This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;
any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.
A Serbian court sentences the parents of a boy who killed 10 people in a Belgrade primary school in 2023 to over 14 years and three years in prison, respectively, for child neglect and abuse, and also sentences a shooting range instructor to 1 and a half years for perjury. (Reuters)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Influential American minimalist composer, who promoted others by his writing as music critic in New York City, but then moved to Paris. The article was mostly there, but refs missing. Still missing for the later works (besides his own list). Please help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found a nomination for him under 4 January, and copied creator and updater to the above.
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.
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.
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.
Oppose First, that blurb is extremely misleading on two angles: Chinese hackers are suspected, but there's not yet any connection to the CCP. Second, the data took was "unclassified documents", which means it is unlikely to be "valuable" data from the Treasure department. As such, this is nowhere close to a major scandle, they just had to report it after reporting it to Congress. At this point, its not a significant incident. --Masem (t) 01:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem To your first point, yes that is true, a "suspicion" but 99% likely CCP hackers. Secondly, unclassified does not mean publicly available data, there are unclassified documents in the military, but that does not mean you can go around looking at it. Also the extent of the hack is still unreported. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 01:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why at this point, how significant this is is unknown, particularly compared to the phone network hacks earlier this previous month. As this happened earlier this month and only being reported on now, we should wait until we see if there's a serious diplomatic issue that develops. Masem (t) 01:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oh no, my data! Seriously though, per above this isn't a major or important development yet. Much larger cyberattacks have happened since, such as National Public Data where actual valuable information was confirmed to be leaked, and that wasn't posted because we couldn't muster enough editors to get that up to quality. Tell me, what was stolen exactly? I'll reconsider if this gets more coverage. I'd give weak support on quality here. Departure– (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean it in a devious way, but that in the process of forming a blurb, it produced something which is a bit humorous, as well as not fit few Wiki guidelines. I hope SimpleSubCubicGraph didn't get it the wrong way. It is a good faith nom anyway. --ExclusiveEditor🔔 Ping Me!11:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per further thought. After rethinking about the grand scope of the article, I have changed my opinion on the matter and no longer think it is newsworthy enough to end up on the front page. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 5:04:55, 31 December 2024 (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.
Moldovan prime ministerDorin Recean states his country is envisaging the possible nationalization of the Moldovagaz energy company, which Russia's Gazprom owns 50% of, following the announcement by Gazprom that the current gas supply deal that expires on December 31 will not be renewed. (Reuters)
Disasters and accidents
In Pakistan, ten people are killed and seven are injured in a bus crash on a highway in Fateh Jang, Punjab. Separately, eight people are killed during a van–truck collision in Naushahro Feroze, Sindh. (AP)
Syria says that it hopes to form a "strategic partnership" with Ukraine following a high-level meeting in Damascus, Syria, between Syria's de-facto leader Ahmed al-Sharaa and Ukrainian foreign ministerAndrii Sybiha, where the two countries re-established diplomatic relations. Ukraine also vowed to send additional food aid to Syria. (Reuters)
Cuba releases Salvadoran national Raúl Ernesto Cruz León after he completed a 30-year prison sentence for his involvement in the 1997 hotel bombings. (BSS)
The Supreme Court of Venezuela fines social media platform TikTok $10 million for "not implementing measures" to prevent viral challenges that allegedly led to the death of three children. (AP)
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: International Peruvian footballer. Sotil was one of the firsts foreigners to play in the Spanish league, he played along Johan Cruyff in FC Barcelona. Article need more references. Alexcalamaro (talk) 07:26, 5 January 2025 (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: Soprano who performed more than 900 times at the Metropolitan Opera, many small roles and some lead roles. The article was mostly there, but the referencing not quite. The earliest obit is from 30 December, - we don't know (yet) when she died. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2025 (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: Journalist from Argentina. It too me a pair of days to post this, as the article was mostly unreferenced and had to basically use WP:TNT. I hope that it is ready for RD status. Cambalachero (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2025 (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.
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 He is insignificant. Although he may be the heir, that is about the peak of his fame. Zanzibar is apart of Tanzania now and even then was a state that nobody cared about, both strategically and relevance. This would not be good for In the news but rather Did you know and even then, its very hard if that should appear on that page. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2025 (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: great loss actress and she deserves --QalasQalas 23:38, 2024 December 30 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is "disaster" the right word for the article name? the sources seem to leave it as "accident" even with a toll that high? --Masem (t) 13:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The move from truck crash to this new title was not discussed and should be reverted. "Try to avoid the words disaster, tragedy and crisis because this characterization is too subjective. It is preferable to use specific event names, such as collision, collapse, explosion, outbreak, pandemic, sinking, oil spill, and the like."
This is actually a very good point about how news media, now with 24/7 operations, needs news to cover, and why as an encyclopedia we should be wary of giving attention to every single accident that gets reported. — Masem (t) 01:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until article quality improves, then Support Altblurb 2 due to the high number of casualties. P.S. is going into edit source the correct way to reply to an ITN nom? This is my first time and I couldn't find info about it. --SpectralIon (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle - This is a truly unusually high number of fatalities for a road accident. I'm not at all sympathetic to the terse deployment of 'bus plunge' as a 'reason' to oppose this nomination. It's an overused cliche used to dismiss genuinely significant stories from less-reported countries, simply because they feature a particular class of road accident. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Though it was a truck that plunged this time, not a bus, I can't see how that small cosmetic difference turns the whole underlying story (as reported) into something fundamentally expandable. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2025 (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.
AzerbaijaniPresidentIlham Aliyev says that Russia accidentally shot down the Azerbaijan Airlines plane, accusing Russia of trying to "hush up" the crash, and demanding from Russia a full admission of guilt, punishment for those responsible, and compensation for the victims. (AP)
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: Internationally acclaimed South African dancer and choreographer, who transformed classical ballets into stories about today's characters, in a fusion with contemporary dance and African dancing. The article was stubbish, with lost references. There's still room for more detail, but I'm looking at the next two already. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2025 (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.
Oppose as it's yet clear the exact cause, whether intentional sabotage or something else. Just having massive reporting doesn't necessarily make it an appropriate WP topic since WP is not a newspaper. Masem (t) 16:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that finding an exact cause should be a requirement for appearing on the main page: the article, which has speculation from reliable sources, is useful by itself. NotAGenious (talk) 18:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support there's nothing speculative about an international sabotage incident that is an act of economic terrorism, and given the type of incident it is we may never know the full true story (just like in falsified elections for example), that shouldn't barr a posting though; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a compelling argument either. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb speculates that the incident was caused by a Russian oil tanker (this isn't even mentioned in the article). Furthermore, the article is in bad shape to demonstrate why this incident is significant.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although the blurb needs to be updated. A bigger story here is that Finland has seized a Russian tanker suspected of being involved in cutting the cable.[4]Nsk92 (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Unusual international incident that our well-sourced article is being updated on. No tags, though the redlinks are arguably distracting. NATO response is highly notable. Given increasing tensions in the Baltic and the continuing news coverage, this altblurb is a good fit for ITN. Jusdafax (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going with the alternative blurb, it's actually the 26th. If we want a blurb telling about the transfer to Porvoo for investigation, it was yesterday, the 29th. NotAGenious (talk) 12:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose whether stale or not. Article fails to demonstrate the impacts of the cable damage beyond what generally appear to be mild monetary concerns, without knowing how per-person energy prices will exactly be impacted by this. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support the newest alt-blurb. This is a widely reported story about a specific prominent incident relating to a signficant wider crisis. It's not covered by ongoing, and I think the strongly suspected involvement of the Russian government is very relevant. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The power failure is stale news. Blurbs should generally avoid speculation of what is suspected, leaving the nuanced NPOV details for the article. Stick to blurbing more tangible events like formal charges, sanctions, retaliation, etc.—Bagumba (talk) 08:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per GenevieveDEon. The story now is not the power failure, but Finland's actions against the Russian shadow fleet. The way this nomination has evolved is very confusing, however. It would have been better to close the original nomination, and start a new one with the capture of the tanker by the Finns. Khuft (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2025 (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.
Reluctant oppose No results posted yet and otherwise, quality just isn't there. This nom is likely to roll off or become stale before either of those issues are addressed. TheKip(contribs)19:22, 3 January 2025 (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.
Definite Support No questions about it, as a former president and humanitarian that recently passed away. He a left lasting legacy and impact on the world. -- Rager7 (talk)
Strong support blurb - A bit more of an update is needed, and a few floating "is" etc are still about, but obviously this should be a blurb. Departure– (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think him being a Nobel laureate is significant enough (relative to him being president) to include in the blurb, but happy to add it/have it added if consensus here/one of the ITN admins think it should be there. charlotte👸🎄22:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality (but its been posted so too late for this) - the article does not provide a reason why he was a great or major figure - even though I know this should be the case. The Legacy section addresses his mediocere presidency but does not touch on his post-presidency efforts which is where this factor is coming from. I know this can be made, either from existing sources or from the obits coming out, but this should really be in place, a crystal clear section for reader to review of why a person was posted as a blurb on death, rather than all the hand-waving that is going on. Also, we should not be assuming that every former world leader should be blurbed. Masem (t) 21:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your wishes are demanding. Support addition of Nobel Prize laureate, only presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Barack Obama, Al Gore (Vice) are recipients. Grimes2 (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The statement in the lede "but his post-presidency period (the longest in U.S. history) has received near-universal praise, including a Nobel Peace Prize in 2002." is not directly supported by sources in the bio article, though I'm sure the post-presidency article has that. This is a quality issue that should have been addressed before posting; I'm not doubting this, but absence of this type of information with sources on the main bio page is a problem even if that seems apparently obvious. Masem (t) 04:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can Nobel laureate be added to the blurb as the nomination that all the support votes at the time of posting were referencing? Carters post-presidency is widely regarded as a defining trait of his life. nableezy - 03:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support addition of Nobel laureate, as this is prominently noted, often in the headlines, for major media sources covering this death. BD2412T03:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support: Rest in peace to an incredible man, while not the most spectacular during his presidency, he definitely shaped a shining legacy after leaving office. Carter will continue to live on as one of the most memorable presidents the United States has ever had. Tofusaurus (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support Article is in good shape, has been updated to the bone and Carter is an example of what warrants a death blurb. Remarkable legacy, treated harshly by history. Rest well, to a great humanitarian and humble being. Support adding Nobel to blurb I mean, he's also a nobel winner and most obits are including his laureate status to their headlines as well. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Queen of Hearts: please could you revert this. You were correct in your comment above. There is a standard format for death blurbs, particularly of former leaders, and we don't usually "editorialise" in ITN blurbs. Him being the preskdent is the reason he's blurbed rather than his Nobel prize, and it should simply state that, in the same way as the former Indian PM further down. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 08:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's totally editorializing. Inserting fluff about Carter winning a Nobel prize that isn't really relevant to the story of his death. To maintain NPOV and avoid bias at ITN, we stick to a standard blurb format for all politician deaths rather than going with bespoke wording for individuals that people happen to like, based on whatever random WP:LOCALCONSENSUS forms. Henry Kissinger also won a Nobel prize, but our blurb on him made no mention of that, so why the difference here? Admins are precisely supposed to use their judgment in these matters, as indeed charlotte did above, that's always been part of the remit. — Amakuru (talk) 10:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Amakuru, no need to add extra honours when its the office that he held that the vast majority of the world know him for. We didn't list Singh with his Indian of the Year or his Adam Smith awards so why do we need to further decorate Carter when President is prestigious enough. The C of E God Save the King! (talk)11:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That isn’t fluff, and there isn’t any overriding consensus that you can point to to claim that this is a local one that can be ignored. This is one of his main legacies, his work for habitat for humanity and the Carter center are absolutely as notable as his presidency. It is not fluff, it is not editorializing, and that part of the main page is not the fiefdom of a few admins here. This should be restored and this discussions consensus respected. nableezy - 12:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if his work for habitat for humanity and the Carter center are absolutely as notable as his presidency, a questionable premise, he would be notable for that and not for being a Nobel prize laureate. Look at the first sentence of his article as it's always been: Only mentions president (and later humanitarian), no mention of Nobel laureate. The article itself indicates that being a laureate wasn't notable at all in comparison to what he's actually primarily known for, which is a president of the United States. Therefore (imo), saying that he's a Nobel prize laureate in ITN would indeed fall under UNDUE editorializing fluff. spintheer (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's notable for his work as a president and a humanitarian, not for being a Nobel laureate or the receiver or any other prizes (or otherwise) that resulted from his work as a president and a humanitarian. If you want to push for adding in the blurb that he was a humanitarian, be my guest. spintheer (talk) 02:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that if the article indicates that Carter's notable for first being a president, and second being a humanitarian, ITN should reflect that and not go off on its own bizarre mini RFCs to establish local consensus about Carter's notability outside of the article's talk page. If you want to establish that Carter was as notable for being a Nobel lauereate as he was for being the president of the United States or a humanitarian, then first get that changed in the first sentence of the article and then come back here and have the blurb reflect this change. spintheer (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every death blurb (for death by old age or other natural causes) leaves it as the principle profession that the person had, and avoids editorization. Definitely should not be adding "Nobel winner" here. — Masem (t) 13:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And just to add, keeping the death blurb to just the profession prevents further bickering around the whole death blurb nomination aspect already. The inclusion of profession and profession only is a nice neutral way to present the blurb without trying to fight consensus on what other apsects to include. If the article is of good quality, other key factors (like Carter's humanitarism) should be identified within the lede. — Masem (t) 13:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That isn’t true as demonstrated by the examples cited already. Whatever, this place doesn’t exactly abide by our rules anyway, what’s one more example? nableezy - 13:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, media reporting on the death widely reference the Nobel Prize in what would be the equivalent of our blurb. See:
Post posting support blurb No brainer support for death of former head of state/government. News across the world, article is in fantastic shape. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist800013:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion of Nobel Prize and agree with other supporters above, his article quotes Polls of historians and political scientists generally rank Carter as a below-average president. Scholars and the public more favorably view his post-presidency, and winning a noble prize precisely shows this with other things. It may seem editorializing to few, but many disagree. ExclusiveEditor🔔 Ping Me!17:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support including something about the humanitarian post-presidency career (e.g. the Nobel), which is the thing Carter is known for. It would make more sense to cut out the presidency TBH. (Though I wouldn't do that either). – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: all blurbs in this widely-supported nomination mention the Nobel Peace Prize, showing a very clear consensus for its inclusion. So why are we unilaterally not including it? RachelTensions (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding my support for including "Nobel Peace Prize laureate" in the blurb; his post-presidency was arguably as transformative as his time as president, and has received comparable RS coverage in the obits. Given that all the proposed blurbs included the Nobel, I did not feel the need to state this in my !vote above. Davey2116 (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mention of Nobel Prize per Amakuru as it is editorializing the blurb to choose to add that secondary piece of info, which wasn’t included in Henry Kissinger’s blurb. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 05:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Restored Nobel to the blurb. It's been in the blurb candiates from the beginning, and there is consensus since the post for its inclusion. As mentioned above with Annan and Peres previously, it's not unprecedented. In other fields, I also see some recent examples beyond a simple listing of their occupation.[7][8] This is not required, and there are merits to avoiding squabbles with a more vanilla blurb. But there's no current rule at WP:ITN barring it, and the community can apply WP:WEIGHT, where needed, as was done here. This is consistent with the WP:YESPOV policy:
As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.
The community establishes WP:WEIGHT in the article's talk page, not in ITN. The article indicates that Carter is first and foremost notable for being a president and secondarily as a humanitarian, not for being a Nobel laureate. If ITN doesn't directly reflect that's written in the corresponding article, this sets a ridiculous precedent where anything can be written in ITN blurbs so long as there is local consensus for it here (if tomorrow we'll have a blurb that Carter has come back to life while the article's obviously unchanged, and enough people vote for that blurb, would that also be posted?) ITN discussions have significantly less editorial rigor and oversight than an actual article talk page, and shouldn't be the place to make substantive arguments about content, especially ones that very clearly would not, and have not, passed in the article's talk page itself (e.g. in this case that Carter's Nobel prize is anywhere near as notable as his occupation as a president). spintheer (talk) 06:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this sets a ridiculous precedent: I had written, "This is not required". This blurb, in itself, does not set a precedent, any more than Annon or Peres did. The community is free to update WP:ITNBLURB to provide more guidance to posters on blurbs w.r.t. article leads, if there is consensus. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 07:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He was a noted humanitarian, not a Nobel prize winner. And which Nobel anyways? Explains nothing about what the prize was for. Stephen09:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb says Nobel Peace. Nobody had proposed humanitarian in the blurb, but feel free to gain consensus whether it makes more sense to be generic. —Bagumba (talk) 09:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support for inclusion of some mention of his post-presidency humanitarian efforts, whether that means mentioning the Nobel Peace Prize or some other language. (I already !voted so this second !vote is only on the language and not the notability or quality.) It isn't a double standard that we didn't mention this for Kissinger. It was simply less relevant for Kissinger and more relevant for Carter. The post-presidency work Carter did to earn that Nobel was arguably more transformative than anything he did in his role as president, so mentioning it separately from his presidency makes sense. The same can't be said of Kissinger. I'd still be fine with replacing the word Nobel Laureate with the word humanitarian since some editors take issue with the decoration, but I'm also fine with just leaving it how it is right now and keeping the Nobel Laureate phrasing. Just as long as the phrasing acknowledges that this is a unique case where him being the president was perhaps not even the most important thing he did with his life. This isn't setting a dangerous precedent or slippery slope, he legitimately may be the only president in US history and one of few leaders worldwide who left the highest office in the land and then went on to do bigger and better things after that. Vanilla Wizard 💙14:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
simply less relevant for Kissinger is an opinion and the double standard here. Both individuals won a Nobel prize, and the articles of both individuals indicate that neither are notable for receiving that Nobel prize. The only discernible difference is personal opinion in ITN. spintheer (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a double standard if my position was that the Nobel Prize is itself inherently blurbworthy, but that isn't my view. It's worth mentioning separately for Carter because the reason why he received the award was for noteworthy contributions separate from his presidency. Kissinger's award was for his official duties as the Secretary of State, not for something separate. It's not about liking Carter more than Kissinger. For transparency I also won't deny that myself and likely many others do hold Carter in higher regard than Kissinger, but this isn't relevant to the discussion or the reasoning. It's simply about communicating that Carter's post-presidency is at least half of the reason why he's blurbworthy, even to those who are against blurbing just any former US president. With Kissinger, his time as Secretary of State was the sole reason. As I said before, I'm fine with replacing the award with the word humanitarian if it looks too decorative. I just don't take issue with the current wording. Vanilla Wizard 💙16:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, then say humanitarian, not nobel laureate. Ok, it looks like this isn't going to change, but this is an error that'll come back to bite us the next time somebody decides to editorialize some other news event. spintheer (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Removed) Remove Ongoing: 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon
Nominator's comments: The Ongoing section would benefit from some shortening, and this item seems like the best candidate for removal. The Israeli incursion in Lebanon is not in the news anymore (and the last event mentioned in the article dates back to 17 Dec). This is in contrast to the war in Gaza, or Israel's actions in Yemen, which are much more prominently covered in global news. Khuft (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a recent suggestion to include the entire listing of conflicts in the Middle East, but the problem is that they are not all directly related. While we can point to the Israel-Lebonon conflict as directly related to the Israel-Hamas one, events in Yemen or Syria are absolutely not part of that. That makes it all synthesis to combine them all. --Masem (t) 21:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support removing This is no longer hot, as indicated by lack of recent updates. There are low intensity incidents happening and might continue for months, but does not justify "Ongoing". Tradediatalk02:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose not only has Israel violated the ceasefire almost every single day its been in force, but there is no signs that they are going to continue the ceasefire after its 60 days. Scuba15:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing is not about if the event is still going on, but if the target article or an appropriate subarticle has been receiving updates, which has not been happening here. — Masem (t) 15:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal Lack of recent updates; per nom. If hostilities resume after the ceasefire, this can be re-nominated for addition at that time. SpencerT•C06:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed There's consensus for removal. If things flare up again, for example when the ceasefire expires, we can re-evaluate the situation. Schwede6607:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article:Tornado outbreak of December 28–29, 2024 (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Tornado outbreak in the Houston Area killing 2 people and injuring many others (Post) Alternative blurb: 2 people dead after tornado outbreak in the Houston area
Support but with a completely reworded blurb. Three or more are dead, so the blurb is innacurate. How about "At least three people are killed during a widespread tornado outbreak across the Southern United States." I oppose adding an image as of now.
Strong oppose - not important overall. @EF5: we hardly post tornado outbreaks on ITN, and the smallest one I think that got posted was Rolling Fork's outbreak. The most recent was March 31, 2023, and almost every outbreak since then (with the possible exceptions of May 25 and April 26) have been well below the bar of importance for ITN. I'll add conditional weak support if the record-breaking claim of the Port Arthur tornado's duration is confirmed, but I highly doubt that. Departure– (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The oddness here is how late in the year this came, likely a result of global warming, but even with that, the relatively small death toll makes this a minor outbreak in the larger scheme of things. --Masem (t) 21:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Late-season outbreaks have always happened. We posted the last big December outbreak (the one in Kentucky, USA) on merit as an outbreak, not based on climate change. I couldn't tell you why actual climate-change related blurbs (such as the yearly "hottest day in history" blurbs) never get posted. Departure– (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because as long as there's little progress to stall climate change by major nations, these records are always going to get broken year after year. And the 2021 outbreak was likely posted due to the high death toll (70+). — Masem (t) 22:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Tragic, but it’s a typical tornado outbreak. Two deaths is very small compared to very notable tornado outbreaks like the 2011 Super Outbreak. INeedSupport 🎄 21:51, 29 December 2024 (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.
Comment The expression "claiming that" is a bit WP:WEASELly; and Salome Zourabichvili stating that she retains her legitimacy as President would be more neutral, avoiding the connotation that Wikipedia is sceptical about her POV. I've added altblurb which seems less weaselly to me. Boud (talk) 11:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing? The nomination is not clear whether it's proposing this as an ongoing entry. Many other places have ongoing political tensions and rivalries so I reckon we need some big incident or civil war for this to stand out. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The event itself - the overall crisis - is ongoing, but the Western mainstream media news coverage is not intense enough to justify ongoing in the ITN sense. This is not a proposal for ITN "Ongoing". In terms of the wording, it would be inaccurate to suggest that today's inauguration was a sudden crisis - it's a key symbolic event within the overall crisis - so "continuing" in the blurb is accurate. Boud (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely has more encyclopedic value than the electoral college vote a few weeks earlier. Depending on how the world reacts, it could be a repeat of the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. Scaramouche33 (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has increased in length, and attracting more editors to these articles would be useful, since the situation is even more complicated than stated in any of the blurbs: most of the sources seem to say that the de facto ruler of Georgia is a third person, Bidzina Ivanishvili, but they also consider it so obvious ("everyone" knows it) that it's not worth paying much attention to. Wikipedia content about his role in this context will improve with more people editing with good sources. I'm not proposing to change the blurb further - I would go for either Alt I or Alt IV. (Alt II seems a bit narrow, focussing on the protests rather than the broader political/institutional crisis. Alt III is not quite correct, since in principle, the government is run by the prime minister.) Boud (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Considering that if the death count ends up being over 132 it will have been the deadliest crash since 2020, this is quite a major incident and it deserves to be here. (offtopic but why was both the start and end of this year so bad for aviation?) interstatefive02:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support could become the deadliest crash this year with 178 possible fatalities and its already the second deadliest. Bloxzge 025(talk) 9:49 PM, 28 December 2024 (EST)
Strong Support Dozens of fatalities have been found. Major news coverage. Article is a bit short but that is because there is no conclusive info yet, as the incident happened three hours ago. Wildfireupdateman(talk) 9:49 PM, 28 December 2024 (EST)
Support seems to have extensive coverage from South Korean News sources, some western sources are also picking up on the accident. Yosh56(talk) 10:02 PM. 28 December 2024 (EST)
Strong support altblurb 2. For a new disaster article less than half an hour old it's of fantastic quality. This might be less geopolitically important than the crash in Kazakhstan but the human toll is telling. Departure– (talk) 03:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Gaza Strip Government Media Office reports that 110,000 out of 135,000 tents used as shelters by displacedPalestinians have "completely deteriorated" and are now unusable due to strong winter winds and heavy rainfall. (Al Jazeera)
Russian company Gazprom announces the supply of gas to Moldova will cease on January 1, 2025, alleging fails to fulfill its payment obligations. The Moldovan Prime Minister, Dorin Recean, accuses the Russian Government of deliberately weaponising energy flows to destabilise the country. (Euronews).
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.
Krupsak, however, was the first woman nominated for (and elected to) the lieutenant governorship is a key sentence in this bio and it's unreferenced. Schwede6619:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pretty close, but article could use some additional info regarding what she accomplished in her position as Lieutenant Governor. SpencerT•C05:30, 4 January 2025 (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.
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: Survivor of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and an advocate for peace and nuclear disarmament. Died on December 15. Death reported on December 28. TJMSmith (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article is mainly based on the NYT obit, but this is ok. Every paragraph is sourced. 2989 characters (465 words) "readable prose size". Article was created on December 31, 2024. Grimes2 (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2025 (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: Sitting Minnesota state senator and former majority leader, hoping to expand the article a little/add electoral history and more details about political work, but also want to make sure we can clean up any issues with citations etc. that I didn’t catch. ~Malvoliox(talk | contribs)14:50, 29 December 2024 (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.
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 recently created Article is in good shape, it is fully sourced and has 3065 characters (483 words) "readable prose size". Grimes2 (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2025 (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.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American baseball outfielder (1947-1964), an All-Star in 1956 and 1957, known as "Sunday Charlie" and "The Sabbath Slugger" for his propensity to hit home runs on Sundays Cbl62 (talk) 23:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me and yes, this does seem appropriate given his nickname. It will have fallen off this page by then, but that should not stop you from posting it at the desired time, PFHLai. I've certainly posted items before that had already been archived. Schwede6618:40, 1 January 2025 (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, found two uncited claims, which I've added CN tags to. Article is fine otherwise.Support: CN issues now resolved. No more outstanding article issues from what I can see. 31.44.227.152 (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2024 (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.
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: I know there's a daily tragedy in the Israel-Hamas war, but this is significant development given that its the last functioning one in northern Gaza Strip and hospitals have been a critical lifeline for Gazans. Further, burning down much of the hospital[11] is fairly unprecedented even in this brutal war. Feel free to suggest alternative blurbs. VR(Please ping on reply)20:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose basically covered by ongoing; I don't see how this one specific event is that significant to bring out of that. Just more to add onto the pile of war crime charges that international courts have against Israel here. --Masem (t) 20:47, 27 December 2024 (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.
One or both nominated events are 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: Impeachement of Acting President of South Korea is unprecedented, and deputy prime minister will be both acting President and acting Prime Minister will also unprecedented. I also feel that we may need an ongoing article title like "2024-2025 South Korea Political Crisis" Haers6120 (talk) 06:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality the direct cause 2024 South Korean martial law crisis and the subsequent protests are buried deep in the article rather than in the lede and the article goes at length about procedural matters which is great but it's missing all the other context. Furthermore the martial law and protest articles should really be in the blurb. An event infobox would be nice too. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose SK's government seems to be gridlocked and this impeachment just seems to be a procedural tactic which passed easily because only a simple majority was required as this was considered a ministerial-level matter. It reminds me of the difficulty in getting a stable Speaker of the US House. It's internal politics and there's more to come before they are out of the woods. Other countries such as France and Germany have similar issues and so we should have a fairly high bar for posting. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well the nom is listed as such and I don't think our ITNR rules for heads of state/government (state leaders) have ever been that granular to exclude such changes [of acting versus normally elected/appointed].
Also, I think we need to appreciate the difference between those countries where single state leaders hold effective power (South Korea) versus where where power distribution maybe more shared (France, Germany that have been cited here). Gotitbro (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - Clearly the first impeachment following the attempt to declare martial law was major. Following that impeachment and resignation, the role of acting president fell to the PM, which was not meant to be a long-term determination. This impeaching is a result of more political infighting, and nothing specifically that Duck-soo did, and far less impactful than the original impeachment. Its basically a game of partisan musical chairs, since now the finance minister becomes next in line as acting president. --Masem (t) 13:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb Notable event. Han is the first acting president is the country's history to be impeached. This is a significant update from the fallout of the martial law crisis. Also, the altblurb is best as it illustrates the change in power so to speak. Article is in good shape too. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - While this is significant, it's part of the continuing crisis. As Andrew notes correctly, France and Germany are also both experiencing unstable government at the moment, and we're not posting blow-by-blow accounts of those to ITN, but only the substantive changes at the top. South Korea's situation, while a bit more volatile, is broadly similar. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
France and Germany are bad analogies in this case, not least because South Korea's case already involves an attempted self-coup and two impeachments. Though I ultimately agree that a third blurb about largely the same crisis might be too much, there may be merit in instead adding this to Ongoing (if it can be maintained). Yo.dazo (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is another major and unprecedented development in a situation that has already proven itself to be blurb-worthy on at least 2 occasions Rahcmander (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support For this is unprecedented situation and technically change of head of state. Would oppose another impeachment (which is probable in less than a week) as per Andrew. Didgogns (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is an extension of the initial coup. The root cause for both, is that for some reason I can't fathom, having a solid majority in the Parliament, doesn't give you any control of the government. Similar to the issues in the USA, but without the ability of the Parliament to pass legislation, or change the speaker. For some reason the party controlling the presidency and PM believe that letting the other party into power is some existential crisis - hence the extremes they'll go to (first illegally, and now legally). This will continue until a presidential election is triggered. I have no doubt the new acting President will be impeached quickly if he doesn't approve the nominations to the constitutional court. Perhaps South Korean Constitutional Crisis or something should be an ongoing? Nfitz (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there news coverage of the events of this happening near daily? Not really. Just because two events have happened within a month apart doesn't make it an ongoing story, and the ongoing line is far too busy as it is right now to add anything else, particularly something that isn't having near-daily stories. Masem (t) 04:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I didn't see this conversation before posting the Jeju crash up. The bridge collapse wasn't removed as today's Featured Article slot is just a tad longer. I am uncertain if we want to post up Han's image as it will be adjacent to the plane crash blurb. – robertsky (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gaza Strip doctors report that three infants have died due to hypothermia from inadequate shelter in displacement camps amid a decrease in outdoor temperatures. (Al Jazeera)
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.
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 Blurb He was one of the most influential individual of the modern Indian history and was the prime minister of India for a decade. The Degrees and posts held section needs some work but otherwise article is in good shape. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)17:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose on quality Article has some cn tags and there's a refimprove section tag at the end of the article. Once these issues are addressed, I wouldstrongly support blurb seeing how Singh was a highly influential prime minister of India and a dominant figure in modern Indian politics. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General Support blurb as this is basically there in quality (I see a few noncritical tags but sourcing is basically there) and with the Public Image section, clearly outlines his status as a major figure on Indian politics. Masem (t) 17:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb One of few individuals who significantly shaped world history. As Finance Minister, brought accelerated economic growth to India that continues to this day and has helped raise standard of living for over a billion people and transformed global geopolitics. As Prime Minister, reduced rural poverty, brought India into global nuclear order, averted war in the aftermath of major terrorist attacks, and many other accomplishments. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kosovo's election appeals authority allows the Serb List party, a Serbethnic party, to participate in the upcoming election, stating that the party meets legal certification requirements. (AP)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American professional wrestler. Still needs a few citations, but honestly in pretty good shape compared to most wrestlers' articles. TheKip(contribs)18:51, 27 December 2024 (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.
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 Although info for the first half of his career is relatively limited, adequate depth regarding his political career. SpencerT•C08:52, 1 January 2025 (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.
Also oppose blurb since the blurb A) does not mention the subject B) contains WP:Puffery wording. C) subject is not as well known to the average person as a world leader. Comment withdrawn per below. 31.44.227.152 (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The whole of the Varanasi paragraph was copied verbatim from the source and so I have also removed that; this paragraph is therefore now very short. Black Kite (talk)14:46, 28 December 2024 (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.
Support: Recent plane crash with a high number of fatalities is definitely notable and certainly deserves attention. (Although, it would be slightly better if the fatality number is confirmed). However, I Oppose the blurb. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 09:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel some blurb that indicates the was a very haphazard emergency landing rather than what is normally envisioned when we say a crash, as to indicate this was not as deadly as it was, would be helpful. Masem (t) 17:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think 'emergency landing' should be added. The plane crashed nearly 6 kilometers from the runway. So even though it was preparing for an emergency landing, that's not really the reason why it came down at that location. Maybe it could say "near Aqtau International Airport" instead of "near Aktau". Johndavies837 (talk) 18:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When did Wikipedia start spreading speculative information? That the aircraft was shot down or that there's Russian involvement in the incident are both hypotheses without sufficient evidence.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All those sources report that there are indications that the aircraft was shot down by Russia’s defensive system, but that’s still in the zone of speculations with no official statements made by any involved party.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support saying shot down. The article indicates that the Azerbaijani government believes the aircraft was shot down, and RS are increasingly saying so. (see the article) 331dot (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article says in the lead "Azerbaijani investigators believed a Russian Pantsir-S1 air-defense system was responsible for the damage" and the article itself states investigators independent of the nations involved have come to that conclusion as well. Seems to me that's as good as we could get. If we don't want to say "shot down" we could at least add "hit by a missile and crashes". 331dot (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2024 (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.
Three people are killed by gunmen in Haiti opening fire at the journalists, police and medical staff at the reopening of the Port-au-Prince General Hospital. (BBC News)
Four participants in the November 2024 Amsterdam riots are sentenced to prison, with 32-year-old Sefa Ö handed the longest sentence of six months. (BBC News)
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: Centenarian, president of the German Central Bank, influential thinking for the EU and European organisations. He had just a stub, it's better now, and there is more in the sources. Obits came from 27 December, but perhaps we can expand further in teamwork? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2024 (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.
Does The New York Times obituary confirm her date and place of birth? I'm asking because I can't see it and maybe that detail is only visible to subscribers. Schwede6623:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. A Google search for "Dorthy Moxley June 5, 1932" brings me a link to the NYT obituary, and the listed search result includes the sentence in the news article with the date and place of birth. --PFHLai (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: "Dorthy Moxley was born Dorthy Elaine Jolgren on June 5, 1932, in Iron River, Mich., one of two children of John W. Jolgren and Emma (Lundwall) Jolgren." TJMSmith (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With 380+ words of prose, this wikibio is long enough to not be considered a stub. Formatting seems fine. Footnotes can be found at expected spots. Earwig has no complaints. This nom seems to be READY to RD. One concern is that it may be just a notch above WP:1E, and I hope her frequent appearances on TV makes her better than WP:1E. --PFHLai (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2024 (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.
Oppose needs better article organisation and appropriate subsections, at the moment it's just a big block of text furthermore with key information missing. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as notable a solar space mission as you can get without landing. At least so far. Maybe post on the 27th when Parker is scheduled to send back information. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know, and if it were just you and I the blurb would be up already. Thanks for improving the article. Maybe a few others will come by and push this quickly over the finish line. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how to intervene on this as I'm a new to ITN and don't want to break it :) The BBC cite notes that the temperatures that close will reach 1,400 °C and it will be moving faster than any other human-made object (692,000 kilometers per hour; 430,000 miles per hour). Maybe also something on how it has to act autonomously to ensure it is oriented in such as way that its shields protect it from the solar energy. At that distance from Earth, it would take about 8 minutes for a signal to get there and another 8 for it to be received: too slow for Earth-based control. Andi Fugard [they/them] (talk) 11:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, what's wanted mainly here are opinions whether we should post this news on the main page. These should focus mainly on the adequacy of the quality of the article. The blurb wording is open to discussion too and alternatives can be proposed. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an ITNR, it has been in this close orbit of the sun for the last several years, just that this time it will swing closer than any previous time. Masem (t) 13:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not a stable orbit. What's been happening is that it has been making repeated flybys of Venus to pick up speed using gravity assistance. It made its seventh and final flyby of Venus in November and this gave it the speed for this closest approach to the Sun, which goes deep past the Alfvén surface. It is therefore the climax of a long mission and so is effectively the destination as it's downhill from here. And note that, while we posted the launch of the mission in 2018, we haven't posted a destination blurb yet. The mainstream coverage such as this BBC bulletin indicates that this is the time to post as it talks of the event "making history". Andrew🐉(talk) 14:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This pass by the sun is at 6.9M km, last year it got to 7.3M km, which on the order of magnitude of space, essentially the same. Its clear it reached its final destination, this unstable orbit between the sun and venus, four years or so ago. This is not ITNR, but note I'm not saying that this can't be considered as a normal ITNC candidate due to attention on being it's closest approach. Masem (t) 15:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is wrong. It flies by Venus to slow down. If it slowed to zero it'd then fall straight down starting at 1 mph per dozens of seconds ending at c. 0.1% the speed of light (if it could survive till the visible surface I assume no). If it slowed down a little less than that it does this. Also in 2025 they'll point it at the Sun exposing it to tens of thousands percent sunlight killing everything except the shader in seconds. Especially if it can briefly transmit through that (I don't know) that seems like another interesting time (science fiction like Sunshine (2007 film) becoming science fact). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. The gravity assists from Venus were used to make its orbit more eccentric and this gives the closer approach to the sun and that's when its speed is greater.
I also wondered what was going to happen to the probe afterwards and so added a paragraph to the article to explain.
Wait. Its final flyby is scheduled for June 19, 2025. That seems to be the most appropriate time to post, not the two incidental records being set tomorrow. (Which records, by the way, will not be broken by Parker's remaining flybys.) 128.91.40.237 (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support It was noteworthy enough for BBC top story status, and it'll be interesting to see if it survived on the 27th. For heliophysics this is a major, decades-long effort, and it won't be so close to the surface of the Sun ever again. ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 13:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update It's Dec 27 now and the probe's beacon signal has been received, showing that it has successfully completed its closest pass through the solar corona. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The destination was not to orbit the sun – we're all doing that – but to make this closest approach which was just achieved for the first time. This took it deep inside the solar corona and Alfvén surface so that it could make the observations which were its mission. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, its destination was this series of tight orbits around the Sun with some Venus flybys, which it reached 6-some years ago and has been doing since. It was inside the corona and broke the Alfven surface as early as 2021 [19]. That this one orbit reached the closest approach to the sun does not make its destination. — Masem (t) 13:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Important achievement for humanity and now in the news. Article well-sourced and informative. Opposers fail to convince that this should not be posted now. Jusdafax (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article:Dési Bouterse (talk·history·tag) Recent deaths nomination Blurb: Former military ruler and later president of Suriname, Dési Bouterse (pictured) dies at the age 79 while on the run following his conviction (Post) Alternative blurb: Former Suriname's leader and convicted criminal Dési Bouterse (pictured) dies at the age of 79 Alternative blurb II: Former military ruler and later president of Suriname, Dési Bouterse (pictured) dies at the age of 79 News source(s):NLTimes, AP News Credits:
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose huge amount of content is unsourced. And reading his role as dictator and later president, and convicted for several crimes, a blurb is suggestive. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready, article currently lacks citations for several sectionsSupport as article issues have been resolved, I also agree with Alsor above to blurb. 31.44.227.152 (talk) 19:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support when ready, given that we had Manmohan Singh posted as a blurb I don't see why not, aside from the problem that the others mentioned regarding unsourced content. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Zero indication of why he was a major/key figure; notorious due to his convictions, but there's no sourcing or significant discussion to indicate what impact he had on the country or international politics (as there was for Singh). And Oppose RD due to numerous sourcing tag issues. --Masem (t) 13:44, 27 December 2024 (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.
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.
At least seven people are killed in Israeli airstrikes on a safe zone in al-Mawasi, Gaza. Several other attacks across the Gaza Strip kill at least 43 others. (Al Jazeera)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Article is Start class, but it is well-cited and sourced and updated. It meets the minimum BLP requirements and is Ready to post on ITN, imo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trauma Novitiate (talk • contribs)
No, the article is still a stub; please note the stub tag. I've changed the rating accordingly. We don't post stubs, hence the bio needs to be expanded. Schwede6622:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be more supportive if there are 300+ words of prose. 200 words is too stubby. When and where was he born and raised? What did he do to earn the awards listed after the prose? --PFHLai (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the article with prose discussing his critical reception. I believe this moves the article from Stub class to Start class. If that’s the case, it just needs another editor to sign of on this. If so, I believe this will provide the opportunity for this RD to be posted to ITN before the deadline runs out today. Thank you to those editors who can help get this process to advance forward. Thank you! Trauma Novitiate (talk) 15:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your careful attention. Much appreciated for your quality updates to ensure this article is above a Stub class and justifies being post to ITN. Trauma Novitiate (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2024 (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.
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 on quality and notability. Article could stand to be a bit more updated but is pretty good where it is now. I really think we ought to post more blurbs that aren't disasters, space missions, and geopolitics, and this is a good alternative. Departure– (talk) 13:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support on notability. I agree with Departure that this sort of story is a good choice for ITN: it's a significant improvement in the lives of millions of people in a major city we very rarely otherwise report on, in a field (transportation) that's very impactful but often doesn't make our headlines unless there's an accident, and we have a relevant article. Unfortunately, that leads me to oppose on quality for the time being, because the article is a bit of a mess, as TDKR Chicago 101 observes. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems rather a routine metro system outside of being the city's first. In addition to the quality issues that have bveen addressed. --Masem (t) 14:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Metro lines begin operation in many other cities all the time, so this is pretty much a routine event. There’s an exception if this is an innovation that makes it first of its kind, but there’s no indication that this is it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2024 (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.
Comment: blurb should be changed to either "10 people and injures 17 others" or "ten people and injures seventeen others" to keep the numbering consistent. Kline • talk • contribs17:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We have generally not posted private aviation disasters in the past, as unlike commercial aviation, there is typically not going to be a long-term investigation into the causes of the accident due to lack of regulation on private pilots. I know that several of the deaths were from those on the ground in addition to those in the plane, but this seems like more an unfortunate aspect, and not getting anywhere close to the coverage that I'd expect to see for a significant aviation disaster. --Masem (t) 14:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(Posted) Juscelino Kubitschek de Oliveira Bridge collapse
Comment There is no article for the bridge itself, yet there are detailed articles in Portuguese and German. I could not find articles in other languages about the collapse. I wonder whether the scope of this article should be broadened to include the bridge itself to align it with the two articles that exist in other languages. Such a change in scope would not prevent the article from consideration at ITN. Schwede6623:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gee, it seems we've had a lot of transport-related disasters in Brazil the past few days. Would it be best to merge them all into a single blurb? Departure– (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure last year we had two unrelated tornado outbreaks in the United States get a combined blurb. I don't see how this is much different - multiple major events involving transit and traffic causing a similar amount of fatalities all occurring in the same country, each with merits to their own blurb. Departure– (talk) 04:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's reasonable to combine two separate tornado outbreaks that occurred with a few days if each other as long as the blurb does not imply they were the same weather system. But combining several completely unrelated disasters simply due to bear term and location is not appropriate — Masem (t) 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurbs Supporting altblurb. Quite unique (although tragic) that in two consecutive days Brazil has experienced heavy losses in transportation-related deaths. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support original only as meets WP:ITNQUALITY and WP:ITNSIGNIF. Strongly oppose the merging of two blurbs into one, as these are 2 different, separate, non related events, just because they were in same country, that doesn't mean we should arbitrarily combine the blurbs. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2024 (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 Looks well cited and comprehensive enough to post. However, the article would be much improved if his theological / academic views and theories were included. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:45, 23 December 2024 (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.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I see that you have moved here with your usual MO of grifting for help instead of learning how to do things yourself. Please, at least try to write the article before showing up here and asking others to do it for you. Cart(talk)16:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A good practice is to create a passable draft first, get it accepted into article space, and then nominate it at ITN/C. You've been on the project for ten years, but you still do this "helpless newbie" routine. Cart(talk)18:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion about ArionStar is irrelevant; behavioral concerns should be reported to the relevant noticeboard. Concerns as to the sourcing are misguided, as it clearly passes GNG based on what's currently used alone. The article will soon be moved back into mainspace, so concerns regarding its draftification will be assuaged. It could, however, be longer, per WP:ITNQUALITY, as it is rather stubby atm. Conversely, per WP:ITNUPDATE, it's not far short of the traditional yardstick. --SerialNumber54129A New Face in Hell19:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't pass the GNG or NEVENT yet. This is a burst of news coverage with no current indication of having a long term impact. It is a sadly large scale disaster but unlike many natural disasters or the like, there's not a current expectation there will be a lot of Followup coverage. — Masem (t) 00:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now page got deleted, but I will be happy to support it, if its back up and improved.
Support Article is short, but is notable, and looks well sourced TheHiddenCity (talk)
Support on notability, I've seen bus accidents of this scale not reported on ITN, but this seems to have got good coverage, (continued below) Oppose on quality/ size. Thou tragic and widely reported, it is very short. ExclusiveEditor🔔 Ping Me!06:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting in mostly because I nominated the Magdeburg blurb—apples to oranges. Magdeburg's was a premeditated and (likely) politically-motivated attack, this was an accident. Yo.dazo (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, oppose on quality This is a very notable accident by its record-breaking fatality count alone. However, article is pretty sparse and two-thirds of the Collision section rely on a single BBC article in Portuguese. In addition, it implies a certainty about the details of the accident when, as far as I can tell, there are multiple conflicting accounts as to what exactly happened. Yo.dazo (talk) 18:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By long term impact I would something along the lines of a safety investigation or changes to road laws that would be aimed to prevent this, but all there seems to be is the driver turning himself in. That's not really a lot for a traffic accident even if the most deadliest in Brazil history. Wp is not well suited for news stories that show little long term encyclopedic relevance. — Masem (t) 14:20, 24 December 2024 (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.
With 482 words, this wikibio is long enough to qualify. Formatting looks fine. Footnotes can be found in expected spots. Earwig has no complaints. This wikibio, judging from its edit history, was already READY for RD a few days ago, within 7 days after the Dec.19th publication of her death. --PFHLai (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least 50 people, mostly from the Zaghawa ethnic group, have been killed by the Rapid Support Forces in the past week in El Fasher, North Darfur State, Sudan. (Sudan Tribune)
Eleven people are killed, 45 others are injured and 37 vehicles are destroyed after an LPGtank truck catches fire and explodes after a speeding truck crashed into it in Jaipur, Rajasthan, India. (The Statesman)
Eight people are killed and 18 others are rescued when a speedboat carrying migrants capsizes off the coast of Rhodes, Greece. (AP)
Australia agrees to provide Solomon Islands with financing, training, and infrastructure support worth AU$190 million (US$118 million) over four years to strengthen its police force as part of a renewed security partnership between the two countries. (France 24)
House SpeakerMike Johnson reintroduces a funding bill without Trump's debt ceiling suspension, stating that "we will not have a government shutdown". The bill, which will fund the government until March 2025, passes the House by a vote of 336–34 and will now go to the Senate. (The Washington Post)
Estonia says that it will not recognize the results of the upcoming presidential election in Belarus, which it claims has already been rigged to ensure that PresidentAlexander Lukashenko will be re-elected. (ERR)
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.
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.
Culturally significant in a few countries, such as United States, yes, but it's not globally. Just being a significant player of a popular sport is, in my opinion, not a particularly good reasoning for blurbing, the same way we don't blurb all significant British footballers or Indian cricketeers. 31.44.227.152 (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball is a niche sport compared to football and cricket. Moreover, it's not true that British footballers or Indian cricketers of similar importance get blurbs. Bobby Charlton, who is widely considered one of the greatest players of all time and arguably the greatest English player ever, didn't get a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Rickey Henderson isn't just the all-time steals leader; he's the all-time runs leader. On the basis of having scored more runs than anyone else ever, I support this obvious blurb. Regarding quality, it's already good enough quality to post. NorthernFalcon (talk) 00:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not Ready Unfortunately there are a significant number of CN tags that will need to be resolved. In its current state I doubt the GA status would survive a review. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed: Almost all the CN's have been resolved. The last one can be proven with a bit of research; one source demonstrates that only four people have even stolen more than 8 bases in a single postseason, and if you look up each of those cases none of them involves stealing more than eight in a single postseason series, other than Rickey. Nonetheless I haven't found a source that says it directly yet, so I'll try to fix that tomorrow if someone else doesn't first. NorthernFalcon (talk) 06:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rickey Henderson's success leading off with a walk- and power-heavy strategy was transformative. His base-stealing (100+ stolen bases in a season) was unprecedented. Both of these led in part to the analytical revolution, as folks were forced to analyze how impactful they were in reality (the stolen bases, less than folks thought. The walks,
@Bagumba you understood my comment as you wished, since i'm not opposing it "because the event is only relating to a single country". I said it is not a global massive sport because it really isn't. It is played in some countries, but the level of social, cultural and economic impact and global following and breadth is concentrated in very few countries. Incomparable to soccer, basketball or even tennis. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we discourage opposition to blurbs for merely relating to only one country, why would we allow blurbs to be opposed for "only" relating to a few countries? —Bagumba (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ITN does not limit itself to only internationally popular topics. We strive for a broad range of fields. Maybe not a very niche sport played by only a fraction of people in one country (for example, arean gridiron football), but baseball is definitely not that. Masem (t) 17:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is perfect for when we are talking about league finals or very important international tournaments (which are already ITNR and I'm fine with that), not for blurbing the deaths of players who are not the top of they field. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely fair to argue that Henderson was not top of his field (to me, his importance is in question, he was well known but not a legendary player), but we shouldn't be questioning the limited scope of their field. Masem (t) 18:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bill James, the legendary statistical analyst, said that if you cut Rickey Henderson in half, you would have 2 hall of farmers, his impact was so great. Strict sound (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba: I feel you're misunderstanding Alsor's argument here. While Baseball is central in American culture and popular in other countries like Japan, baseball in general is fairly unknown to the average person in Europe, Africa or South America. 31.44.227.152 (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not what either what I or Alsor said and I honestly don't care for the ITN validity of any sport be it baseball, brännboll or swamp football.
I can empathize if you feel strongly about baseball, but grossly simplifying the argument to "only relating to a single country" is just flawed reasoning. Being fairly unknown and not part of the broader culture doesn't mean there aren't people playing it just like there are people competing in soccer or brännball in the U.S. or American football in Sweden. 31.44.227.152 (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that’s a poor argument to make. If a sport has to be “globally massive” to be relevant here, that basically makes soccer the only one. Baseball’s popular across North and South America (there’s literally tons of Venezuelan/Colombian players???), the Caribbean, and east Asia; it most definitely isn’t a niche/one-country sport. TheKip(contribs)03:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you are a cricket fan does not require you to deride baseball. In any case, under Recent Deaths there have neen numerous sporting figures mentioned, including snooker, which is a niche sport in comparison to baseball, by all measures. Strict sound (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: The quotes of copyrighted text have been reduced. The page subject, Henderson, is still heavily quoted, but his spoken words are not copyrighted. The "Legacy" section still has {{Over-quotation}}, but that it is a yellow tag, and not an WP:ITNQUALITY show stopper. —Bagumba (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What definition of “transformative” does he fail to meet? In his field; he was so unique and redefined base stealing. Many sources back that up and cite that as why he’s arguably the greatest to ever play. If that’s not transformative in his field, I don’t know what is. DrewieStewie (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb. When it comes to sports (among other topics) only the best of the best should get blurbs. While Henderson is undoubtedly the best base stealer, he is not one of the best overall baseball players. Blurbs should be reserved for Willie Mays and other players of his caliber. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get that baseball can be a complex sport, but the point of baseball is to score more runs than the other team, and Henderson scored more runs than anybody else. Does that not make him one of the best overall baseball players to ever play? Furthermore, at the time of his death, no living baseball player had more WAR than him other than the steroid users. Again, does that not make him at a minimum the greatest of his generation? NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside how only giving the total number of runs could imply almost anything from an incredibly high mode/range to a higher-than-usual mean, and how WAR isn't even mentioned in Henderson's article, or Henderson in the WAR article for that matter, I feel like it's still not clear why Henderson would be a major figure full stop, and not just a major figure in baseball. Per WP:ITNRDBLURB, being included in Recent Deaths feels like it's enough for this case. Yo.dazo (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, neutral on blurb Sourcing issues have been resolved. One yellow tag on excessive quotes from the subject, Henderson, but its not the red or orange variety that would be an WP:ITNQUALITY issue.—Bagumba (talk) 05:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral blurb – Very good quality article that really goes all out on his significance, but the added content related to his death is still too limited for a blurb I think. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb He was definitely a great player, but not influential for a blurb. Furthermore, he wasn't a household name outside of baseball (to be honest, he wasn't Willie Mays in any sense). The "Legacy" section doesn't make a strong case for a blurb either, as it primarily consists of specialist opinions about stealing and sliding abilities as well as his career achievements, not signifying any societal or cultural impact.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, weak oppose blurb Article still has some very long quotations, but it's (probably barely) not excessively so. However, speaking as not-a-follower of baseball, this feels like a situation where the impact is very much limited to people "in the know", and thus is not really blurbworthy. Yo.dazo (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed after more consideration with WP:ITNRDBLURB. I'll grant that he was one of the best baseball players out there, but he also died normallypeacefully, and he's not the Dalai Lama. Yo.dazo (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD and blurb Definately well sourced for RD. I think the holder of the stolen bases record is transformative and influential enough in his field to just get him over the line to blurb status. The C of E God Save the King! (talk)16:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not supporting a blurb- I don't love blurbing 99.9% of deaths- but the "Not transformative" argument is nothing short of ridiculous. He took one of the things important enough to be one of the sport's "five tools"- speed- and utilized it better than anyone else ever has, and probably better than anyone else ever will. (If you took the Major League-leading steals total from 2024, and had that total for 20 seasons, you'd still be short of Rickey.) He also scored more runs- you know, the entire point of the sport- than anyone in history. If you want to go by Wins Above Replacement, he's 19th all-time (14th among batters), and 4th (3rd) among players from the past 45 years- the only people above him were steroid users. He is, no matter how you look at him, one of the greatest baseball players ever. -- Kicking222 (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now: I did a spot-check on the references in a small slice of about 5-10% of the article prose and encountered four apparent instances of WP:OR. Last peer review was in 2010, so I suspect a great deal of OR has crept into the article since then. If anyone wants to help clean up, stats sites/databases tend to be common OR culprits on athlete articles. Left guide (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb, most major league steals (by 50% over next player), most runs scored, most unintentional walks, and over 3,000 hits. All that and he could field too. In runs scored and steals alone he transformed the game into personal career records never seen before. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should probably clarify that article quality wasn't a big issue here—that's why Henderson is already on ITN/RD. Posting an entire blurb for a death though has stricter criteria, which you can find on WP:ITNRDBLURB. Yo.dazo (talk) 09:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Aside from the lengthy quotes issue, the article does establish why the subject was notable in his field and influential. The article's claim that Henderson was the "baseball's greatest leadoff hitter and baserunner" is supported by refs, obits and even the article itself through the legacy section. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:49, 27 December 2024 (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.
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.
No footnote for DoB in main prose. There is quite a bit of prose on his legal troubles, but not much on his work as Chief Minister for 5+ years, President of his political party for 24 years and Leader of Opposition in the Haryana Legislative Assembly for 9+ years. What did he do while in office? --PFHLai (talk) 11:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Royal Autumn Crest: Subnational leadership is not a reason to deny ITN. His post is equivalent to that of a governor in United States. He is well documented in sources, only if somebody could expand it. However there is no specific rule for having a long article for inclusion in RD. Look at Macoto Takahashi for example. ExclusiveEditor🔔 Ping Me!06:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Royal Autumn Crest Please read the notice about how recent deaths works: 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.Joseph2302 (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Concur with PFHLai; outside of the subject's legal issues, the is little description about what he accomplished in office otherwise. SpencerT•C06:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose article is threadbare and half of the biography is about a recruitment scam which is fine to include but shouldn't account for such a large percentage of the content. Isn't chronological either and needs lots more work. De-tagging as ready. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:24, 27 December 2024 (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.
I'm helping RD, and wondering if this nom is a good candidate for RD. The thin coverage of her work activities is giving me pause. Not to mention the few {cn} tags. --PFHLai (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have added more info and sources to take care of the cn tags. Unfortunately most content from the 1980s and 1990s written about her is offline. Kiwichris (talk) 08:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I came here to say that it's been expanded (by Kiwichris – who spends a lot of time in the national library to read old newspapers – sterling work!), but got beaten to it. I've added one more ref. It looks ready now. Schwede6622:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Concur with PFHLai; political section consists almost entirely of election results but without detail of what she accomplished in office. SpencerT•C06:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My comments are not regarding her notability; given the lack of information in the article regarding what she accomplished as a politician, the article does not have sufficient depth of coverage to adequately describe her life's work and merit posting to RD IMO. SpencerT•C18:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, PFHLai and Spencer, that she's always had quite low list rankings. In 1996, she was placed 47th and would have had to be in 22nd place on the list in order to (eventually) get in. In 1999, she was 35th on the list and had she not won her electorate, she would have missed out getting in via the list. In 2002, she was again 35th on the list and with Labour having had a better result, she would have just made it into parliament via the list, but she won her electorate anyway. In 2005, she was still only 30th on the list, which is reasonably low for someone who has had two terms in parliament already. She was always ranked quite low, never made it into cabinet, and was thus a typical backbencher. In a parliament of 120, you don't hear much about most backbenchers. As such, my suspicion is that there simply isn't anything to report about her parliamentary career beyond her being chosen as deputy speaker for one term. There is content about what she was up to as mayor of Birkenhead. I suggest that the bio that we've got here is plenty good enough for a backbencher. Schwede6600:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After a search online, I was able to find information regarding her career, which I have subsequently added to the article[20], which suggests that it is not true that "there simply isn't anything to report about her parliamentary career". Per ITNQUALITY, "Articles should be a minimally comprehensive overview of the subject, not omitting any major items." and if the article for a politician has no information about political activities beyond an election (barring death shortly after election, which has happened before), then it does not meet this standard. Now with the additional information, I support. SpencerT•C08:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article is comprehensive and well sourced, and yes like most it could be improved further, but it's still more than good enough quality to post for RD. @Admins willing to post ITN: it's been already marked as ready to post by the way. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: There aren't that many details as of yet, but it is already being heavily covered. Saxony-Anhalt minister-president already announced casualty figures and general info on perpetrator. Yo.dazo (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support At this point the event is clearly notable enough for ITN. It has received significant coverage in many sources, and it seems similar to 2016 Berlin truck attack in scope and significance (although the motive appears to be different). That event was also posted on ITN back then. Gust Justice (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*Oppose pretty much per Rockstone. Starting to believe we're once again missing the mark here and letting pro-Western bias influence when we believe to be notable or not. A tragic event, but for the sorts of events that we've considered, this is not all that extreme. Same goes for the shooting nom directly below this one. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When considering whether an ITN nom is significant we can weigh separate things, whether the news is receiving significant coverage outside the incident region, whether it is unique therein and whether it is likely to any have lasting coverage. While the first can be answered in the affirmative, for the next two we will have to say no especially when you look at the listings at Terrorism in Germany#List of significant terrorist incidents in Germany. We also unfortunately have to say the death toll is not sifinificant at this point in time, consider for e.g. List of traffic collisions (2000–present) which bears a minimum 5 casualties. For a comparision, there is a reason we stopped posting most school shootings in the US which were seen to be frequent and without lasting encyclopedic impact (WP:10YEARS) as evinced by the massive lists at Lists of school shootings in the United States. Gotitbro (talk) 06:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the comparison with US school shootings is unfair given that Category:Vehicular rampage in Germany has only seven articles on it, and among them there are only three with comparably high casualties: 2016 Berlin truck attack, 2020 Volkmarsen ramming attack, and this one. (Also, casualties are not the same as fatalities.) Many in the list of significant terrorist incidents in Germany also have low or zero deaths and injuries. All this to say that the significance here is not just in numbers: this was a vehicular attack at a Christmas market by a lone perpetrator who was critical of Islam, both echoing and contrasting the one at Berlin in 2016. Yo.dazo (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I think I very much know of the so-called western bias, and I think it is something that doesn't apply here (although I may have personal bias of seeing Christmas based vehicle attack the first time). The page has been well extended, and 68 injuries with 2 deaths is something people should not take that casually. ExclusiveEditor🔔 Ping Me!06:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support worldwide news and significant attack by any measure applied. Unconvinced by WP:MINIMUMDEATHS and WP:BIAS arguments; the number of deaths is not the main criteria for posting and that should never be a measure of notability. We routinely post non-routine tragic events in other parts of the world, if they don't get posted it's usually due to quality and lack of WP:RS and not notability. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on principle (appears to be a race-motivated attack and borders on terrorism, rather than a more domestic crime) but Oppose on quality. The Aftermath and Reaction sections are almost not significant enough to be needed, we do not need the halfdozen-some lines of "thoughts and prayers" from various leaders. The rest of the article seems fine, but these section stick out a unnecessary fluff for an even article. --Masem (t) 13:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As of this comment, the aftermath and reaction sections look pretty tame tame to me. Maybe they were more bloated when you were looking at them. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Attempted to condense them. I know full well though that those sections will remain a bit of a mess for weeks (or maybe even months, if this attack does end up influencing the federal elections.) Such is the fate of ongoing articles, I suppose. Yo.dazo (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support There's big coverage of this story and many lines of intrigue including the Saudi suspect's unusual anti-Islam stance, his wanted status in his home country and the kingdom's failed attempt to extradite him. [21] Of course those are too nuanced to be in our headline, but let's give the people the news story they're actually looking up. This story is more than just senseless bloodshed. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to add the same caution here, in that the person was suffering from mental health issues, which generally means the crimes are not seen as severe compared to those that are committed by more rationale persons. --Masem (t) 01:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While tragic and a rare incident in Croatia, we have almost never posted an attack with a single death (unless the deceased is notable themselves) and we shouldn't now. The article also proceeds to call this a massacre which is quite a stretch. Gotitbro (talk) 07:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unconvinced by WP:MINIMUMDEATHS arguments; the number of deaths is not the main criteria for posting and that should never be a measure of notability. This doesn't look to be routine either and the article looks to be in good shape. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MINIMMUMDEATHS is a controversial subject about which there is currently no strong consensus. It is neither affirmed, nor proscribed as an argument in any of our WP:PG. As such it is perfectly legitimate for editors to take into consideration the death toll of events being considered for ITN, until/unless such time as some sort of broad consensus forms one way or another and we are able to put it into a guideline. Of course editors are equally free to disagree with such arguments, and in those cases we go with the local consensus on a case by case basis for each nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The 'international goverment reactions' only contains reactions from governments in the region (former Yugoslav; Bosnia, Montenegro, Serbia etc.). And although major news outlets do mention it, they do not cover it in an extensive manner which woud suggest this to be a major event of global significance. Even if we disregard MINIMUMDEATHS, there isn't anything else that makes this stand out from global NPOV. A tragedy, yes. Kiksam (talk) 18:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionaly, the wounded count might not be accurate, according to a newer source: [22], a teacher, three children, and self inflicted wounds by the attacker. (5) Kiksam (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A vessel carrying approximately 80 migrants heading for Spain sinks in Moroccan waters, leaving 70 people missing and eleven survivors rescued. (Le Monde)
The Judicial Court in Avignon, France, finds Dominique Pelicot guilty of the aggravated rape of his ex-wife Gisèle Pelicot, and imposes the maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. The 50 other defendants in the case are also convicted of crimes ranging from attempted rape to aggravated rape, and receive prison sentences ranging from three to 15 years. (Reuters)
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.
Comments: Date of birth is missing in the main prose, where it should appear with a source. The single-sentence intro could be longer. --PFHLai (talk) 07:35, 26 December 2024 (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.
Much of the Career section is unsourced. Date and place of birth are listed in the infobox, but are unsourced and missing in the main prose. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 07:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Breaking news, its made world headlines, unusual event. Please don't comment on article quality until its had a chance to expand. The options involved need articles and major expansion too. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CommentAbkhazia is not a fully recognised sovereign state and isn't particularly well known to most people. so I think it'd be prudent to also include that it's a region within the country of Georgia it's in essentially the same contested status as Crimea after the Russian invasion in 2008. Regardless, I think adding additional information to help people understand roughly where on Earth this has happened is needed. 31.44.227.152 (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Abhkazia isn't a real country, it's a Russian proxy-state, the People's Assembly is only recognized by four countries. We shouldn't be posting updates about it to ITN. For example, we didn't post about the 2024 Abkhazian protests, which resulted in the collapse and resignation of Abkhazia's government. Scuba15:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why the political status of this place would be a factor. Surely if the mayor of Buffalo killed his opponent while running for Governor, it would be successfully nominated here - and I doubt anyone would claim that the murder of one's opponent isn't ITN because New York State isn't a country. Nfitz (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but you're missing the fact this would be if the Canadian pretend government of Buffalo had a former mayor shoot members of the city council. It's just a normal murder, but the people involved are LARPing as politicians. Scuba05:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also this may be controversial to say but something like this happening in Buffalo would be such an extraordinary event in a fully integrated part of the world's dominant superpower that it would automatically be more notable than this happening in a tiny region occupied by the Russian army. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending article’s expansion. A politician shooting other politicians is very unusual, and the story appears to be in headlines across news outlets. I also subscribe to the opinion that the political status of Abkhazia is completely irrelevant.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a real country per Scuba. It's currently a two sentence stub. And to the extent it is getting news coverage, it's clearly not a major item. Politically motivated acts of violence are a near daily occurrence in the world. I'm not seeing anything that makes this stand out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now I'd actually argue that this may be relevant for ITN precisely because it is about separatist politics that may or may not have local and diplomatic consequences. But the relevant articles are currenly stubs, and there's not much coverage from other sources. Yo.dazo (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a fatal attack on any legislature is newsworthy let alone one where the suspect is a legislator thereof
Support on notability, Oppose on quality A long-serving and seemingly-respected mayor of a capital city publicly murdering his own political rival himself in broad daylight is an extremely unusual event, especially given it happened at the parliament building itself - however, the article is barely a stub. TheKip(contribs)20:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability, sure political assassinations happen a lot but not directly by a sitting politician. There are few partially recognised states in the world such that the bar shouldn’t be much higher for news coming from them
Support on notability, oppose on quality. Extremely rare event: high-level political assassination by a politician. While Abkhazia is not well-recognized, it is de facto a sovereign state, thus making this not much different in terms of notability than the federal politics of a well-recognized state. However, the article is only 2 sentences long, and thus nowhere near substantial enough to blurb. -insert valid name here- (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on Notability but Oppose on quality This is definitely notable enough for ITN however article is still a stub and is nowhere near to being posted TNM101 (chat) 06:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Armed dispute between collaborators in a glorified Russian military district. Really not internationally notable at all. If this happened in the Georgian parliament it would be notable. Also the article is very poor and articles about Abkhazian politics are generally not in good condition. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those making claims that this isn't notable because Abkhazia is a Russian proxy-state created in 2008 shouldn't forget that it's been an autonomous republic continuously since 1921. At that time, the majority of today's countries didn't have any form of autonomy. This doesn't mean that Abkhazia isn't part of Georgia, but its status hasn't changed a lot with the Russo-Georgian War.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle – Article is too short at the moment. Also, all the comments saying it's not news because it's Russian occupied doesn't make the news any less significant. You can disagree with Abkhazia's political status but that does not minimize notability. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks♥) 16:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality and quality alone. I do think those seeking to downplay this event seem to not understand how uncommon it is for someone to just shoot your political rival in broad daylight, at least in modern society where we frown on duels (Looking at you Aaron Burr). The exact impacts of this? Hard to tell, but I don't think the legal status of the country should matter, we're talking about two persons who had some level of power, acknowledgment nonwithstanding. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:31, 21 December 2024 (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: International reporting. Of huge significance to those campaigning against sexual violence in France and elsewhere. 51 men were convicted of sexual crimes, but unsure how best to convey the nuance of these in a blurb. yorkshiresky (talk) 10:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the BBC wording is "50 men sentenced in mass rape trial", Le Monde "All 51 defendants found guilty of rape or sexual assault", NYT "50 Others Guilty". I think that the blurb should express that it was Dominique Pelicot + 50. Turini2 (talk) 11:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned at the excessive level of detail of the trial events. In most cases of such trials, we aim to summarize key points, not a day-by-day documenting which that is approaching. --Masem (t) 13:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Major case in France also receiving attention beyond the country. A better with more context might be needed (country etc). Gotitbro (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, propose altblurb - I support the article's inclusion for quality (significant prose, well cited) and notability, but propose an altblurb to correct the number of men sentenced (see above). Also curious about rewording depending on the conclusion of the RFCRM. ~Malvoliox(talk
Comment: I think the rapes perpetrated upon Mme. Pelicot were serial rapes, not a mass rape or mass rapes. Compare with mass killing vs. serial killings. I see someone above notes the BBC's use of mass rape trial but I think there, mass refers to the number of defendants on trial rather than the number of times she was raped. —71.105.243.101 (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In his first direct comments on the issue, president Joe Biden states there is "nothing nefarious, apparently" and "no sense of danger so far" behind the aircraft sightings in the northeastern United States. (NBC News)
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.
I have been trying to open ref 1 to check that it confirms the date of birth. On both attempt, that website timed out. Would anyone be able to organise an archive ref for that source, please? Schwede6618:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. It goes through a Cloudflare verification process and once that's done, it displays that it is waiting for the domain that's hosting the website to respond. And that process times out before you get there. Are you saying that it works for you, Abcmaxx? Schwede6619:54, 25 December 2024 (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: Operatic singer, first mezzo then dramatic soprano, for more than 35 years "voice and face of the Leipzig Opera", then in East Germany, but she was one of the few who could also perform in Naples, Vienna, Geneva ... Unusually, she performed both Fricka and Brünnhilde in the same legendary Ring production, in her transition to soprano. The article was there, prepared by a good version in German, but references had to be applied and retrieved. Last addition after seeking help from Benutzer:Brodkey65. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2024 (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: Article still needs work despite the 34 references. Borderline blurb-worthy, one of the all-time greatest cyclists (2 times world champion, 2nd most professional wins, won all classics), but would be nice to at least get him into RD. Fram (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few footnote-free paragraphs in the prose. Date and place of birth are in the infobox, but no sources were provided (these should be footnoted in the main prose). The Records section has no sources. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 11:28, 22 December 2024 (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.
Switch from {cite book} to {cite web}? "|work=" works with {cite web}, but not {cite book}. The source is actually a webpage about the book, rather than the book, in which case, ISBN and page numbers are needed. 65.93.223.182 (talk) 18:44, 25 December 2024 (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.
More than long enough with 1000+ words of prose. Formatting looks fine. Coverage of his life and career seems adequate. Footnotes can be found in expected spots. Apart from a blockquote, Earwig has no complaints. This wikibio looks READY for RD, except that I ain't sure if the source for his death is solid enough (I am not familiar with the Neptune Society as a source.) Can another admin take a look, please? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an obituary from the funeral home/cremation provider. Sometimes families forego placing longer obits, or news outlets/other sources take longer to write up something (this was also how Melinda Dillon's death was originally discovered). Connormah (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2024 (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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: The 3rd Catholic Archbishop of Singapore. This was in a resume-ish format before I rewrote into prose and add some sources as well. Still a bit more to go for a minimum ITN pass; putting up here first. There are at least two notable events while he was in the office, which I will add on in the coming days. – robertsky (talk) 12:53, 18 December 2024 (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: The epicentre is 30 km from Port Vila, and a shallow 7.3 Mw strike will have caused significant damage in a town of 50,000 people. At the moment, there is one reported fatality; the true death number will be much higher. The situation will become much clearer over the next 24 hours. Schwede6608:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Support- Article is fleshed out and very well cited. My only objection is the lack of coverage on the human impact, both here and in the media. –DMartin15:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for the impact to become clearer. There's certainly the potential for this to be a big deal. but at present the news reports are mostly anecdotes and remote seismology. Things should become clearer once the authorities on the island make announcements and those reach the media. Modest Geniustalk15:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Well-sources, no major tags. Article has been developed enough considering Vanuatu's communication is down. Uncommon for an earthquake in Vanuatu to be so destructive. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The earthquake has caused quite a lot number of casualties, and it is rare for such a large earthquake to occur in Vanuatu. The references in this article are also good. Bakhos|Let's talk!18:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: article in good shape and event is notable. Improvements can always be made, of course, but it doesn't need to be able to cross the bar of GA or similar just yet. UndercoverClassicistT·C19:49, 17 December 2024 (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: Let me be perfectly clear: I don't want this posted, and I foresee a SNOW close as consensus against posting. I don't want this to be on ITN and I'm nominating it so we can get it out of the way, and give ITN a precedent about what is in my opinion absolutely nothing but political banter and public paranoia following the recent occurrences of exhibit A and exhibit B and now exhibit C all coming amidst exhibit D. If nothing else, I want to hear people's more specific reasons for why this should be posted more than anything. I also want ITN to reality-check me on whether or not this is as big of a story as the news media is blowing it up to be. Departure– (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why are you nominating if you do not want this to be posted? Please do not try to "game" the system. There is no need to "hear other's opinions" until this is properly nominated (by someone who wants it to be posted). Natg 19 (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support if the blurb can be modified to a less affirmative statement like "allegedly unidentified drones" or something like that. While we apparently have RS that confirm drones have been spotted and those drones are unidentified, we don't have any RS that say this is "widespread" (rather, the belief in sightings seems to be what's widespread) and the expert consensus is triangulating toward the idea that almost all of these are misidentification of aircraft. But it is, in fact "in the news" so I suppose meets WP:ITNSIGNIF. Moreover, it's not our job to protect humanity from delusion. Also, thanks to the excellent work of @Anne drew: and @Very Polite Person:, this article is as sober as possible to make it given the sources. Chetsford (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article is up-to-date and outlines the major facets of this event (reported sightings, investigations, responses, and explanations). It is well referenced using reliable sources. The event is significant politically, drawing commentary from political leaders at every level of government and prompting the introduction of legislation. It has been internationally reported by many newspapers of record. There is relevance outside of the US, with events described as related being reported in the UK and Germany (see the background section). The coverage has been widespread, but also with deep coverage by outlets such as The New York Times, CBS, and The Guardian. The article is of decent quality; although the edits have been coming in rapidly, I think we've kept it fairly organized and balanced. Cheers Chetsford, it's been a pleasure working with you on it :) – Anne drew01:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting to ITN as extremely (very) timely, and with zero indication this is going away--if anything, looking at the news and reports every night, it's accellerating, as nuts as that is to even write. Whatever it is, people are interested in it to where they're forcing Biden and Trump to speak out now (Biden is certainly next--Trump was today). There's no reason to not put it up, so we may as well. The article is extremely thoroughly sourced and nearly boringly written, like a proper article should be. Like @Chetsford said, it's very, very sober. As soon as this started to pick up steam and I noticed the article, that's why I immediately posted it to Fringe theories/Noticeboard (link to thread) for more eyes. I think it's timely, necessary, and for a Frankenstein of an article, shockingly well written already and beyond thoroughly sourced. h/t and a half to @Anne drew for the bad-ass copy-editing (she beat me to it!). 2024 New Jersey drone sightings sails past any scrutiny related to policy. I get some of us think it's nonsense. Maybe it is. But our personal views are always irrelevant to mission. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the conspiracy theory? The Joint Chiefs of Staff, Department of Homeland Security and New York Governor confirmed they're real. Not all of them, certainly, but we're past from all levels of government the idea it's all some mass delusion. The WP:RS in the article spell it out. We've been beyond methodical in keeping the article factual against sources. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on account of the fact that the only real way to describe the events in question are "something is happening". It doesn't seem that the government believes them to be threatening. I think if you compare to the balloon, that was eventually ascribed as being Chinese, and even if the eventual diplomatic impacts of it were little, it WAS an international affair of sorts. If it's found out that these drones are the work of foreign agents, that's a big deal, but right now the only real impacts we've seen from them, to my knowledge, have been minor airport disruptions, which aren't exactly uncommon anyway. Very possible this ends up being a nothingburger, covered extensively or not. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Given how much wacky conspiracy theories and other nonsense from the extreme political spectrum, this is not a real news story. Should they prove to be anything legit (like the Chinese weather balloon from a few years back), then maybe there's something to post. --Masem (t) 02:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - People have been sighting UFOs for decades. The fact that the news cycle has latched onto these sightings for whatever reason doesn't make them actually notable. –DMartin04:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Whatever or whoever this is, it’s something. That has drawn the attention of the political, military, civilian and media worlds, the latter putting this story at the front of the news from top to bottom of the media spectrum. Opposers fail to convince that this story is unworthy of ITN, and the article, as noted, is carefully sourced and written from a strong NPOV, a credit to Wikipedia. I suggest a posting admin take the strength, and lack of strength, of the arguments into consideration. “In the News?” Absolutely all over the news, for several cycles now. Jusdafax (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except that WP is not a news ticker. Just because a story is well-covered in the news does not make it appropriate for ITN, particularly as there's no yet firm explanation for what's going on. Front page is not good for speculative stories that just have happened to catch the media's attention. — Masem (t) 04:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we disagree, that’s all. I don’t for one minute buy the “not a news ticker” argument, with all due respect to you. That could be used on any news item. To quote the main ITN entry “ 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. ITN supports the central purpose of Wikipedia—making a great encyclopedia.” This is the lede paragraph at ITN. And at the end: “ Events are added based on a consensus on the ITN candidates page, using two main criteria: a) the quality of the article, including material added or updated to reflect the recent event, and b) the general significance of the developments.” The quality is good, the significance high, the material updated. Consensus is established by the weight of the discussers, not the number, as you well know. Again, with more due respect, in my opinion all I’m seeing from opposers here is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Cheers! Jusdafax (talk) 05:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"making a great encyclopedia" is important - the problem is that the drone sightings are questionable right now as an encyclopedic topic per NOTNEWS. There's no indication this is going to be an event that will have enduring coverage yet, because there's tons of speculation of what they are and no immediate threats. If it turns out there were a foreign entity that would lead to diplomatic issues, maybe there's something. But with all the wacky theories and explanations to try to explain them, its like claims of UFO sightings, its interesting but not something that WP should readily be documenting at this point. — Masem (t) 13:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That some people have become so panicked or conspiratorial that the USA government has had to intervene is not only ridiculous but irrelevant. _-_Alsor (talk) 06:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If people with tinfoil hats want to believe that videos of aircraft and Venus (which 95% of these things are) are posing a major threat to the USA, it probably needs to stay on X and other nuthatch meeting places. I suppose the fact that this nonsense has made it into the actual news and the fact that the DHS has said there are a few real sightings makes the story itself somewhat notable even as an exercise in how conspiracy theories spread, but nothing more than that. Black Kite (talk)08:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because nothing much has actually happened. Beyond that, if the nominator of an item doesn't want it to go forward to the home page (for instance because new facts come to light, or the story is overtaken by another, related one), we generally close the nomination unless there is an excellent reason not to. I'm therefore calling for a procedural close of this item. Users ought not to make proposals they do not want to see carried out; trying to achieve a negative result so as to establish some kind of benchmark or precedent is, as Gotitbro observes, a violation of WP:POINT; it's also unlikely to succeed, as users generally (correctly) invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS when people try to rely too strongly such precedents. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to disrupt the wiki or anything; from my perspective, I just wrote a neutrally-worded and properly attributed blurb with a built-in oppose vote and that's all. I would have opposed this if and when it was nominated anyway. But I see your point and I'll try to avoid opening nominations for this in the future. I will stand by the point that as of now this event is more or less nothing. Departure– (talk) 13:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's a mystery for sure, but unless/until there's some public announcement of who is responsible or determination that something nefarious is going on, there's no actual impact yet. 'Something unusual happened, but we don't know what it is, who is responsible or what the impact might be' isn't suitable for an ITN blurb. Separately, I find the nomination comments bizarre and counterproductive - if you don't think this should be posted, simply don't nominate it. Seems like a deliberate waste of time. Modest Geniustalk15:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, oppose for now. Until something actually happens, this really shouldn't be on ITN. Keep in mind this isn't affecting my !vote, but 99% of these are almost certainly civilian-operated aircraft, hobbyist drones, or Venus. — BerryForPerpetuity(talk)16:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and SNOW Close per GenevieveDEon. If the nominator himself opposes the nomination, why is this even up? This has been mere trivia here in Europe (if covered at all). Maybe the news cycle was particularly slow in the US when this emerged. Khuft (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2024 (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.
In his first public statement since being overthrown, former Syrian presidentBashar al-Assad says that he "didn't intend to leave Syria", claiming that he went to Khmeimim Air Base in Latakia Governorate to "oversee combat operations" only to find that the Syrian Army had abandoned their positions and surrendered to rebel forces. Amid "an intensified attack by drone strikes" at the air base, Assad says that Russia decided to airlift him to Moscow. (BBC News)
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.
With 300+ words of prose, this wikibio is long enough to qualify. Formatting looks fine. Footnotes can be found in expected spots. Earwig has no complaints. It could use more info on what he did as director of park and recreation, if sources are available, otherwise coverage of the subject's life and career seems adequate. IMO, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Stale This was fairly "captivating" on and about December 16, the same day Cyclone Chido (our current oldest) dissipated. This Sunday, the "big story" is Trudeau's resignation. I don't think we have an article on that, yet, but when we do, it'll probably define the underlying "crisis' as something that started during COVID. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose internal political drama as happens in so many other places. Let's wait to see how it deepens and if that implies changes in the position of Canada's PM, which is the really ITN-worthy issue. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:37, 23 December 2024 (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.
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.
Comment Reopened as I believe the closure to be inappropriate since it was premature. There were no comments here so it can't be concluded that consensus wouldn't develop for a posting. A reminder to closers that they should assess the consensus, not create it. Noah, BSBATalk04:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as shootings of this magnitude are common within the United States. There have been several events with more fatalities than this one since 2024 began. Noah, BSBATalk04:18, 18 December 2024 (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.
At least one person is killed when two Russianoil tankers, Volgoneft-212 and Volgoneft-236, are damaged due to bad weather in the Kerch Strait with oil from the tankers actively leaking into the strait. (NOS)(CNN)
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.
Comment: in my view, sources are too often absent or unclear; there also seems to be some direct copying from sources which may not be appropriate; and I wonder about the structure of the whole article, which has a lot of sections and may not properly reflect the subject's life--PaulBetteridge (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2024 (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.
I haven't yet evaluated the article's quality, but there's an argument for a blurb here; Hussain was among the most famous Indian classical musicians, and certainly the most famous player of his chosen instrument. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb oppose on quality - I have added a bunch of sources for his soundtracks and awards but couldn't find an appropriate source for 2000 Istanbul International Film Festival (Turkey) ; help would be appreciated The AP (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb as article lacks any claim for why he was a major/great figure outside one line in the lede. If he was such an important figure in bringing Indian music to worldwide audiences, I'd expect a decent sized legacy section to explain this, not just a passing statement. Masem (t) 19:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zakir Hussain has long been recognised as one of the most major exponents of Tabla for over thirty years. He is the son of Ustad Allah Rakkah, who was Tabla player for Ravi Shankar. He has a huge discography and has performed thousands of concerts to worldwide acclaim. Majormiser (talk) 11:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of performers have huge discographies and have played concerts worldwide, that is not what makes them great/major figures. We need a sufficiently good amount (eg not just one statement) of sourced content to explain that legacy beyond just performances. That might be possible to add from the various obits going around, but without that, its not clear to the casual reader why we'd post this person as a blurb. — Masem (t) 13:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While a legacy section has been added, it is really weak and just including brief quotes from obits. It should be far better connected, looking for sources pre-death that establish this. Also, while the discography I see is bulk sourced, the filmography and soundtrack sections have no sourcing, so that remains a problem for even an RD. --Masem (t) 05:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a completely invalid reason. ITN items do not have to have international coverage to be considered. And in this case, that's just a falsehood since there's plenty of western sources covering his death. --Masem (t) 02:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Blurb definitely seems worthy, Great Norwegian Encyclopedia[26] (translated): "Hussain was of great importance for the development of the tabla as a solo instrument and to make the instrument known internationally." Though agree with Masem that in article attribution needs to be shown. Gotitbro (talk) 07:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD and blurb Probably the most famous tabla player. Death reported by western media outlets as well. Article is of good quality but has 1 cn tag. TNM101 (chat) 05:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A spot-check of the discography refs shows multiple items in the table not listed in either given ref (approximately half of the ones I checked), such as Summit, The One and Only, When Words Disappear, Veru, Morning Ragas, etc. SpencerT•C08:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality per Joseph2302. This is obviously a major catastrophe, but the article does not reflect this and referencing is quite poor. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, yeah. I will note that it's not actually clear at the moment whether both of the vessels are leaking oil, what is clear is that Volgoneft-212 is. I'll definitely write a shorter altblurb though. CommissarDoggoTalk?19:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't think the death toll is notable if it's only 1. Oil spills don't typically cause super high human fatalities, and since this is even below that bar, the death toll itself shouldn't be in the blurb. (Do not take this as an oppose vote.) Departure– (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about blurb syntax. I don't remember the last time we posted an oil spill but all eyes should be on the environmental consequences, not the one guy who died in the shipwreck. Departure– (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have posted major oil spills that had no initial loss of human life, such as Norilsk oil spill in 2020. We do need to get an idea of how much oil actually spilt, there's potential for a lot from the capacity of the ships but no word to the estimate of how many gallons actually spilled. — Masem (t) 22:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I realize I worded that weirdly. It's not an oppose vote, I'm just saying that the blurb we do post shouldn't include the single human fatality that has occurred so far. I'll wait to vote until the extent of damage to the environment becomes clearer. Departure– (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update per Novaya Gazeta source: both the 212 and 239 had leaked oil. State media reports that both leaks have stopped, but a maximum of 3,000 tonnes of oil had been spilled into the environment. This is well below the figure of 17,500 from the Norilsk spill or indeed many other spills since then. I'm really not seeing much reason to post if these reports are to be believed. The most that could have theoretically leaked is between 9,000 and 10,000 tonnes. However, given the background of the Russo-Ukrainian war and the current state of Crimea and the location of the spill in the Kerch Strait region, this might just garner enough notability to be posted, but I'm not seeing that yet, as of 14:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC). I do think a lot of these oil spills should be posted, alongside derechoes as well (the August 2020 Midwest derecho was the costliest thunderstorm in history and was closed in nominations for being "not important in the context of wider US politics / etc" - I think Cedar Rapids was still dealing with damage repair earlier this year) - these events have significant impact that can be much wider than be deduced solely by news coverage. Departure– (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait/Oppose. Hard to know the exact environmental impacts that will be seen, many of which may not be apparent in the near future. Should this information come about soon, that would be a good time to reevaluate. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to what sources? The sources currently added to the article and all current sources I'm finding are pretty clear, an estimate of 3,700 tonnes of heavy fuel oil being spilled from the two vessels combined, with one carrying 4,900 tonnes and the other carrying 4,300. CommissarDoggoTalk?13:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Iraqi water experts issue warnings regarding cracks that have formed in the Tishrin Dam in Aleppo Governorate following continuous bombardment by Turkish and pro-Turkish forces and the possibility of further damage causing a dam failure. (Waradana)
At least eight people were killed and ten others injured in a deadly inter-clan conflict in a rural area under the El Buur district of Galgadud region in south-central Somalia(Hiiraan Online)
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: Passed a few hours ago. There'll be protests and whinging the next 2 weeks (especially on dec 29th, but per the remit of wiki he is elected. Sportsnut24 (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two big differences. Firstly, the US president administers the executive power, so the method of election is irrelevant as long as it's an ITN/R item. Secondly, there is an open presidential election in the US to determine the composition of the Electoral College, whereas the presidential election in Georgia is done under closed doors by an Electoral College composed of all parliament members (50%) and other representatives (50%). The comparison will hold if the open presidential elections are abolished in the US, and the president is elected by the members of the Senate and representatives of other governing bodies.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We typically post changes in the leaders that hold executive power, not necessarily the head of state. That would be the PM in Georgia under its current system. In the US, it's the president. In India, it's the PM (not the president). In Germany, it's the Chancellor (not the president). We may discuss changes in ceremonial posts, too - e.g. King Charles III was posted - but it's not ITNR and it's not a given. Khuft (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait The story here is not that a new President of Georgia was elected by Parliament, but that the election is disputed and this may lead to a constitutional crisis if e.g. protests become even more disruptive or the current president Zourabichvili decides to refuse to leave. So let's wait to see how the situation evolves. Khuft (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The protesters may not accept the new president, and Zourabichvili may refuse to leave, but it's really irrelevant in the whole story. Georgian Dream have full control over the Electoral College, so they can practically elect any candidate they want. In general, ruling political parties elect the president almost always when there's no open presidential election.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point was rather, if the situation degenerates in Georgia, there may be something to post. But that will be a revised nomination, if it happens. Khuft (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, per Khuft Let us also not underestimate what is happening. The fact that a president denies that she wants to leave office because she considers the parliamentary elections to be fraudulent (and European institutions have also pronounced so) is not trivial, it is notorious and could lead to a constitutional crisis for the most important office in the country, even though have not executive powers. In any case, it has been customary to post the election of presidents of republics of parliamentary systems. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb wasn't elected, he was nominated, or you could go as far as saying installed. Opposition is currently boycotting every process since the falsified elections Abcmaxx (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't a general election—that was in October—and the head of government in Georgia is actually the prime minister, so this is not under WP:ITN/R.
The actually notable thing about this process seems to be the turmoil around it: according to the BBC, the outgoing(?) president refuses to recognize the results, opposition parties boycotted the process, and there are protests in the streets. That feels significant to me, but this nomination does not really bring them up.
I agree that we should wait (per Khuft and _-_Alsor) and see if this becomes a real constitutional crisis, and then renominate (per Kiril Simeonovski).Yo.dazo (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2024 (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.
Comment Should we replace the ITN image too? No offence meant towards Gukesh, but I think this is kind of more important. Also, we should probably replace the image with one of Han Duck-soo since he's now the acting president. Yo.dazo (talk) 09:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. military evacuates American citizen Travis Timmerman out of Syria after Timmerman had previously been reported missing in the country. (NBC News)
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.
Are you commenting on quality, or notability? All Recent Deaths entries are notable enough to be posted, and if you do want to see this processed sooner your comments and direct improvement efforts should focus on whether the article is well cited and updated. Departure– (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2024 (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.
Oppose article is not sufficiently updated. The rest of the article isn't a quality showstopper for ITN though, so a few more sentences in the body would help here. Departure– (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt-blurb now that the entry has been updated with information about Bayrou's strong-arm tactic -- the threat of removing centrist support for the government if Le Cornu were nominated instead... (nb: automatic ITN/R) -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥11:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look and see a lot of unreferenced content in the target article. Nothing is marked as "citation needed" but it easily could be. Hence, I'm not comfortable posting this. Schwede6601:50, 20 December 2024 (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.
Soft support. Everything appears to be sourced, but the article is still quite short and only two sentences in the articles are about her career. Would love to see the article further expanded before it's posted. ForsythiaJo (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to only point out this is not yet ITNR, but if this is posted, that will be the 4th consecutive year we have posted it, and we should open an ITNR discussion for that. However, right now, I'm looking for non-gaming news coverage of this, it might be there tomorrow morning (typically when the major outlets have covered in the past). --Masem (t) 04:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And do we really want to put an award show less than a decade old which has this on its lead para: "The show's reception is generally mixed: it has been lauded for its announcements and criticized for its lack of acknowledgement of events, use of promotional content and its treatment of award winners." Gotitbro (talk) 07:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The BAFTAs are probably more prestigious but certainly less popular (and that's probably more of a discussion to have in April anyway). The Game Awards is technically more than a decade old (though only just), and I'm not sure how strongly its critical reception should influence its ITN eligibility. The Oscars, Emmys, and Grammys certainly have their fair share of growing criticism, for instance—often seemingly more than the Game Awards—but ultimately that doesn't make them any less significant or newsworthy. – Rhain☔ (he/him)09:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on Quality. Presenters section could use a citation. Otherwise seems good to go. Not a big awards show person myself (I think their place at ITN/R somewhat overstates their importance), but it does appear the people have spoken these past few years and believe that TGA are worth the posting. DarkSide830 (talk) 06:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support on precedent. However, I personally oppose because I don't feel like that many people who care about TGA are coming to Wikipedia for information, and the purpose of ITN is to direct people to Wikipedia's coverage of things that they saw in the news. /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 16:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of ITN is to showcase quality articles about topics that happen to be in the news. We're not a news ticker. — Masem (t) 17:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the time being -- not enough prose around results/winners. It looks like some of the previous quality issues have been fixed (eg citations for presenters) and with a smidge more expansion it should be ready~Malvoliox(talk | contribs)17:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Game publishers played no role in the creation of the 2024 awards, nor the selection of nominees or winners. Besides, I'm not sure that interpretation is particularly relevant to the criteria anyway. – Rhain☔ (he/him)13:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who created the award to whom is coming from the relevant wikipedia article. If this is not true, then this article contains false information, and maybe shouldn't be promoted. If it has any truth content, then this is not news, but an ad. As a sidenote, I really don't think that just because you disagree with a support/oppose vote, you should immediately attack people and/or their opinion, and try to discredit them - I'm sure bullying other people works IRL, but maybe keep it there, and don't bring it here. From my part this shall be my last response to you. 51.154.145.205 (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some publishers helped to fund the original ceremony ten years ago, but, as I mentioned, played no role in the creation of the 2024 show, and certainly not in the awards themselves. Correcting misinformation is neither attacking nor bullying, and I'm sorry you interpreted it so. – Rhain☔ (he/him)21:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It meets the criteria, we have posted this ceremony for the past 4 years, and there is a similar amount of prose as the articles for previous years which, as I said, did get posted. Rahcmander (talk) 18:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support As others have said, it's been posted the past four years, and it's got about the same amount of prose. The structure of this year's article has undergone no significant changes from years prior, and those years were posted on ITN. —Gestrid (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Gukesh Dommaraju becomes the youngest World Chess Champion at the age of 18 years, breaking a record held by Garry Kasparov since 1985."? 9ninety (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the undisputed title attracts greater recognition, I still think it's worth mentioning that Kasparov's record, which stood for nearly forty years, has been broken. Gukesh is four years younger than Kasparov was when he won the title; it's safe to say this record will likely never be broken. 9ninety (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support on the Game 9 recap being cited and the Game 14 being written with a recap. I've also proposed Altblurb 2, since head-to-head sporting events should always have the winner and loser in the blurb, but the age still potentially interesting to highlight. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions14:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We did not for the last two, [29][30] though I didn't go back further because the template wasn't updated to link to the version of ITN at the time. In this case nothing the youngest ever undisputed bit is probably more relevant. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions18:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chess being in the event name makes it clear. Something like "World Series" is not as obvious so needs that "in baseball" — Masem (t) 18:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)**[reply]
Support ALT3 - article seems good to go, and being the youngest undisputed champion ever IMO is major enough to override concerns of triviality. TheKip(contribs)19:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support ALT2, covers the winner, previous winner, the name of the tournament, and his age. Not needed to cover the name of the country, or linking Chess either. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ALT2 ALT3 is inaccurate since Ponomariov was younger than him when he won the FIDE world championship, there is also no need to link chess. Setarip (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready. Close but missing a couple citations and contains one instance of possible original research (once those tags are cleaned up, we should be good to go) ~Malvoliox(talk | contribs)17:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a bit of clean-up of the article, principally adding an archive-URL for one of the main sources that had gone dead. That showed that there is uncertainty when he was born, with an eight-year span. There was coding in the infobox that he was 58 by the time he died and I don't know whether that was put there because the article had a birthdate of 1 Jan 1966 shown, or whether there is a reliable source for that age. If there is, it would be worth tidying up the birth year range before this gets posted. If there isn't a RS, then it's ready as is. Schwede6603:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for missing citations for filmography and for the body statements including a presumed TV Guide quote about Mod Squad. If sufficient citations are added, consider this support.
Comment: Lede state "He is widely credited with putting Bengaluru on the world map by building the foundation for making it the IT Hub that it is today during his tenure as Chief Minister." but body of the article does not further mention this anywhere or further mention who is crediting him with this. SpencerT•C13:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - a few unresolved CN tags, and the article might need a spot check or two to fix a few oddly worded sentences. Article has been updated sufficiently however. Departure– (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now lacks inline citations for awards and works, as stated. Also, it appears external links are inappropriately used in the body of the article. Other than that, plenty of sources and of a good length. Departure– (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose article is hardly updated with only one sentence in the body about the resignation. Maybe an article about this apparent political crisis would be preferable to the article about the PM himself, but a head of government resigning appears notable enough for ITN. Departure– (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The end of the tour is not the type of aspects we'd post at ITN (we dont even post retirements outside of government leaderships), and the fact it is the highest-grossing is mostly trivia. --Masem (t) 04:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No series of connected note worthy, unexpected things occurred during the tour making the tour itself infamous to get its end posted. Just like one of the things that made Notre Dame's reopening note worthy for ITN was the reason it got closed- fire. Things like facts could be posted on DYK as suggested above. ExclusiveEditorNotify Me!05:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template:AtopTemplate:ITN candidate
p.s. It's 10 December here in Australia, and not sure whether this should be posted on that date as it's late in the day in the US already?
Just to answer the submitter question, we go by the date in the region the event happened, not your local date. So this is currently correct as Dec 9. Masem (t) 22:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you.
I don't know how many of the opposers have followed the saga or understand the ramifications, but this family, specifically Rupert and his son Lachlan, help to shape the political landscape in the US and Australia. Rupert is no ordinary media businessman in the background - he actively determines the editorial lines in his media empire, and Americans should understand the influence of Fox, as Australians understand the influence of Sky News and his daily newspapers and media outlets in Australia (almost a monopoly). This is why this case is notable. The voting rights of the other siblings - much more moderate politically - could have huge impacts on the directions of Fox and News Corp, which in turn have huge influence on politics, and issues such as climate change, and thus energy policy, etc. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, the collapse of the Assad Regime, one of the most repressive and brutal dictatorships on Earth, does seem a bit more important than Murdoch's FOX News getting held to its own legal contracts it had previously agreed to. Departure– (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not on the planet I am standing on. Only a fraction of the COVID deaths in the United States under the Trump regime, and the estimated three million deaths annually due to climate change. Hawkeye7(discuss)01:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trump didn't cause climate change nor COVID. I'm not going to lie and admit he was at all blameless nor say he didn't do anything to worsen the impacts of both, but COVID was going to happen anyway, and climate change started well before Trump took office - he was only party to legislation and the nation's response to both, even if Murdoch's Fox was very influential to Trump's support and ideologies. This isn't Fox suddenly shutting down, it's Fox's upper management getting held to it's own legal agreements that it agreed to - hence the name, agreement. Right wing news media is not going to die suddenly and this shouldn't be seen as it's sudden death. Departure– (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with others. Not a major news story. And I am doubtful that Fox News is going to change much, even with the outcome of this case. But even if Fox News suddenly became a "moderate" or "left-wing" news organization, this issue is of limited scope and not relevant to much of the world. Natg 19 (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support As someone else mentioned, there are big ramifications to this. Murdoch influences votes wherever he operates (and that isn't just the USA). It is expected that this ruling will lead to a softening in the Murdoch empire's rabid support for hard right politicians and parties. HiLo48 (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this time, as the appeal is already announced. This is the score at end of the first quarter of the game. Post when the last court speaks, not the first. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This being appealed means that this is not even the end of the legal side of this saga, let alone the fact that even before this it was hardly important. Departure– (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose private dispute that has kept the status quo. There's little immediate impact, except for the family and their lawyers. Of course this is an influential organisation and who runs it does matter, but this court ruling isn't significant enough to merit an ITN blurb. Modest Geniustalk15:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose seems very trivial compared to anything we have run on ITN lately. And that's before considering that this is a pretty low-level court on a private family matter. Nfitz (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support will have a massive impact on the Anglosphere, this bloke is practically a king maker in the US, UK, and Australia, ITN should cover what could be the collapse of his media empire Kowal2701 (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is very limited and does not compare to the other "ongoing" conflicts. This is day 1 and might not last much longer. It is a limited reaction to the fall of the Syrian regime. Tradediatalk22:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. These are skirmishes around the Golan Heights, which Israel has occupied for decades. Calling it an invasion of Syria is preposterous. Khuft (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb, oppose ongoing – I would support incorporating this into the current Damascus blurb somehow, Israel's first incursion into Syria since 1974 is still notable, even if its one of many Israeli invasions in the past year. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks♥) 23:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. Israel hasn't even entered an area of Syrian control. They've merely put some troops into the Area of Control, that is, if anything, UN territory. Nfitz (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose minor enough that the new Syrian government doesn't seem to have reacted to it. Israel says it's limited to a defined region. Juxlos (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EXTRAORDINARLY Support End of a 50-year regime, fall of the capital city. Possibly the end of a 13-year civil war. Top of practically every news site in the entire world. THE POSSIBLE LIBERATION OF MILLIONS OF SYRIANS! This is huge news, totally, totally support this! Vamos Palmeiras (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yeah honestly just change it to "capture" because there is almost a 100% chance that it will fall by the time it is posted Lukt64 (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Clearly notable; this is probably the biggest story of the month so far. It's already on the front page of the BBC, the New York Times, CNN, and quite a few others. Looks like it's Assad who must go, after all. Gelasin (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support The rebels have apparently taken over various government buildings, and Assad has fled Damascus. I think a more suitable blurb would include “captured” or “taken over” Damascus, but this also works. They have completely won. Hungry403 (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – al-Assad is said to have fled Damascus, but not necessarily Syria. We should have the minimum information needed in a blurb like this until the fog of war clears up a bit. DecafPotato (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No question re supporting, but let's give it a few hours for details to stabilize. We have the ongoing entry which will help in the short term, and once we can affirm via sourcing what exactly all has happened, then we can post. Just a few hours should be enough. --Masem (t) 04:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Indeed. Top news worldwide and notability is a no-brainer. The long 13 year civil war will finally conclude and Assad's regime and his Syria are completely toasted. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 (☁＝☁＝✈) 04:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The PM discussed the peaceful transfer of power, not whether Damascus (the city) has been captured or not. Reliable sources are reporting that the city is captured. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks♥) 04:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - one of the most groundbreaking news in this decade, the end of a long civil war Ive heard about my whole life, and the satisfying end of an evil and brutal dictatorial regime. Never have been more happier. CR-1-AB (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can't tell if this is premature celebration of peace being achieved or a polemical anti-immigration comment, but either way, I'm afraid that right now is probably not a great time to travel to Syria Vanilla Wizard 💙06:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
??? Refugees are already returning from Lebanon. How is this different than the quick return of refugees from the camps in Thailand to Cambodia? Nfitz (talk) 06:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely - but also not a great time to stay in Lebanon either. (though some new refugees are fleeing to Iraq). But it was the "polemical anti-immigration comment" bit I was responding to. Nfitz (talk) 08:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and the support comment has nothing to do with the ITN nom at hand. Also the refugess in Lebanon are not returning wholly voluntarily either [31]. Gotitbro (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support but prefer that we use a picture of Assad, no strong opinions on any particular file. Without question one of the most significant things I've ever seen nominated for a blurb. Though I do have to respond to some of the comments that refer to this as the end of the civil war. As much as I'd like to be able to blurb that the civil war has ended, only time will tell whether the war will rage on even with Assad out of the picture. Historical precedent shows that dictators being deposed is often what precedes years of civil war. While it's never felt closer to being over, the rebel groups aren't exactly unified. Bear in mind that the rebel group that made the largest gains in territory this week is a splinter group that split from Al Qaeda – not exactly a group that the whole of Syria will peacefully be united under. But what we know to be certain is that the Assad era of Syria is history, and that is monumental news. Vanilla Wizard 💙06:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...Yeah, capturing Damascus—the capital of Syria and the real Eternal City (sorry, Rome)—seems like kind of a big deal to me. Support.Kurtis(talk)07:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is the most influential events in modern history. This is the fall of a country's leadership dynasty of 60 years. If this isn't posted, Wikipedia is not aware of what real newses are. This indeed should be posted.MAL MALDIVE (talk) 08:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second this. Saying that the regime has collapsed is appropriate, as this is what it is being described at. The fact that Assad's fate is unclear does not prevent it from being posted, as it doesn't say that happened to Assad. Gust Justice (talk) 09:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support adding Assad. Assad being removed from power is a major part of the story as well. Any updates regarding his fate could be added once confirmed as well. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trim "by opposition groups". To those not in the know, it could suggest groups opposed to the rebels. For those who do know, it's just redundant to same. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment / Post posting support Wow. An ITN blurb being posted in....14 hours? Is that a record? I mean, it's deserved, but still...impressive. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist800018:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
14 hours might seem quick but if I recall correctly the death of Elizabeth II in 2022 was posted in under 10 minutes. I was shocked nobody made the nomination before me because I nominated it more than 25 minutes after the news first broke. Departure– (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a record - but if we are going to take credit, I'd suggest a blurb about an hour before you opened this, in the Ongoing discussion. Nfitz (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The "early life and education" section is unsourced, and so is the first paragraph of the "political career" section. Gelasin (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose There's still plenty of developments in the war and surrounding geopolitical conflict, even those that don't involve the frontlines. There's more to war than territory, and this war, despite little land changing hands in the past year or so, has proven that. Departure– (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A frozen conflict is one where active armed conflict has mostly ceased, which does not describe the Russo-Ukranian war, where the conflict is presently at its most deadly in years, despite little movement in the front lines [32]. Pluma (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's not currently a frozen conflict, but it's certainly heading in that direction. Most of the major territorial changes happened not long after the Russian invasion started almost three years ago. Gelasin (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you aren't seeing frequent coverage, I think you should be changing your newspapers subscription. Today there's most of a page here covering the Russian opposition that certainly involves the war. Yesterday the opposition had front-page coverage going onto to a 2-page spread. The day before there was a piece about trying to overcome the war damage with investment. With the recent increasing Russian advances and reports about their ever-increasing death toll, the nuclear sabre rattling over the deployment of longer range UK and US missiles there's been more coverage recently, as far as I've seen. Nfitz (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose for now because of the ascendancy of the Trump administration in January, and the subsequent negotiations he has promised to bring about to "end the war" within days or weeks. The reality is, there will be renewed press coverage and increased clarity on the future of the war within the next two months. Trump's stated strategy will either cause a truce/stagnation along current boundaries (time for removal at that point), or a major escalation (in such case we will just have to re-add it). Removing from ongoing right on the precipice of that significant geopolitical "benchmark" in the conflict, just seems silly. We could instead wait to pull the trigger on removal just a little bit longer, at a more logical time when the future of the war becomes clearer in January. FlipandFlopped ツ23:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there is no credible argument that this is less static than the Sudanese civil war. The fact that most of the world's nuclear powers are invested in the situation in Ukraine, and that none of them are similarly invested in Sudan, does matter. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*Support There have been no significant territorial changes for almost two years. The fact that it’s in the news everyday isn’t a strong argument to keep it. For instance, the COVID-19 pandemic was removed when it was top news on a daily basis just because people got used that there’s a pandemic in the world. In the same way, people are aware that there’s a war in Ukraine, so there’s no need to keep it in ongoing forever.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus on ongoing topics is not "subjective personal opinions", its based on how frequently the article(s) are being updated with significant new developments. That's still happening in the Ukraine-Russia war, not so much in the Sudan civil war. Masem (t) 00:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This suggestion appears to originate due to the current support for the Sudan war removal (why suggest it now), and it is also useful to demonstrate the type of article coverage and improvements that we expect for Ongoing topics against what is not sufficient. — Masem (t) 01:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I’ve stricken my vote here in order to vote against the removal of that item. If daily updates are what’s needed, that one doesn’t seem to fail the test either. The problem is that people don’t care about Sudan as much as about Ukraine (latent racism).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Compared to Sudan, the situation in Ukraine is still being significantly covered. If we removed this now and there's been significant movement on the next day, it will no doubt be nominated again. Moreover, now that Assad's Syria, which Russia supports is expected to collapse within a few days or so, its a question if Russia will now step up its attack. If the war drags on and continues to be stale once the upcoming Trump administration takes office in January, I will consider support removing it. For now, I strongly support keeping it. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 (☁＝☁＝✈) 00:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait We post election results, not the onset of the election period. I assume that means within 12hr we'll have them and then everything can be updated. --Masem (t) 12:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are three headings labelled results. The last of those (a level-2 heading) should have more prose about the overall outcome of the election before I would consider this ready for posting. Schwede6606:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support - The article is mostly ready (and has more prose than it used to), but it could use a little clarification on several presidential candidates' VP candidates. If they had no VP picks, that information can be given if there are any sources confirming it. Once we clean up those tags, it should be good to go.~Malvoliox(talk | contribs)16:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Call me a Support now. Enough work has been done on expanding prose -- still unclear on whether VP candidates existed for all the more minor parties, but enough additional information is on the article now to feel informative in my perspective. ~Malvoliox(talk | contribs)17:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per above, posting with more information availed later would be better than keeping readers in suspense, especially given than it may get forgotten later for some reason. ExclusiveEditorNotify Me!16:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait There's not enough information. There are no test results yet which means it could end up being a known illness (or even a mix of different illnesses), in which case it's unlikely to be ITN worthy. Johndavies837 (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose situation unlikely to develop further. Some of the sources in the article are also dubious (Newsweek is cited for some reason) Scuba18:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because events may continue to be ongoing doesn't make the topic necessarily suitable for ongoing. Ongoing line is for topics that generally get near-daily news coverage, and in the case of the Sudan war, its updates are in spurts, roughly weekly. — Masem (t) 12:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ongoing is getting long, and this article isn't updated as frequently as the others. We can add it back if something changes to warrant that. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Chaotic Enby. It is still ongoing and if anything, has intensified since we first put it on. There are still daily updates on the timeline page which include major losses of civilian life. I also do not agree on precedent with removing a conflict from ongoing, even when the loss of life and devastation remains high or growing, just to free up space - too arbitrary of a reason, IMHO. FlipandFlopped ツ15:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Not because the situation is calming down per se, but because the world is no longer paying as much attention as it once did. We don't have the civil war in Myanmar in Ongoing, and as far as I'm aware, it's no less deadly. Kurtis(talk)16:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And this is how systemic bias creeps in. The Russia-Ukraine war is much more static (no city comparable to Singa has been retaken since the frontlines stabilized two years ago), and yet, as it is more of a topic of interest to (mostly Western) editors, the war in Sudan is the one that is being considered for removal instead. "The world has moved on" is a very Western-centric way of putting it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not here to sugarcoat what the truth is. Obviously they are not on their own and should never be, but the news outlets are no longer interested in covering Sudan anymore, more important stories have developed. Kline • talk • contribs20:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Oppose. Maybe I was exaggerating at first. Despite partially feeling WP:CPP, the others have a clear point. Whether it is no longer being covered or the war has calmed down or not, the conflict isn't essentially over. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 (☁＝☁＝✈) 04:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mostly because there’s latent racism on the entire page (Sudan isn’t Ukraine and blah blah blah.) Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a news oulet, so it’s irrelevant however news oulets report about a story as long as they report about it. I see daily news reports on this war in the media (we don’t require the BBC to do it so frequently).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the only reason that its not being covered as much is because western media just wont cover african countries. this deserves to be known about. Lukt64 (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support when the current blurb rolls off. This conflict is probably the most important one in the world right now, and it will determine the future of the Assad government. The article is seeing continuous updates; this qualifies for ITN. Gelasin (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Five ongoings is going to push that to three lines and we may have problems with front-page balance in the future. We should probably consider if the Sudanese civil war is really needed at this point, given that its only getting significant content updates about once a week. --Masem (t) 04:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Things are developing really quickly right now, so it's an article many readers would be interested in. It also is seeing intense coverage by many sources. Gust Justice (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Massive changes going on and we might see a final conclusion to the 13-year civil war. I would say merge the Israel–Hamas war and the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon into either one hook or remove the Lebanese one (ceasefire, in theory) instead of removing the Sudanese one - odd to have three Middle Eastern wars right smack dab next to each other all on ITN. Juxlos (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although maybe under Syrian Civil War, since the article is still focused mostly on the Northwest Offensive while it seems like there's an effort to transition it to being more about the reignition of the civil war at large. Pluma (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Juxlos. If we have to clear up space to make this happen, I agree with merging the two Israel-related articles as opposed to removing Ukraine or Sudan. FlipandFlopped ツ23:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support putting any Syrian civil war related article in ongoing. The situation is rapidly evolving. It's very possible that we'll be posting a blurb instead soon, as it's looking increasingly likely that the Syrian Arab Republic could cease to exist soon and Assad's reign will be over. But whether or not that happens in the near future, fast-moving situations like this are a great use of Ongoing. Vanilla Wizard 💙23:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - though with the quickly changing situation, there'll likely be need to adjust the text/target now that there are reports that Damascus has fallen. Nfitz (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, with report that Damascus has fallen, the Syrian army demobilizing, Assad fled, and the Russians evacuating their naval base - maybe this should be a blurb, once the media catches up to the overnight activities and the extent dawns on them. Nfitz (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it was pulled, presumably because events overtook it with the fall of Damascus. Shortest Ongoing ever! Presumably an ongoing will return once it falls off the tracker. Nfitz (talk) 08:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support either blurb, but can we change them slightly? 'The Notre-Dame cathedral' is not idiomatic in British English. 'Notre-Dame de Paris', 'Notre-Dame Cathedral', or 'The Cathedral of Notre-Dame (de Paris)' would be better. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Idiomatically it's just Notre-Dame, no cathedral or Paris. I would go with "Notre-Dame reopens following reconstruction in the wake of the 2019 fire." GreatCaesarsGhost01:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support this altblurb once it opens: it should wait until the event has happened already and there is a picture of the reopening to attach instead of showing a picture from April. Pluma (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's not ITNR and there's no indication of significance for just another building opening up in the 21st century. If we ITN the opening of every well-known building we might as well be a construction newsletter –Jiaminglimjm (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a bit of a slippery slope fallacy. There is a feasible way to demarcate between major, widely covered closures of worldwide landmarks vs mundane construction updates to every named skyscraper with a wikipedia article... the degree of news coverage. Support. FlipandFlopped ツ23:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt2. It's the reopening of one of the greatest monuments of Western civilization. I've added an altblurb that I think flows better. Gelasin (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to say it again: Any blurb starting "The Notre" sounds weird, for the same reason it would if it was all in English and started "The Our". GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I do not like the fact there's a separate article for the ceremony of reopening, it would make far more sense for a summary coverage of it to be in the fire article as the code to the overall event. We need to stop creating articles on every trivial event with excessive details, and think about comprehensive articles first and foremost. --Masem (t) 04:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support only because the event is notable and garners wide media attention. However, the personal opinions about how great and historically notable Notre-Dame is are irrelevant and redundant (this would have not been in the news this much had it been not notable).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearly notable and well-covered event, and nicely encyclopedic, but as a side I also agree very much with Masem above about the lack of necessity for separate articles about events like these. Yakikaki (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The bolded target article should be either the reopening or Notre Dame itself. The fire article was already featured in the ITN before and now may be confusing. Brandmeistertalk22:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the fire should not be bolded. I just looked at the reopening article, and it is not much more than a stub. I fixed a sentence about the music program, but it has no reference. I came to add a recent image (that I took on 4 Dec) but found no place for it. I believe that it is less pretty than the one featured, but perhaps more informative, showing the rebuilt spire, cranes more clearly, and tents for the celebrations. It could be cropped, of course. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support (pending blurb update) – clearly significant (an EU country has just annulled an election result!) and long enough – but you seem to have linked to the parliamentary election rather than the presidential! DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 14:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article does not include the information the blurb is claiming (re: Russian interference). There should be continuity here before this is posted. --Masem (t) 14:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as there was no clear winner after the first round. It'd have been more significant had this decision annulled the final results from the presidential election in a similar way as the Supreme Court of Ukraine did during the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There may be a clear winner if a candidate wins 50%+1 of the registered voters in the first round. In this case, two candidates advanced to a run-off in the second round because no-one achieved victory in the first round. There cannot be two winners when one president is elected.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on significance and probably article quality. Its ITN notability stems from the annulling of the election, not the specific result it overturned. SerialNumber5412915:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability It would admittedly be a little unusual to blurb the first round of a multi-round election, but an annulment of an EU member state's election over Russian interference is even more unusual. I think both this and the ultimate result (whenever it comes) can reasonably be posted. FlipandFlopped ツ16:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, Good faith nom, but I think it's a bit early to nominate given how it only been a few hours since it was announced. The article section needs more time to improve first. 31.44.227.152 (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose current blurb. Heads I win, tails you lose. I don't believe the Constitutional Court's claim that it annulled the election due to alleged "Russian interference," and as such, I cannot support any blurb which presents this as fact. However, I do believe this is notable and I would support a blurb that simply states something like "The first round of the Romanian presidential election is annulled by the Romanian Constitutional Court." Gelasin (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the various reasons mentioned above; it's an unprecedented affair in recent history with global political ramifications. Joe (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree with Template:U and oppose altblurb 1. IMHO, the interference is what makes blurbing this now appropriate. If it were being annulled for some other domestic issue, I would say just wait and post the ITNR results with a little note about the delay in the blurb. I believe the consensus already formed that the alleged Russian interference is what is notable, and that this should be in the blurb. I've proposed a compromise altblurb 2 which weakens the language to "allegations", as opposed to stating the interference as a matter of fact. FlipandFlopped ツ15:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, Template:U, Template:U, Template:U, I addressed all the individual tags I could find and also removed an unnecessary section - the campaign section was duplicative of the "debates" and "leading campaign issues" sections which followed, so there was not anything to say. There was a generic "unreliable sources" banner at the top, but no individual tags to that effect. There are some cites to Facebook, but they are appropriate in context because they link to candidate statements and endorsements. Let me know if that's enough to shift your vote. FlipandFlopped ツ16:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is significant enough given the fight between West and East in East Europe. Also, the quality problems seem to have been fixed. Tradediatalk21:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The article's body looks good generally (although I am unsure about the reliability of some sources), but the filmography/TV series list is completed uncited. ForsythiaJo (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soft support pending article expansion of course. I'm thoroughly heartbroken. One of the greats of Polish satire and comedy of the last fifty years. I have lots of work over the weekend but I'd love to find the time get the article up to standard. --Ouro (blah blah) 09:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soft oppose His list of essays is strangely formatted (usually these are a bulled point list at the end of the article), and also not completely cited. There is one footnote from a website called "Spirali" addended to one of the entries that is a source for a handful, but not all of the works listed. FlipandFlopped ツ23:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's not the word "assassination", which requires knowing the motivation of the attacker. That it's a targeted attack is apparent from video evidence, but that can't read the attacker's mind. 331dot (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with "in a targeted attack". Also fine with this being merged into the RD below, so long as the proposal to blurb makes it into the merge. I don't know if there are particular mechanics for doing that. BD2412T20:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb but support RD yes this is getting news coverage in the US, but this isn't a global news story, also Thompson led a very quiet life before this, he didn't even have a page until he was killed. Almost all the articles cited in his page are either primary sources, or where made after he was killed. Scuba20:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If he led a quiet life such that we have nothing prior to this event to build an article, then that's a BLP1E issue and we shouldnt have an article on him. Really this event should be in the United Healthcare article. — Masem (t) 20:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that now, retroactively, some news sources, such as the AP, are publishing articles about his life before he was killed. The article has already been made and approved, it's quality is only going to increase from this point. It would be silly to delete it. Scuba03:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb but support RD. Unless there's some indication that this was a political act, terrorism, or an international death squad then I don't see that it's ITN. It barely even meets GNG for an independent article which makes even an RD questionable - but I think this is a break-all-the-rules occasion and we should post an RD, even if an article for him doesn't meet the requirement of an article through WP:SINGLEEVENT. Nfitz (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add, I am not making any objection on this yet as a normal ITNC, as even if not ITNR it's still worthwhile to include. It just doesn't seem to have the automatic ITNR aspect. — Masem (t) 20:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a mistake, the French President has power over diplomacy and national security while the PM is the one actually heading the day-to-day government. I guess since it's a semi-presidential system it sorta blurs the line. Scuba20:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part of it is the problem that Wikipedia's own terminology really just assumes that every government just follows the Westminster System, (where all de-facto power on the top level derives from a single elected legislative body that picks its own leader) and thus assumes everything in every other government can be directly translated to an equivalent role. (e.g, treating the United states President as the same as the UK's Prime Minister, just elected separately) As we can see here, there's places where the site's attempts at direct, 1-for-1 parallels on a per-member basis tend to fall apart once you leave the Commonwealth. Realistically I don't think there's any hard-and-fast rule that can just be applied to all governments, but instead it'd need to be evaluated nearly on a per-country basis, and that in many countries like France... The role of "head of government" can't be cleanly placed onto a single head like it can in the United Kingdom. Nottheking (talk) 08:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Irrespective of whether this is ITNR or not (in the French system, both the President and the Prime Minister kinda head the government), this is worth blurbing. First time since 1962 that a French government is toppled by a vote of no confidence. Khuft (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Regarding the ITN/R status, France has the technicality that the President has more power over the executive outside of cohabitation, and the Prime Minister during cohabitation. And, well, the Macron/Barnier situation was variously described as a messy kind-of cohabitation, although Macron is still considered to have retained more power. So, it's not clear-cut, but not necessarily ITN/R. Still, this is a major political crisis we're getting into, as no group can realistically build a majority coalition and the 2025 budget has to be voted soon, so it's very much significant enough in my opinion. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Chaotic Enby. It's sort of a pseudo-ITNR situation given the cross party appointment and the state of the legislature. However, regardless it is getting extensive worldwide news coverage and should qualify as a normal ITN candidate anyway. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions20:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question - is it the government that lost a non-confidence vote, or the Prime Minister? I'm not sure the exact phrasing of this particular motion, but in most countries it's the government that falls, not the PM; which could lead to the appointment or selection of a new PM to lead a new government, or even the reappointment of the same PM if there's behind the scenes negotiation to obtain support. Nfitz (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can piece together, it's sorta like the British sytem. The government is gone, Macron has to appoint a new PM and whoever (if anyone) gets approved by the assembly has to make their own cabinet. Scuba04:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is in good shape; very solid-quality piece. As far as the notability of his position, we have to remember that not every country just has a carbon copy of the United Kingdom's Westminster System, so there often is more than a single "Head of Government." And given that the UK gets two official leaders (Head of State & Head of Government) to merit ITN attention, it's fair to consider most other countries get two such positions, with the Prime Minister of France (who does wield many powers analogous to a Westminster-style PM even if the President is still the official Head of Government) fits the bill here. Nottheking (talk) 08:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is just a consequence of the summer election (which we posted) as its failure to establish a clear majority continues to play out. Barnier will continue as a caretaker PM as no successor is in sight and so the French govt is still a work-in-progress. It's like the continual crisis of the speaker elections and stopgap budgets in the US in 2023 and ITN didn't post every twist in that saga. The broader encyclopaedic topic is the general economic instability and unrest following the COVID-19 recession which is making it hard for incumbents everywhere – Germany, South Korea, &c... Andrew🐉(talk) 13:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The broader encyclopedic topic by itself isn't really suitable for ITN due to poor story-article correlation. Items like this are suitable because they speak towards the broader topic. Duly signed,⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)13:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as ITNR In my view, this is clearly ITNR. The ITNR rule allows for elections for "head of state and government". France has a different head of state (Macron) than head of government (Marnier). It does not say "head of state OR government" - the choice of "and" in the ITNR rule therefore implies that both should be posted. If we would like to change the ITNR rule to only designate a single ITNR election per country, that is also fine, but this is not the place to do so. We must enforce the current ITNR rule as it is drafted. FlipandFlopped ツ14:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are some govts where the head of govt is purely ceremonial as all the power lies in the head of state, and in those cases, changes in the head of govt are not significant. As long as we, as shown here, can discuss and reach the same conclusion for a head of govt solely from an ITNC approach without invoking ITNR, it's probably best to leave the ITNR alone. — Masem (t) 14:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now due to lack of article - first of all, this is clearly not ITN/R, there's nothing in the provisions for this scenario - thus far Barnier hasn't yet left office and he isn't the most senior poltician in France anyway, that would be Macron. That said, I do in principle think we should post this... *but* the story needs an article. We have March 2023 French votes of no confidence for the less newsworthy ones that didn't succeed, so it is not a correct situation for this story to lack one. Linking to the BLP on Barnier isn't the answer to that, the story isn't just about him anyway it's about his whole government and the much wider situation concerning French politics. Effectively this is an oppose on "quality", since an article not existing is rather a severe quality concern — Amakuru (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not every event needs a sepearate article, and this impulse editors have to rush to create one is a larger problem with NOTNEWS and article creation in general. ITN just requires a significant update to some article. — Masem (t) 14:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be an alright contender for the bold link. But the notion that this event doesn't need an article is bunkum. With a few exceptions, if a story isn't notable enough to be covered anywhere except in a BLP article then it almost certainly isn't worthy of inclusion in ITN. This no-confidence motion clearly should have one (or at the very least a prominent section in the article Andrew mentions) and we shouldn't list it under the Barnier BLP just because nobody has created the necessary proper prose for it. — Amakuru (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue that we have NOTNEWS problems is the idea event must be distilled into a new article, but that has never been a requirement for ITN posting. Is this event worthy of its own article? Ignoring ISE logic, right now it feels it is part of of larger picture related to the Barnier govt, since the the no confidence vote was a result in that. It makes far more sense to this to be the coda of the existing Barnier government article (which is nowhere close to being too long to include) rather than a separate article that would require adding more context that already exists in the Barnier govt article. I agree the BLP article is probably not the best target, but a new article is also not required when there is a clear suitable article right there already. Masem (t) 19:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now due to lack of article This probably already counts for ITN/R (as many have already noted), and even without that this is already significant for being the first time since 1962 that a French government lost a no-confidence motion. All the more reason then that there should be a separate article for this, because that same 1962 motion has been at least covered under the 1962 French presidential election referendum, and more recently the ITN blurb for Imran Khan's deposition in April 2022 also bolded the No-confidence motion against Imran Khan article. Yo.dazo (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because this is notable in France and I put it in 2024, but this hasn't led to a new head of government being appointed. Barnier is still the caretaker PM. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As many have said above this, this only means that this doesn't count as WP:ITN/R. To me at least, being the first time a French government was dissolved by a no-confidence vote since 1962 is enough for WP:ITNSIGNIF. Yo.dazo (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ITN is not a news ticker, we are not required to post things in a hasty manner. That part of france's govt still remains collapsed, so this is still very relevant. — Masem (t) 20:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is about the VONC, not the continuing travails of the French government. If it is posted soon then it will have been twenty-six hours since: either modify the blurb or close the discussion. We shouldn't be "hasty", but we equally shouldn't be letting news discussions run into a third day. There's no point. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have a seven day period for noms to be added and posted for ITN for a reason, it's for us to feature quality articles that have been in the news, not to keep readers abreast of the news. Masem (t) 21:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Masem - no need for hastiness. Also: Macron just announced a couple of hours ago that he will nominate a new PM "in the coming days". We might as well wait for the nomination of the new PM, and then fold the vote of no confidence into the blurb. Khuft (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now because there is no article yet. The political situation in France is very fluid and so we might be getting a lot of events and we don't want to be a news ticker. Maybe as these events unfold, we would have had the time to write a comprehensive article about them. Tradediatalk08:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Add alt1 and lean wait maybe we could wait if Macron appoint a new French PM in the coming days and combine two events into one blurb. Haers6120 (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt1 in principle but the quality on the new article isn't quite there yet. Background section needs citations. Unmarking as ready pending this being done. — Amakuru (talk) 07:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good faith nom, but we're not going to post the cabinet appointments of any president, or minister appointments of any PM. Certainly the nominations of Gaetz, Hegseth, and RFK Jr are more newsworthy than this nomination. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, in addition to the fact there is no confirmation by the senate yet for this. None of these appointments are set in stone yet. Masem (t) 16:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as the article about him was just created today and looking through older news, I don't see any type of coverage that would have made him notable before this shooting, this failing BLP1E. And while we could consider the event as possibly notable, there's very little known as to motive to make a good article on it.Masem (t) 15:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That reason @Masem, is not mentioned as an RD requirement in WP:ITN/DC. This RD 100% meets the requirements laid out at RD:ITN/DC, so this "vote" should not be considered. Also, that it's brand new is now a stale argument on December 6th for this December 4th event. Nfitz (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is a necessary element of quality assessment. And while it may be possible that notability of a person prior to their death could come in the form of post-death obits and other pieces, that simply hasn't happen here. Details about his life that are presently in the article are superfilious and do not show significant coverage from secondary sources. — Masem (t) 00:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
superfilious? That's not a word, nor does supercilious make any sense. Nevertheless, a notability debate is not on-topic here. Please discuss this in an appropriate forum. Nfitz (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Given that he technically does have an article now, I think he passes notability if there's enough info to expand the article. Until then, it's not ready. Estreyeria (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support there is an AP article out now that talks about his life before he was assassinated, but I understand the concerns that he didn't really get much media coverage before he was killed. Scuba20:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Oppose I'm not too sure if Thompson is really notable other than his death. He isn't that widely known as the CEO of UnitedHealth and thus the article may violate WP:BLP1E. INeedSupport:304:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article looks significantly improved and very well referenced; it's good to go. And I'm seeing a lot more media reports about this death, than many that are listed at RD. Some of the opposition above seems to not have any weight, as if an article for a person exists, then it's the quality of the article that's the issue; not a debate their notability! Nfitz (talk) Nfitz (talk) 07:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article seems to be well-cited, and cover a decent breadth of the subject's life & career; a very solid Start-class article, (and potentially well on its way to a C-class in the coming days at this rate) thus passing the threshold for RD. Also, while the article didn't exist until this person's death, that does not really speak of WP:SINGLEEVENT, and more just to how many people who do meet the notability threshold for WP slip through the cracks just because they don't happen to be prominent in the fields presently-active Wikipedians care about. Being specifically named in a pretty sizable insider trading prosecution definitely adds another dimension, and he was in a position that arguably gave him more power than a single member of perhaps any country's legislature. So I'm disinclined to put much worry in any 1E concerns; it almost feels as if those citing them as their "oppose" are neglecting to notice the rest of this person's history as a result of this article only cropping up in the past 24 hours. Nottheking (talk) 08:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, take out the events from yesterday, and what you are left with is an article that fails WP:N and WP:NBIO. The coverage of his life that has come out after his death is very superficial, and most of it is stuff that is more in conjunction with his function as CEO of UHC, which is not an aspect of notability related to the person themselves but of UHC. I looked myself for sources on him as a person published before the events of yesterday, and there was only weak primary sources (noting him becoming CEO) This is exactly the type of scenario that WP:BLP1E is meant to avoid, where after death there may be some coverage but no indication that the person was notable before death. As I noted in the other nomination, if anything, this is something that should be covered in the UHC article, not a separate article for a weakly notable event and non-notable individual. — Masem (t) 13:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When an article is created on the person's death, we have in the past questioned if the person was really notable to start with. Otherwise, people could game this to create an article about numerous non notable people that due as part of a news event, and then push them to RD. — Masem (t) 00:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's fair to examine the question on if they were notable. However, it is not correct to simply assume that they were not notable just because an article did not exist until their death. After all, that assumption also logically extends to the assumption that anyone who doesn't already have a WP article on them must not be notable, which clearly lands into the realm of logical fallacy.
The failure of Wikipedia's editors to keep up with an unending requirement for exhaustive coverage does not speak anything towards the merit of the subject matter, merely the biases of Wikipedia's editors. Like the numerous biases known present in Wikipedia (which get discussed here all the time, such as how non-English-language locales tend to get ignored) the solution is to attempt to address these bias-related gaps... Not to attempt justification of those gaps. Nottheking (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It seems incredible that a person of this significance and a story of this magnitude would fail BLP1E, but here we are. This is where Wikipedia's rules have the right of it. Duly signed,⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)13:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a rule, @WaltCip. The (not a ) rule here is that RD's are based on quality - not the person - as long as the article exists. There's no AFD going on, and even a renaming discussion doesn't have consensus. Will the closer please disregard this "vote". As noted above, comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD. Nfitz (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If notability was an issue the article would have been at AFD or another forum. It isn't. Please discuss this in an appropriate forum. Nfitz (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently ongoing RFCs about moving or merging the article to "Killing of...", so yes, it is being considered. — Masem (t) 13:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As long as there is an ongoing RFC on whether this person merits a separate article, this article should not be up for consideration for ITN/RD. Duly signed,⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)14:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need to keep in mind around all of this that this is the type of sensationalist journalism that we should not be trying to promote on WP as an encyclopedia. For the mainstream media, it is clearly a story that is driving them clicks, and its being heavily discussed on social media (not necessarily in good ways), but from the standpoint of an actual encyclopedic-level event, it so far has very little impact on the larger picture. This is the type of bias we have to be very cautious of falling for. One person, who was not notable, was killed by another person, who was not notable before all this, which most of the time would have been buried to local news. But because this happened in NYC in broad daylight, and that the person that was killed was head of a company that numerous people want to hate, its blown up to this big story. Type of stuff that if this had happened before the Internet, we'd probably never would have covered. --Masem (t) 13:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much what Template:U said; the story doesn't have legs. No long-term significance to speak of, in contrast to something such as the Sandy Hook shootings, the reverberations of which are still felt to this day. Duly signed,⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)14:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There could be implications in the future (what social media cheering on is this form of vigilante justice against anti-consumer corporations, and I would not be surpised if we similar incidents) but that's a huge CRYSTAL that we shouldn't be using to claim importance on WP. The event can be documented, but that doesn't make it ITN. And to add to this, to try to stretch what little pre-death coverage there was for the bio article, there's BLP problems now with it (the whole controversies section is more a corporate matter than him as a person), which is not appropriate at all. This is a prime example of how bad we are nowadays around NOTNEWS and dealing with such matters. — Masem (t) 14:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this Template:Tq The killing of a CEO of a major company in broad daylight would always been a big story, even in 1980. Also, just because it "would not have been notable in 1980" does not mean that it is not notable in 2024. GNG is clearly met due to the media coverage surrounding the person's killing (and the current search for the perpetrator). Natg 19 (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A burst of news coverage, of which this still is, is not sufficient for notability per GNG and NEVENT. There is no indication of enduring coverage. Same applies to BLP, which is why BLP1E exists.
And keep in mind, we are seeing the impacts of 24/7 news coverage (which didn't exist before the internet) and the aspect that social media attention is keeping this as a high-priority story for the media. The amount of coverage about Thompson and the impact on UHC is surprisingly small compared to the coverage of the manhunt for the suspect. Masem (t) 18:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you (or Template:U) feel so strongly about this, feel free to nominate this article at AfD. Currently, this article is well-cited and is solidly written, which meets the standards at RD. ITN is not for arguing for or against an RD's notability. Notability discussions should occur at the appropriate venues. Natg 19 (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support The RD requirements as laid out in the ITN guidelines are met. Opposing for WP:GNG reasons is trying to litigate the merge discussion on the article's talk page through its ITN nom. It behooves noting that at the present time, there are 40 votes opposed to merging and only 19 votes in favour - the anti-notability argument is a minority view which is far from consensus, and trying to "win" the discussion here in defiance of consensus is shortcutting the process. If an admin DOES take the underlying WP:GNG argument into account, they should look at the discussion holistically, including reading the entire merge proposal discussion on the article's talk page. If the oppose votes outnumber the support votes here, that gives a false impression because there is an emerging consensus that he is sufficiently notable for his own article (and in turn, for RD so long as quality requirements are met). FlipandFlopped ツ16:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article is now expanded and suitable for RD. This seems like a case where a notable death brings light on an individual that arguably met the notability standards beforehand, given the pre-killing sources available. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions17:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Per Template:U, this is clearly WP:BLP1E territory, but per Template:U, this is not the appropriate venue to be considering notability. Template:U made the good point that ITN's purpose is to allow people to find information they may have seen in the news on Wikipedia. This isn't the place to be debating whether his death should be in the news. Rather, we should be taking what is in the news and directing users to its location on Wikipedia. /home/gracen/ (yell at me here) 23:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Posted This person has an article that's well developed and is clear of any issues. It hasn't been taken to AfD. Therefore, it's eligible for RD. Schwede6621:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a controversy section that is a BLP violation as I noted above, and there are merge discussions on the talk page (which is equivalent to AFD), so this was a bad posting. Masem (t) 21:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, Template:U. Not sure whether you wanted me to see your post, but if the answer is yes, please note that I don't have this page on my watchlist. Hence, you'd need to ping me. Either way, I'm working my way up this page now, and the next RD will push Thompson off the main page. Schwede6622:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support if the CN can be addressed. It's being widely reported in English speaking press as well so those sources could be used to improve the article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "suicide" qualifies to many here as a "newsworthy death" (and many are opposed to death blurbs in general except in rare cases). Natg 19 (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Her suicide sparked significant discussion about euthanasia in Taiwan and China, potentially making it a noteworthy event. However, there is no need to use a blurb, as it lacks substantial international recognition compared to other events during this eventful winter. Free ori (talk) 05:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good faith nom, but it's hard to find the ITN justification here. While it's still novel to accurately predict a meteroid's impact with Earth before it happens, it's already far from a "first," and outside of this, has seemingly little for ramifications. It'd be an excellent DYK candidate, however. Nottheking (talk) 08:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a possible DYK candidate for now as still below the 1500 characters limit. Also already created 6 days ago, so it only has one more day to be expanded and nominated. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is nearly stale too? Darn. As much as I'd like to see this type of thing posted if they have a full 6 days to establish notability and can't muster enough for even 1500 words of prose then they really don't have a shot at ITN. Departure– (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the coverage seems pretty brief and minor. And it was so small (only 700 millimetres) it didn't even reach earth. There's millions of impacts a day! Nfitz (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not the longest lede time before a predicted impact, nor the first this year (by quite a lot). I honestly can't say a non-damaging asteroid is going to make it through ITN until it manages to be detected a full 24 hours before impact, given how many we've seen. Departure– (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
soft oppose results still coming in, even the articles cited by nominator note that the election is being disputed. not sure why they'd treat it as if Netumbo uncontroversially won. Scuba21:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep in mind WP:AGF. It was not my intention to imply such a thing. In terms of the vote count, it is 90 percent in, and preliminary investigations by the African Union didn’t note any sort of discrepancies thus far. Seems like Itula challenged the previous election results as well, but I’m not familiar regarding the blurb's wording if the previous presidential election was on ITN. Ornithoptera (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I sounded accusational, but the general rule of thumb is that if there is any doubt in an election results to word the ITN blurb along the lines of "was declared the winner of" instead of "won the". Scuba01:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is an election of a country's head of state and government. 99.18% of the vote is in and with almost 58% of that vote going to Netumbo, it seems clear the remaining votes will not be enough to change the outcome. I think this is safe to post. Gelasin (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soft support article lacks any sense of prose, just being bullet points, and there is a random map for some reason, but everything is properly cited. Scuba16:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until the ramifications are known. This was stated in a late night address and didn't state what measures were going to be taken. Most analysts are saying this is political posturing since he, being right-leaning, has had clashes with the left-leaning Parliament. Masem (t) 14:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding that once we have a better picture if the situation, this is completely appropriate to post. Just that it only happened a couple hours ago so there's no clear picture yet. — Masem (t) 15:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But there is also statements that the Parliament is meeting at a different location as to block the martial law statement. There's a lot of suddenly moving parts, and as ITN is not a news ticker, it's better to have a stable picture if what is happening than to rush a half finished article based on initial reports. — Masem (t) 15:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yonhap has reported that martial law suspended parliament and political parties, and banned all protests under threat of arrest. A head of state and government making an announcement like that alone, regardless of the actual implementation, is ITN material. Juxlos (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to say what it is. There's reports that members are being let into Parliament. In which case, it will quickly vote to end martial law. On the other hand, the order seems to suspend parliament - which given parliament is supposed to vote on martial law, would indeed be a coup. Where's the Prime Minister - I see no mention in the reporting; he's in for a surprise when he gets up in the morning. Nfitz (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The parliament voted unanimously, with 190 lawmakers voting to overturn the proclamation of martial law - and apparently the military have left the National Assembly. A YTN correspondent at Ministry of Defense stated that Spokesperson said until the president orders the quell, martial law is in effect - so it is pretty much not clear , and we should wait for new info to come in before posting it to the main page The AP (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Major liberal democracy has the army occupying the capital city, martial law being declared with the national assembly suspended. Government taking control of media, political activities banned. This is massive and should be posted. But we definitely need more details ASAP, it seems like nobody knows what the hell is going on in South Korea right now PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for at least 12 hours. Since the declaration was made at 22:30 local time, it will take longer to get consequences and write well curated article. Didgogns (talk) 15:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support in a few hours -- absolutely notable and major news. Information will be coming in very very quickly and very very messily, so we may need to wait a couple of hours since this is still very hot off the press.(Discuss0nshore'scontributions!!!) 16:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The order prohibits activities by Parliament. This would suggest that it's certainly a coup attempt, given parliament has to approve. In an advanced democracy! This is important. Nfitz (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is nothing short of an attempted coup. (the question remains if it's a military coup). This is massive news, the article appears to be good enough. Post now. Nfitz (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, still too soon. How Yong will react to the nullification is a key point to know how this will play out, and until we know that, stability is still in question. — Masem (t) 16:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, but wait at least 12 hours. It's 1:30 am in Korea and the situation will doubtless change overnight. This appears to be an attempt at a self coup, which is certainly worth an ITN blurb whether it succeeds or fails. We don't know which it will be, but should do by tomorrow morning. Our article is a good start, given what we know so far, but is changing by the minute. Modest Geniustalk16:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support First declaration of martial law since South Korea's democratization. Still left to be seen if it'll last, but this is a major event being broadcast by a lot of news anchors. Dyaquna (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Support The martial law only lasted for around 2 hours but declaring it in the first place is already significant enough. It's very rare for martial law to take effect in general. INeedSupport:317:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the assembly has managed to vote to lift it, and troops are leaving the building (they can't have been trying very hard to stop the vote). Still the attempt is hugely noteworthy. Though perhaps we'll have to change it to impeachment shortly. Nfitz (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Despite the National Assembly lifting the martial law, the military declares the vote invalid and declares that the martial law stays in effect until the president ends it. INeedSupport:317:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Considering that almost nothing in this situation's final yet, it's probably better to phrase the blurb as an attempted declaration. Added the third altblurb to reflect this. Yo.dazo (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pull - I feel my vote is useless at this point but here goes: For a rapidly developing event whose effects are not yet known, posting this within 3 hours of nomination with almost half the !votes being wait was jumping the gun ✈ mike_gigstalkcontribs18:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that it is currently unclear how to properly phrase blurbs for rapidly-developing events, but I think it's only right that something be posted as soon as possible—this is breaking news in the truest possible sense, after all. I'm also against pulling the blurb now, since it would imply that the news sources for this was incorrect in some way. Yo.dazo (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The blurb makes it sound like the National Assembly lifted the martial law, which isn't the case, as the President still needs to proclaim it being lifted. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently a Kowiki user on Discord clarified that it was a machine translation error—and it actually translates to "Speaker of the National Assembly: I sent (letters) to the president and minister of national defense." The AP (talk) 18:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Post-Posting Support. Even if the martial law is lifted, it's still a shocking, disruptive, and controversial move that will likely have massive political implications for Yoon when all is said and done. Think the right call was made in posting this. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update 2 adjusted the published blurb to account for Yoon's announcement that lifted the martial law. Feel free to adjust the blurb further if required. – robertsky (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Less of a comment and more of a question, but the National Assembly has began to vote on Yoon's impeachment after these events. Assuming he is impeached, would we, one, blurb it, and two, would we combine it with this blurb? User:TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As that is likely to take place Saturday, it would be better to make it a new nomination to replace the current blurb (if still there) as to make sure the article is still of quality to post. — Masem (t) 23:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not too late - Debbie Mathers below is still on the template and there's one behind that. This should be posted while there's still time. Departure– (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've loved the Hammersley sofa gif in the article ever since I saw it and would love this article to be on the front page, but no third-party recognition shown. Wouldn't be opposed if some shows up. Blythwood (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even ignoring the questionable nature of how significant this is, this is not yet a peer-reviewed published paper, nor covered by the news, so it fails on several counts. --Masem (t) 03:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Problems get solved all the time. The invention of plastic furniture movers that are placed under the legs of a sofa has done more for my upholstery transportation woes than this solution ever will and we didn't blurb those (although, now that I mention it...) Departure– (talk) 03:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at least on article quality. It us a bit of an OR there as it is combining multiple events, some being connected, sone not, into a larger crisis, which doesn't seem directly supported by sources. Further, as a top level summary article with many nains/seealsos links, it is far too detailed and too much proseline. Masem (t) 00:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I commend the effort to try and consolidate all the ongoing Israel/USA-Iranian proxy conflicts into a single article, but as it currently stands that article is of too low quality to be ITN. Scuba06:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now - There are a whole lot of scientific advances I'd prioritize posting before the first dissection of a rare whale, let alone the start of it. I definitely agree, though, it seems every new blurb is an election where the incumbent loses or a war cycling. Departure– (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly the update is a bit sparse for now. The July updates were great tho, so if we're featuring it for that... that could be reasonable but a bit unusual. (image is amazing of course). I would love to support, but I think we need to add some prelimenary results of the disection first if such a thing can exist. It's a bit of a non-story right now. Common problem in the sciences of course. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 21:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose maybe when the results of the study come out, but as it stands now there wasn't too much coverage on this. Scuba18:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the format should follow that of the French election earlier this year I think, which had a very similar outcome.[36] I have added an alt blurb which matches this. In any case we certainly shouldn't use "plurality" that's not a term used in the part of the world concerned. I haven't looked at quality yet. — Amakuru (talk) 12:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the 'electoral system' section lacks citations. Most of that is uncontroversial but nevertheless should be supported with references. The 'aftermath' section is a bigger problem, with several paragraphs on the implications for different parties that completely lack sources. The rest of the article is in good shape, but those two sections need fixing before posting. Modest Geniustalk16:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't see a lot of good chances for this to be expanded to an encyclopedic quality article. This is the tye of news event that can be slotted into one of our disaster lists, but whether a standalone can even work is questionable. Masem (t) 22:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It would make more sense to put Northwestern Syria Offensive as ongoing rather than the entire war. For example, The Israel-Hamas war is marked as ongoing, but not the I/P conflict in general. Pyramids09 (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready. There's no prose at all on the results or aftermath, an unreferenced section and unreferenced table, a blank seats diagram, extensive WP:PROSELINE problems etc. The article needs work before it could be posted. Modest Geniustalk16:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's only being trumpeted between conservative and some extreme liberal voices complaining that Biden said he wouldn't do it in the first place. Hunter has been used as a political pawn and it's very much internal US politics that have little large term impacts. Masem (t) 00:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dismissing the pardon as insignificant overlooks its broader implications. The pardon of a sitting president’s child is a highly unprecedented event. Moreover, ignoring or downplaying the significance of a president pardoning his son blocks public scrutiny to the case, eroding Wikipedia's transparency as a free encyclopedia. It’s an event that speaks to transparency, fairness, and the potential for conflicts of interest, which affect the world's major power. The claim that "it’s only being trumpeted by conservative and extreme liberal voices" suggests that those who disagree with this action are merely a fringe group, which is a gross oversimplification (despite those two groups technically making up over half of the population). By framing the situation in such binary, partisan terms, you ignore the legitimate concerns of the broader public, many of whom may feel uncomfortable with such an unprecedented move regardless of their political affiliation, not even mentioning that there are 4 sources linked there, and none of them can be labeled as conservatives nor extremely liberal. It is essential to separate political leanings from legitimate critiques of power and authority. These concerns are not about "political pawn" narratives—they’re about ensuring checks and balances in governance, something that is central to any healthy democracy. Furthermore, the argument that this is a minor issue with "little long-term impact" fails to understand the symbolic significance of this act. Dismissing the matter as insignificant risks trivializing an important issue that could have far-reaching effects on the public's trust in their leaders. By not addressing this transparently, we allow a culture of impunity to develop—something that harms everybody. In conclusion, minimizing or disregarding the significance of such an unprecedented act is both naive and dangerous.45.164.174.27 (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given how much criticism there exists on Trump's incoming administration, including those who he had already pardoned, this action by Biden is extremely small in the larger picture of things. It is not going to change the course of US politics one iota from the path it is currently on. It is not WP's place to right great wrongs, or in this case, to call out on the hypocrisy of what Biden promised verses what he actually did, and thus to question the public's trust in US leadership. Masem (t) 05:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Masem. Little to no long term impact. Wikipedia is not obligated to show every news item in ITN, and posting or not posting is not an issue of transparency. Natg 19 (talk) 06:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt it's not every day that the President of the United States pardons his son of any and all crimes, both known and unknown, over a decade long period, especially after promising to not to. Scuba06:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Heads of state pardon convicted criminals all the time. I don't see why is this one particularly notable given that he's not even been convicted on any of the criminal offences.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He was convicted on criminal gun possession and tax fraud charges, just never got to sentencing on either case. Else the pardon wouldn't be necessary. Not saying that to support posting, just that these criminal convictions are on the books. — Masem (t) 13:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added ISBNs Grimes2 (talk) 04:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
_Cheongju_Intl_Airport_May_14,_2021.jpg)
, no dead refs, size 
_(cropped).jpg)
Done Now @Bagumba and 31.44.227.152: you can switch your votes because ISBNs and sources or both have been added to all. --ExclusiveEditor 🔔 Ping Me! 16:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)_4K-AZ65_Antalya_Airport_June_18,_2016_(cropped).jpg)
Question: Ready? ArionStar (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
— Amakuru (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
.jpeg){kind=link}
![[35]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2024_August_28#File:Juan_izquierdo_en_cndef.jpg){kind=link}