva's article does not demonstrate how he was a "major transformative world leaders in [his] field." I would be happy to reconsider my position if there is commensurate expansion of the subject's article to demonstrate this standard. SpencerT•C 21:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
      • I don't see a single oppose !vote, except for yours, which focuses its rationale on the length or quality of the article itself (and the length & quality of the article are fine for posting). Some !votes focus on whether or not there exists a precedent for posting deaths of incumbents, but don't go into detail on whether or not there should be one. As for his merits as an individual, EternalNomad points out that Pōhiva was a key figure in Tonga's movement towards democracy, and I'd also note that he holds the country's record for the longest tenure as an MP. On the fact alone that he was the incumbent PM, I support a blurb (and quite a lot of the oppose !votes thoroughly exaggerate the frequency of leaders dying while still in office; such events are obviously rarer than general elections). Discounting the !votes whose only arguments boil down to "Tonga doesn't matter" (especially the !votes from Vanamonde, Jim Michael, and 1779Days) shows that there's far from a consensus for pulling the blurb, as Wikipedia is not a vote.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 23:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
        • @Vanilla Wizard: We post blurbs of deaths only when the person who died had a transformative impact on the world. We don't post all, or even most, national leaders as blurbs; that's what the RD section is for. For instance, Fernando de la Rua, the President of Argentina, was only posted to RD; Reynaldo Bignone didn't receive a blurb, to the best of my knowledge; some years ago, I. K. Gujral didn't either; we didn't post the Indonesian President, lower down this page; I could go on. We need a degree of consistency with blurbs; if we give person X a blurb, we need to give people of similar importance a blurb. The leader of Tonga doesn't have a large impact on the world. That isn't a moral judgement on Tonga; the same is true of Malta, or Andorra, or Mauritius, or Luxembourg. There are close to 200 countries in the world; most of them have a new head of state every few years, meaning that if we posted every head of state's death, we would be posting one such approximately every week. If you want to change our standard, go ahead and make a proposal on the talk page; but until you do so, the death, of natural causes, of a leader of a small country, is very unlikely to be posted. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
          • This comment only addresses individuals who died long after their tenure ended, which - at least by my judgment - is much less notable than individuals dying while in office, which is quite rare. I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell that a consensus would exist to post the deaths of every former leader of every country, but that's not what we're discussing at all. If it doesn't make a difference by your own judgment whether or not they're the sitting head of state, then that's an acceptable position, but it does strike me as being a little disingenuous to say that we'd be posting stories like this "every week" when that's nowhere near true. Best wishes,  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 01:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
            • That's because "died in office" isn't something that automatically becomes terribly important. An untimely death in office, maybe. A suspicious death, even more so. But this man died of pneumonia-related "complications", typically a euphemism for age-related physical decline. He wasn't in Tonga; he was in a hospital in New Zealand for treatment. As such I see it as only marginally more significant than his dying after relinquishing office. My fundamental point remains, though; for any "type" of death, other things being equal the size of the country does matter, because it directly influences the impact the leader had on the world. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
              • The death of an individual who's been out of office for twenty or thirty years is not a news story which necessitates a change in the head of state, but the death of an incumbent is. That is the distinction that I make, and I continue to believe that the size of the country is not now nor should it become a factor. I don't intend to extend this lengthy thread any more than I already have, so this will be my last comment here.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 02:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Dying in office doesn't make a person more notable. It's common in many countries for the head of state/government to retain their position until death. In most cases, the death doesn't cause any major problems. If a war, revolution etc. happened as a result of such a death, that would make it more notable. Jim Michael (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • RD only Per "some things are more important than others". --qedk (t c) 13:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

References[edit]

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: