*'''Oppose''' Article's orange tagged, with good reason. So many unsourced paras and statements make this article's quality atrocious, and thus it cannot appear on ITNRD without proper revisions. Cheers, ''atque supra''! [[User:Fakescientist8000|Fake]][[User talk:Fakescientist8000|scientist]][[Special:Contributions/Fakescientist8000|8000]] 14:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Article's orange tagged, with good reason. So many unsourced paras and statements make this article's quality atrocious, and thus it cannot appear on ITNRD without proper revisions. Cheers, ''atque supra''! [[User:Fakescientist8000|Fake]][[User talk:Fakescientist8000|scientist]][[Special:Contributions/Fakescientist8000|8000]] 14:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
==== (Blurb When Ready) RD/blurb: Silvio Berlusconi ====
==== RD/blurb: Silvio Berlusconi ====
{{ITN candidate
{{ITN candidate
| article = Silvio Berlusconi
| article = Silvio Berlusconi
Line 39:
Line 39:
| sign = [[User:KTC|KTC]] ([[User talk:KTC|talk]]) 08:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC) <!-- Do NOT change this -->
| sign = [[User:KTC|KTC]] ([[User talk:KTC|talk]]) 08:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC) <!-- Do NOT change this -->
}}
}}
{{archive-top|Consensus for a blurb has been reached. Discussion should now focus on workshopping the blurb and/or the quality of the article. Cheers, '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper</span> ]]'''-''<small>([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])</small>'' 18:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)|CONSENSUS REACHED}}
*'''Support, blurb''' Article seems to be in relatively good shape, some citation needed templates need to be resolved though. If this is done, I see no reason why this should not be a blurb, considering Berlusconi's significance for Italian politics, media, sports etc. [[User:Zwerg Nase|Zwerg Nase]] ([[User talk:Zwerg Nase|talk]]) 08:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support, blurb''' Article seems to be in relatively good shape, some citation needed templates need to be resolved though. If this is done, I see no reason why this should not be a blurb, considering Berlusconi's significance for Italian politics, media, sports etc. [[User:Zwerg Nase|Zwerg Nase]] ([[User talk:Zwerg Nase|talk]]) 08:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''', I also think this is blurb-worthy, have updated the nomination. – [[user:filelakeshoe|filelakeshoe]] ([[user talk:filelakeshoe|t]] / [[special:contributions/filelakeshoe|c]]) [[user:filelakeshoe/kocour|🐱]] 08:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''', I also think this is blurb-worthy, have updated the nomination. – [[user:filelakeshoe|filelakeshoe]] ([[user talk:filelakeshoe|t]] / [[special:contributions/filelakeshoe|c]]) [[user:filelakeshoe/kocour|🐱]] 08:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Line 75:
Line 74:
*'''Weak oppose''' per previous opposers given the article's current quality. The article on Berlusconi has 1 [[Template:BSN|BSN]] and 12 [[WP:CN|CN]] tags, which is way too much for a {{tooltip|[[WP:BLP|BLP]]|BLPs are construed as articles about those who are living or recently deceased, of which Berlusconi still falls under here.}}. The article about his death has 1 CN tag, which maybe someone can find a source for that claim (Berlusconi is, after all, a controversial figure). However, Berlusconi was an extremely important figure in 21st century politics, and I would give my heartiest support when the article meets quality standards (in other words, remove/source all unsourced claims). <small>Side-note: because Berlusconi now has an article concerning his death, the blurb (should it be posted on the main page) should be updated to link the article about his death, such as "<code><nowiki>[[Death of Silvio Berlusconi|dies at the age of 86]].</nowiki></code>".</small> Thanks. — [[User:3PPYB6|3PPYB6]] <sup>([[User talk:3PPYB6|T]] / [[Special:Contribs/3PPYB6|C]] / [[Special:Log/3PPYB6|L]])</sup> — 16:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
*'''Weak oppose''' per previous opposers given the article's current quality. The article on Berlusconi has 1 [[Template:BSN|BSN]] and 12 [[WP:CN|CN]] tags, which is way too much for a {{tooltip|[[WP:BLP|BLP]]|BLPs are construed as articles about those who are living or recently deceased, of which Berlusconi still falls under here.}}. The article about his death has 1 CN tag, which maybe someone can find a source for that claim (Berlusconi is, after all, a controversial figure). However, Berlusconi was an extremely important figure in 21st century politics, and I would give my heartiest support when the article meets quality standards (in other words, remove/source all unsourced claims). <small>Side-note: because Berlusconi now has an article concerning his death, the blurb (should it be posted on the main page) should be updated to link the article about his death, such as "<code><nowiki>[[Death of Silvio Berlusconi|dies at the age of 86]].</nowiki></code>".</small> Thanks. — [[User:3PPYB6|3PPYB6]] <sup>([[User talk:3PPYB6|T]] / [[Special:Contribs/3PPYB6|C]] / [[Special:Log/3PPYB6|L]])</sup> — 16:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support blurb when ready''' per above. [[User:The Kip|The Kip]] ([[User talk:The Kip|talk]]) 18:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support blurb when ready''' per above. [[User:The Kip|The Kip]] ([[User talk:The Kip|talk]]) 18:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
{{archive-bottom}}
===== Workshop =====
* Taking {{u|Kiril Simeonovski}}'s idea and running with it. Discussion at this point should now focus on getting the article up to sufficient quality. To that end, further discussion about this can take place here. The various <nowiki> {{cn}} </nowiki> tags still need to be addressed, at the time of the last comment. Cheers, '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper</span> ]]'''-''<small>([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])</small>'' 18:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
* Taking {{u|Kiril Simeonovski}}'s idea and running with it. Discussion at this point should now focus on getting the article up to sufficient quality. To that end, further discussion about this can take place here. The various <nowiki> {{cn}} </nowiki> tags still need to be addressed, at the time of the last comment. Cheers, '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper</span> ]]'''-''<small>([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])</small>'' 18:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
*:FYI, this is in response to [[Wikipedia talk:In the news#How to handle or caution irregulars to ITNC on snowballing|this Talk page conversation.]] - [[User:Fuzheado|Fuzheado]] | [[User talk:Fuzheado|Talk]] 21:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
*:FYI, this is in response to [[Wikipedia talk:In the news#How to handle or caution irregulars to ITNC on snowballing|this Talk page conversation.]] - [[User:Fuzheado|Fuzheado]] | [[User talk:Fuzheado|Talk]] 21:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
* '''''O mangiar questa minestra o saltar questa finestra''''' (take it or leave it)
* '''''O mangiar questa minestra o saltar questa finestra''''' (take it or leave it)
:There seems to be no question about Berlusconi's death but the quality of the article is a whole other can of worms and simply looking for uncited content won't do. I just took a quick look and immediately noticed the following issues:
:There seems to be no question about Berlusconi's death but the quality of the article is a whole other can of worms and simply looking for uncited content won't do. I just took a quick look and immediately noticed the following issues:
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.
Hurricane Beryl, the earliest-recorded Category 5 Atlantic hurricane in a calendar year, leaves at least 15 people dead in the Caribbean, Venezuela, and the United States.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
Most major communities on social media site Reddit implement a temporary "blackout" in response to proposed changes to third-party access to Reddit's API. (Sky News)
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.
Oppose Article's orange tagged, with good reason. So many unsourced paras and statements make this article's quality atrocious, and thus it cannot appear on ITNRD without proper revisions. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist800014:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support, blurb Article seems to be in relatively good shape, some citation needed templates need to be resolved though. If this is done, I see no reason why this should not be a blurb, considering Berlusconi's significance for Italian politics, media, sports etc. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. I haven't looked at the article in detail but the news of his death should lead to sufficient activity to fix whatever few things that are still in need of fixing. I do support a blurb as well, like him or not, Berlusconi was probably the most transformative (negatively and positively) figure in Italian politics of the last decades. Regards SoWhy08:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Berlusconi has been an influential and important figure in Italian politics for over 30 years and served as prime minister for many years. Let's not rush, the article is already being updated. --Vacant0 (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. Textbook case of blurb. Influential, fixture in European politics and entertainment. There are numerous works about him, including film where he is protagonist. Kirill C1 (talk) 09:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. Probably one of the most influential figures in both politics and sports/football (particularly A.C. Milan). Some cleaning up is needed in some parts of the article but this should definitely be blurbed. Vida0007 (talk) 09:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. Highly influential figure that continued to achieve international attention long after his tenure as PM had ended. Actualcpscm (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break (Not sure why this was reverted earlier) It seems there is a clear consensus for a blurb. However, the article is not ready to be posted, as large sections are completely unreferenced. Instead of piling on supports or opposes, work on the article first. --Tone10:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I support a blurb, but the article is not even close to ready to post for RD to start with. Tons of uncited paragraphs. --Masem (t) 12:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb per all above. The article is currently based on 505 sources, there are some more to add for sure, but it certainly passes the threshold for being on ITN already. Yakme (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pile-on "support blurbs" aren't very useful here. I think we've already established this is an obvious blurb when ready but itneeds a lot of work.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus to post RD and blurb when quality standard is met. Currently, there are a dozen citation needed tags on the article. - Fuzheado | Talk13:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per previous opposers given the article's current quality. The article on Berlusconi has 1 BSN and 12 CN tags, which is way too much for a BLP. The article about his death has 1 CN tag, which maybe someone can find a source for that claim (Berlusconi is, after all, a controversial figure). However, Berlusconi was an extremely important figure in 21st century politics, and I would give my heartiest support when the article meets quality standards (in other words, remove/source all unsourced claims). Side-note: because Berlusconi now has an article concerning his death, the blurb (should it be posted on the main page) should be updated to link the article about his death, such as "[[Death of Silvio Berlusconi|dies at the age of 86]].". Thanks. — 3PPYB6(T / C / L) — 16:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Taking Kiril Simeonovski's idea and running with it. Discussion at this point should now focus on getting the article up to sufficient quality. To that end, further discussion about this can take place here. The various {{cn}} tags still need to be addressed, at the time of the last comment. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)18:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
O mangiar questa minestra o saltar questa finestra (take it or leave it)
There seems to be no question about Berlusconi's death but the quality of the article is a whole other can of worms and simply looking for uncited content won't do. I just took a quick look and immediately noticed the following issues:
The lead has many citations. This is anomalous because, for an article of this size, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body. And there are not just citations in the lead -- there are strings of them and that's usually the sign of controversy and disputes.
For example, the lead says "Berlusconi rose into the financial elite of Italy in late 1960s after being influenced and assisted by both Italian politician Piersanti Mattarella and singer Elena Zagorskaya". These people don't appear anywhere else in the article and so it is either an alternate theory about the subject's rise or it hasn't been properly integrated with the subject's detailed history. The sentence has two citations and a {{better source needed}} tag. The talk page doesn't explain why a better source is needed and so just sorting this single sentence out will require detailed research and discussion.
In the body, I see a bizarre table of the subject's legal history. There are some sections about this too with curious titles like "Ongoing trials". These say things like "As of October 2013, Berlusconi had only been convicted by the final appeal instance in 1 out of 32 court cases." or "As of 2017, Berlusconi's appeal regarding his six-year public office ban was pending before the European Court of Human Rights." As we're now in 2023 and the subject is dead, these give the impression of being wildly out of date. I suppose that this is layers of proseline which will need to be gone through again to make them coherent and current.
So, if ITN is wanting to report the death of the subject then it should just get on with it. ITN is in no position to evaluate the quality of such a large and complex article without a thorough examination of all such intricate details. And ITN has no special competence to do this.
ITN is appropriate to look at the state of an article and judge if it represents some of WP'S best work, and then say it is not appropriate for the Main Page if the quality is sufficiently far away from that mark. That this article was in such bad shape is the fault of the editors that have added to it without following the strict standards of BLP (re sourcing and other details). Thats too common in RDs and RD blurbs. We aren't going to post a very substandard article. Now if the sourcing was greatly improved and the article written in prosecute, then maybe we would be in a place that we could consider posting, even though there would still be lots of possible improvement left. Masem (t) 21:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prosecute – what does that mean, please? And, you're still not getting it – sourcing is not the quality issue here. The article already has over 500 citations and over 20 pieces of further reading including substantial books. The quality issues are coherence, consistency, accuracy, balance, synthesis and more. Simply reading through the article is a substantial task as it's over 18 thousand words of prose. Is there anyone here who has actually read through it all, let alone checking those 500+ sources? Andrew🐉(talk) 21:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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: Long time Japanese politician, was acting PM in 2000 after Keizō Obuchi entered a coma, and remained relevant all the way up to his death. Article may be on the short end. TheCorriynial (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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: Historic result for a pro-European party. It seems that Montenegro opens an interesting political phase with its eyes more on Brussels. The article is not ready (lacking prose in the results and the Aftermath or Reactions section). I will get to it tomorrow when I have some free time. I make the nomination in case someone wants to start working on it. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close - if it's not ready, don't nominate. This isn't a board to get people to help work on articles. Nfitz (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite normal for articles to be nominated when they still have loose ends or are incomplete in some way. And it's quite normal for editors to pitch in and help with issues like sourcing. This is especially likely with breaking news. The article in this case is marked with a {{current election}} template and is being updated by a variety of editors. The nomination should remain open because the alternative would be reverts or renominations which would tend to provoke an edit war.
As the procedural issue is dominating and complicating this nomination, I have started a discussion on the main ITN talk page: Election process.
Cannot agree, RD is equivalent to ITNR and numerous times comments by users help in identifying key areas that need improvement in that space (nearly almost always really), the same is the case with ITNR many a times. Multiple times nominators ask for help in the nom comment directly, nothing wrong with that as this is one of the forums for that; we are volunteers after all and can do with a little bit of help from each other :). Gotitbro (talk) 08:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality, support in principle - the article needs work as Alsor stated, however strongest possible oppose to any premature "procedural" close per WP:BURO and ITN policy - absolutely nowhere does it state that articles for ITN candidates have to be in emasculate shape when nominated, only when posted. Nowhere in #How_to_nominate_an_item or anywhere else on ITN is a policy of not nominating subpar articles endorsed, only posting. If you honestly believe that quality should determine if an article gets nominated, than prepare to remove almost all RD noms, most ITNR noms, a good chunk of blurb noms, and, frankly most content nominated. Dictating whether nominations should be made over something trivial as article quality (trivial as in not even being on the MP yes) is nonsense and a borderline (at least) WP:BURO violation, and considering that there have been users who have attempted to pull similar actions in the past, I will state that I will strongly oppose any attempt to normalize this on ITN. @Nfitz and @Rockstone35, I strongly advise both y'all in the future to achieve consensus before attempting to call for action completely untethered from any site-wide or ITN policy. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk·Contribs) 01:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ITN policy very clearly talks about quality, User:Knightoftheswords281. WP:ITN clearly says one of the purposes is "to showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events". Further down WP:ITNCRIT tells us that "Candidates for ITN are evaluated on two main grounds: a) the quality of the article and its updated content, and b) the significance of the developments described". As elections like this are ITNR, that means the ONLY way to evaluate the article is by article quality and updated content. If that's all we can do, then all we can do is reject it. If the nominator is fully aware that the article isn't ready, they shouldn't be nominating it. That anyone who participates in ITN thinks that article quality is a trivial part of the process, shocks me. If you are going to particpate in ITN, I'd suggest you read WP:ITN carefully, and apply it - rather than your own personal standards.
I see no reason anything should be nominated, especially those that are ITNR, until they are almost ready to go. We see lots of nominations where the quality should be better (though a nomination on the grounds that it's not ready is unusual!). Many times the nominations seem to be "nominate first, and read the article later" - which is obviously unacceptable. There'd be less work to do if articles were ready when they are nominated. I don't see issue rejecting (with no prejudice in resubmitting) articles that are very much not ready.
You mention emasculate shape ... I've been staring at a dictionary ... do you mean immaculate? Presumably not, as we'd never post anything if they had to be immaculate when we posted them - let alone nominating. I'm really not sure what you mean here.
You also refer to no mention of quality in #How_to_nominate_an_item. That's because it's the instructions on how to do something; not when to do something. If you read closely, you'll see that it refers to WP:ITN that clearly discusses quality. Nfitz (talk) 03:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ITN policy very clearly talks about quality, User:Knightoftheswords281. WP:ITN clearly says one of the purposes is "to showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events". Further down WP:ITNCRIT tells us that "Candidates for ITN are evaluated on two main grounds: a) the quality of the article and its updated content, and b) the significance of the developments described". As elections like this are ITNR, that means the ONLY way to evaluate the article is by article quality and updated content. If that's all we can do, then all we can do is reject it. If the nominator is fully aware that the article isn't ready, they shouldn't be nominating it.
Nowhere in WP:ITN and WP:ITNCRIT does it states that noms shouldn't be posted if quality is subpar - again, there's a difference between nominations and posted items; all of ITN's policies only refer to the latter. Yes, items ought to be nominated before posting, but the quality situation can improve over the course of the nom.
: That anyone who participates in ITN thinks that article quality is a trivial part of the process, shocks me. If you are going to particpate in ITN, I'd suggest you read WP:ITN carefully, and apply it - rather than your own personal standards.
WP:STRAWMAN. I did not say that article quality is a trivial facet, I stated that it should be a trivial facet in nominating. Dictating whether nominations should be made over something trivial as article quality (trivial as in not even being on the MP yes) is nonsense... - even though I could have been a little more clear, it's still clear that I'm not referring to posting from the parenthetical portion of that statement. Frankly, I suggest you re-read WP:ITN; nothing in there supports the argument that noms for articles of subpar quality should be closed.
I see no reason anything should be nominated, especially those that are ITNR, until they are almost ready to go. We see lots of nominations where the quality should be better (though a nomination on the grounds that it's not ready is unusual!). Many times the nominations seem to be "nominate first, and read the article later" - which is obviously unacceptable. There'd be less work to do if articles were ready when they are nominated. I don't see issue rejecting (with no prejudice in resubmitting) articles that are very much not ready.
Firstly, almost every nom these days openly acknowledge poor quality issues if they exist within the articles, so folks are definitely reading before nominating. Secondly, ITN stands for In The News. ITN has to operate at a rapid paste to keep up with the news as much as possible. You may respond by stating that Wikipedia is a slow aggregate (I forgot the exact term and page), but this holds as much weight on ITN who unironically use WP:NOTNEWS on In The News as a reason to oppose. Hence why stories are nominated shortly after they broke, and not several hours or days later when their quality improves. Often times, these articles were literally just created, or in the case of updated articles, just had their newsworthy event occur. Article creation and improvement takes time.
Which brings up a key point: that in spite of attempts here and in the past to downplay and even deny this, an integral facet of Itn is indeed improving article quality. Someone on here once stated that ITN was created from how Wikipedia was able to cover 9/11 in such detail as it was ongoing (though interestingly enough, Masem (talk·contribs) himself was one of the folks criticizing me in that linked discussion). ITN has a decent track record with article improvement. I mean, just look at RDs for example. Majority of items on ITN have their quality at the very least buttressed by being nominated. Additionally ITN brings in exposure for these topics as well. For example, not only would a lot of articles not have their quality improved if we set this insanely high standard, but additionally, most wouldn't even be nominated due to said quality issues, thus not only hindering article development, but also basically making their chances nil since without being nominated, no one would even know about some of them (RDs are a perfect example). There is absolutely nothing wrong with this facet in ITN: in fact, it's largely beneficial. Both of y'all seem to insinuate that Alsor was "demanding" y'all improve the article, which is not true. It was 11 am in his country of Spain when he nominated and he presumably went to sleep afterwards. All he stated was that someone could work on it while he was asleep. Now tbh, that final sentence did kind of insinuate that he made the nomination so that others can work, but I don't see it; I see someone (who did in fact work in article, which makes this character assassination even more bogus) about to go to sleep and nominating an article before going to bed. That final sentence may have also been butchered by his Engrish. Honestly, the fact that his comments caused such vitriolic comments as your this isn't a board to get people to help work on articles, or @Rockstone35's we are not here to help you write stuff is ridiculous. Are y'all that easily offended? Also, yes, as insinuated by the aforementioned comments, WP:VOLUNTEER is a thing, but that does not mean that editors cannot help each other or make a suggestion of such. How this got twisted into Alsor being lazy and wanting others to do the work for him is beyond me.
You mention emasculate shape ... I've been staring at a dictionary ... do you mean immaculate? Presumably not, as we'd never post anything if they had to be immaculate when we posted them - let alone nominating. I'm really not sure what you mean here.
Hyperbole meets pedantry. Yes, I mean immaculate, although emasculation is a perfect descriptor of what would occur to ITN's process if we were to implement you and Rockstone's view.
You also refer to no mention of quality in #How_to_nominate_an_item. That's because it's the instructions on how to do something; not when to do something. If you read closely, you'll see that it refers to WP:ITN that clearly discusses quality.
You called for a procedural close - i.e, policy based. If it really was that important, it would have been featured there or somewhere in the big blue box located above.
In fact, while on the topic of the blue box, come to think of it, if we're talking about nominations, why are you even concerning yourself with WP:ITN, which is about how an item should look when posted to the main page, rather than the guidelines listed above here on ITN/C, which is a literal rundown of what to do when nominating? In fact, while re-reading the post, I came across this from #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.
This is a clear repudiation of the belief than articles ought to be in great shape when nominated. If that was really the case, there would be no need to give a status on article quality when its basically presupposed.
To conclude, I again highly suggest not making these statements completely untethered from ITN/C policy. If you and Rockstone have an issue, take it to WT:ITN and form consensus, instead of attempting to enforce acts that go against established policy and precedent under the guise of being procedural. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk·Contribs) 06:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you are pulling someone's leg. There have always been articles nominated here that are not ready of which we have all, kindly, contributed to improve (and not just discuss their notability or degree of quality). How irresponsible. _-_Alsor (talk) 05:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm 100% serious User:Alsoriano97. Can you point to another nomination for an ITNR where the nomination basis was "it's not ready yet"? What's the point, all you get are mindless "Wait" and "Support when ready" comments, which have no relevant meaning - as it's ITNR - and not even a contentious ITNR topic. Literally the only nomination basis possible is quality - and if the nomination basis is "article is not ready" then what's the frigging point? Even more concerning is that some new users here think that quality is a trivial part of the process (for an ITNR!). Nfitz (talk) 05:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is with the persistent strawmanning? Firstly, by default, the principle nomination basis is it being ITNR, that's it. Secondly, even looking at Alsor's nom comment half his point wasn't even about the quality - it was the historicality of this moment.
What's the point, all you get are mindless "Wait" and "Support when ready" comments, which have no relevant meaning - as it's ITNR - and not even a contentious ITNR topic.
Yes, the waste that is all these "support when ready" and "wait" comments, we should wait until the article is finished and get just a bunch of "support" comments instead... because that's better? It's ITNR, if you're analyzing the "quality" of !votes, you're not going to be impressed. You keep going on about article is not ready" then what's the frigging point? if they're not ready, but by that logic, what's the point of nominating ITNRs in the first place since even under your nomination criteria (which is absolutely absurd to say; as if ITN didn't already have a problem with self-aggrandizing, idiosyncratic, ludicrously high-bar, and or dopey posting criteria, we now have to deal with nominating criteria as well [which unlike posting criteria, isn't even acknowledged in ITN's guidelines]), we'd only nominate articles when they're ready to go. At that point, why not just gather the ITN admins and just have them look over WP:ITN/R and post if the articles ever reach MP-quality.
Again, no one stated that quality is unimportant (yet another strawman and also a little bit of WP:BITE as well), but nowhere in ITN/C's guidelines, or elsewhere on ITN is nominating items governed to this degree. Reading this reply, the way to speak to me indicates that you at the very least partially know that, so as such, I will again suggest heeding Nableezy (talk·contribs)'s advice in that linked May discussion in my comment above and taking this to WT:ITN if this is something that you're that passionate about. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk·Contribs) 06:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't disagree with you more, Knights - and if this was an ANI discussion, I'd recommend a topic ban for ITN with your opinion that quality is a trivial issue at ITN. (striking that - I noticed that this was explained further in the TLDR above) Nfitz (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What an incredibly self-righteous attitude. If nothing else, an unready ITNR nom brings attention to the event and encourages editing. It also helps provide a yearly log of the outcomes of individual ITNR items. If it's not ready, oppose on quality or ignore it. There's no need for horses. Anarchyte (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the issue here User:Anarchyte. First, it's not about whether it's recorded at ANI or no; the nominator said they would return the following day to improve the article. So simply nominate it the following day, if that's the intent; it's like some think there's some points scored by being the first to nominate, while in reality there are points lost, for not fixing it first. Secondly, the belief by some new editors here that quality is trivial at ITN is a very major issue, when the truth is, that for ITNR topicf Quality is paramount - if not the ONLY issue!(striking that - I noticed that this was explained further in the TLDR above) Third - don't violate WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Disagree with me all you want, but you crossed the line there. Nfitz (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually about to support citing the Trump indictments, but she's been released, making any long term impact unlikely and thus meaning that this will almost certainly not receive a consensus to post (which was already somewhat apparent). - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk·Contribs) 18:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.
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.
Oppose on quality. The main article (the 2023 French Open) has far too little prose about the event that we have come to expect at ITN. --Masem (t) 16:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The article has no prose to speak of. Also please format the blurb in the correct fashion. The players shouldn't be bolded. — Amakuru (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article is just full of lists, with little to no prose outside of the lead and maybe one other section. Needs a lot of work. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist800018:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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: Still needs expansion, but this ITNR item just concluded. Wasn't blurbed last year so there doesn't appear to be a standard hook used for this event, but this seems to capture all the relevant details. Anarchyte (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until an account of the race is added -- this is reminding me of Eurovision with so much space devoted to pre-race material and very little devoted to the actual event. Ed[talk][majestic titan]21:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Article requires some small set of updates. Should be ready soon. Prose updates done by editors. Article has shaped up into a reasonable main-page ready article. This one meets hygiene expectations imo. Nicely done everyone. Link to the ITNC discussion from last time can be found here. Ktin (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose on quality as there isn't enough prose for me to be comfortable with posting. Once more is added, feel free to ping me and I will reassess. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist800015:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re: the soccer events posted here -- both of them seem to be between soccer clubs and not between countries. Ktin (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle. It's the biggest match in Test cricket, and we posted it last time. Indeed, the optics of posting The Ashes (a series in which only two nations compete) while not posting the championship which involves everyone would be dreadful. It's not that far off in terms of quality - a few more citations needed here and there, get rid of the dreadful MOS:ACCESS-violating table-within-a-table in the route to the final section, and then probably good to go. I think there's a strong case for making this ITN/R. — Amakuru (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While we can not read the minds of any of the Australian players, we should evaluate this event individually. Also, we posted this one last time. Has anything changed significantly since the last time that would have us not post this time? Ktin (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru References have all been added now. If you find any other references missing, please let know and I can help fix them. Re: the MOS:ACCESS table, I do not know how to fix that one. If you can help, or if others can help that would be great. Ktin (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktin: I've split the results and the league table into two seprate tables, to alleviate this issue. Also added a source for the results. THink it looks fine now. For GA I would expect the prose in the "route to the final" sction to be actually fleshed out, but for ITN that's OK, as long as the main match's prose is there. Happy to support, thanks for the update. — Amakuru (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The criteria for sports on ITN is the top league in a game, which this is, in its most prestigious format. We posted it the last time, don't see why we should not now. Gotitbro (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the championship game in the oldest and most prestigious format of cricket. It doesn't make sense to post the completion of the ODI World Cup and T20 World Cup, but not this match. Regarding comparisons made above with UEFA Super Cup or the FIFA World Club Cup, that is a false equivalence, because, as noted above, those are matches between local teams, whereas the ICC World Test Championship is contested by countries (just like the Association Football World Cup, Cricket World Cup or T20 World Cup). Regarding The Ashes, yes the Ashes have a longer history, but as noted above, it is only contested by two specific countries, and not by all test-playing nations. Chrisclear (talk) 03:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support championship game for Test cricket and very significant, on the level of the ODI and T20 World Cups. ITN/R is not a prerequisite for posting an event. AryKun (talk) 09:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on notability and quality. A happy(?) ending to a tragic accident, but not front-page-worthy. Article is also effectively a stub. The Kip (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The cave rescue was far far more difficult to achieve rescue compared to finding survivors in a jungle area. Masem (t) 16:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This need an alt because we are not saying anything "miraculously" happened on the front page. -- KTC (talk) 12:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. You really can't compare this to the Tham Luang cave rescue, which was a slow-developing rescue that was covered over the entire length of the rescue process relatively heavily by the media. While this news is great for the kids and certainly miraculous, the broader impact is limited. By contrast, would we post an ITN item for a plane crash with 4 deaths? Unlikely. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not care if this is news in Latin America: both articles have atrocious quality as of now, with one of them being entirely unsourced. Also, 4 children were rescued. If they died, we wouldn't post that. I can't see myself supporting this blurb in any merit. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist800015:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The original crash was a private plane with only 9 passengers, which we would normally not have posted unless one of the persons on board was notable. That four children survived doesn't change that. It's a "feel good" story, but not appropriate for ITN. --Masem (t) 16:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - front page news, especially in its home country of Columbia Colombia. We frequently complain about how we need to combat our "western/Eurocentric/US-biases" but when countries outside of the west (or in this case, the western core since Latin America is apart of the west in a peripheral sense) have noteworthy stories receiving widespread coverage nationally, we don't post because it's newscruft or a "feel good" story, or how we would (supposedly) not post if they died (ignoring the fact that their survival is one of the things that makes this story noteworthy in the first place). There is established precedent as noted above for posting such stories. There are issues are due to quality, but having any children, let a lone four, be lost in the Amazon for a month an a half is pretty damn noteworthy. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk·Contribs) 16:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the same situation happened in the US or Canada, we still wouldn't have posted it. When we talk the Western bias, it is if we posted a major commercial airline crash in the US and failed to report a comparable crash in Asia or elsewhere. Masem (t) 17:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support but the article needs to be improved. First of all, this story dominated the media in Colombia for a long time. It also made headlines internationally, the first time a few weeks ago when the president reported they were found, which turned out to be wrong. I remember seeing a few international articles with updates about the ongoing search, and now their actual rescue has been covered everywhere. Johndavies837 (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because transport accidents with the same death toll happen every day. This one is unusual because of how long the survivors lasted before being rescued, but that doesn't make it ITN-worthy. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announces a $500 million military aid package to Ukraine (including 288 AIM-7 missiles) and a $10 million humanitarian aid package to help victims of the Kakhovka dam collapse. (CNBC)
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: Article has a basic summary and needs a bit more work, but this is ITNR. Blurb is based on last year's. SounderBruce21:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The target article doesn't mention "association football", and it's barely there on either of the two team pages (certainly not in relation to the sport played. Why not simply take "association" out of the blurb, as per WP:COMMONNAME. Nfitz (talk) 06:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because in several countries, including mine, "football" means something entirely different from the sport under discussion here. Why create ambiguity when we can avoid it? HiLo48 (talk) 06:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an international project. There are multiple codes of football that are popular in certain areas of the world, so disambiguation is the best way; it's how we've run for years and years without issue. SounderBruce09:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No-one writes pompous stuff like "In association football" and we shouldn't make readers struggle to parse this clumsy phrase. To make it brief and clear, just say "In sport..." That enables readers who are not interested in sports results to tune out quickly. That's why most newspapers put sport at the back or in a separate section. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Soccer" is simpler, accurate, and unambiguous. But it will upset those who don't know that it was the common name for the sport in the UK until 50 years ago. The real alternative here is probably to not even mention the sport at all. HiLo48 (talk) 09:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s irrelevant what was the common name 50 years ago when none of the British media used it in their news articles on this final (to be more precise, ‘soccer’ was used in the UK alongside ‘football’ until the late 1980s, which is even more recently, but it’s simply not true that it was the more popular name).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say "more popular". I also know that, for reasons I don't understand, current fans hate the word. Hence my suggestion to avoid naming the sport at all. Do we name the sport in Superbowl ITN entries? HiLo48 (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Soccer" is dated slang like "rugger" and "wagger pagger bagger". It works for me as I had a bedder in my day too. But the more common abbreviation around here is "footy", isn't it? Anyway, "sport" is best for the general reader who won't care about or understand these fine distinctions. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? We have consistently used that terminology (see any ITN blurb for "association football" titles) and the terminology is used all over enwiki. Need not raise non-issues. Gotitbro (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted as RD, the discussion about a blurb is going on and on with no clear indication we will get a consensus. Better to close. --Tone16:52, 11 June 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.
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.
Propose blurb: Ted Kaczynski, who conducted a nationwide mail bombing campaign in the United States between 1978 and 1995, dies at 81. (source: [3]). This was a man behind a nationwide story over the course of multiple decades; a blurb is certainly warranted. There are no issues with quality; this is an FA. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)17:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb This does need a blurb because his name is not as memorable as the Unabomber alias. And the article is FA quality and so it's a good opportunity to showcase a quality topic which is in the news. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Quality article, person who has gotten sustained coverage throughout the years, unexpected death. Clearly beyond a mere crinimal. A good candidate for a blurb. Gotitbro (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
support blurb: whatever you think of him, he's the greatest and probably the most influential philosopher of the past 50 years. RIP Daikido (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, oppose blurb. For all the "fame" he has in the US, I don't feel he's super well-known abroad. His death hasn't made it to major European news media yet, and, sadly, I'm afraid other terrorists since have surpassed him in the amount of horror they were able to generate. Khuft (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fair enough - it's trickling in now. I was tracking German & French language media when I posted it. I still oppose the blurb though.
Actually, even within the realm of "domestic US terrorists", he's not "outstanding" - Timothy McVeigh's awful carnage in Oklahoma City was certainly worse. Lastly, should we really "honour" a terrorist who died peacefully in prison with a blurb? Khuft (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blurbs are not an honour though. My support here is based primarily on article quality and the individual's impact (especially of the manifesto) regardless of his status as a terrorist. Gotitbro (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see having one's death being posted to ITN as a particular honor, as if it is something we should reserve only for the morally upright and righteous, or for people who otherwise made positive contributions to society. McVeigh's carnage in Oklahoma City was worse in terms of the carnage caused, but I also don't think that's a particularly good form of argument for exclusion; Osama bin Laden certainly caused more carnage than McVeigh, but I don't think that we need a terrorist to be Osama-level to make it to ITN with a death blurb—both could be important enough to place on ITN. Likewise, merely because McVeigh caused more carnage than Kaczynski doesn't establish that Kaczynski is too small of a terrorist to arise to the level of his actions—and death—being particularly notable and well-covered across the globe. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)18:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't get it then. Why are we supposed to blurb Kaczinsky? What is his claim to fame that distinguishes him from all the other terrorists? If we post him, will we post all kinds of other terrorists in the future too? Khuft (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He was definitely one of the most prolific terrorists of the late 20th century, at least in the west. He was a household name and was very much emblematic of the growing anti-modernity movement that we see today. I'd say that's better than posting Abdul #1000 of Baghdad, Whitesaviorskinhead1488-1350, or left-wing emoji spam 1600 UWU who have some global notoriety, but are ultimately just one of many deranged ideologue who bomb a place one time and gets tossed in the penitentiary. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk·Contribs) 02:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those namecalls are highly offensive, especially the former, please strike them. ITN is not a highly formal discussion board but usage of such offensive slangs should not be done. Gotitbro (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb — Obviously passes RD, does not pass blurb. Prudence suggests we shouldn't have three U.S.-centric blurbs on ITN lest we let it become "In American News". elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him)18:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not our fault that the U.S tends to be more newsworthy than most countries (its to be expected given her size and influence on the world). If the US had a 9/11 esque terrorist attack, a presidential election, annexed Canada, declared war on China, and had a major outbreak of the plague in a week while nothing happened in the rest of the world, would we not post, because "we're being to US-centric?" - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk·Contribs) 02:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb, support RD. Blurbing the natural death of a long-imprisoned, octogenarian, domesticlone wolf who had a low death toll?! Blurbing an influential leader of a VNSA group (such as Velupillai Prabhakaran, Osama bin Laden & perhaps Charles Manson) is justified, but this discussion is the most startling one I've seen since those which included the insistence that Barbara Walters is one of the most important people in the history of the world! How was TK transformative? If we're blurbing people for being prolific/unusual/highly-publicised in their particular type of crime, we'll be doing so many times. We wouldn't blurb a similar criminal of any other country. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kaz is in a different league than other criminals. He terrorized the US from the 70s to 90s, acts which received national and even a bit of international coverage in his time and also had a somewhat influential ideology. Also, I would support blurbing TK-esque figures in other countries as well. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk·Contribs) 02:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An equivalent in any other country would be unlikely to be nominated. If he were, the discussion would be much shorter & there'd be no chance of a consensus to post. Any influence TK might have is small & domestic. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blub - The mystery of the Unabomber was a huge news topic back in the day, garnering massive attention. He also has an interesting legacy, especially for a domestic terrorist. Fruitbat110 (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb per above. Household name, global coverage, and it's a FA which clinches it for me. I think the blurb should mention the "Unabomber" alias. Davey2116 (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite amusing. Practically no-one outside the US knows who he is, and I wouldn't mind betting that a significant number of Americans under the age of 40 don't either. Black Kite (talk)19:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Canadian, under 40, and I very much know who he is. But then again, my hobbies include looking through old New York Times articles for historical accounts of human rights abuses, so maybe I'm not a good representation of the average millennial. Kurtis(talk)00:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... wouldn't mind betting that a significant number of Americans under the age of 40 don't either: "Online, young people with a variety of partisan allegiances, or none at all, have developed an intricate vocabulary of half-ironic Unabomber support." (The New York Times)—Bagumba (talk) 03:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest oppose to blurb (Though RD is fine and ready to go). This is not a person considered greatest in the field, has no real legacy or impact, and the death at 82 while in prison is not surprising. RD blurbs should be based on showing respect for a great person's passing, not because they were a household name. --Masem (t) 19:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meh I would probably oppose this other than the fact it would actually be good to get an FA onto the front page instead of the thrown-together NOTNEWS stuff that we usually have. Black Kite (talk)19:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb - featured article, household name. I don't see any legitimate argument against posting, except that it will be a bit much to have three American blurbs on ITN, but it's not like this happens often. --RockstoneSend me a message!19:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb known more as Unabomber- than by name. Expect a few will recognize the sketch artist drawing of him - which in NOT in article for unknown reasons. also the FA status Wfoj3 (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, written as "Ted Kaczynski (Unabomber)". While consensus for a blurb may not materialize, I imagine that the name "Unabomber" will click more in some people's minds than his real name. I have no idea whether this formatting is considered acceptable, but if not, I think this is a case of WP:IAR and WP:PLA. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK)19:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD only, strongly oppose blurb I don't think Kaczynski is as transformative as he would have liked to think he was. Nothing about his death itself is extraordinary, either. rawmustard (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb. Not transformative, not top of the field. We did not blurb Harry Belafonte, William Hurt, Angela Lansbury, Gina Lollobrigida, Vivienne Westwood, Barbara Walters, Vangelis, Irene Papas, Kirk Douglas, Ennio Morricone, DeHavilland, composer of sirtaki dance music, far wider known figures. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ted is unusually overrepresented now because of his very recent death. A Google search last month would've been very different. In all countries other than the US, Lech, a president, is far more well known than a lone wolf. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb. Just not up to that level. He was "active" from the late 70's to the mid 90's, and then ceased output. BD2412T21:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted RD, Blurb TBD - Since no one is actually opposing RD on quality grounds, I've gone ahead with postiing it as RD. Discussion can continue whether there's consensus to change that to a blurb. -- KTC (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — The New York Times is now reporting that Kaczynski died by suicide. This is unlikely to change the nomination, but it may be a detail some editors are interested in, particularly those writing the blurb. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him)01:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I factored in an unexpected death. Somewhat making it similar to the Epstein case (which I guess we did post). Gotitbro (talk) 05:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - very much a household name across generations and he even had a sizable international presence in minds. Its receiving coverage from around the world and his critiques of industrial civilization have definately resonated with many across the world since, however repulsed they may be by the manner he executed his plans. Seems like much of the opposition is based on a idiosyncratic, rapidly changing standard for blurbs and especially RD blurbs, and tired anti-Americanism. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk·Contribs) 02:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive.
It is the ideas of individuals, not the propaganda of others, that is supposed to help determine the outcome. One who bases one's statement on that crowd as a whole is not making any useful contribution to the discussion, but instead blocking the progress of new opinions.
Not often you see an editor openly admit to disregarding ITN's policies in favor of personal bias, but there's a first time for everything. The Kip (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not consistent with your earlier ITN is historically anti-American and I will continue to honor that. Which one are we to believe? —Bagumba (talk) 07:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...Am I reading you right? You want to violate WP:NPOV by being explicitly anti-American? ...Why are you bothering to post here? Your goals in ITN are incompatible with its purpose. No one should take heed of anything you say here. -- RockstoneSend me a message!07:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being a household name is not a reason to post an RD blurb. Too many of the support !votes here are weighing on that fact. Masem (t) 05:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Article quality (excellent) aside, we almost never blurb the deaths of criminals. Even fairly notorious ones. And fwiw, there are far more infamous villains than this guy. Obvious PP support for RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb RD is fine, but I think there is some ethics in glorifying terrorists and encouraging copycats. I seem to recall a posting at WP:ERRORS once about having a terrorist's picture displayed at the On this day section.—Bagumba (talk) 03:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that concern but is a blurb really going to do that. Is this really that different from the terrorist attacks we post? I guess a prominent display of the name does factor into it. If this gets blurbed at all, we should perhaps not post a picture. Gotitbro (talk) 05:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trump hasn't been convicted of a crime. Please be really careful on walking this BLP line on talk pages. Masem (t) 13:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is this really that different from the terrorist attacks we post?: This isn't a current attack, which the blurb tends to put the focus on the losses, damage, and fallout, not solely on the perpetrator. At least you agree it can be ok to set limits, such as not posting his image on the MP. —Bagumba (talk) 07:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Can't really make a better argument than what's already been said, massively influential on handling of terrorism in the USA and his manifesto continues to be notable. The Kip (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stats Ted Kaczynski soared past Donald Trump and even cricket to go way out in front as the top read article yesterday. For those who think he's just an obscure figure from the past known only to the aged, the NYT explains:
To young people afflicted by social media anomie and fearful of climate doom, Mr. Kaczynski seemed to wield a predictive power that outstripped the evidence available to him. In 2017 and 2020, Netflix released documentaries about him. He maintained postal correspondence with thousands of people — journalists, students and die-hard supporters. In 2018, Wired magazine announced “the Unabomber’s odd and furious online revival,” and New York magazine called him “an unlikely prophet to a new generation of acolytes.”
It seems that he now has a big following online and the University of Michigan maintains a popular archive of his radical correspondence and writing. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a metric we take in consideration. It wasn't even top story in The Guardian, top story there was BJ resigning and dragging his ilk with himself. This is in the news section, it is not even in the focus of frontlines of major world outlets. Kirill C1 (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Boris didn't do any better than the Donald. I fancy that our readers feel that they already know more than enough about those two. FYI, here were the top 10 people on Wikipedia yesterday. This shows just how much interest there was in the Unabomber. And kudos to the Leatherman for making it big in this company.
This is another strong argument not to post a blurb. If the article was the most viewed one yesterday, it means that our readers don't need to see a blurb in order to view it. Blurbs should promote notable news whose articles don't get high viewership figures.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb - the unabomber is known in all western countries by people that would be reading the front page. Surprising death circumstances and reported by worldwide media outlets. I strongly dislike the argument that ITN blurbs should be restricted to those we respect. Anarchyte (talk) 16:27, 11 June 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.
Nominator's comments: I think the focus should be put on the world record in men's 3000 metres steeplechase because the previous one stood for 19 years, but we can post a combined blurb if there's support for it. At the same meeting, Norway's Jakob Ingebrigtsen also set a world best in the 2-mile race, which is a minor non-Olympic event that is run only occasionally, so it's not comparable to the other two results. I've substantially updated both articles by adding a full paragraph in each elaborating the achievements.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm undecided as to whether I support a blurb or not (currently leaning support on notability), but if this does make it to the main page, I think the fact that these records were broken at the Meeting de Paris is an important detail that should be included. Kurtis(talk)16:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not there yet The blurb is close, which I support, as breaking world records are notable, but the blurb needs a bit in the workshop. Likely needs to include where it happened (Event location), and maybe some shrinking down of the blurb length. TheCorriynial (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed & support alt blurb 2 The 2 new world records are both notable & it seems like there’s support for mentioning that it happened at the Meeting de Paris. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There’s a huge difference. Athletics is an individual sport, whereas basketball is a team sport. Despite the obvious difference, we should’ve made an exception to post it, so it was a mistake in my opinion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Teams sports also have individual records though. How is an individual record in an individual sport inherently more notable for it to be a factor? —Bagumba (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are far too many different records in athletics to post someone breaking any one of them. Also, let's not mark our own noms ready after three votes. GreatCaesarsGhost18:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GreatCaesarsGhost: World records in athletics have been posted quite frequently in the recent past (see this, this, this, this and this only in the last three years). Also, your criterion didn't prevent posting Joshua Cheptegei when he broke the 15-year-old world record in 5000 metres, but now it's a problem to post a new world record after 19 years. You need to better elaborate your vote because it doesn't make any sense.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why haven't you requested further elaboration from the three support votes, whose comments offer no rationale whatsoever? Could it be that they support the same side of the argument as you, when I oppose? Don't you think that makes this little sidebar uncivil and decidedly inappropriate? GreatCaesarsGhost20:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In case when the articles are updated, the event is in the news and there's historical evidence that we do post world records in athletics, it's redundant to request any further elaboration from those supporting it. Do you have an actual argument to support your vote other than making digressions?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My argument, which is in my first comment, is that athletics has too many world records to consider them all significant per se. The best footballer, the best swimmer, and yes the best sprinter would be significant. But sprinting without obstacles, with one type of obstacles, sprinting with different obstacles, sprinting then jumping, sprinting then leaping, sprinting then leaping thrice, sprinting with friends; and all with records at various lengths. For all other sports, we have discussed and gained consensus around this very point: that a given sport should not be featured more than others because it is generous with the trophies. NOW, you may disagree with this argument, but that doesn't make the argument invalid. Others may disagree and the item gets posted. FINE. That's how things work here: everyone makes arguments trying to sway consensus. Unlike some people here, my sense of value is not tied to my personal preference "winning" the day. But what we don't do is attack anyone who disagrees with us. So kindly drop it. GreatCaesarsGhost14:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No-one says that every single world record in athletics is significant per se. There are many world records that are broken multiple times a year and we don't post them simply because they're not big achievements, but there are also world records that haven't been broken for decades and make strong cases for posting (in fact, that's what we post). I've clearly indicated in the nomination that the focus should be put on the improvement of the 19-year-old world record. And there's no personal attack here at all. I may dispute someone else's argumentation but never attack other editors personally. It's not my style.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you seriously consider anything that Kiril said in your brief exchange with him to be an "attack", then editing Wikipedia is going to be a very hostile experience for you. These kinds of disagreements v. Kurtis(talk)16:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)dddddddx[reply]
Oppose I am a fan of athletics but I do not consider the breaking of world records (except perhaps the most prestigious such as the 100m) to be significant enough for an ITN blurb. I was opposed to the previous postings as well. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PresidentGustavo Petro confirms the successful rescue of the four Witoto children who had been missing in the Amazon rainforest since the Cessna 206 they were traveling in crashed on May 1. The children were found alive but weak, while the bodies of the three adults accompanying them, including their mother, were found at the crash site. (AFP via ABS-CBN News)
At least seven people are killed and 59 others are injured in floods and storms across Iran. (Mehr)
Iceland announces that it will suspend operations at its embassy in Moscow, Russia, beginning on August 1, saying that "commercial, cultural and political relations" with Russia are "at an all-time low" and that maintaining the embassy is "no longer justifiable". (The Kyiv Post)
Oppose: Hardly significant in the general scheme of things. Also, the investigation and his role in it are barely mentioned in the article. --RFBailey (talk) 09:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as a Canadian, this is significant - and is going to get very messy if the resignation leads to a public enquiry into the ongoing election tampering, blackmail, and bribery of the Chinese government in foreign elections - at least if the enquiry has subpoena powers over CSIC and CSE. But it's hardly in the news except locally. Or noteworthy beyond Canada. There needs to be a bigger step yet, like ambassadors being deported, China taking more hostages, the Canadian government falling, or a final committee report concluding and documenting Chinese crimes. Nfitz (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Comment He had a very interesting career, but his article seems too short. I'm sure it can be expanded without a problem. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:23, 11 June 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.
Nominator's comments: 11 people were killed and 30+ injured in a suicide bombing in a mosque in northern Afghanistan. The bombing occurred at a mosque which was holding a memorial service for Nisar Ahmad Ahmadi, who himself had been killed by a car bombing the week prior that was carried out by ISIS. The article is stubby - I'll try to better it tomorrow (its 2:44 am here in Texas). - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk·Contribs) 07:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to the article being too short, although it's notable enough to be posted. The article doesn't mention it being a suicide bombing; if that's the case, it should do. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose—A horrific tragedy with 11 people dead, but unfortunately, terrorist incidents of this nature are very common in Afghanistan. We've had attacks with even higher death tolls that didn't get blurbed (e.g. the Aybak bombing last November). Kurtis(talk)19:19, 9 June 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.
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.
Weak support Article's sourcing is fine, but I would love to see some expansion, though it isn't bad enough to be limited from being on ITNRD. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist800016:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A Russian national is killed by a tiger shark off the coast of Hurghada, Egypt. Following the attack, authorities closed a 46 miles (74 km) stretch of the Red Sea coast until 11 June. The shark was later captured. (The Guardian)
Former U.S. president Donald Trump is indicted on thirty-seven counts related to his mishandling of classified government documents. He is due to be arraigned in federal court in Miami, Florida, on June 13. (The Washington Post)
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.
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: United States District judge. Sourcing looks okay, though expansion is useful and needed! TailsWx16:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This is hitting the news, based on Trump's social media comments and unnamed sources. The specific seven charges may not be known until Tuesday when Trump must appear in federal court in Miami. 331dot (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- self-explanatory. The first time in US history that a former president has been indicted with federal charges.
Oppose. We can not and should not cover every darn piece of Trump news. We posted the NY one. Yes maybe it's the first "federal" indictment, but it's already not the first indictment in general. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is hardly "every piece of Trump news". It's not our fault that he breaks every historical record there is. This is more notable than his New York indictment as it involves actions related to his presidency. 331dot (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ex-fucking-actly. If Trump landed on Venus or was revealed to have raped hundreds of thousands of kittens and given them STDs, would we also not post because "we're not a Trump-ticker." Funnily enough, this is reminiscent of the prior indictment, where people were not only complaining about covering Trump news, but were complaining about having his face on the main page. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk·Contribs) 02:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Regardless of ITN convention, an indictment of a former US president on federal charges is an unprecedented event. Kurtis(talk)01:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support If ITN is still on the Main Page because it serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest, then I don't see how you can oppose this. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I notice the people who oppose this generally oppose all news coming from the US. I get that it's tiring to see the US in ITN all the time but... this is enwiki, and the US is the largest country where English is the dominate language. -- RockstoneSend me a message!01:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing against US-based news. I simply disagree with this being an ITN item because it's a higher level indictment. What would clearly warrant ITN attention is a guilty verdict and/or sentencing. You can disagree if you want, but I believe the whole idea that something merits ITN posting because it hasn't happened before doesn't make sense. Superlatives are DYK's department. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about posting it to ITN because it's substantially updated, reflecting current events, and is of wide interest? That's all we should be weighing. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When everybody starts weighing items by their own criteria that others don't use, that's what makes ITN/C a clusterfuck. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because then we would be flooded with US and UK political and celebrity news. We must include a filter related to systematic media bias to a degree so that we don't make ITN only what happened in the US or UK Masem (t) 02:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, English is only spoken in the United States and enwiki is only attended by users from the United States. Great point, which I did not expect. _-_Alsor (talk) 05:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support for the same reason we posted the state level charges. This is historic. ITN looks silly not posting this, as it's now the biggest news story in the world at the moment. -- RockstoneSend me a message!01:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support; pace DarkSide830, I think the federal nature is different enough to post this one, but I think the bar for Trump/crime news in the future should be putting the federal trial in ongoing (as it will be front page news in most of the world for weeks) when it comes to it and posting the result (either way) of both trials at the end. Sceptre (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This indictment is the big one (federal special counsel and all) and is the most substantive and consequential of any of the Trump legal woes (per reliable sources). For the record, we probably shouldn't have posted the NY one in hindsight, but I don't see why that should reflect here. Curbon7 (talk) 01:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? It was an article with a substantial update reflecting a current event of wide interest, exactly the stated purpose of ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who did !vote in support then, in hindsight it feels more flashy than substantive. I just try to be consistent with my rationales. Regardless, that has no bearing here. Curbon7 (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm under no illusions about the likelihood of stopping this. But we are not the Trump News Ticker and we already posted his previous indictment. If he is convicted of a felony crime I will type a quick support in between sips of champagne. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious support I'd love for the guy to not be in the news, much less In the News, but this is the lead story on every English-language site, all over the world. It's unquestionably the biggest news happening now, and barring a surprise, will continue to be for the near future. The article is in good shape and could be posted right now with little concern, and the oppose !votes are pretty much ignoring the point of ITN, which is featuring well-written articles that are of news value, which this one certainly is. -- Kicking222 (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until charges are actually announced and the article is updated accordingly, then support. At that point, this will be an updated article of reasonable quality about a major topic that's "in the news". With that said, I wouldn't strongly object if it was posted sooner. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
THIS. All we have is Trump's claim via his social media account, and "according to sources close to" from RSes. We should not be posting anything like this until the published charges are released. Masem (t) 01:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding additional article which is actually about the incitement. Clear support - biggest news story in the world rn that is definitely attracting reader interest. Opposing because it came from the US or came from the dreaded Orange man is a dopey !vote, especially considering the coverage its receiving from foreign outlets. Also, all WP:RS sources state that he's been indicted, so we shouldn't be creating arbitrary finish lines for "is he actually indicted or not" that wound up in us posting this when its no longer In The News. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk·Contribs) 02:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Dear Knight, however invested You may be in ITN, this is definitely not the biggest news story in the world rn. I guess I just come from a different perspective, but as I see it, this is US politics, and it's an indictment, fine, it's groundbreaking in that it's a former president, but the acts behind the case have already happened. Nothing changes that. Meanwhile, events are unfolding of a grander scale, right now, actually, physically. The piece at hand affects just one single person or perhaps a minor group. Hence oppose on account of this being blown out of proportion. --Ouro (blah blah) 04:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Alsor's opinion is going to be swayed no matter how much evidence is provided. I suspect they are thinking about Ukraine? I'm not sure why they have to be so hostile, honestly. -- RockstoneSend me a message!07:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not this time. I supported posting his first indictment, because it really was a first, in every way. This time it's a conviction that would justify it being posted at ITN. HiLo48 (talk) 04:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose… It is still not understood that indictment is not condemnation. I no longer know how it should be explained. If you want to turn Wikipedia into Trumppedia, go ahead, but it's all nonsense. _-_Alsor (talk) 05:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who is claiming that an indictment is the same as a conviction? Not us. We don't generally post indictments or arrests out of concern for the accused's privacy, but this is the biggest news story in the world, and the accused is the exact opposite of a private person. -- RockstoneSend me a message!06:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“biggest news story in the world” if you only use U.S. media. Very sure there is an European county that will disagree with you. For God's sake... _-_Alsor (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because someone says something you don't agree with doesn't mean they are "toxic" or that they are being a "jerk". I think we are old enough not to be offended by trifles or behemoths. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "for God's sake" because someone said something you don't like, and being generally a sarcastic asshole is actually being toxic. We already had one long-time contributor to ITN who was banned from here for this behavior. -- RockstoneSend me a message!14:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I should understand what you say as a threat. I will try not to. And calling me "asshole" is not the most non-toxic thing you could say to me. Do not make your subjectivity a rule, btw. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is what I feared would lead to when indictments of Putin and Trump were posted. Posting of mere charges to the main page is a clear disregard of BLP. Gotitbro (talk) 06:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it's factually true that he was charged. I respect WP:BLP, but I dislike BLP extremism, especially in the legal department where it seems like now, merely stating factually that someone is under investigation or been charged is subject to contestation "because we're implying that they actually did it." If we actually went through it, folks like R Kelly and Bill Cosby would have had their respective controversies virtually void until the end of the trial (hell, Cosby's would still not be present since he got off on a technicality). Same applies for @Andrew Davidson's comment below. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk·Contribs) 07:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing extreme in not wanting to see the posting of indictments which don't substantiate to anything, convictions do. Here we have the case of people nominating the posting of arrests, charges and every inconsequential stage in between of a legal proceeding. I would agree if this was Legalpedia but it is not, that is we had followed BLP in not posting anything below a conviction on the Main Page, until the Putin indictment posting put us in a situation we find here. Gotitbro (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:CRIME, "A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law." And the issue of mishandling documents seems rather petty and bureaucratic. Biden has exactly the same issue pending and presumably that's because these guys live in a blizzard of paper and so getting the filing done is a never-ending chore. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They're not the same issue at all. Biden (and hey, also Pence) immediately alerted the appropriate entities when he discovered improperly stored classified documents. Trump on the other hand refused to turn them over. -- RockstoneSend me a message!07:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can certainly report that Trump has been formally accused of a crime or crimes. The news isn't waiting for Trump to be convicted to report this. I suggest that you review this matter more carefully. The Archives bent over backwards to give Trump every chance to comply with the law. Biden and Pence corrected themselves immediately upon discovery of the issue and cooperated. Pence has been determined to be in the clear. 331dot (talk) 08:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not "the news". The press has been full of the Prince Harry trial lately – front page coverage day after day. That's an actual court case and the news media love this stuff because of the celebrity drama and the suspense of the uncertain outcome. But we're an encyclopedia and should wait upon actual historical facts. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is "In the news". If we aren't going to post things that have improved articles about things "in the news"- this place should be wrapped up and replaced with a most-viewed ticker as you've previously suggested(I think). 331dot (talk) 09:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRIME deals with page creation, not factual statements about indictments of already notable people. The full quote (previous omitted portion emphasized):
A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.
Oppose since when did we start posting indictments instead of convictions? (And please don't say "since we posted the ICC issuing an arrest warrant for Putin"). Also, as far as I can tell, the previous Trump indictment was not posted either. Banedon (talk) 07:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I opposed the Putin indictment at the time knowing well that it would open floodgates for any kind of charge that maybe brought against persons of note. Multiple Trump cases are already active, wait for every minor charge, acquittal and conviction to be nominated here. Gotitbro (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not our fault or the news' fault that Trump engages in legally perilous activities(even if later determined not to be actionable). ITN should not discuss every legal problem Trump has, but the first indictment was notable because no former US president had ever been charged with a crime. This one is because no former US president had ever been charged with federal crimes. Georgia is investigating him for his Trump-Raffensperger phone call to attempt to influence the election, actions related to his presidency. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I am sure there would be a pointless Georgia indictment nom if that happens as well. Perfectly illustrating a Trump ticker point that has been raised here. We need to put the stop somewhere and that was at conviction only (complying with BLP) before we started frivolous charge postings this year. Gotitbro (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:CRIME but a conviction would merit posting even though he may self-pardon and not go to jail at all. I also don't buy the argument that we should post this because there's a precedent. Mistakes made in the past don't make a rule (Putin's arrest warrant should've not been posted.).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Respecfully, if it shouldn't be posted that a world leader(especially the first) is charged with war crimes by an international body, we might as well close this place up. I mean, then what are we doing here? 331dot (talk) 08:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying Trump is guilty; it is factually correct that he has been indicted(Trump himself is the one who announced it). 331dot (talk) 08:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're an encyclopedia and should post only conclusions, which would happen when the conviction will be made, not other steps in the process (that's what news outlets should do).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - agree with the above, this will be suitable for posting if a conviction occurs, but not before per any other case. Besides, this is the second time he's been indicted for something in the space of a few months so it seems there might be a few of these in the offing. — Amakuru (talk) 08:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It never really has been though. If you want my meta opinion, we should definitely restyle ITN to be much more of a "news ticker" than it currently is. Hell, why not go the distance and actually have the content in ITN roll in some way using javascript, so we can fit more than five stories there at a time, and basically have carte blanche to post each and every headline story for which we have a quality article. That's what readers want, and that's what an ITN section ought to be about. But, and here's the big but, as long as we have this system where we filter the news with a fine-tooth comb, assessing it on encyclopedic significance, it's inevitable that a lot of stories fall by the wayside. And I personally do'nt think this particular story passes that threshold given the system we have in place currently. If we could get consensus for a new way of working at WT:ITN, then I'm all for it, but I suspect resistance will be strong unfortunately. — Amakuru (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support despite the Trump-like denials of reality (which should be given no weight) this story is in the news worldwide. For the entire history of the US this never happened before, the federal inditement of a former president for espionage. The alleged paying off of Stormy was small beans by comparison. JehochmanTalk09:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Trump-like denialist here. I didn't support the last ITN posting surrounding his indictment, nor do I support this one as I strongly believe that if he were acquitted the news around that would be firmly opposed here as "not news-worthy". He's already been indicted, that was already posted, why are we still here? I believe some of y'all should go check out the essays that tangentially relate to this matter. The Trump Horizon, WP:TRUMPNOT. Just to be clear, I'd firmly support a conviction of any notable politician but at this point the Overton window has clearly shifted and lawfare has reached the upper echelons of politics (about time). It's still non-notable (until there is a conviction) and it's not even verified at this point (aren't we still waiting on official announcement). WP:SIGNIFICANTKcmastrpc (talk) 11:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per HiLo48; we don't usually post indictments, so exceptional circumstances are needed. First time was exceptional, second is less so. Also the article is a PROSELINE nightmare. GreatCaesarsGhost12:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While it is true that WP:BLPCRIME means we generally do not post indictments, current and former world leaders are completely different form the typical class of people protected by that policy as they occupy/have occupied positions that are both some of the most encyclopedically relevant and the furthest from private individuals that can possibly exist. While obviously not every charge will be posted to ITN, each should be assessed on its own merits. Here we have a recent leader of one of the United States, which has (until recently) never indicted former leaders, charged with something directly relevant to his presidency, and is of high interest to readers. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions15:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WP:BLPCRIME applies to non-public figures. The proposed blurb does not say Trump is guilty.
A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.
Support. This is breaking news on the front page of every news agency in big font. If this is not 'In The News', then what is? -Abhishikt (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - now that the indictment has been unsealed. And no, WP:BLPCRIME does not mean we dont post indictments, it means we dont presume somebody's guilt based on the indictment. But the indictment is front page news around the world, meets significance in spades. Id have opposed prior to the indictment being unsealed, as it was still conjecture that it would happen at that point, but here it is verifiably true that the US government is charging its former president and current Republican front-runner for that office with a number of felonies. That is highly notable, and the proof is in the coverage. nableezy - 19:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the three comments direclty above me. Unsealed indictment, very obviously "in the news," and news of major domestic and international ramifications. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me!20:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To help people out here, I read WP:CRIME for you and it says A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. Which has zero relevance here; it's about whether someone not already a public figure with an article should get an article about them if they get in the news in connection with a criminal allegation. People are doing the thing where they link to a WP:TLA that they haven't read because the acronym sounds like something related so it must be a policy or guideline that supports my argument. 47.155.41.201 (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They probably want to link to WP:BLPCRIME but the purpose of both of these is in the same spirit: not wanting to see articles clouded with criminal allegations unless proven in a court of law. Gotitbro (talk) 03:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty much all of the news sources in the main article of this indictment say this is a hugely significant event. So, this event will have large implications, and is the headline of the vast majority of American newspapers, so it clearly should be placed in ITN.
Oppose Being in the headlines alone should not be enough to warrant inclusion. The last two times an indictment was posted should not had happened and we should not continue posting indictments. StellarHalo (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Edge3, and also it is important to note that, though yes we've seen a Trump indictment on ITN before, it is possible that he is only charged for one of the thus-far two incriminations, and so it would make sense to treat this as a different event altogether than the first indictment. daneellis11423:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean daneellis114, that he is only charged for one of the two incriminations. As far as I know, he's been charged dozens of times with each indictment. Nfitz (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying he could, in the future, be charged with only one court ruling, though it is also possible he is found guilty for both or neither. Daneellis114 (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is important, unprecedented (as a federal indictment), and above the virtual fold in news outlets around the world. That easily clears my bar for posting a blurb to—let's not forget—the in the news section. To the opposers, 1) so long as the blurb here is neutral, WP:BLPCRIME is a concern only for the article's content. 2) WP:CRIME ... doesn't apply to anything here? It's part of the notability policy? And Trump is obviously notable? Very confused. Ed[talk][majestic titan]03:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it's embarrassing that this hasn't been posted yet, when this is the most "In The News" thing there is. It really should be, as consensus is in favor of posting, hence why I marked it as "Needs Attention". -- RockstoneSend me a message!03:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't really see much usefulness in labelling clearly contentious noms as such, labels as such are meant for where only content issues need be solved or there is a clear consensus but the nom fell down in the backlog. Gotitbro (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. ITN looks silly with trivial arguments like this. Let's stop calling it "In The News" if what's in the news can't get posted. Johndavies837 (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – The New York indictment was the first time a current or former U.S. president faced criminal charges. The first time a president has faced federal criminal charges is a comparitively small event. If Trump is convicted, sure, but as Trump's legal trouples progress, it is likely we will see more and more of these small 'firsts' – just because it's the "first of its kind" doesn't mean it should be posted to ITN, especially when its just an indictment and not a conviction, and a longstanding 'unwritten rule' of ITN is to post just convictions rather than arrests. DecafPotato (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand it's a significant event, and the other hand it's 50-year career criminal has another legal setback. There's a lot less coverage this time, and the coverage is dying off very fast --- Both Johnson and Johnston's resignation are now getting more attention here (and no, neither are ITN). We already are expecting Trump to be indicted and charged in Georgia for electoral fraud and racketeering in August. And he is also facing indictment federally for his part in the January 2021 insurrection. Are all of these going to be ITN? They guy can't even move without there being a lot of news coverage. With 4 different sets of charges, and multiple trials going, is this going to be ITN on a regular basis? Should this be Ongoing? Nfitz (talk) 07:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stats This doesn't seem to have made a yuge impression with the readership. Here's stats for the nominated articles yesterday plus some others in the news. The Donald Trump article got some attention but was still only #35 and didn't beat Pat Robertson or Arnold Schwarzenegger. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support As noted by others above, I get the feeling that a lot of the opposes are just wielding bureaucratic reasons or WP policies (even some that don't apply here, as noted) to mask some "I don't like Trump" or "I don't like there to be too much US News items" biases. I'm not American, but I consider this to be a major news item, as do those European news channels that feature the indictment. To those not wanting ITN to be a "Trump ticker" - well, like it or not, he's at the source of unprecedented news. We can't just stick our heads in the sand and ignore it. Are we going to delete the "Russian invasion of Ukraine" from Ongoing because we don't want ITN to be a "Putin ticker" either? Khuft (talk) 08:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any posting decision will spur debate about the fundamental goals of ITN. Therefore, it's useful to recap the criteria so we start from a common understanding of the written guidelines:
Wikipedia:In the News"serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest. ITN supports the central purpose of Wikipedia—making a great encyclopedia." (Paragraph 1 of WP:ITN)
Furthermore, the listed WP:ITN#Purposes of ITN include (emphasis mine):
To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news.
To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events.
To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them.
To emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource.
It is against this backdrop we evaluate the current blurb proposal. It is of primary importance to consider consensus in the area of recent or current events of wide interest to assist users to find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for.
Support opinions have stressed the historic significance: this is the first time in U.S. history a former president has been indicted on federal charges. An earlier April posting about Trump as the first-ever criminally indicted former U.S. president were New York state charges around financial issues relating to "hush money" payments. The charges involved in this case relate to classified information, national security, and the Espionage Act, which factors into the wider interest level and geo-political implications. Support sentiments have also pointed to the widespread news coverage worldwide, and that this is an "unprecedented" and "historic" event, which speaks to the first purpose of ITN listed above. There were also a number of observations of the form: "If this is not 'In The News', then what is?"
Oppose opinions have expressed concerns about posting every detail of Trump's legal proceedings, and whether this is proper for ITN. Opinions such as "we are not the Trump news ticker" were brought up. However, a series of blurbs that may be viewed by some as a "ticker" do not go against any of the stated ITN guidelines. In fact, the ITN charge to "emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource" would be consistent with the idea of more frequent updates. Issues were raised about Wikipedia's policies about BLP and CRIME. However, a former U.S. president being a public figure is a significant factor here.
WP:CRIME cautions against, "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event." That is not the case with a public figure such as a former U.S. president.
For BLP concerns that were raised, WP:BLPPUBLIC provides guidance, saying something deserves coverage if an "allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented." All of those are true here.
(To be clear, the two policies above are article-level policies. We are therefore adapting or projecting them somewhat imperfectly onto WP:ITN's topic selection and headline writing, but they are useful as our longstanding guiding principles.)
Some sentiments also mentioned that we don't post indictments. However, the custom of ITN has been that we have posted numerous indictments of significance, including the previous one of Trump in April. Until there is a guideline to outline this distinction, this is not a strong argument against the status quo. That this was "the second time he's been indicted for something" was pointed out by some to oppose posting. However, this sits in contrast with the goal of ITN to "reflect recent or current events of wide interest." As mentioned above, a state prosecutor's case regarding falsifying business records is significantly different than a 37-count federal indictment regarding the Espionage Act, DOJ, and the US National Archives. Therefore, oppose comments that characterize this as "just another indictment," "already been indicted," or comparable to the case with Biden/Pence's handling of documents don't sync well.
For completeness, there were some "wait" sentiments to not post because of incomplete information as initial reports were related from prominent news outlets, but not from the Department of Justice itself. However, after the DOJ unsealed the indictment and special counsel Jack Smith held a televised press conference detailing the significance of the charges, this appeared to resolve the issues of reliable sourcing and verifiable details.
It is for these reasons, and in the context of ITN's fundamental guidance, consensus does exist to post.
Comment while I appreciate the lengthy rationale, AGAIN it is clearly a supervote. An admin is supposed to judge consensus, not judge the merits of the arguments. GreatCaesarsGhost10:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An admin is supposed to judge consensus, not judge the merits of the arguments: Simply not so. Per WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS:
Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument and cited recorded consensus. Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.
Balderdash. Absolute hokum. Significance is highly subjective. As long as arguments are supported by facts and in line with policy, the ultimate "vote" is based on personal opinion in weight of facts. He explicitly rejects arguments like mine that a second indictment is of diminished significance. That is not the role of an admin. GreatCaesarsGhost13:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to the fact that Wikipedia consensus may not be informed by personal opinion with "Balderdash. Absolute hokum." is just about as perfect a description of ITN as we're going to get. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Using your framing of "as long as arguments are supported by facts and in line with policy", one could argue that second indictment !votes without something more should be disregarded or given lesser weight since they ignore the factual differences between the two indictments (i.e. federal vs. state, direct vs. indirect relation to presidency, mishandling nuclear secrets vs. falsifying business records) that would justify posting even if it is a second indictment. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions17:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, balderdash. No one is writing a comment of support or opposition that balances arguments in both direction. An editor in support will provide rationale for & one in opposition will provided rationale against. Saying an opposition vote should be disregard because they didn't mention the arguments for is ludicrous. GreatCaesarsGhost19:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My brother in christ, that is not a consensus, that's a poll. You've danced around the affect that consensus on Wikipedia is measured via strength of arguments and not numerical superiority. For example, see this deletion request on Wikimedia Commons (which has similar consensus policy to Wikipedia). Under your logic, this license template should have been kept because all three voters voted keep, even though the public domain license New Jersey uses on its government works do not allow derivatives; despite that being a mandated requirement for all files hosted on Commons. This is why we don't measure consensus by headcount and actually analyze the weight and factuality of the points made. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk·Contribs) 19:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the "first" arguments by Fuzheado here, there will always be firsts; if he's indicted later in the year for electoral fraud that will also be a first. And if this indeed is more significant than the New York indictment then that should not have been posted (where this "first" argument was used as well), consequentially using that posting as a precedent falters. Furthermore, ITN's long standing history of not posting charges on the Main Page (in the spirit of BLP/casting asperions regardless of specific policies) should not be disregarded as easily.
You should not be surprised when in the future we are inundated with noms for trivial charges on celebrities/politicians et al. I have and would continue to oppose the posting of charges here on ITN. Gotitbro (talk) 11:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sad future. But I’m happy to know that I will see the chaging of the former president/PM of the smallest and most irrelevant country in the world in Main Page and with a majority support over here. I’m sure it will be "in the news". _-_Alsor (talk) 12:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
as much you’d like to pretend that all circumstances and events are equivalent, what’s in the news is decided by the news media, not random people on the internet at a Wikipedia discussion page. nableezy - 13:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pull. Shall we just say I guessed who had posted this before I opened the page? There is no consensus to post this whatsoever and it's a supervote. Black Kite (talk)13:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you engage with the admin's very detailed explanation, instead of blankly accusing him of "supervoting"? Yes, full disclosure, I did support this, but besides that I think his arguments of why he weighed some arguments higher than others make a lot of sense. Consensus is not a vote-count. Khuft (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because most of his arguments are wrong. I can't really be bothered any more though, the last ANI made it clear that we are going to let this admin keep making mistakes at ITN without any consequence. Black Kite (talk)19:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any elaboration on why this admin is wrong? Any input is appreciated and saying that "you can't be bothered" doesn't back up your case. CaptainGalaxy10:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I personally support posting, as three days later I'm still finding this on the front page of non-US news sources. However, I don't see how there is presently consensus for posting. So I genuinely don't know where to go from here, but pulling would not be an unreasonable thing to do. Vanamonde (Talk)21:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment Wouldn't it be better to move this and all the lawsuits Trump is racking up, to an ongoing item? This is not the first and I guess it won't be the last in this mess. Just brainstorming out loud... cart-Talk21:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If Russia were to fire a missile at any other city outside of Ukraine it would be notable and ITN. But it's a daily and notable event that's covered by ongoing. We already know that the Georgia indictment is scheduled for August on the racketeering and electoral fraud charges. We also know that there were be more big coverage when trials begin. Ongoing sounds like the place to me. Nfitz (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then nominate it then. I may not think it worthy for nomination but if either of you or anyone here for that matter think so, then be bold. CaptainGalaxy15:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pull. The closer brought up arguments that were not made by anyone else in the discussion, a classic sign of a supervote. (For example, the closing statement twice mentions the importance of the Espionage Act, which is not mentioned anywhere else in the discussion, and quotes WP:BLPPUBLIC, which was not cited elsewhere in the discussion as far as I can tell.) —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 05:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Support This article looked terrible when I saw it earlier today. You did an impressive job of fixing it, and in way less time than I thought it would need. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 8 June 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.
Nominator's comments: The straws have been in the wind and now it's confirmed. You'll be hearing a lot about this but the article still needs work... Andrew🐉(talk) 19:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The start of an El Nino or even the event itself is not notable for inclusion here... the effects that El Nino brings likely will get many blurbs and may warrant an article later on. Sorry, but this reeks of WP:TOOSOON since the El Nino is literally in its infancy. I'd also argue this is very US-centric considering other agencies such as Australia's BOM and the JMA have not declared El Nino. NoahTalk19:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you look, that’s only a 70% chance of El Niño. If they are at El Niño they simply state El Niño without any watch or alert. NoahTalk14:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support notable item that is in the news, and features a topic that people would want to know more about; exactly what we ought to be featuring on ITN. NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is the effects of a El Nino that are newsworthy. We could have a El Nino event without any significant events. But like in this case the Canadian wildfires are the first big result of this. --Masem (t) 20:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Quoting the BBC article: "This is a very weak signal. But we believe that we're starting to see these conditions and that they will continue to intensify," said Michelle L'Heureux, a scientist with NOAA. Even they are not strongly convinced, why should we be? If stronger signs are seen, we can come back to this in a while with an indication in the blurb of the likely impact for 2024. --Ouro (blah blah) 03:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is obviously a routine climatological event. We are not going to include the start of tornado season in the USA or forest fires in the Mediterranean area. By the way, don't forget the "ñ", which may not be a pretty letter, but it's not hideous. _-_Alsor (talk) 05:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Expected climate process continues to operate. If this leads to extreme weather events, we can consider posting those, but not a routine oscillation. Modest Geniustalk12:10, 9 June 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.
Oppose. Updates to article do not appear substantial enough for Ongoing. The better portion of substantial editing recently seems to be more edit-warring. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:45, 8 June 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.
Not nominated by me - hence I marked my comment as a comment. I was throwing together an article on it independently, and I checked to see if it was already here, so added a message to the actual nominator Frzzltalk · contribs18:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, apologies for the confusion. This is my first time interacting at ITN and I've misunderstood how the nomination system works. I saw it mentioned in the box above so thought that meant another editor had somehow nominated, and thus gave my first comment to alert that I've made an article. I have no preference on whether it appears, and didn't intend to nominate it! If it passes WP:NEVENTS, I'm happy to !support, but I agree that we wait first. Frzzltalk · contribs18:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - no fatalities yet at least, wait until anyone dies. They also seems to making a big deal about this in France, which might barely make the article pass WP:NEVENTS even if no one dies, but alas, that's getting ahead of ourselves. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk·Contribs) 18:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to be a domestic incident (homeless refuge) and not what we post st ITN. It also might fail NEVENT as such a small scale incident. Masem (t) 17:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, hence my comment. However, it has attracted widespread international media coverage, so I think it passes notability. If not, we can discuss deletion and merging into Annecy. Frzzltalk · contribs18:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest close without prejudice there isn't even clearly a nominator suggesting significance sufficient to support promotion. We can renominate if circumstances evolve to give this a snowball's chance. GreatCaesarsGhost18:58, 8 June 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.
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.
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.
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.
Would Pat Robertson qualify for a blurb? I'm thinking he's probably just an RD, but I'd like to hear what others have to say on the matter. He was one of the most influential televangelists and had a pretty major impact on the world, for better or for worse. Kurtis(talk)14:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say he was a borderline candidate for a blurb (if/when the referencing issues are corrected). During his career Robertson was certainly very influential in American culture and politics and his views made him a highly controversial figure. But he has been retired/inactive for many years, his influence and name recognition would be almost entirely American, and his death at 93 is not exactly remarkable. Further, we have declined blurb nominations for figures with much stronger claims to fame and influence. Kirk Douglas and Olivia de Havilland come to mind. You are free to modify the nomination and add a proposed blurb, but I doubt it would succeed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb besides article quality, only the lefe makes some claim of long term impact (that i could spot), and such an impact must be more apparent and discussed in depth. I also feel the bottom half of the controversies section is most a laundry list of every controversial comment, rather than a big picture look, making that sevtion an POV issue. (This is why we avoid controversy sections) perhaps a section of his views would be better. --Masem (t) 14:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding blurb per discussion. I myself am neutral, but leaning towards support - Robertson was undoubtedly a major political figure in contemporary American history, being instrumental in the popularization of the evangelical right and being critical figure in that movement's conquest of the party, however, I'm not entirely sure that would warrant blurbing considering that he was aided by a lot of folk in his ilk (i.e, he wasn't the only one). - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk·Contribs) 18:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Man dies at 93, was irrelevant to most of the world and indeed, frankly, to a significant part of the USA. As AD Orientem says, we have declined blurbs for far more influential characters than Robertson. Black Kite (talk)18:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb - failed presidential candidate is way too wide a net to blurb. Sure, had an impact on a portion of a portion of the political map, but no not blurb-worthy absent an unusually newsworthy death. nableezy - 18:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose RD and as an evergreen comment: if you don't personally support a death blurb, don't be the first to raise the subject. It's just a distraction. There is no way in hell he is getting blurbed, but we're going to get 87 oppose blurb votes anyway. GreatCaesarsGhost19:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I still think he was notable enough to at least have the possibility raised. I agree that we should probably refocus the conversation on whether or not his article is of a high enough quality to appear on the main page as an RD. Kurtis(talk)22:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely nothing wrong with seeking input from the community; statements like this that seek to shut down conversation do little more than needlessly intimidate and actually distract us from building consensus. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk·Contribs) 07:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb - An Influential American political figure even if he lost most of his influence and power near the end of his life. Death Editor 2 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb as the subject is vital, the article is rated B-class (which is comparatively good for ITN) and the subject's name is quite commonplace and so would be invisible at RD. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb. Was this individual (whom I hadn't heard of before today) influential and significant on a par with Nelson Mandela or Margaret Thatcher? Of course he wasn't. Blurbs for deaths are rare, and should remain that way. — Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not saying I disagree with you (I'm more or less on record supporting an RD as opposed to a blurb), but I've seen the "I've never heard of them" argument multiple times on ITN, and I always find it bewildering. I'll give you a shortlist of several famous people who I don't recall ever having heard of prior to their deaths, all of whom received a blurb: Billy Graham, Norman Borlaug, Karl Lagerfeld, Shane Warne, Dilip Kumar, Frederick Sanger, Maya Angelou, Jim Brown. Does the fact that I wasn't familiar with these people diminish their fame, notability, or significance? Of course not! I just... hadn't heard of them before, for whatever reason. Kurtis(talk)19:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. In the interest of serving our readers, we should highlight his recent passing. His prominence and influence evidenced by the fact his page was the 2nd most viewed yesterday. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the publications section has a single quote which is prominently displayed hinting that he was anti-semitic but from the rest of the article you gather that he was actually a Zionist. Gotitbro (talk) 05:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb, Oppose RD for now There are eleven cn tags in the article. Once this gets fixed, it will be ready for RD. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Don't see any reason why RD is not sufficient. The publications section is still mostly unsourced, so I disagree that it is ready. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, leaning oppose blurb. Not particularly an innovator in any field, nor the leader in any field. He was very successful as a televangelist, but was neither the first nor the most prominent in this field. His political foray was novel, but shallow. BD2412T05:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Not another one??!!!!! All this blurb nomination shows is that we need better rules to justify blurbs. Either that, or separate ITNs. One for genuinely important people, the other for "famous" Americans that several of our editors have heard of. HiLo48 (talk) 05:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Going to second BD2412's comment as I'm not sure I could put it any better. Certainly a notable figure, but not uniquely notable enough in the grand scheme of things to merit a blurb. The Kip (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Consensus to post is well-founded and no further discussion is productive any more (talking about climate change, "miniature" countries and number of people affected is redundant). Changes in the blurb as a result of potential article mergers should be discussed at WP:ERRORS.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:43, 9 June 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.
Nominator's comments: A similar blurb was nominated and closed on the 3rd, but has since become a much larger story – currently the top story on NYT, BBC, AP, etc. Morgan695 (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Morgan695 Me along with some users have also announced the merge, we find that article unnecessary and putting it into the main article is better information and content wise. NYMan6 (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"By the night of June 6, New York City had the worst air pollution of any major city in the world; by the morning of June 7 it had fallen to second place." Wow, that is amazing. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose wildfires are common this time of year and this has yet to cause and deaths. Smoke from wildfires spread commonly across a wide area, and perhaps that this is a fire on the eastern side if the country may make it a curiosity, but it comes as part of wildfires in general. --Masem (t) 20:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ultimate problem with this news item as it pertains to INT is that is relying on the "spectacle" of the wildfires, either from the standpoint if being the Xth largest fire in Canada, or that smoke from it affects the US eastern seaboard, or the NYC experienced its worst air quality from it. So what? With climate change we can anticipate these evens happening again and breaking records. This type of "wow, that's interesting" is great for a DYK blurb but not for ITN. Masem (t) 22:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle due to its wide coverage but we should keep an eye on the multiple merges that are being discussed regarding this topic. Kafoxe (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support overall I've been looking widely into the wildfires which are the most popular in the world, it is not very common for smoke to stretch so far that it affects school, benefits and daily lives of people from far. I've also checked info overall, and find it very amazing on what it is written on especially the one that @Sagittarian Milky Way mentioned. New York City itself is being highly affected by the smoke and fires, where I live in CT we can literally smell the fire, also not to mention that this is the biggest wildfire in Canada's history literally almost 10 million acres long (4,046,856 hectares). Overall I support the claims of support above and this is my decision. NYMan6 (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SUPPORT - New York and surrounding areas haven't seen this level of wildfire-induced smoke and whatnot since.. well, I'm not sure - hence my point. Alexcs114 :) 20:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article has some issues. It says that the fires started in March and so the time frame seems quite protracted. And the article doesn't really explain what's happening. What exactly is causing these fires and why are they happening at this time? I thought this latitude was still affected by snow at this time. Rather than providing a good coherent explanation, the article seems scrappy and vague. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first 2023 fire in all Canada was in March, the first in Quebec and/or Ontario [[2023 Central Canada wildfires|was June 2nd]]? Most of the smoke in the east US is from Ontario and Quebec. The cause of the Ontario and Quebec fires is unseasonably high temperature and dryness and lightning. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article says nothing at all about lightning. The closest is comes to a cause is saying "Officials estimated about half of the province's wildfires were caused by human action."
And the article doesn't explain the nature of the terrain or the fires. Is this forest, prairie, scrub, tundra or what? Canada is a huge place and the article seems to cover many provinces. My impression is that the main phenomenon is a widespread dry spell or drought and so fires are a secondary consequence rather than being the primary topic. As North America has had drought on the west coast for some time and lots of wild fires there, this just seems to be more of the same.
2023 Central Canada wildfires says lightning, most of the East US smoke is from Quebec, not the west. There's wildfire in every province and territory except Nunavut and that Prince Edward Island, some wildfire in West Canada is prairie, there's forest fires almost coast-to-coast and almost USA to "the territories" AKA north of 60, I don't know about tundra. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, as to snow still in March at that latitude (varies sharply by longitude as well, but focused on mid-northern Ontario / Quebec) -- it's supposed to be. A lot of Canada had an extremely low-snow winter this year. Some places barely got any snow at all, places that normally have upward of two metres of snow. Second, technically not drought yet in central Canada, because of significant rain in April -- most farmers are not yet concerned -- but very very dry. Other parts of Canada are even drier. The Alberta and northern fires continue and are causing local air quality issues, but those are not the ones causing the current east coast smoke re this nomination. - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info but the article doesn't explain this and so its quality is still poor. I took another look to check after the posting. The first section is about Alberta and it tells us that their state of emergency ended 5 days ago. So, that's stale already. The rule seems to be that it doesn't matter how much of Canada is affected but if NYC gets a whiff then we stop the presses. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Damn!Strong support - as the one who initially nominated this story a few days ago, I stand by my original nom comment: this is an extraordinary and historic event that is rippling throughout Anglo-America (look at the smoke in NY for christ's sake, damn!). The article quality is not the best, but I'm not sure why people are acting like its any worse than some of the disaster stubs that we frequently post. The event has received sustained coverage as well. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk·Contribs) 01:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage is 100% from the systematic media bias of North American news sources. There's little else of interest on this side of the world, so "omg bad air quality in NYC!" is making headlines. Masem (t) 02:00, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Several of the sources used are international sources, as well. This wildfire could literally be reported across the world right now, not to mention the notability that I have seen of the event on social media. More than 100 million people in alert in the U.S with millions more in Canada and the events small smokes spreading to Europe and not to mention even evacuation and school closure. Seems enough. NYMan6 (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for @Knightoftheswords281: It's not even bad tbh, it's literally a growing article, its better than several disaster stubs and other's this is an event current, information grows people don't understand. NYMan6 (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Currently front page news on most major news outlets globally. Its the lead story in Le Monde. Article quality is acceptable, and sourcing is actually decent. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“Please do not… Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive.“ The Kip (talk) 04:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
all of the other current "in the news" stories are all centric to one country, this is a bit of a silly reason to oppose IMO. Alexcs114 :) 07:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only time anyone ever argues that the story is only relevant to one country is when it involves the US, I'm really not sure why, but I wish comments that only have that argument would be struck out, as it's not a valid argument. Especially in this case... since it's relevant to two countries, not one. --RockstoneSend me a message!08:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per @Alexcs114 it's stupid that the opposition calls this centric, when in reality almost every article put onto it literally is centric to one country. NYMan6 (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support and not just because this has been my life for the last two days (I'm only so unfazed by it because, as I was telling people, I had seen and breathed much worse air on a visit to China in 2014, but then the AQI around where I live broke 200 today as New York City's broke 400, the latter equivalent to the day I was wandering around Beijing and visiting the Temple of Heaven (see photo)). To say that this shouldn't be on ITN because it will happen again due to climate change is not only a bit CRYSTAL but also discounts the significance of this being the first time this sort of natural disaster has happened in a well-populated, globally important region where this sort of thing has never happened in recorded history (save maybe this exception). To analogize it ... Houston having a 100ºF+ heatwave is not unusual enough to be ITN-worthy; London having one is (at this point in time). Likewise if 10 inches of wet snow falls in my neck of the woods, I wouldn't even think of nominating it for ITN, but you can bet that if that happened in Singapore I'd support the nomination.
And, by further analogy, should we not have put the Russian invasion of Ukraine in ITN because it could be considered likely that Russia will invade other neighboring countries in the future? Daniel Case (talk) 05:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
London had a heatwave of over 100ºF last year – see European heat wave & wildfires. I recorded a temperature of over 120ºF myself and I expect it will be similar this year. It's going to be a long hot summer all over because of El Niño and so we're going to have lots of weather stories. It's perhaps something for Ongoing. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose serious wildfires in Canada are not really unusual. Serious wildfires are not unusual anymore. And no victims have been reported. _-_Alsor (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 1780 fires appear to have been in Central Canada; where fires are a more common then Eastern Canada, but not as much as Western Canada. The major Eastern Canada fires in New Brunswick are very unusual - I don't think I've even heard of anything like that before. Nfitz (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support on both quality and importance – this is the headline of many credible news organizations now (and isn't that the essence of ITN?). And this is not just US-centric as this obviously came from Canada; the effects in the US are more of a "side effect" of the ongoing wildfires in Canada, which is arguably the one that got hit more badly. I also think the 2023 United States East Coast wildfire smoke article should also be part of the blurb, unless it gets merged with the 2023 Canadian wildfires article itself. Vida0007 (talk) 06:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's pretty clear that this is a big deal and is being reported internationally. I fail to see any convincing argument as to why this shouldn't be posted. Most of the arguments against posting this seem to be the usual argument that this is only relevant to the US... but most stories we post are only relevant to one country (which is why ITN implores people to not use that as an argument), and besides that, this is actually relevant to two countries, as Canada is suffering even more than the US is. --RockstoneSend me a message!08:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Similar to the last nom, the kernel of the news story are the wildfires in Canada which editors clearly demonstrated, in the last nom, are not that uncommon. That the smoke of the fire affected nearby regions is a non-story. Gotitbro (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not our job to determine that, really - seems WP:OR. If it's in the news, it's in the news and we should note it as such. Alexcs114 :) 13:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we followed the way all international media promotes stories with no other criteria in significance, we wold be flooded with US and UK politics and other Western centric stories. Which is we ITN is not a news ticker, we employ some degree of significance based on a topic being and enduring or impact fully, and not day to day curiosities the media sees. Masem (t) 13:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wildfires are common and what makes this one unique is the air current carrying the smoke over a populated area, nothing more. With the smoke expected to clear in the next day or two I see don't much benefit covering this story for wiki readers. Kcmastrpc (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm kind of bewildered by the oppose !votes here. I think we look really silly right now. If we don't post this wildfire, which one are we going to post? A wildfire across the entire North American continent from coast-to-coast? --Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)12:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, we're missing the big picture through all the smoke. The real news story is the amount of damage the fires in Canada, which have been ongoing since March, measured in hectares as well as any damage they have done. The smoke is an unusual side effect, but it is absolutely temporary, and only a spectacle in the media because the eastern seaboard doesn't usually see wildfires and the effect of smoke. But right now the blurb is focused on this. I can tell you that people in the Pacific Northwest would scoff at the level of concern, given that they just had a similar issue with smoke and air quality from fires in B.C. This story is making a big deal out of nothing or actually burying the lede about the serious threat of the wildfires. And if we focused on the wildfires, they have been ongoing since March and thus would be considered stale. an ongoing line would not be appropriate as wildfires are happening all over the globe, and this is nowhere near how large they have been in the past. Masem (t) 12:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a valid point, thus why I didn't rush to support this. Still, I'm nonetheless unimpressed by votes such as "U.S.-centric news story." when, as you pointed out, the main damage being done is in Canada. --Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)13:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because the lede ( Canada wildfires) is being buried by the spectacle (smoke along us eastern seaboard). We should be evaluating the lede story here, and in a grand scale of things, these are not any significant wildfires, yet, and part and parcel for this tome of year and other climate conditions. Masem (t) 13:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have a very well established standard of posting "common event but uncommon for this location" like mass shootings, terrorism, natural disasters, etc. I thinks its a dumb practice and have voiced my opposition many times but been shouted down. It is unquestionably an unusual event enrapturing the capital of the world; we shouldn't dismiss that because people in Oregon are used to it. GreatCaesarsGhost13:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - multi-national impact, largest wildfires in Canadian history, worst air quality in North America's second largest city on record, and widely covered. Masem's long running crusade against the news media's supposed sensationalism aside (one that I thought was rejected in his straw poll?), this is clearly a widely covered news story with significant impact across a large region. nableezy - 13:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any story which rests on "the largest.. " or "the worst..." or other superlatives, particularly when climate change is information, are ones that could easily be outdone in a year or even a few days. We look to long term impact here. And in relation to the straw poll, while newsworthiness is a factor, there is also still a significance factor to consider, which is this itnc debate right now. Masem (t) 13:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, any record can be broken later. That does not change their significance when they are broken now. The sourcing and the depth of coverage, and how wide that coverage is, here demonstrates the significance. If in the unlikely chance this fire gets put down and an even larger one appears in a few days Id support that too. But since that remains an absurdly unlikely hypothetical, how about we focus on this current event that is indeed the largest wildfire in Canada's history and causing significant impact in a very highly populated area? nableezy - 14:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not always true, i.e. it would've taken years and years for another plane model to beat the Airbus A380 as world's largest passenger plane and it was too big for existing airports to deal with, it's not something that can be designed, prototyped, tested, certificated, delivered and introduced into service in a year. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also even more so the longest total solar eclipse of the 21st century (2009) isn't something that could just be beat next year. They know all the eclipse lengths many centuries in advance. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Marked as Ready The discussion has been open a sufficient period of time and there appears to be a rough consensus in favor of posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support—I previously opposed a blurb nomination for the wildfires taking place in Nova Scotia, believing that the situation was being resolved. However, the wildfires have continued to spread, and it has become a major news event. I believe it is now significant enough for the main page. Kurtis(talk)14:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Solid article, of wide interest especially in the Northeastern U.S., opposition cites a lack of deaths and international scope which aren't appropriate arguments to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was the right call, I think. Even if the original event is pretty well and truly stale, it meets all four forks of the DICE standard. There's no shortage of coverage of the wildfire in the news, the impact and consequences are massive in that hundreds of thousands of citizens -- if not millions -- are being impacted by the wildfire in some capacity, and the encyclopedic nature of it is indicated by the fact we're receiving multiple quality updates to the aforementioned articles. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)15:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support - Most certainly the right call, given the scope, scale, and significance of the wildfires and the opinions above. Fires of this type are not "common," with NYC currently one of the most polluted cities on Earth as a result and 100 million people in North America coping with the effects. - Fuzheado | Talk16:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment - @Fuzheado not even 100 million, the events are supposed to spread even more varying even the Gulf of Mexico and the West Coast of the U.S. There also seems that there's more comingfor both areas. NYMan6 (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Point of information - The 100 million figure is mentioned in multiple places:
Canada wildfire smoke updates: At least 100 million Americans affected by air quality alerts - (USA Today)
"For smoke alone, around 100 million were under alerts across 16 states." - (NBC News)
Massive Canada Wildfires Impact Over 100 Million People Across North America; All You Need To Know - (India Times)
100 million under Air Quality Alerts as Canadian wildfire smoke continues to choke eastern US - (FOX Weather)
"More than 100 million Americans are under Air Quality Index Alerts due to smoke drift from historic wildfire activity throughout Canada, which is facing one of its worst wildfire seasons on record. " - (WhiteHouse.gov)
Comment Re the comments about just affecting one (or two) countries. First, as previously noted, that reason for opposition is inherently not valid by ITN terms. Second, This story is newsworthy based on the population and/or the geographical area being affected. In N. America, that happens to involve two countries, both of which are exceptionally large (Canada 2nd in the world, U.S. 4th). This unusual layout tends to distort the real scale of the impact. Take the exact same issue and overlay it on Europe, S. America, Africa, or (non-Russia) Asia, and then consider how many countries it would have affected had the main body of N. America been laid out politically like other continents. (Wildfire smoke does not respect political boundaries.) - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, like if Luxembourg and the Netherlands have a new trade agreement, it'd technically be international but at the same time not at all significant Alexcs114 :) 18:29, 8 June 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.
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.
Africa's largest gathering of business leaders with heads of state, draws 1,800 from 70 countries to discuss advancing African business, post-COVID-19 supply chain issues, and Africa's food crisis from the Russian invasion of Ukraine. (The Africa Report)
Five people are killed and eight others injured when police open fire on taxi drivers protesting against high fuel prices in Huambo, Angola. At least 34 others were arrested during the protest, which was in response to the government's decision to cut fuel subsidies. (News24)
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.
Comment - Lynnwood Times is not a reliable source. Article needs quite a lot of work, which I'll try to patch up later today. SounderBruce23:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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: Icelandic politician. Article looks alright and it can be expanded from the icelandic wiki if it's too small. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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: 101, muse of Picasso for 10 years, but an artist in her own right, - only much of work was lost in WWII. The article looks in good shape but for 2 ref tags. I thought I better bring it here than search alone. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have fixed the two CN tags. Article looks good enough (good sourcing plus long enough to not be stubby) for ITNRD. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist800022:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
*Oppose on quality as article doesn't mention him becoming PM, and is also quite small. That said, as the Bulgarian PM administers the executive, this is ITNR. The Kip (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, following the updates I've just made to the article in order to mention this key event. @Kacamata, The Kip, and Fakescientist8000: Let me know if these additions can help improve the page as a whole; also, here is one more potentially useful source, should you have time to add it. Oltrepier (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITN says The "In the news" (ITN) section on the Main Page serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest. It doesn't say except for business news, which is unsuitable, as an entire genre of news isn't disqualified. This is also international news as LIV is owned by the Saudi Public Investment Fund. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ElijahPepe Completely categorically untrue! Do you want me to cite the numerous instances in which we have posted business news? I'd be more than happy to look them up for you. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)13:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, respectfully, you were the one who argued WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Your argument is incorrect on the basis that it does not reflect the current consensus of ITN. We have posted, and will continue to post, business mergers, collapses, and acquisitions of various sizes as recently as 2022. If you're going to oppose something for silly reasons, you better at least have a bloody good silly reason instead of making up false rationales. Otherwise you just come across as trolling. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)15:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that you're making is that, because other business news has appeared on ITN, this article is somehow notable. If we considered every single merger that graced the cover of The New York Times, half of ITN would be nothing but business news. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him)16:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At what point in the above exchange did I say "this event is notable because we've posted other business news before"? Please cite that statement or else tear down your straw man argument. Also, could another admin please hat this before one of us gets sent to ANI. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)16:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, that's not what is being said. It's much simpler. You said: "Business news is unsuitable for ITN". That is objectively incorrect, policy-wise and practice-wise. Might I suggest we chalk that up as your opinion, and agree to disagree. - Fuzheado | Talk16:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for right nowDP World Tour needs included, as they are part of the merger. However, something like this golf wise hasn't happened since the actual PGA Tour split from the PGA in the late 1960s. TheCorriynial (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Failed attempt to challenge the business structure of golf ends after 12 months. LIV never seriously challenged PGA and their merger simply returns things to the status quo of pre-2022. Modest Geniustalk16:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The PGA Tour did not have billions of Saudi dollars invested into it, so this is not "returning to the status quo". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But that type of investment wasn't possible with the PGA [7]. I'm unclear how this what-if scenario is useful for ITN determination. - Fuzheado | Talk17:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest this is the very opposite of failing to challenge PGA Tour. Liv was perceived as a realistic existential threat to the established order, and PGA & DP were doing what it could to prevent that from happening. If Liv truly failed, PGA & DP wouldn't have had to agree a merger, they would have just let it die. -- KTC (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PGA had a dominant sporting competition, LIV had bucket loads of cash. Both sides wanted what the other had, and running two separate tours was damaging to both. Of course they were going to merge, the only surprise is it happened in just 12 months. Modest Geniustalk11:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not borne out by the facts in the reporting. There was surprise the merger was happening at all because of the PGA's previous principled stance, and the "hypocrisy" of now doing a deal with LIV. [8][9][10][11] Therefore the time frame was not the only "surprise." - Fuzheado | Talk17:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As news about this has emerged, this observation seems incomplete. The reporting have made a bigger deal about this, both the straight news and opinion pieces, where the Saudi Public Investment Fund is at the heart of the issue. So this becomes not just a sport story, but a business and human rights story. Headlines include:
‘Gigantic victory for sportswashing’: old truths will haunt golf’s new dawn (Guardian UK)
LIV Golf-PGA Tour merger reignites not-so-clean debate over sportswashing (Washington Post)
PGA Tour sold out to LIV Golf and the Saudis. Pro golf will never be the same. - "From top to bottom, they own professional golf now." (USA Today)
With PGA-LIV merger, the sportswashing of Saudi Arabia's human rights record is in full swing (Deadspin)
Regardless of whether this is enough to change anyone's opinion here, a !vote that doesn't consider this dynamic affects the evaluation of consensus. - Fuzheado | Talk10:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the (justified) criticism of where the money has come from, however it was already being spent on golf. Whether that cash is going to an independent LIV or to a merged PGA-LIV won't make any material difference to human rights, in Saudia Arabia or elsewhere. Modest Geniustalk11:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Um, they're in their second season right now, not that it being too "short-lived" somehow makes this not notable. I don't want to WP:BLUDGEON this thread but accuracy matters. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose but not because of any of the reasons given above. I'm actually open to the ITN'ness of this. The issue I have is that the agreement is only at the stage of an initial board agreement and non-binding. There's still a lot that can cause the merger not to go ahead. While it is in the news now and may not be later, given the bad feelings with each other in the golf world, I'm not sure we should post something that have reasonable probability of not going ahead. -- KTC (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to get you to change your mind, but this type of news story usually receives attention when it is announced, not when the documents are finalized, the regulators approve, or other formalities occur. Perhaps in this specific case there are reasons to doubt it will go ahead, but it more than likely will not get more attention than it does now. 331dot (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support (changed from neutral) now that the scope and significance have emerged. This is not just a "ho hum" or routine story, as it is a significant shift into the control of the only global franchise for the sport of golf, which is international, and massive in terms of dollar amount and influence. It is also a geopolitical story that merits posting on ITN, where both articles have seen a surge of traffic. [12]Neutral but open to support. Agree with Muboshgu that this is a signficant story in terms of sport and business, but also geopolitics, given the parties invovled. [13] Business news has always been and will always be suitable for ITN. However, as KTC points out, posting "mergers" here is always tricky - do we post when it's announced, when it's official, when shareholders approve, or when it actually happens (given it's even possible to know it happened), etc? Concur with TheCorriynial that any posting should include DP World tour/European PGA as part of it. – Fuzheado | Talk19:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I would contend this is larger news then the individual results of any of the ITN golf items we have, and this is probably the biggest golf news in quite some time. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with this assessment and also support. The media coverage is certainly there, and it was even the lead headline on NY Times for much of the day. Kicking222 (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No doubt this is big news in golfing circles, but at the level of a global general encyclopedia, it's not significant enough for us to post. As Modest Genius points out, this was rather a flash-in-the-pan and the ultimate net effect of this is limited, Saudi dollars notwithstanding. It seems it will be back to business as usual. — Amakuru (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Certainly a topic fitting for a global encyclopedia. It's a big business merger that has a significant impact on the two aforementioned articles. --Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)13:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Modest Genius. I agree that the machinations make for a salacious read, but this so-called "merger" is masquerading the ho-hum story of yet another startup sports league folding in under a year. GreatCaesarsGhost15:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is probably not going to get posted, but it should. It's a really major news story globally and it involves multiple subject areas, sports, business, and law. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It really should be. It's just a shame that the significance bar really is all over the place (and there's no option to fact-check !votes). If it's front page news in multiple papers and it results in significant updates to multiple Wikipedia articles, it ought to be newsworthy enough, I would think. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)15:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Walt has been here long enough to know that significance is in the eye of the beholder. You can certainly discount votes that make no real case or only invoke "banned" rationale, but implying others opinions are false is bad faith. GreatCaesarsGhost17:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care if this is on ITN or not, but Walt has a point. MG's oppose rationale is fundamentally incorrect. It's not that he has the wrong opinion, but he's basing his opinion on an incorrect fact. It is simply, demonstrably untrue that this returns us to the status quo ante, and that is the full extent of his rationale. It doesn't make any sense to claim that pointing that out is uncivil or done in bad faith. There is actual incivility at ITNC all the time, it seems weird to claim that this is an example. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - widely covered sports and business news. See nothing in the opposes that trump the front page coverage. nableezy - 16:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"See nothing in the opposes that trump the front page coverage" - the way ITN runs at the moment, front page coverage doesn't immediately imply we'd run it. The story is assessed on its encyclopedic significance in a global encyclopedia, rather than the things that would routinely appear on a "news ticker". Now I don't necessarily agree with that approach, I'd rather we post more news stories that readers want to find and for which we have decent articles, but we've yet to gather consensus for such a change at WT:ITN. And given the calibre of story we routinely don't post, I don't think this golfing one rises to any extent higher than those, and it would be wrong and systemically biased to post this. — Amakuru (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is saying the quiet part out loud, but frankly, I feel "global significance" in practice is a cudgel used to beat down nominations that primarily concern U.S.-based news stories with moderate impacts; one never sees such argumentation used in context to events or disasters that occur in other nations. I don't think there's a consensus for that approach, except that some users incorrectly believe that it is a requirement for items to be posted on ITN. However, as things currently stand, there's probably no getting rid of its use in discourse. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)19:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...but we've yet to gather consensus for such a change at WT:ITN...: That's somewhat akin to an WP:EVERYONEELSE argument, when there's little restriction currently as written at WP:ITN that precludes anyone from changing how we !vote now, nor anything mandating that admins post based on anything other than the arguments at a given nom. There is no time like the present. —Bagumba (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The entirety of the opposition is this is not important enough in my opinion, and in my view the fact that reliable sources across the world have taken this is as important enough to run on their front pages trumps those personal opinions, in my opinion obviously. nableezy - 19:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Rough consensus to post. Some oppose !votes were discounted: it’s false that ITN don’t have business news. There’s a few WP:PERX !votes, citing Modest Genius, who was rebutted. A merger is not "status quo" with, at a minimum, Saudi money now involved. That it might be “ho hum” to some because LIV didn’t “succeed”, doesn’t erase that it is in the news and many more !voters find it significant. Finally, "Not suitable for ITN" doesn't explain why.—Bagumba (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba: not sure how you're seeing a consensus to post here? Supports and opposes are almost equal, and it's certainly not right for you to "discount" people's opposes in this fashion, just because you disagree with them. ITN doesn't have policies or guidelines, so for better or worse it's up to individual contributors to decide whether the bar for posting is met, based on nebulous criteria. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This needs to be pulled. Major news organizations are reporting that this deal will likely not occur. By posting this, we are just working PR for the deal makers. Thriley (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strength of argument is a factor in closes. Which specific rationale(s) in my explanation are you contesting? I understand the outcome is contrary to your !vote. For the record, your !vote was not one that I discounted. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ironic that some of the same people who’ve previously argued raw vote totals aren’t everything and rationale is more important are now complaining that the vote totals “indicate no clear consensus.” As stated above, a good portion of the opposes on this are extremely poor rationale-wise. The Kip (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posting was the proper call given the merit of the comments above. I was initially neutral but shifted to support. The news cycle has revealed the international significance of the deal, the shift in power dynamic, and the reactions of prominent sports figures regarding the sole global body overseeing competitive golf. It was not just prominent sports news but also international business news. How is ITN to be useful if we do not have the interest of our readers in mind? - Fuzheado | Talk19:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This needs to be pulled. This is an announcement, not an official merge yet. Many reputable sources are saying this deal will not be approved by regulators and therefore will not actually occur. Thriley (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn’t we be really reporting announcements of completed mergers? This deal will likely not be approved by regulators. Thriley (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is in the news now, and it has international ramifications, and people are interested in reading Wikipedia content related to this story. That is what ITN is for. - Fuzheado | Talk19:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pull Wikipedia isn't a PR firm, this deal was just announced, and not only that it's clear there was no consensus to post. This isn't a notable situation, deals get announced all the time and then they disappear when the regulators step in. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, Wikipedia isn't a PR firm. It's also not a meteorologist, a disaster aid agency, a wartime correspondent, an election scrutineer, or a news ticker. But this isin the news, and we post items that arein the news. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)17:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was a clear consensus to post once the Opposes that clearly misunderstood the situation (and the Opposes that were "per them") were discounted. Black Kite (talk)18:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a notable situation, deals get announced all the time - This just falls short from a factual standpoint. Deals of this type and scale are not announced all the time. - Fuzheado | Talk19:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pull - I'm not seeing a consensus above. Nor am I seeing the notability - which is perhaps why there is no article about this merger! A business merger that has had very little coverage. I'd think that in terms of business deals, the Messi to Miami deal is far more significant, in the news, (and I wouldn't nominate either). Nfitz (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Someone could start an article about the merger if they were so inclined. But having its own article is not a requirement for ITN, nor is not having one a reason to pull. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My basis for pull was the lack of consensus, lack of notability, lack of coverage, and it being a standard transaction. Surely the Canadian Pacific/KCS merger was far more significant, and also not worthy of ITN. I'm not even seeing any discussion in PGA European Tour over a few words in the lead; there's a single paragraph that barely meets the ITNCRIT in the other two articles. Nfitz (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The PGA European Tour was not part of the original post. It was added by Black Kite. I believe there was one comment in the discussion, but I didn't act on it, as I hadn't seen them as part of the headlines for this story. I also dont know enough about golf to verify if they were part of the litigation mentioned in the blurb.—Bagumba (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support: consensus is clearly evident for those who understand NOTAVOTE, and once you can get past the inevitable and all-purpose "ITN is not a news-ticker"-type arguments, there's nothing really against posting. This is easily the equivalent significance of any of the golf-related events on ITNR, so if those are posted, why not this? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone please pull this asap. There is no consensus at all in favor and the poster jumped the gun. Including content on the main page without consensus is utterly unacceptable!Tvx1 10:02, 11 June 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.
Wait -- I will Support this once this starts being discussed more broadly in the news. However, at this time, it has yet to have gotten sustained media attention (probably because the west is mostly asleep at this hour). --RockstoneSend me a message!04:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not covered by the ongoing article which has zero content about this. Even if the ongoing article had an update, it would be difficult to find as that article is so huge now. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support but wait pending the clear (likely impossible) indication of who did it. I agree with what Onegreatjoke said, this could potentially have significant impact. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support eventually once more details are known and the stub article mentioned above is expandable. Also, the blurb needs work, but no rush on that. ansh.66607:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The destruction of a major piece of civilian infrastruture would be a war crime if carried out by a party to the conflict(Russia had possession and was documented to have mined the facility, though I don't believe the perpetrator has been independently identified yet). Even if we don't want to get into that, its loss will have a major impact on hundreds of thousands of people(aside from Ukraine itself, it supplied water to Crimea, and threatens a nuclear power plant that uses its water) and this should be a no brainer. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency oppose - either we post notable developments in the war even if it's covered by ongoing, or we don't. Since we have historically chosen the latter, we should also not post this. Banedon (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We posted both the Crimean bridge explosion, and the Russian annexation of Donetsk/Luhansk/Kherson/Zaporizhzhia, if I recall correctly. DecafPotato (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ongoing exists for a reason, for the same similar destruction has not been posted before. A lot of significance is being put into its supposed impact on nuclear installations (WP:CRYSTALBALL), we can discuss if and when that actually happens. Gotitbro (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not crystal balling that there are and could be impacts to the NPP. The head of the IAEA has spoken about this extensively. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. I think this has the potential to merit a separate blurb, but it's still too soon to determine what the impacts will be. By tomorrow we'll have a better idea of how widespread the flooding was, whether it compromises the nuclear power plant etc. The article is developing nicely but is still a first draft and there's no rush to post. Modest Geniustalk11:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - This is of potentially extreme significance, but as indicated above, we won't know until the consequences of this disaster become more well known. --Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)12:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait 24h - Per above, this is likely going to have significant ramifications but as of right now the downstream impact is occluded by the fog of war. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support major escalatory act of war crime levels. We've posted the sinking of the Moskva and the Crimean bridge explosion. Eight communities have already been flooded and is likely to affect the water supply in Crimea and local habitats. The fact that this has already occurred is evidence that this is not crystalballing. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk·Contribs) 17:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to amend the blurb to give a numerical estimate of how many people are affected; deaths or displacements. "Mass displacements" simply isn't convincing enough, we should have a number of people affected. Does such an estimate exist? QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I disagree with the current wording and I believe Russia should be explictly attributed for it. There are concerns of WP:FALSEBALANCE in the main article and I think the current situation contributes to this perception. SuperΨDro13:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait currently leaning oppose. Generally, I have opposed nominations related to the war as major events are covered in ongoing. But there is a chance this could turn into something really big. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Full environmental impacts and humanitarian impacts are not fully known as of now, and precise information is still not readily available. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, covered by ongoing. ONly support if it becomes a larger humanitarian disaster, like it actually causes deaths. For now, it's crystal ball to me. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted – given the high profile coverage by all the major news outlets and that this is an ecological [15] and humanitarian [16] disaster in itself, even outside the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. - Fuzheado | Talk19:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see where the thoughts around 'this is covered by ongoing' are coming from, but the dam breach appears to be an ongoing singular disaster of unusual scope that deserves a separate blurb. An estimated 40,000 people on both Ukrainian- and Russian-controlled land are in the flood zone, and 17,000 people are already being evacuated on the Ukrainian side. Ed[talk][majestic titan]19:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pull. I think it's way too early to have this item posted not knowing the full scope of impacts. To this point, all we know if is evacuations and speculative impacts, neither of which I'd argue merits ITN posting. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb workshop
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Blurb workshop
I'm inclined to post this, given the high profile coverage by all the major news outlets and that this is a disaster in itself, even outside the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. However, the current blurbs seem inadequate. Starting this section so we can help converge on a desirable wording. These are the current options:
blurb - The Nova Kakhovka dam has been blown up, releasing a large amount of water downstream.
Pull Besides being covered my ongoing, there haven't been any reported casualties, and I'm not sure there will be much lasting impact. I could also argue that there was no consensus to post in the first place. -- Kicking222 (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I have to respond here. "No lasting impact"? Even if the war is over tomorrow, and somone start rebuilding the dam immediately, the ecological and humanitarian impact of what happened here is going to last years or decades. -- KTC (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that there will undoubtedly be some lasting impact, and perhaps I should have included the word "broad", but the number of people displaced (note that I am in no way making light of the situation- losing your property in a flood sucks, having worse access to water sucks, war sucks) is nowhere near the level of some other elements of the war, nor of many natural disasters around the world yearly that don't make it onto ITN. Kicking222 (talk) 01:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of posting, and ignoring the one pointy oppose, there were more !votes for oppose or wait than there were for support, and since then, there has also been more opposition than support. That sure doesn't scream "consensus" to me. Kicking222 (talk) 01:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait is an oppose vote. It literally means "should not be posted right now but may be suitable to be posted at another time" NoahTalk03:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, seeing the posting admin assert "given the high profile coverage by all the major news outlets" as a reason to post. High volume of coverage is not a reason to post under ITN's guidelines. That coverage helped to generate a quality article in a short period of time (what we want to see at ITN), but standalone is not reason to post. Masem (t) 02:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, i posted this in the wrong place on the page. I think we need to amend the blurb to give a numerical estimate of how many people are affected; deaths or displacements. "Mass displacements" simply isn't convincing enough, we should have a number of people affected. Does such an estimate exist? QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Amend the blurb to add the number 17k (number of evacuees in Ukraine), its cited in the article. Do we have a number of evacuees in Russia / russia occupied part? Or does the 17k include parts under Russian control? QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pull Covered in ongoing... just another footnote in the grand scheme of the war. Mass executions and burials have taken place time and time again and we quit posting those as they were also covered by the ongoing item. This really isn't much different considering the impact of this event is speculative at best right now. NoahTalk01:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not seeing a clear consensus here. As of right now it looks like about half of the comments support posting with the other half split between waiting and oppose. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Pull - Massive story, and massive long-term implications. I feel sometimes that if Ukraine were to drop a nuke on the Kremlin, someone would be shouting "Ongoing"! Nfitz (talk) 05:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of the oppose !votes were factually incorrect. They said that it's covered by the ongoing article but that article still says nothing at all about this. They said that we don't post news about the war in Ukraine when we have repeatedly posted major incidents. And they said that there was no impact when there's clearly a giant hole in the dam now, lots of physical consequences and plenty of international outrage.
The one valid opposing argument was that the article was a stub. But that's no longer the case as the article about the dam's destruction has had hundreds of edits by over a hundred editors and now seems reasonably respectable. Well done!
The main article for the war can't contain all the details, which is why for ongoing we have to consider the child articles that do go into those details, which there are plenty of timelines and the like. (I have said we should be linking to a main timeline for this long of an event, similar to what we had done for COVID). So yes, those oppose !votes were valid.
Also, numerous other buildings have been destroyed with holes left in the ground. There is yet - outside of evacuations - any immediate impact of the dam, it is more the question "was this sabotage and who did it", which would be a far more compelling story in some situations. Masem (t) 12:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think this is worth the hassle of pulling at this point, but at the time it was posted there seem to have been 10 !votes for support, 10 for waiting, and 5 for oppose. That's not a consensus. We should have let the discussion run for another 24 hours to see if those advocating wait (which included me) switched to support or oppose. Posting was premature. Modest Geniustalk11:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As one who !voted to wait, we really shouldn't pull this now. The consensus could realistically have gone either way, yes, but the support !voters do have an edge per Andrew's reasoning (I don't find myself saying that very often). It's on the Main Page, it's the top ITN blurb, it's got a picture associated with it. Frankly, we'll look like a bunch of amateurs if we have this story up one day and then suddenly hide it the next, only to repost it again two or three days later. And I say this as someone who generally rails against Fuzheado for his admin decisions here at ITN; he got it right today. --Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)13:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The admin posting is supposed to judge consensus, not decide on their own that the circumstances merit posting. nableezy - 13:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed like a supervote to me, but I didn't think it was worth litigating. This context makes me think that it probably should be challenged a little more firmly when it happens. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However you want to slice it, I'll say at least that it's not as egregious as misreading of consensus as the previous one. Maybe that doesn't make it a clean-cut reading of consensus, but at the same time, how can you determine consensus in a setting where it's "highly subjective" by definition? Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)14:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by poster. This is not to relitigate the issue but for transparency, I'll elaborate on the factors for evaluating the consensus that resulted in posting.
First, not all "Wait" expressions are created equal. One can say wait for something to happen; if it happens, that wait can be interpreted as support. Another wait can be for something that is extremely unlikely or never happens, which can be evaluated as an oppose. Yet another wait might be based on something not supported by policy or ITN norms, so it cannot be easily considered in the mix of !votes. That said, no fewer than 4 of the 7 wait votes leaned support ("once this starts being discussed more broadly in the news," "this could become an extremely significant event, though we will have to wait and see," "untill [sic] impact becomes clear," "precise information is still not readily available") Two of the other wait votes leaned support but wanted "tomorrow" or "24h". In the many hours that passed since those wait sentiments were expressed, a lot more information came out about the impact downstream and the evacuations. Additionally, a burst of 4 straight support votes before posting reflected the development of the news cycle and the momentum of the discussion.
Second, to address the "covered by ongoing" sentiments. As per the news cycle observation above, news outlets swiftly moved away from using explosion, blast, or attack to describe the incident. With no reliable link to either Russia or Ukraine as actors that caused the dam's destruction, the dam breach was covered as an ecological and humanitarian event in its own right. Outlets such as BBC even discussed how the road and dam conditions were deteriorating as far back as June 2 before the breach, suggesting possible explanations that did not include a military strike. Therefore, the arguments that this was "covered by ongoing" did not sync with the article or the facts in the news. It doesn't mean opposes didn't count, but it does mean rebalancing the weight of "covered by ongoing."
Within this context, the consensus favored posting as a standalone ITN item. Given the passage of 24 hours, I stand by the decision to post and am surprised by the portrayal that it was a supervote. As an addendum, the recent conversation at Wikipedia talk:In the news#Straw poll: The purpose of ITN should be noted, where there was a significant sentiment that ITN has a role to help readers find topics that are in the news or receiving attention in the mainstream press/media. While we haven't taken the feedback in that discussion to adjust any firm guidelines yet, we need to recognize that serving the readership of Wikipedia to find things of interest, and of quality, has emerged as a priority from that discussion. Thanks. - Fuzheado | Talk14:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your rationale for posting is a fine one for something other than posting. It is a rationale for a support not not-vote. But you are saying that because you think that the "covered by ongoing" opposes were trumped by sources discussing it outside of the context of the ongoing item (never mind that Ukraine has now accused Russia of blowing the dam), you are making a counter-argument, not judging consensus. Of course it was a super vote, thats why the rationale was focused on the reasons why it should be posted and not whether or not a consensus supported it being posted. When you feel that something should or should not be posted, vote, dont promote. nableezy - 15:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the posting rationale is fine even though I procedurally opposed this because of the ongoing item. However, it’s perhaps good time to verify if we still need the ongoing item and if Russian invasion of Ukraine is the correct target. It really seems like this has turned out to be a collection of notable consequential individual events rather than a general ongoing story.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I was thinking this may be an opportunity to establish some more guidelines around "ongoing" in general, as the guidance at WP:ONGOING is not deep. These types of debates have come up more often with recent issues of COVID-19 and prolonged political/military crises. Too often, it seems we are touching different parts of the elephant on how to appropriately treat ongoing (or not) stories. - Fuzheado | Talk16:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Despite opposing the posting, I am generally satisfied by this explanation. However, given your history, I would think you might want to stick to only posting clear-cut stories- indeed, I would go so far as to say that any future posting by you in which there is not obvious consensus is unacceptable, regardless of if I personally agree with it. Kicking222 (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I used the word "I" four times in my first comment, including "I would think" and "I would go so far as to say". What in the world is your problem? Kicking222 (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would go so far as to say that any future posting by you in which there is not obvious consensus is unacceptable doesn't imply personal opposition. Additionally, you've been on my dick for the past month or two, so I think the latter question should be directed to you. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk·Contribs) 01:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this perspective on "Wait" votes. Most people who voted "Wait" on this nom (myself included) wanted more concrete information about the exact impacts of this event before posting. If nothing else, why rush to post said item? This isn't going to vanish from the news any time soon. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:52, 8 June 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.
Wagner Group mercenaries publish a video of a captured Russian commander claiming that he had ordered his troops to fire on a Wagner convoy leaving Bakhmut. (The Guardian)
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.
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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths 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.
Oppose Discography is orange-tagged, and I'd oppose a blurb. My personal rule on blurbing deaths is in order to even be considered, it should at least be a vital article. Of course, this rule isn't bulletproof, and depending on the person, I would bend it, but as far as I remember for the people we've blurbed who died Jean-Luc Godard was a vital article, Tina Turner was a vital article, Mikhail Gorbachev was a vital article, so on. That's my thoughts on it. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheBlueSkyClub We blurbed Shane Warne, Jean Paul-Belmondo, Jim Brown (actor and football player), Jiang Zemin, former Angola president dos Santos, former Phillipine President, actors from India. Were they all vital articles? Kirill C1 (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurbing. if I find time this evening I'll address the issues raised by TheBlueSkyClub. Wanted to do the nom myself but... ugh... I wasn't really sure how to do it properly. --Ouro (blah blah) 15:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Article is not of a reasonable quality that readily demonstrates any impact or legacy she may have had. From what I have seen I don't think this type of section is even possible so this is not a blurb-appropriate RD. Still looks like quality issues prior to posting as RD --Masem (t) 16:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb, reluctantly. Post to RD when in good shape. If we didn't blurb João Gilberto when he passed in July 2019, it's tough to justify blurbing Astrud Gilberto. I will note that Portugeuse Wikipedia only has him on RD and not ITN. Though, interestingly, they have a policy that states, "avoid news that only interests specific countries like Brazil or Portugal." - Fuzheado | Talk19:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurb. We post death blurbs for too many music-related persons as it is. There are many "fields" or "genres" of music, being notable for one, even if you are the premier name in said genre, is far from unique. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:42, 6 June 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.
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.
Thank you for the new footnotes, Fakescientist8000. Upon further review, there are a couple more {cn} tags. And, does the Political career section seem a bit thin for 40+ years in Parliament? There is no info on what he did in Cabinet. -- PFHLai (talk) 10:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Some unsourced statements here and there that I will get taken care of. Weak oppose for now.Support Article is good to go. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist800019:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No, it is not ready. There is unsourced content in the article and the In the media section will have to be re-written as it is mostly composed of one-sentence paragraphs. --Vacant0 (talk) 09:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Weak support He's definitely notable enough, but I agree that the article still needs more sources and cleaning up to be ready. Oltrepier (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Track career section is largely unsourced. There are also a few {cn} tags in the Later years section. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 09:47, 10 June 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:
In the news toolbox.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
_-_Annecy.JPG)
