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.
The bodies of fourteen aid workers killed on March 23 are recovered from a mass grave in southern Gaza. One body had previously been recovered and one more is believed to remain buried. Of the sixteen workers, nine are members of the Palestine Red Crescent Society, six are civil defense workers, and one is a UN agency employee. (CNN)
Japanese restaurant chain Sukiya orders the temporary closure of almost all of its nearly 2,000 locations in the country after finding a rat and a cockroach in its food. (AP)(CBS News)
Nominator's comments: The most popular politician in France(by some measures) and likely candidate again, convicted of a crime and prevented from running for president in 2027 seems worth including. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it would benefit from more than one paragraph on this. There's no detail. She was sentenced to prison - was that suspended? We only cover the conviction. Secretlondon (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose criminal getting sentenced is hardly big news. It's not in the news worldwide either, even here in the US with all the surge of popularity of certain far-right/fascist/neo-nazi politicians, i had to scroll all the way to the middle to find a mention of hers on the https://www.nytimes.com/2A02:C6C1:A:28E:0:0:0:22 (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose on notability for now - Le Pen was the frontrunner in French right-wing politics and a conviction like this was unexpected to me - but since they were never properly in office, I can't give my full support as I would to, say, Trump. Departure– (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Needs work There's a specific article about this matter: National Rally assistants affair. The article about Marine Le Pen doesn't work for me currently -- it causes Chrome to crash when I try to open it.
And I don't like the proposed blurb as it just calls the offence embezzlement when it seems more political/technical than that. It's not clear why the people that they nominated as assistants were not acceptable.
Embezzlement to me suggests personal gain whereas this seems to be more of a party matter as Le Pen is just one of 21 party officials who have been caught violating some technicality. It doesn't seem to be a hand-in-the-till kind of thing. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Misappropriation would probably be less confusing, as basically the people paid (by the EU) to work at the EU parliament were working at the National Front party HQ on national politics and campaigning. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥21:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
obvious oppose knew it'd be nominated. It is in the news, but there's also an appeal pending and it's sub-national. doubt we'd post former potf sarkozy due soon.Sportsnut24 (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sportsnut24 We don't wait for all appeals to be exhausted (which can take years) before posting a conviction. It'd be stale at the end of that time. It's not "sub-national". She is a national figure. When Trump was convicted by the State of New York, that was posted even though New York is "sub-national". Sarkozy has already been convicted of crimes. 331dot (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is akin to keeping Donald Trump out of the 2024 election beforehand(which was attempted and failed). She's the leading candidate in the polls(in the first and second round). We don't wait for all appeals to be exhausted before posting something; it would be stale at the end of that time("should have posted it when it happened!"). I'm not understanding most of the resistance here; I guess ITN is getting away from me. 331dot (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not understanding the lack of consistency too. Recent examples of postings include the arrest of the Turkish mayor, the arrest of the South Sudanese VP and the arrest of the Philippines former president. Those all seemed quite political and they were arrests not convictions. This French matter seems quite political too but at least it's a conviction, not just an arrest. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stop leaving out the context! They have justified notability and not just political disagreement reasons
the arrest of Ekrem İmamoğlu, the mayor of Istanbul was an example of Turkey’s democratic backsliding under Erdogan, which also exploded into the massive 2025 Turkish protests. Hence the notability.
Rodrigo Duterte’s arrest by the ICC was part of a larger investigation of his regime’s violent war on drugs that costed many lives. It was also notable as he was the first Asian leader ICC arrest.
Be careful what you wish for. The South Sudanese VP is worth saying more about because ITN has run a picture of him and his wife for several days now, as if they are the most important couple in the world; even more important than the big earthquake which is the actual top blurb. This is remarkable because nobody actually cares about this guy or even knows who he is. They couldn't even tell you much about South Sudan and its politics because they get almost no coverage in the news. The vice president that has actually been all over the news lately is JD Vance – visiting Greenland, making waves in Signalgate, picking fights with Zelensky, Europe and the rest of the world. But he is getting zero coverage on ITN because he's American. Marine Le Pen stands a chance of being posted because she's not American but is getting opposition because people have heard of her and she's from a major country that they have heard of too. Is that enough context for you or would you like some more? Andrew🐉(talk) 07:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of this takes away from the fact that the original convictions were not posted simply for being convictions. If you have a problem with the image take it up at errors, repeatedly bringing up the South Sudanese item in unrelated noms is an abuse of the process and disruptive at this point.
And no we are not a news ticker and especially not for Trump and his cabinet.
Just as a comment, we know nearly every conviction will be appealed, but for purposes of ITN that initial conviction is sufficient evidence for posting, and if the conviction does get overturned we would also have reason to post that. (I believe we did that we Cosby recently). I'm not suggesting that's a reason to post this, but we should not let the fact that a conviction is getting appealed be reason to not post if all other considerations were met. Masem (t) 15:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It cannot be suspended during the appeal process, but of course it could be shortened or rescinded by a successful appeal. This is what happened with Juppé... -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥23:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle - she came second in the most recent election, and opinion polls show her as having a good chance of winning the next one, so this isn't some obscure politician. We do have a specific article about the case: National Rally assistants affair, however it's pretty brief at present. That article should be brought up to postable standard and used as the bold link. I've proposed an altblurb above. Modest Geniustalk15:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm actually surprised there is so much opposition to this. This is France - a G7 country, nuclear power, permanent member of the UN Security Council etc and Le Pen was leading the polls of prospective presidential candidates for 2027. There's always going to be a cloud over things like this as to whether they are in fact political stitch ups. As for appeals I don't see that as a reason not to post now, the conviction is already beyond all reasonable doubt and the bar from office is being applied from this point. I can't help but feel some of the opposition here is a pro-Anglophone bias and while that may be justifiable to some extent in our editorial decisions on the English Wikipedia this is a big story from a world power. 3142 (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability, as this is quite major news internationally, especially in context to both illiberal politics and Europe, both of which are some of the dominant topics of geopolitics. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support altblurb It's an unusual event that is getting widespread global coverage in the reliable sources even outside of France - so, why not? As the IP address oppose votes itself points out, it is getting covered by the New York Times. But in case that wasn't enough, see also Times of India, Sydney Herald, Times of Israel, Toronto Star. All of those publications have not only the linked articles, but now multiple articles about the ramifications of this arrest. This should be blurbed. FlipandFlopped ツ16:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support altblurb - Major political figure in a G7 country, leading in polls for the next presidential election, finished second in 2022, now convicted and barred from office. Widely covered in international news media. --PJ Geest (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Le Pen article has a few unsourced statements. Also would suggest noting twelve others were also convicted in the same trial on the blurb. Masem (t) 18:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. She's not a president or ex-president, so why is this notable enough for ITN? There are countless officials of actual executive governments who get convicted without receiving an ITN, and Marine Le Pen lacks even those political credentials.
QalasQalas, Nominations do not necessarily need separate articles. Where did this incorrect notion appear from? I feel like I have seen it repeated a lot recently. Curbon7 (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per most of the above. We don't post national political events other than elections or changes in heads of state/government. And she is/was neither. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true, Ad Orientem. It's one thing to personally oppose national political events other than elections or changes in heads of state (a potentially defensible position), but objectively speaking, we've posted arrests, arraignments and convictions of major political figures many times in the past, including examples like Trump but also very recently some politicians from Turkey and Sudan. There's no ITN policy rule against it and it wouldn't be a deviation from standard practice to post this, so I don't think that's a fair rationale. FlipandFlopped ツ23:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concede that Trump would probably have been posted, though I'm not sure I'd have supported. That said, Trump was an ex-president. Prominent opposition candidates are barred from seeking office all the time and are rarely noted here. As a criminal case, this was pretty paltry stuff. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is most comparable to if Trump was convicted (in a political event) prior to his first election in 2016. Trump can't really be compared to Le Pen in this instance because Le Pen has been active in French politics for years whereas Trump was on the outside; Le Pen has been the face of the national rally for years, but was never the head of state or government like Trump was in his convictions. Departure– (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support – Leading candidate in the upcoming French presidential election barred from running. Le Pen is also internationally known, this has received international reactions and coverage. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks♥) 20:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose National politician who never held head of state/government position gets convicted of a crime. Yawn. We didn't post Trump's arrest for very similar reasons (which I would have opposed as well, despite him having held both positions in a country with far more media reach than France) – why is Le Pen different? Sure, it's in the news. But that's not what ITN is. Hold ourselves to our standards, please. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist800020:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hesitate to keep reminding people of this across this nom, but you are mistaken. Sure, we didn't post Trump's arrest, but we did post both his arraignment (twice, actually) and his conviction. This nom is for her conviction (similar to the Trump conviction we posted), and not an arrest. If we are "holding ourselves to our standards", we would therefore be posting this... FlipandFlopped ツ23:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- It is correct that the ban on running for office is effective immediately, whereas the 2 years of house arrest and loss of her lower house seat will not take effect until all appeals have been exhausted. It does appear she may lose her departmental council seat immediately, though that is not int'l news. The loss of eligibility for the 2027 presidential race could theoretically see the inside of an appeals court some weeks before the election, but running a campaign under such circumstances seems rather fraught. Cf. 20 minutes (in French)-- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥21:14, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nothing prevented us from posting Navalny's conviction in Russia, so please hold ourselves to our standards and post this. Furthermore, she was leading the opinion polls for the next presidential election at the time of her conviction. It seems like there's a wave of harshly eliminating prospective presidential candidates from running for the office. Firstly, Georgescu was barred in Romania, then İmamoğlu was arrested and lost his university degree in Turkey, and now comes Le Pen's conviction in France. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question Jog my memory, have we posted Trump being convicted (while not president), because as I see it this is a comparable situation. Kingsif (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kingsif Yes, we did - for his state conviction in New York on May 30, 2024. We further posted his 2023 arraignment in the New York case as well as posted his 2023 indictment in the federal documents case. Unlike this conviction of Le Pen, none of those three actually had the immediate impact of barring him from running again for President in the next election. FlipandFlopped ツ23:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, before 2016 isn't really a fair comparator, because he was not yet a politician nor was he the presidential candidate in a national election yet. Of course we would not be posting any blurbs about him, just like we would not be posting any blurbs about Le Pen for a period before she had even entered politics. A better comparison would be, if Trump had lost in 2016 and then been arrested some years later, would we post that? FlipandFlopped ツ23:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, there's no hard policy rule against posting news related to high-profile runner ups (in fact if they're globally "in the news", then criteria would actually fully support posting like any other story), and the scandal from which this conviction stems does have a separate article, albeit which needs some expansion and translation work from its French-language equivalent. FlipandFlopped ツ00:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability Le Pen is a very notable runner-up in French presidential elections. Her being barred from seeking public office is a notable development. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt-blurb. The entry dedicated to the affair is of reasonable quality thanks to the efforts of several people now. It still does not enter into the detail of the French page, but it's not clear to me that such detail is entirely desirable. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥06:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Let us not normalize Main Page as a bulletin for convictions, criminal investigations etc. I understand making crime BLP exceptions for heads of state and the like and blaring that on the front page but to do that for any political heavyweight is miguided, especially when no immediate consequences are present (any effect on 2027 elections is quite far out). I will have to say a no, ITN shouldn't be headed in this direction. Gotitbro (talk) 10:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ad Orientem, and would like to voice my opposition to the Trump comparisons - he had already served a term as president when arrested/convicted, and the notability was in being the first American (former) head of state to become a convicted felon. Conversely, Le Pen has never served as French president (and hopefully never will...) TheKip(contribs)14:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I think the notability in Trump's case - I remember discussion vibes if not all outcomes - was that he was actively in the running for president while being convicted, much like Le Pen. If it was simply that he was a former office holder, and not seeking election, I am not sure his convictions would’ve been posted: instead of the intersection of convicted criminal/running for globally-significant office that is mirrored with Le Pen, he would just be any other private citizen with a criminal record. Kingsif (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support especially alt-blurb, Marine Le Pen is very much a key figure in French politics, and could've very likely won if she wasn't barred, despite not winning the presidency previously. I feel also the comparisons to other events is apt, and does establish precedent for this case. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She was polling at 36%, sure she might've win the first round but as with 2017 and 2022 the entire french political scene would've rallied around her second round opponent. Saying that she 'could've very likely won' is disingenuous. Scuba16:37, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reality is that, right now, she was leading in the polls. Saying that her first-round victory wouldn't necessarily translate to a second-round victory is true, but to treat her winning the election as an impossibility is contrary to RSes and runs afoul of WP:CRYSTALBALLDecafPotato (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support — The conviction of a prominent opposition politician (see Donald Trump) that bars the opposition candidate from running in the next presidential election (see Jair Bolsonaro) even though that person has not before held the office they have been banned from seeking (see Ekrem İmamoğlu and Alexei Navalny). DecafPotato (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Imamoglu was posted because of the protests not due to his arrest. Navalny's death was posted (death as a story) not his conviction. Gotitbro (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support We do post convictions when notable, and the case of an individual in the running (and a major candidate) for leadership of a G7 nation not only becoming a convicted criminal but this also barring them from the election, is empirically such a case. What has swayed me to a full support (rather than something qualified, as there are various world leaders and candidates - of less globally significant nations TBF - whose criminal status doesn’t touch the MP) is the precedent established by the posting of Trump being convicted while running for office. In the relevant ways, such offices and convictions are comparable. Kingsif (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Trump case is fundamentally different; a former president convicted in an election year cannot be equated with the conviction of a presidential hopeful who's never held public office and who's prospectives for that post might be affected two years from now. My view would be the same if a major Democratic/Republican face for the next presidential election [Trump cannot run] were to be convicted now. Gotitbro (talk) 01:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
who's never held public office. I'm very surprised how many times this misinformation has been repeated in this discussion. She's holding two public offices right now and has obviously been an MEP in the past based on the nature of the conviction. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥09:26, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant by public officer/public official (and others who may have used the term here) is someone actually serving in/heading a government office/department/agency. Parliamentarian, deputy, councillor, party/faction head wasn't meant and often in common paralance isn't. And from what I can see Le Pen has never been a minister, government official or headed any government branch (executive or otherwise). This wasn't meant to be misinformation in the slightest. Gotitbro (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gotitbro I respect your opinion that the Trump case is fundamentally different, but it is just that - your opinion - and one I think my !vote makes it clear I disagree with. There may be differences but there are many relevant similarities (both things surely unarguable fact) and, to me, the similar intersection is what's fundamental to this 'type' of story being ITN-worthy. Again, you can disagree, but that's what my invocation of Trump precedent was saying. Kingsif (talk) 10:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand and see where the similarities maybe seen to lie on the face of it but my comment is based on the heft of the arguments used in the Trump posting (not one goes without mentioning that he was a former pres [at the time]). That is why I disagree in seeing a precedent there for this. Gotitbro (talk) 11:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ehhh, that was more about the protests that followed. The French have a strong tradition of protest so I won't be surprised if we have to amend the blurb soon. Bremps...02:42, 2 April 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: Austrian author of novels, poetry and much more, translator from Turkish and Hungarian. The article was a stub. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:49, 4 April 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: Mexican conductor who founded the OSEM orchestra in 1971 and stepped down in 2018, touring with them in Europe, the U.S. and Chine, and who conducted other orchesras worldwide, making many recording. The article has a long history. The obits added music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:59, 4 April 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 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.
Notwithstanding your other valid reason, BIOs being written after a subject has died is not a reason to oppose, and indeed many times the death of a person has been the motivating factor to create and/or improve perfectly legitimate if not necessary biographies. Kingsif (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeon quality. Among the sources is a full RS obit, though, so there should be enough source info to better judge the notability even if just the one strong source (at the moment) probably won't fill out a bio alone. Kingsif (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC) Procedural oppose: NY Times may have posted their obit on 30 March, but his death was published in English-language media on 19 March People, so this is stale. Kingsif (talk) 10:49, 3 April 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.
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 The article is well-cited, to the exception of his filmography section, which for the most part is missing accompanying footnotes for all of his listed television or movie appearances. However, for the vast majority of the entries, there is a hyperlink to the corresponding Wiki article which in turn is well-referenced. It would be ideal if the handful of entries without a hyperlinked wiki article (on account of the film either not passing GNG or not having an article yet), at least had a citation though. With this being said, it's a good enough quality article and this issue is relatively minor. FlipandFlopped ツ19:36, 30 March 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 More than half the article is given to discussion of other eclipses, which I cannot recall being the case for eclipses that we did post. It's nowhere close to quality expected for this. Masem (t) 12:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, when we have posted eclipses in the past, such as Solar eclipse of April 8, 2024 (And specifically considering the state at the end of the day, [1]) shows that a lot more information about the current eclipse should be present. Further from that old version, this massive section on related eclipses has grown massively since last year. Masem (t) 17:13, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose I don't see anything distinguishing this in any real way from any other eclipses. Also, it's a partial eclipse but that isn't mentioned in the current blurb proposal. Viewership and being "in the news" doesn't mean much if it doesn't have a real impact; I suspect coverage will massively die down now that the event has concluded. Departure– (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The eclipse was a big hit with our readers yesterday – over quarter of a million of them. That was more than double the level of interest in the earthquake. The topics not getting much attention are the Sudanese items which we are blurbing. Just about no-one is interested in those. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:22, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reader 'interest' has never been an ITN criteria (the same applies to views). Breakdown of significant treaties and catastrophic earthquakes will always be of much more ITN significance than random eclipses. WP:TOP25 exists, if you want it to be featured on the Main Page start a proposal, but personal interest in pageviews should not be confounded for ITN acceptability. Gotitbro (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose only partial, limited media coverage. I saw this myself but it isn't impactful enough to justify an ITN blurb. Besides, the article mostly describes the sequences it belongs to, not anything unusual about this particular eclipse. Modest Geniustalk14:01, 30 March 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.
A Russiandrone attack on Dnipro, Ukraine, kills four people and wounds 19 others. Multiple buildings in the city are reported to be ablaze, including a hotel, resort, a restaurant complex and numerous apartments. (Reuters)
An under-construction government office skyscraper collapses in Bangkok, Thailand, killing at least six people and leaving more than 101 others missing and trapped under the rubble. (CTV News)
Turkish authorities detain Mehmet Pehlivan, a lawyer representing opposition leader Ekrem İmamoğlu in the ongoing investigation, and later release him. (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.
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've just added an extra footnote for the DoB. However, much of the rest of the prose on this wikipage is not yet adequately sourced. The Filmography section is a long list of unsourced bullet-points. More REFs are needed. --PFHLai (talk) 00:29, 2 April 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.
Support agree with Bremps, no glaring CN issues and contains all the essential information. I added a few refs for some missing citations to her publications/poems. Tagging ready. FlipandFlopped ツ04:01, 1 April 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.
Not Quite Ready but close. The guest appearances table has a bunch of cites needed. Otherwise I think the article appears to be in decent shape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Japan confirms it has asked the U.S. for an exemption from the new automotive tariffs, saying the 25% tariff on vehicle imports would have a massive negative impact on its automotive industry. Japan is one of the largest exporters of cars to the United States. (Kyodo News)
The home of Luis Villanueva, leader of the Workers' General Confederation of Peru (CGTP), is damaged by an explosive device. Business associations condemned the attack and increased demands on the government to strengthen the fight against organized crime. (La Vanguardia)
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: German Franciscan theologian who taught not only in Würzburg and Munich but for a long time in Chicago. He wrote standard books on New Testament and early Christianity. The article was very basic. The refs have more detail if someone has the time to add. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:27, 1 April 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: iconic American ballet dancer, Romeo in Cranko's Romeo and Juliet (Cranko), later ballet master, choreographer and director. The article was basically there, even two refs that looked lost just needed url update. More may come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: I know the article have the short sentence, we're gonna expanding the article for now, and the earthquake event is insane. BakhosLet's talk!06:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even though there are no reports from Myanmar yet, there is already a news about building collapsing in Bangkok. Given how rare a significant earthquake Bangkok is, I think it might deserve a blurb. NotKringe (talk) 07:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I reckon "strikes" is a better conjugation for the blurb. With the building collapse in Thailand I think it should mention "affects Thailand" or "Southeast Asia" or something. ―Panamitsu(talk)07:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - significant and rare earthquake in a highly populated and globally connected region. Blurb should update to reflect impacts across SE Asia. 202.144.171.99 (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - Very strong and rare earthquake has occurred in a densely populated area, and subsequent casualty reports may be extremely severe. Nagae Iku (talk) 09:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Extensive international coverage as the earthquake affected Bangkok. A rare incident as Thailand usually does not experience such catastrophic earthquakes. Tofusaurus (talk) 09:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support the quake's epicenter is basically right at Mandalay, a city of 2 million. Considering the damage done in Bangkok 1000 km away, it is unfortunately quite likely to get extremely ugly.
Oppose + Close This should not be an issue, political arrests are domestic issues, although the ripping up might be an issue, still it is too soon to talk of any reprecussions, see WP:CRYSTALShaneapickle (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Political arrests are posted on ITN all the time. Just this month, Duterte and İmamoğlu's arrests were posted, and Yoon Suk Yeol in January. Estreyeria (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Similar crackdown on opposition to the arrest of Imamoglu, though possibly with wider consequences given the declaration that the peace deal is nullified. TheKip(contribs)19:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, noting that [o]ppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one is listed in WP:ITNCDONT. The political ramifications are important, especially since the peace agreement has been declared void – that part is not WP:CRYSTAL. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, note that the German embassy pulled out of South Sudan earlier this month due to fears of the civil war restarting. The voiding of the peace agreement would be significant enough to post regardless of the event that caused it. If the conflict restarts while this is still up, I'd support merging or pulling it.
Comment As everyone is saying the end of agreement is the big thing, I would recommend the blurb be flipped to focus on this, and perhaps the agreement article should be the target. Masem (t) 22:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that we don't have a separate article for the agreement (only a section at South Sudanese Civil War, which wasn't updated), so not an ideal target for a bold link just yet. However, if it is updated before the blurb is posted/becomes stale, I would support bolding it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything needs a standalone article if the context of the topic in a larger one makes the larger one more comprehensive, and for purposes of ITN, is appropriately updated with sufficient text about the update. Editors are getting too hung up on "separate article" standards that dont exist and which harm WP by endlessly dissecting topics. — Masem (t) 11:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb per above. The voiding of the agreement is internationally significant, and ITN has posted consequential arrests of political figures in the past. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course a significant political arrest, and judging by the rejection of the peace agreement it threatens to restart South Sudan's civil war. --SpectralIon04:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support—I agree with those who say that the focus should be on the voiding of the peace agreement. Under authoritarian regimes, political opponents are arrested all the time; a peace agreement coming to and end, however, is typically a far more consequential event. Kurtis(talk)15:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about that, Bremps. This could be misunderstood as him being the inaugural VP. And as it stands, we can’t link to the target article’s section without causing a sea of blue. I’m also not sure that it’s that important to specify. If you feel strongly about it, Bremps, could you please post at Errors for broader input? Schwede6615:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now ITN has only three blurbs and two are about Sudan. If the two blurbs are related, can we combine them into one blurb to make space for other news? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.75.95.28 (talk) 06:03, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are unconnected events so just because they take place in the same country, it doesn't make sense to combine them as it implies causality between the two. Masem (t) 18:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Void" is definitely not the right word here. He has repudiated the agreement, e.g. decided that it no longer has effect and no longer binds him. He has not "voided" it which would have been to declare that it never even existed (I'm not sure this is conceptually even possible for peace agreements?). —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He can say what it likes but that doesn't mean we don't need to get it right. "Void" is the wrong word. "Repudiate", "terminate", "ends", even "cancels" would all be fine. Void means something quite different. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:10, 3 April 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.
Not Ready+ Wait References all over the place, needs fixing, I am going for wait due to fact that his death date has not been announced, Shaneapickle (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The date of death is not relevant to ITN, all that matters is when the death was first reported in reliable sources and the quality of the article. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Upon reading and assessing the article, I agree with Bremps. It's not perfect, but all of its claims are cited with a footnote to a decent-enough sorce; it meets our typical RD standards. FlipandFlopped ツ02:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Turning point in the conflict, ending one of the biggest battles in Sudanese and maybe even African history. The LIBERATION of a capital city. Vamos Palmeiras (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apoio Um possível início do fim de mais uma terrível guerra atual. (Support A possible start of the end of one more terrible current war.) ArionStar (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is covered by Ongoing and it appears that the civil war will continue as the RSF are regrouping. The blurb seems to take sides with its use of the word "liberate" and we should be wary of triumphalist propaganda issued by one side. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Liberate is neutral terminology. When a state reassumes control over territory it lost during the war, that is just called liberation. 675930s (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - first of all the quality is not quite there yet, some citations needed especially in the Background section. Secondly, per Andrew we certainly shouldn't be using POV language like "liberated" to describe a complex battle; I have proposed a possible ALT blurb to state what happened without taking sides. On notability, I'd say if it's definitely confirmed then probably the recapture of a capital city is blurbworthy, but I think we might need a bit more certainty from RS that the battle has definitely ended first. So far this seems to be mainly being qualified by saying it's according to Burhan rather than stated as a definite fact. — Amakuru (talk) 10:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It claims that fighting has ended in Khartoum, but it should still be going as there is still fighting in the outsides of the city. But overall Propose alt blurb I think that there should also be a alt blurb stating " Sudanese Armed Forces retakes the City of Khartoum, although skirmishes going on outside the city" Shaneapickle (talk) 12:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support – The capital city has been recaptured. Yes, it is in Ongoing, but we do make exceptions for major events like that, and it is probably the most significant development that could have come out of this war. We would certainly post Kyiv being captured by Russia. Also noting that altblurb is preferable as it doesn't take sides by calling it "liberation". Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality Very unorderly article, the article suddenly changes format halfway through into a monthly update, with sections only titled by year. It stops reading like an encyclopedic article and more like a war journal. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes nominate this, it is a very important topic this changes almost everything. Liberate does mean to free from under occupation as from I remember. Honestly, why not. We nominate every thing that seems useless why not this? SDUpdates (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I believe the alternative blurb is better. Obviously a major turning point in this conflict and let’s not forget this battle was strategic, major, deadly and in A CAPITAL CITY! NuestroBrasil (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Look, the article isn't great, but it's somewhat passable. It's major— imagine Kyiv changed hands. It would be ideal if it were more structured, but this is okay for now. Bremps...23:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also will add that there's really no update in the article on this event yet, maybe a couple sentences. That's nowhere close to an update to support posting outside of the ongoing entry. Masem (t) 11:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Altblurb as the original blurb violates WP:NPOV. This battle is a significant event in the Sudanese Civil War that will have worldwide political impacts. INeedSupport:316:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article still has several CN tags and the update is still trivial. should not have been posted in this state. Masem (t) 03:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: The passage of this law has led to significant public outcry and nationwide demonstrations. Initiated by Indonesian students, it draws concerns over democratic erosion in Indonesia. Article recently changed from 2025 Indonesian Student Protest to 2025 Indonesian Protests due to the prolonged and recently widened scale of the protest to which has reached its second phase and across all 5 major islands. Kaliper1 (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose + Wait This is a domestic protest, we only put the serbian one due to alot of reprecussions it had in the balkans, it is too early to say if there is going to be reprecussions to these protests Shaneapickle (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Relevant and important event due to the democratic erosion fears. Even if it is not as "unconstitutional" as the 2025 Turkish protests , which was nominated and posted for ITN btw, it is still notable enough to list into a potential future "2025 Global Spring Protests" article and could still have an effect to the ASEAN (Southeast Asia) regional area, due to Indonesia's size and presence, politically and economically. (P.S. Don't bring up Singapore) SymphonyWizard72 (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The protests has been ongoing for about a week and occured in the context of a greater act of opposition, which has began since last year. The economic effects are apparent with the falling prices of the IDX Composite several days ago. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael15:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just would like to add that the mentioned "greater act of opposition since last year" was the 2024 Indonesian local election law protests/Emergency Alert for Indonesia Protests, which even this current 2025 protest also use the same symbol (Indonesian national symbol with an EAS aesthetic background) , but now with different color (previously blue, now black).
Support Now, it has become a long chain of demonstrations with many persecutions occurring. Significant events have taken place during the protests, and they are still ongoing. Namesk1Y (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting Support Expecting the effect(s) to be long-lasting in return for the short-lasting reform. –Angga (formerly Angga1061) 06:50, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The current ALT1 "military involvement in civilian government roles" has odd wording (did you mean "civil government") that took me some time to comprehend. Meanwhile, "expanding the armed forces' role in governance" in ALT0 immediately understandable and we should it change to that. Hugoaway (talk) 12:27, 28 March 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.
Two off duty police officers were killed and another was kidnapped after they were ambushed while traveling on Federal Highway 180D, Cardel-Nautla, in the municipality of Vega de Alatorre. (La Silla Rota)
The Atlantic magazine releases the full text of a Signal group chat involving senior U.S. national security officials about recent strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen. In the conversation, Defense SecretaryPete Hegseth provides exact times of warplane launches, strike packages, and targets. (CBC)
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 All CN tags addressed; I worked to find references for most of the info in the Oklahoma's online press archives (and cut out/changed things where inaccurate). FlipandFlopped ツ05:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Oppose As the articles are incomprehensible to the general reader and so are not of encyclopedic quality per MOS:JARGON and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. D-module and crystal base have next to no inline citations and lack sufficient introductory prose. "Introductory language in the lead (and sometimes the initial sections) of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All mathematics articles beyond high school topics are incomprehensible to the general reader, and any lede-level summary of them at a generic comprehensible level would be embarrassingly stupid. Somehow these articles still exist and are in fact quite useful, and your opposition is just wikilawyer trash talk. What would you have? "Kashiwara did great things in advanced topics in mathematics." 128.91.40.237 (talk) 11:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The math artciles aren't the target article for the blurb, so we do not care about their quality or readability. However, the blurb should try its best to explain the significance of these topics if we can (even the Abel Prize's own explanation of the significance [3] gives me little that I could summarizing briefly about his work, though, its that much in the abstract) — Masem (t) 12:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some basic maths: two wrongs don't make a right and, per the adage, if you can't explain something simply then you don't really understand it. Anyway, here's how Nature puts it and that seems better than what I'm seeing here
Kashiwara is known for building bridges across seemingly distant branches of mathematics. In particular, he developed algebraic tools to solve tough problems such as differential equations, and he greatly extended the scope of the mathematical theory of symmetry known as representation theory. “He is a master in combining tools from geometry, algebra and analysis to obtain new insights and combinations,” says mathematician Helge Holden, who chairs the Abel Committee.
And here we have it, right on schedule, the know-nothing insulting put-down from a wikilawyering mathsplainer. It's like I said: 99.9% of higher mathematics does not translate in any way shape or form into simple language, accessible to outsiders, unless you turn it into generic, but ultimately meaningless, mush. Nature can get away with the mush because it's simply making a throwaway announcement. An encyclopedia should stay far away from baby talk. (And to all adage-lovers amongst us, meditate upon "don't teach your grandmother how to suck eggs/chew cheese".) 128.91.201.214 (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The IP editor seems to be new here whereas I'm a veteran of such discussions over many years. For example, in 2023, the Abel discussion was not well attended. I was not happy that we didn't have an article about regularity theory which was the subject of the prize that year. So, I got one started and did so in prose with a citation. So, please don't tell me that this can't be done as I'm the grandparent here and I've done it. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not new here, in fact, I predate your account under other IPs. The 2023 award did not have a reasonably decent target article at the time, so your comments here are irrelevant. And no, you did not make things better for ITN at the time, you merely created a know-nothing stub while the relevant article was not posted to ITN. In other words, you did not get it done. And I am a veteran of endless numbers of egg-suckers and cheese-chewers rudely mathsplaining at me while they quote platitudes that prove they are on my level. For what it's worth, regularity theory is still an underwhelming stub, and you Mister Grandfather have been topic-banned on closely related wikiprojects. 128.91.40.237 (talk) 11:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am just saying that for all main page sections we have zero expectations of quality for non bolded blue links, the quality is always checked for the featured bolded article. Yes, the math articles should start far more basic and abstract for the general reader but that's not an expectation for posting the blurb about the Abel prize. — Masem (t) 13:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb is not supposed to be a substitute for an article. Any reader interested in learning what D-theory is free to click on the relevant link.
Comment: I wish Kashiwara's article gave a more comprehensible explanation of his work, rather than just quoting the Abel citation. The 'research' section of that article is poor (and under-referenced) while 'books' is an excessive list. I've added a bunch of cn tags, which are sufficiently numerous that I cannot support posting yet; but if those are addressed the article does just about meet our minimum requirements. Modest Geniustalk14:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS. If it wasn't clear from my comments, Kashiwara's article must be the bold link - we've never allowed that issue to be dodged by making the award itself the bold link. See the note at WP:ITNAWARDS. The original blurb is problematic for multiple reasons, so we should only consider the altblurb. Modest Geniustalk18:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is ITNR, so the significance of the prize is accepted. Per nom however, the target article should pretty clearly be Masaki Kashiwara and not the generic article about the Abel itself. Unfortunately, the Kashiwara article is far from ready - in addition to the CN tags, I agree with Modest Genius that it does a pretty poor job of explaining exactly what it is he has accomplished. Of course, willing to change my vote if the article gets an overhaul. FlipandFlopped ツ17:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that in Kashiwara's article, his work, while it can be named directly, absolutely needs to be explained "dumbed down" or at least explained what practical applications it can have. Masem (t) 20:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh: There is no such thing as a "dumbed down" explanation of Kashiwara's work. It's either "dumbed down", using baby talk that explains absolutely nothing but has a feel good buzzword feel, or it actually does explain things like an encyclopedia is supposed to, but on the assumption the reader is at an advanced graduate level. It's been this way for over 2000 years: There is no royal road to geometry. And his work has, so far, no practical applications, but feel free to ask again in 100 years for the minimum of what the article absolutely needs. In the meantime, why don't you start a project of "cleaning up" all the advanced math articles on WP. Say start with Spectral sequence and all its blue links. And if no one gets them up to WP standards, delete the hell out of them. Or at least put up a drive-by tagging about how the lede is too hard, boohoo. 128.91.40.237 (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken multiple university-level courses in mathematics - admittedly all introductory and not really related to this area of study, but still enough that I am probably more versed than 95% of other people who would ever read Wikipedia.
I think I should be able to read the article and at the very least be able to come out with an answer to the basic question, "what did he accomplish, why is this contribution groundbreaking"? Looking at the main sentence which covers this, in addition to being completely uncited, it just simply does not provide that insight:
Kashiwara and Sato established the foundations of the theory of systems of linear partial differential equations with analytic coefficients, introducing a cohomological approach that follows the spirit of Grothendieck's theory of schemes. Kashiwara's master thesis states the foundations of D-module theory [...]
It would be great if the article briefly explained these concepts, but sure, one could probably figure out what a "cohomological approach" means or what "Grothendieck's theory of schemes" is, by reading their associated articles. However, that still does not explain precisely what the "foundations of the theory of systems of linear partial differential equations" or "the foundations of D-module theory" are that Kashiwara "established". If they've been established, they exist. Things that exist are capable of being stated for the reader and explained. The article currently makes no effort to do so.
Support It's not stale anymore and the article is now per standards. The oldest news being Indonesian demonstrations that started in February and the arrest of South Sudanese officials on the same day the Abel prize was awarded. I've noticed that many non-admins are closing voting arbitrarily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varoon2542 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Varoon2542 I won't re-close, but staleness goes off of nomination date, and the Abel prize blurb was nominated a day before the Indonesian protests and the South Sudanese arrests. Going by our standards it is stale. TheKip(contribs)14:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-university students in Singapore are familiar with "systems of linear equations" and "differential equations", so "system of linear partial differential equations" is not that hard to make sense of (just link to articles about the two earlier concepts and maybe explain that a partial differential equation has multiple variables). The "rationality of the roots of b-functions" is also reasonably understandable (even if readers do not know exactly what a b-function is, it is obviously a type of function). However, the "cohomological approach" sentence may need some explaining. Does "foundations of the theory" mean understanding the structure and properties of systems of linear partial differential equations, so they can be solved in a systematic way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.74.109.168 (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The bolded article has been cleaned up a fair bit since the original nomination. One of the major prizes in the sciences. — MarkH21talk07:44, 2 April 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:2025 Bolivia floods (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Floods in Bolivia leave at least fifty people dead and more than 100,000 people displaced from their homes (Post) Credits:
Oppose This seems to be the annual rainy season there which has been going on for months. The state of emergency seems to be mainly an administrative move to release funds for this issue. Rain and resulting floods are commonplace -- also happening in Australia and Spain currently too. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be a similar number to last year. On average, about 200 people die every day in Bolivia. 50 deaths over a period is not especially unusual. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:45, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Annual flooding in various regions of the world often kill hundreds of people but do not get significant reporting if that flooding is not associated with one, singular event and happen over several months. This seems to fall into that. And with climate change that's just gooing to get worse [5], but still doesn't make a good ITN topic due to the long-term nature of the situation. Masem (t) 11:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now + question If this is just an unusually deadly flooding season, this strikes me as a casualty statistic over a span of time - kind of like a blurb that says, "xx people have died in the 2025 Atlantic hurricane season and thousands are displaced from their homes". 50 sounds like a lot, but if it's over a period of time, then I share some of the above concerns - for example, a quick google search tells me that seasonal casualties hit 60 people in 2014. I suppose what differentiates it here, though, is the declaration of a national emergency. Does this national emergency have broader implications, it is a first time unprecedented development, is its political effects getting widespread coverage in the RS, etc? That's what I feel we'd need to see to take this beyond seasonal flooding. FlipandFlopped ツ17:08, 28 March 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.
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: Former U.S. ambassador to the Seychelles and director of the Voice of America, journalist, and father of Tucker Carlson. He died on March 24. KingFredFlintstone (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support There are 3 CN tags which should ideally be fixed first before posting, but it wouldn't be the end of the world if it were posted now. ❤HistoryTheorist❤04:41, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Added a few more references for un-cited claims, and removed a few marked with a CN tag for which I actually could not find a reliable source (a claim that he wrote a book about apartheid and that he had a law degree from California Western Law School). I think it's at a sufficient quality level now. FlipandFlopped ツ17:45, 29 March 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.
Support . This will likely make news as the largest single forest fire in Korean history and a huge blow to Korean cultural heritage. Coperacchio (talk) 05:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, slightly oppose on blurb. Article is notable and my heart goes out to those affected, however I think this blurb needs a tiny bit more. Thesogra (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What would you think about "The worst wildfires in South Korea's history (Han Duck-soo said this, so not PUFFERY) kill at least 24 people and damages structures of cultural importance" Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the mistake when we did the Japan fires, we should avoid trying to assert and superlative claim in the blurb. Just state the fires and the impact (death toll and size) Masem (t) 19:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, forgot about it. In the meantime, the ibox now says 26 but still not sure where they're getting the 22 from in the Uiseong wildfire, so I'm not gonna change it for now IG. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've had another look and at this point, I have the choice of 26 (ibox), 27 (lead) and 24 (body) deaths. With that, I cannot write a blurb, I'm afraid. Schwede6605:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The ITN page history does show that this was posted, but it was quickly pushed off by other ITN topics. Don't know if this should get IAR re-added, as it only lasted ~12 hours on the main page. Natg 19 (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A wildfire in Uiseong County, South Korea, spreads uncontrollably to the north and east, resulting in at least 16 deaths and forcing tens of thousands of civilians to evacuate. (Yonhap)(AP)
Thousands of Palestinian men in northern Gaza Strip take part in the largest anti-Hamas protests since the start of the Gaza war, chanting slogans criticizing Hamas and calling for the war's end. (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.
Support Article had two longstanding CN tags, including one which was placed there in 2017. I addressed both of them, as I was able to quickly find obit sources which affirmed the previously un-cited claims we had within the article for so long. Seems good enough now. FlipandFlopped ツ02:51, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Schwede66, it just wasn't ever specifically referenced but it is included in some of the obituaries that are used as citations for other claims within the article. In any case though, I just added a footnote to an obituary from a magazine, which specifically includes the birthdate. FlipandFlopped ツ17:11, 29 March 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.
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: Significant series of protests and shutdowns of business throughout Balochistan that has been ongoing since 20 March in response to repeated acts of police brutality towards the Baloch community's acts of protests, especially when they escalated their acts by shooting at and killing several protesters and later arresting Mahrang Baloch, the BYC chief and one of the leaders of the protest organizations, on 22 March. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Something I would like to note is that the protests had also occurred in Karachi, a city in the separate province of Sindh, on 24 March (although authorities moved to ban the gatherings). Should the article's title and the blurb change to reflect that? And if so, what title should it be, especially considering that there is currently a separate series of protests in Sindh held against canal projects? PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:08, 26 March 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.
Nominator's comments: This big archaeological find has been kept secret until now to deter treasure hunters. Our article has just been started, thanks to Geopersona, and will no doubt be expanded as more details emerge. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support right now, this is a very important find one of the largest ever found in the UK, yet the article does have a bit of a contradiction at the moment. It says at the top that it is being housed at the Yorkshire Museum yet at the bottom it says the museum is merely trying to raise funds to purchase the collection. User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 12:22, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Museum is displaying the hoard but doesn't own it. Presumably the landowner and the finder have the lion's share. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not seeing any peer-reviewed paper associated with this (going even to the Durham pages on it), which is usually necessary to verify age, origin, etc. It's not that I'm doubting the archeologists here, but that's generally the metric for historical finds like this. Masem (t) 12:38, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They have been working on this for four years and their priority has been to stabilise the artifacts before analysing them. Multiple respectable institutions are involved including the British Museum and Durham University Archaeology Dept. The hoard seems similar to a smaller hoard discovered nearby in 1845 and so there don't seem to be any especially controversial claims. The situation seems similar to the Tomb of Thutmose II which we posted recently. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re blurb The alt blurb is bad. No-one says "Melsonby, England" – that's an Americanism contrary to MOS:TIES. And it's not the Museum which announced the discovery. Per the CNN coverage, the main people issuing a press release are the people who did the bulk of the work -- Durham University. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:18, 25 March 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 a few hundred protesters. Far from a serious earth-shattering political shakeup. I question why this article exists and isn't a section in the Gaza war article. Scuba01:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support article looks well referenced and these are the biggest protests since Hamas took power nearly two decades ago, where they enjoyed previously very high levels of political support as well. Protests don't have to be successful to be posted, in fact increasingly few protests are. Hamas is also an authoritarian islamist terrorist organisation ruling over a war zone and what has been described as a de facto "world's biggest open-air prison" therefore any protests against their rule are incredibly rare in an environment where freedom to protest is extremely curtailed and dangerous. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
these are the biggest protests since Hamas took power nearly two decades ago
Your premise is false, this is actually the smallest protests to occur since Hamas became the governemnt of Gaza, there have been larger and more significant anti-government protests than this two-days few hundred individuals protest. see Gaza protestsStephan rostie (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Stephan rostie: Those other protests weren't specifically anti-Hamas though. The 2011–2012 ones were against the PNA, the other two since were due to economic situation, and the border one was mostly organised by Hamas against Israeli border policy. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose First, as Gaza is back in ongoing, this would be covered by that. Second, we simply cannot keep posting every single large protest since multiple are happening across the globe at any time, there needs to be some immediate impact of that, whether if its because the protest turned violent and/or required significant police activity to constrain, or that there is a govt action in response (like an official stepping down). Just posting that a protest happened isn't really useful for ITN because of how frequent these are. Masem (t) 12:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good faith nom, but the bar for posting something covered by ongoing is fairly high, and this doesn't meet it. There were nominations about widely covered massacres and the discovery of mass graves that weren't posted because it's covered by ongoing. And I don't think these protests seem major enough to warrant posting even if it weren't covered by ongoing. There's not really any known impact of these protests so far, and these probably don't make the top five largest protests happening right now. Vanilla Wizard 💙17:42, 27 March 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.
A Signal group chat containing many of President Trump's cabinet, discussing several topics including potential strikes in Yemen, is discovered after journalist Jeffrey Goldberg is accidentally added to it. (CNN)
The U.S. military launches air raids across Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen overnight, killing at least four people and injuring 13 others in the capital city Sanaa. (Middle East Eye)
Ninety people are injured, including 17 children, in a Russianmissile attack on a hospital, a school, and a residential area in Sumy, Ukraine. (Le Monde)
BritishsupermarketchainMorrisons announces that it will permanently close 52 cafés and 17 stores as part of cost-cutting measures, with the loss of at least 365 jobs expected. (BBC News)
One man is killed and another person wounded in a combined ramming, stabbing, and shooting attack by an Israeli Arab assailant at a bus stop in Yokneam Illit, Israel. (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: English keyboard player, both an expert harpsichordist playing internationally with ensembles focused on early music and a pianist of contemporary music and a praised organist, many recordings. Sadly we have only this obit yet (and a notice from the harpsichord society on facebook). Also sad that the article was a copy from somewhere and had to be complete rephrased. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 27 March 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.
Nominator's comments: Aware of WP:NTRUMP and that security breaches do happen, however this an extraordinary unprecedented leak and top news worldwide. And like every government official caught red-handed in wrongdoing it will try to downplay it (the "nothing to see here" tactic) however the gravity in the face of evidence being spread worldwide is inescapable, and likely one for the data protection history books. Article needs a lot of work, beginning with clunky title and the fact it doesn't have an aftermath section. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because right now there appears that there are going to be no ramifications or punishment to those involved, being all masked among the political circus going on in Congress and the admin. If there is any indication that someone will be held accountable for this, that might be a different reason. Masem (t) 19:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I believe that is a poor rationale to oppose. There has been genocides that have gone without anyone held accountable. Even the current president's proven sexual assault charge has gone without consequence or punishment. In fact the list of wrongdoings by government officials without punishment or ramifications is infinitely longer than those that have, even if you include those with token scapegoats. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a huge list of things done by this current admin that go against the constitution or law, that have more significant ramifications (eg DOGE and social security) and which there is litigation happening. The only way that those involved in this leak will see punishment is by Congress and it's clear the GOP leadership there is trying to pass this of. It's another folly at this point, but should it turn out that we actually get punishments or larger impacts, that would possibly justify it better. — Masem (t) 20:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The DOGE and social security only really impacts domestic policy and the US. This however resulted in the bombing of a sovereign nation halfway across the globe, which resulted in deaths, and called an entire continent that is/was mostly allied and fellow NATO-members "freeloaders" whilst doing so too. Arguably the most brazen data breach ever, this is likely to be remembered for a long time, in every future data protection workshop, in every future security breach, in every future unauthorised messaging app use. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the leak itself, which didn't have an effect on Yemen (If it wasn't leaked, the attack still would have happened). The data breach part of this is a major issue though. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The government officials didn’t even notice Jeffrey Goldberg while they agreed to bomb Yemen, so the leak didn’t result in the bombing. "Most brazen data breach ever" is a matter of opinion, and the rest of your comment is WP:CRYSTALBALL. GN22 (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably it's also WP:CRYSTALBALL to say there won't be repercussions, it's too early to tell, but the leak itself is significant otherwise it would not be the top story worldwide today. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using CRYSTALBALL to say there won't be repercussions is fine, because if the status quo holds (nothing results from this), WP has not taken any steps to suggest there would be. Its why we should be reactive and try to summarize, and not worry excessive about trying to keep up and certainly not about talking heads projecting importance particularly in the short term. Its how we differentiate from being a newspaper which has the goal of trying to contextualize current events into a larger picture for readers on the spot, whereas we should wait until we know how we can contextualize the event after some time. Masem (t) 12:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is all predicated on the personal assertion that the status quo has held. On other areas of Wikipedia we can wait, but here items become stale and unpostable in 4 days, which is simply too little time for the evidence you ask of long-term consequences to arise beyond expert consensus that the long-term has changed forever. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no external significance outside of the USA; and agree with Masem that there is probably no ramifications to this either. Natg 19 (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, I suspect Hegseth and Vance's moronic comments about Europe might well have significance outside the USA i.e. JD Vance and his mates clearly aren’t fit to run a group chat, let alone the world’s strongest military force. [7]Black Kite (talk)21:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - No consequences, not significant. So far I haven't seen any "repercussions" or anything saying this was a notable breach and the people that say they will haven't read WP:CRYSTAL yet. EF519:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really a consequence. It's related because it involves what the chat said about the attack, and the Atlantic editor realized thus was legit when the actual attack occurred matching the chat, but this is about discovering top military advisors and others in the US using Signal to discuss classified plans on an unsecured platform and personal devices. It could have been about any military plan, it's not an issue specific to the Yemen attack. Masem (t) 20:29, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article says that 53 people were killed. But the list of ongoing armed conflicts gives the big picture as 382,000 deaths in 11 years for the Yemen conflict. That's an average of 95 per day. So the US increment does not seem especially numerous or significant. And it's not what's making all the headlines now, is it? Andrew🐉(talk) 22:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Largest security breach in decades in the U.S., and ITN-worthy on that account alone. It will have ramifications even if nobody will be punished. It will for example further affect the relationship with the allies of the U.S. (negatively), particularly the European allies which were bashed in the chat. Yakikaki (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Until those diplomatic ties break down from this, the ramification claims are speculative, which we should not use as a reason to post. Masem (t) 20:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, support. The article meets all the requirements, and this is a major security breach that has been widely covered in the news. GN22 (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are zero mentions of any actual diplomatic repercussions, that is speculation. We cannot work on speculation. Masem (t) 21:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems incredibly speculative at this time to say it's going in the history books. It may end up of no major consequence. Wqwt (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Whilst we will inevitably see more spectacular incompetence from this bunch, the fact that their opinions on apparent allies is now in the public domain will have definite consequences. Black Kite (talk)21:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We're currently posting an assassination attempt which failed (again). We posted a ceasefire which failed (again). We posted a moon landing which failed (again). We post all sorts of ongoing stuff and the main requirement is that it be in the news with quality updates, not that it have some particular effect. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main difference is that assassination attempts, ceasefires and moon landings aren't routine events that happen every day, whereas millions of people are added to group chats and leak information on a daily basis. Moreover, they had apparently discussed what happened later or was publicised in a more politically correct way. Goldberg didn't prevent any of the plans, and no-one was held responsible for the leak. I'd like to believe that this is significant, but it's really not despite the obvious media hype.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, overall, but it doesn't make any difference if there are no consequences. I suppose that someone has to be held responsible if this is a serious security breach as reported. Otherwise, this is as in the proverb "Every miracle lasts only three days." No-one will care about after it rolls off the news feed. There are too many things that happened with Trump and his people so that it's difficult to remember them all.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very surprised that you think "it makes no difference" considering who those group members were and what they were discussing.Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)p.s. has anyone created Trumpopedia yet? Maybe a dedicated ITN area?[reply]
Lots of people still seem to be remembering Hillary Clinton's similar snafu ten years ago and making the obvious parallel. Wikipedia helps provide ammunition for both sides with its categories such as as Classified information in the United States. ITN is likewise supposed to help people find stuff, not to sweep it under the carpet. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a result of this specific incident, has any European country actually taken any steps to change its stance on the US from this? In comparison, as a result of the various deportations and arrests of green card holders, there are concrete effects from at least three EU countries via way of travel advisers. This security incident could raise a lot of concerns outside of the US but so far nothing's really happened, and we should not be rushing to post on hypothetical outcomes. — Masem (t) 12:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I trust experts far more than Wikipedians to weigh the significance of speculation.
“It is clear that the trans-Atlantic relationship, as was, is over, and there is, at best, an indifferent disdain,” said Nathalie Tocci, director of Italy’s Institute of International Affairs, who formerly advised a top E.U. official. “And at worst, and closer to that, there is an active attempt to undermine Europe.”
“The international order is undergoing changes of a magnitude not seen since 1945,” Kaja Kallas, the top E.U. diplomat, said last week
That disregard for normal security procedures will “cause allies to be very reluctant to share analysis and intelligence,” said Ben Hodges, former commander of U.S. forces in Europe. Barring major change, people “will assume America can’t be trusted.”
That's still experts opining what they think will happen. No hard, actual changes have been made, though I have seen a statement from Canada related to the Five Eyes program, though that itself is still "we may have to rethink our relation with the US" non-action.
I fully understand that there are two groundbreaking revelations out of this (the use of non-secured channels to discuss plans, and the disdain of foreign relations in how they discussed those plans) so I know this is severe, but so are about several dozen other actions under the second Trump administration, and this one seems so far hasn't generated any measurable, real-world actions in response compared to things like the downsizing, the seizure of USAID and other independent agencies, the threats over Social Security, and the deportations. ITN should not be focused on stories that only have hypothetical impacts. Masem (t) 12:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike social security and deportations this has far more ramifications by virtue of being global and more serious implications, by virtue of affecting—in higher magnitudes—international intelligence operations and relations with more powerful nations, than the USAID shutdown, which I would've supported posting anyways had there been no question over whether it warranted a separate article.There are no experts opining the opposite. They all believe this "hypothetical" is extremely likely to happen, and speculating with your own analyses that it won't is frankly a bit CrystalBall. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included
I would like the opposers here to provide more or about the same amount of sources—that predict against the intelligence operations and transatlantic relations changing for the worse—than/as one can find for the opposite side. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think tge question of possible ramifications in this case needs to take into account that in the world of diplomacy, consequences can be very real without being overly "concrete". The consequences for the relationship between Europe and the US in this case are too me clearly one of decreased mutual trust, undermining an alliance that has been a bedrock of international relations for decades. It doesn't mean that any "thing" that we can touch will vanish tomorrow, bases be closed or people will start dying. But it's nonetheless a real consequence (just like words can undermine a relationship between two individuals, really). Yakikaki (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ITN does not ban domestic issues (eg: the whole "do not complain about a topic being limited to one country"), but we only really post domestic issues if it results in a change with significant image. I'm not suggesting we should be posting about the SS or deportation factors just yet over this story, as they have yet to reach any tangible defining conclusion or point of no return, simply that if we're looking for the impact of a story, those have clearly documented impacts compared to what's happend to date with the Signal story. Masem (t) 12:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Major security breach with major implications, regardless of the US attempts to downplay, reveals staggering incompetence at the highest levels of US government and is of broad global interest. Polyamorph (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, government members leaking to journalists is incredibly common, security leaks less so. I did think whether we would post this if say it was China, and I think if it were just a normal security leak, no. But since it’s about military action against a sovereign nation, I’d say yes. Sympathise with arguments regarding significance, but this is too important, and imo ITN’s done well regarding coverage of the Trump psychodrama Kowal2701 (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If this happened in another country, I would oppose posting under the rationale that it has no greater significance outside of that country. Indeed, I have opposed many good-faith nominations made by editors from various countries about news that made top headlines in those countries but had no impact outside of those countries. It would be hypocritical of me to change that stance simply because it is happening in my home country. This security breach, while massive news to Americans, has no larger impact to anyone outside of the U.S. Therefore, I oppose. Mlb96 (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And, in any case, per WP:ITNDONT, you should not Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
My concern isn't purely about it being related only to a single country, but rather about the lack of larger significance. You can disagree with me about the lack of larger significance, but I am unlikely to change my opinion. Mlb96 (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AFAIK, no particularly sensational information has been disclosed. The fact that the US military was conducting strikes in Yemen is well-known and the media circus appears to be revolving around the breach itself. But even then the chat was shared with a domestic US journalist rather than foreign adversary which would have been more newsworthy. Personally, I think the journalist should have understood the chat's sensitivity, but instead went on to trumpet about the breach which is a questionable action towards one's own country, to say the least.Brandmeistertalk17:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When the most powerful sovereign describes its most powerful ally as a "pathetic" "freeloader" crybaby and has questionable reliablity with OPSEC, that's a deserved circus in need of posting. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You both have a point, but I think the experts that say it'll have major ramifications probably considered that and that the head of the Department of Defense has historically taken a far more active and powerful role in foreign affairs. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deeply embarassing, amazingly blaise, egregiously irresponsible. Though after the ransacking of the federal US government and the open support for extremist parties in Europe were we expecting anything less? Though perhaps not at the level of war strategizing on the level of family chat groups with emojis to boot, not to be amissed of the random outsider. Extremely amusing, but is it anymore significant than whatever the Trump 2.0 has been upto until now? I don't think so. Though this isn't a nothingburger either as some are making it out to be including here and obviously the US government (blaming Goldberg for the debacle rather than seeing the absolute lack of aptitude from the Trump cabinet is also bizzare). This is a major security breach but when put in the larger context of Trump's actions since Jan, I unfortunately have to cite Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article (or rather here his cabinet). If heads roll in the next few days, we can reconsider, but don't hold your breath. Gotitbro (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As this article is very obviously notable, the only thing that seems to apply from that is "news sites publish only cuz it's clickbait and free engagement", which... seems like a rather unfalsifiable argument. I highly doubt this will be clutter after 10 years. Experts believe it made Europe pissed. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is the point the essay makes. The relevant take away is that even substantial media coverage has to be contextualized into the larger going ons of the individual while being vary of RECENTISM. While this event is significant, I don't think stands out much in the larger context of Trump 2.0 is also what I lay out above. Gotitbro (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand, could you link me something with some part about contextualized going-ons? (Also, Trump had no role in this.) Aaron Liu (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well Trump didn't immediately say "we must carry out a thorough investigation of this security breach". He didn't say "my cabinet members made a silly mistake and they need to be reminded of protocol". He just described Jeffrey Goldberg as a "loser" and a "sleazebag"? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I should've worded it better. Trump's reactions have bits of significance, but they are not the reasons for posting at all. The Super Bowl's posting wasn't because Trump attended it, and TrumpCruft doesn't apply to it either. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"More formally, consider checking recency bias against the 10-year or 20-year test." is along the lines of my argument. If no repercursions occur due to this, I doubt much more than a few lines are going to go towards this incident when summarizing this administration. Gotitbro (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I highly doubt this would become clutter after ten years, and I still don't get why the only impact we should evaluate is that inflicted upon Trump. Our slice of the globe is hardly the only context: so is that of the US's relations with Europe and the international intelligence community, and such is seemingly the consensus of experts. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The only sensitive information released in the leak were when and what munitions were used in the attack. The bombings already happened, so wouldn’t this be public knowledge already? We also already know how the US government feels about Europe so there’s nothing really new in that regard either. A great example of the incompetence of this administration, but no real long-term consequences. Hungry403 (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support The opposers don't convince me. "It will have no ramifications/consequences"? Well, that's a crystal ball statement if I ever saw one. We don't know at all what ramifications this will have. On the basis of the occurence itself - cabinet members of the most powerful nation on Earth using a public app to discuss national security matters, and inadvertently adding a journalist to their chat - it seems post-worthy to me. Khuft (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bombings over Yemen were already published at the time and are really the notorious and relevant thing. Possibly nothing is going to happen as a result of this, nothing is going to change. Meh. Opposing per Kiril, Mlb96, Hungry 403. _-_Alsor (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing happening due to this is even more indicative of how comically inept these people running the defense department are. Scuba01:35, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit of a weak argument... that does not seem very significant. Nothing ever truly happens again. We would not include something about how ridiculous the media circus can be by including Obama's tan suit controversy. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really comparing adding a random journalist without security clearance to the top-secret top-level group-chat discussing military operations to Obama's tan suit? Scuba12:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We really should use CrystalBall at ITN to counter arguments of "this will have no significance and nothing will happen" more when RSes disproportionally say it'll have significance and things will happen. Putting aside original research and analysis is what makes Wikipedia the most reliable user-generated resource and one more reliable than Brittanica. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:44, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"More reliable than Brittanica" is very arguable. For the OR concerns, I think editors at ITN should be able to exercise some form of discretion (WP:10YEARS) as we do at other forums (AfD etc). Gotitbro (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It made the news cycle for a day or two, and we all know things are a little crazy right now with lots of developments in the US, but I don't see this having lasting impact. — Amakuru (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Would people stop referring to CRYSTALBALL with regard to ITN? CB is about the contents of WP articles. No more. The only CBing going on at ITN is whether or not articles meet the significance criteria based on projected impact, which will never be known in less than a week. And frankly, those criteria are quite fuzzy and obviously endlessly debatable in way too many particular cases. CB serves a very useful, necessary role in article quality, but it serves no purpose whatsoever in ITN. 128.91.40.237 (talk) 11:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CrystalBall is frequently cited by ITN editors to point out improper speculation, and I believed that its principles resonated extremely well with ITN editors. I'm surprised that so many of them default to their own speculation over the spirit of what they mean. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no immediate documentable impacts and the full impact will not be known for more than a week that begs the question why we might even have an article on it in the first place per NEVENT (though I'm not suggesting this situation doesn't qualify since investigations have been ongoing), much less make it appropriate for ITN. Its why we try to post on events with finality, such as the convictions rather than the arrests of people, for example. We apply CRYSTAL because we're looking to have news articles that document the actual event and its documentable impacts, and not tons of talking heads suggesting the importance of an event (which is what is happening here with this). — Masem (t) 12:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But it's still all limited to partisan games being played by the GOP or being buried by Trump. No I mediation actions, including actions from foreign govt, have occurred. That type of story is not good ITN material as it gives far too much a bias on US political shenanigans. — Masem (t) 16:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it's seeing coverage, but are there any consequences? Like, some kind of policy change or diplomatic rebuff or tariffs? If not, it just seems like sensationalism. Banedon (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is true that we do not know what the actual impacts of this leak will be. That said, it seems it's being taken quite seriously by many countries (European nations and Canada mainly). I think a blurb mentioning how it's being handled by some of these countries would be great - as it stands, the current blurb doesn't really explain exactly why these leaks are being treated the way they are. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per most of the above support votes. Major, major security breach of the world's most powerful government, with (not to veer into CRYSTAL, but) likely ramifications and ongoing coverage, TheKip(contribs)04:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It had some ramifications and consqequences, although rising hate for trump, there has not been any true real consequences for the action of a i think CIA agent? This is'nt ITN worthy as we are not a newspaper, we dont report on all the news in the world, so I dont understand how the supporters here think a national security breach is itn worthy. Shaneapickle (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how "we don't report on all the news in the world" means we should not post this one. I've also responded above about the concrete consequences you seek, and so has Yakikaki. This has yet to be addressed by those opposing this nomination. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SupportWP:NTRUMP is important to consider here and I understand the skepticism, but the existence of WP:NTRUMP is also not an invitation for all of us to engage in WP:CRYSTAL and hinge our vote based on speculation and personal opinions about the lasting impact of the breach. The fact is that the breach is being covered in depth, with enduring coverage, in basically every country across the world and across all of the most reliable sources. It meets the threshold for a blurb. I also personally see a consensus here and I agree with Abcmaxx and Arionstar that we should post before it is stale (although per my above point, I think it's still getting new and substantive coverage even today, so it's not yet stale). FlipandFlopped ツ16:26, 28 March 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.
(Closed) Ongoing: Myanmar civil war (2021–present)
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: Recent escalation in violence, territorial losses by the junta, and growing civilian displacement in Myanmar. As reported by Reuters and AP, the military is openly acknowledging setbacks, while resistance forces are gaining ground. Humanitarian concerns are rising, and experts warn of a worsening crisis with no signs of de-escalation. JadenStar10 (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't understand why having 1.33 edits a day would disqualify from the fact that it is continuously edited. If the article is being updated about once a day and a third on average, I think that qualifies for it being "continuously edited." JadenStar10 (talk) 06:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the Gaza war has about 5x more edits than the Myanmar Civil War, I dont think it is fair to use it as a basis of measure, especially with the hyper polarity and attention around the issue in comparison to the Myanmar Civil War which is arguably also a very important conflict. I would contend that having an article be updated about once a day and a third on average qualifies for it being "continuously edited." JadenStar10 (talk) 06:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the Middle East garners far more headlines in the English-speaking world than Southeast Asia. It's been that way for a half-century now. Naturally, this means more people will be interested in editing Gaza-related Wikipedia articles than about Myanmar, which only gets attention every now and then. Kurtis(talk)09:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support There has been alot of continuous editing on this page, as JadenStar10 said, and this is a really long ongoing conflict. The recent escalation should be put maybe into another page but, if not still support. Shaneapickle (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Compared to the other items in Ongoing, this is not receiving neither the near-daily coverage, nor the update frequency we'd expect an ongoing topic to have to be included in the ITN box. Masem (t) 12:34, 25 March 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.
Hamas says that an Israeli airstrike killed Ismail Barhoum, a member of the group's political bureau, via the operating theater at Nasser Hospital in Khan Yunis where Barhoum was receiving treatment after sustaining critical injuries in an air strike targeting his home in Khan Yunis last Tuesday. (France 24)
A van crashes into a ravine and catches fire in Nuevo León, Mexico, killing twelve people and injuring four others. The vehicle fire also sparked a small wildfire in the surrounding forest. (Reuters)
Workers of the Shiv Sena party of Maharastra attack the Habitat Venue in Mumbai after a video posted by comedian Kunal Kamra allegedly attacking Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde(Business Today)
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 Article has good quality and is well sourced. In addition, the subject was notable as she was the first black representative to be elected in Utah. AsaQuathern (talk) 14:57, 24 March 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.
Nominator's comments: US attorney. Despite the low pageviews, death appears to be making headlines due to the unusual circumstances. EF501:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The article seems sufficient and well-sourced. However, the nominator refers to the 'unusual circumstances', and it's not clear from the article what those are. GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:52, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely a young age - but I also get the feeling there's more to it. This story was on the front page of the BBC website yesterday. One to watch. GenevieveDEon (talk) 03:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m so far I haven’t seen anything explicitly saying her passing wasn’t natural; it’s best to not speculate. EF512:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nomination talks of low page views but she's trending now with 200K views yesterday. For comparison, George Foreman had 300K views yesterday.
You've been told repeatedly to refrain from bringing up page views as an ITN rationale. We don't consider those in any fashion, definitely not for a simple RD entry. Masem (t) 12:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a simple matter as it seems to be in the scope of WP:ARBAP2 and so may be a contentious topic. The readership indicates that it's getting a lot of attention currently and a high-profile uncertain and untimely death also brings in WP:BDP. Careful treatment is therefore appropriate, not just some run-of-the-mill rubber stamp. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Until there's clear evidence of the death being due to foul play, WP is not TMZ/gossip mill and we shouldnt be trying to promote the death as being suspect via ITN. It doesn't matter if internet theories are flying around that her death was tied to the legal work she dud, we should not at be entertaining that aspect, which this basically is arguing in terms of page views. — Masem (t) 18:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is just an RD nomination. I only drew attention to the circumstances of death because of an ambiguity in the nominator's comment, which has now been resolved. Posting this article to RD should be absolutely a matter of course, and certainly doesn't count as 'promoting the death as being suspect'. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right the RD itself isn't an issue, nor does the article go into much about the death beyond a statement from associate. My concern is suggesting that because internet rumors are aflame that there was sonething suspicious about the death that maybe a blurb is warrented because lots of people were looking for the article. That's extremely troubling if that's the logic behind that suggestion. — Masem (t) 20:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment, right there, is the first time anyone has mentioned 'blurb' in this discussion. That's not the current proposal, and I see no reason to change that. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article is short, but imo meets the threshold for being long enough to post to RD, and there are no issues with citations. Additionally, I've hatted the above thread regarding page views and speculation about her cause of death under WP:TALKOFFTOPIC. The only criterion for posting a recent death is article quality. Mlb96 (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The SOHR also reports several efforts by pro-government forces to hide the scale of the atrocities by gathering unaccounted bodies into mass graves, through cremation, or retaining hundreds of unidentified corpses from families. (SOHR)
Six people, including a child, are killed by Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon in the heaviest exchange of fire since the ceasefire with the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah almost four months ago. The strikes were carried out in retaliation for rockets from Lebanon being fired into Israel. (CTV News)
Foreign ministers from Japan, China, and South Korea meet in Tokyo to discuss cooperation on shared challenges like aging populations and climate change, seeking to improve relations and prepare for a leaders' summit. Japan raises security concerns about North Korea while China criticizes protectionism and the politicization of science. (AP)
Law and crime
The United States lifts a $10 million dollar reward for information leading to the arrest of Afghan warlord Sirajuddin Haqqani after the Taliban released an American citizen who had been kept in captivity for two years. (Al Jazeera)
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 for the time being on quality. Not long enough, and no detail on how the attack actually took place, were the victims shot? When expanded, happy to support it seems a noteworthy incident. — Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality. Stubby at 1538 B (218 words), esp. when the lead contributes decent amount to that size with repeated info, which would be more useful if the page was larger and worth summarizing. As others said, needs more details on the actual attack.—Bagumba (talk) 04:48, 27 March 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.
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 I would like to see the CN tags go, but I haven't been able to get rid of them yet. (I did partially fix one though.) However, I think we could also get rid of those un-cited statements without losing anything important. ❤HistoryTheorist❤03:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An explosion occurs at an oil depot in Krasnodar Krai, Russia, caused by a fire that has been burning since Tuesday. The fire spreads to another tank and increases to 10,000 m2 (110,000 sq ft), injuring two firefighters. (Reuters)
At least 44 people are killed and thirteen others are injured in an attack on a mosque in Fambita, Niger. The Ministry of National Defense blames the Islamic State. (Reuters)
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: Major development in the war, widely reported. The article only speaks about this in one sentence, though. MT(710)11:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ongoing covers this. If the war ends that is probably the only notable thing that we can post. Along with this, article has only two lines of the recapture TNM101 (chat) 15:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose This isn’t quite significant enough to warrant a blurb for an ongoing event. Recapturing all of Khartoum would merit a blurb. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:50, 22 March 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.
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 grill, er, blurb - Definitely a blurb-worthy figure, being on top of the field of professional boxing for years, and on top of the celebrity-endorsed side of the low-fat personal grill trend. Oppose on quality for now - there's a few uncited sentences in the career sections. Departure– (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality, too much unsourced stuff. Oppose blurb at this point not that he shouldn't qualify as a major figure but the article doesn't concisely explain this, this should be at least one or two paragraphs within the body (not just the lede) to explain this. The points in the lede do make it clear why he would qualify as a major figure but the body does not properly also ahve this information, making part of the quality issue. Masem (t) 02:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not Ready for the usual reason. This is going to require some work. Neutral/leaning oppose on a blurb once up to scratch. However I will endorse his grill. I had one for years and loved it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"An elderly person dying is not news" - I'm curious, is there any policy against blurbing old people who have had a significant impact in their field dying? By that logic we would have left out Nelson Mandela, Jimmy Carter, George H W Bush, and many other people. Tube·of·Light05:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There isn’t a policy against blurbs for influential old people who die. However, there are a few people at ITN who seem to believe that any old person who dies shouldn’t be blurbed, regardless of how influential they were. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality, article has 29 CN tags at the moment, plus his fighting record is completely uncited. Once those are fixed, support blurb on notability, he's one of boxing's household names alongside Ali and Tyson, and CNN, the BBC and NY Times all have it on their front page. PolarManne (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality and Slight leaning support on blurb Up to 36 citation needed tags now, needs immediate work before posting. I personally have never heard of him (please dont grill me) but I guess if that many sources are reporting then he's probably important TNM101 (chat) 07:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality, weak oppose blurb so many cn tags need fixing. And yes he was one of the top known boxers of all time, however that isn't enough to meet the "transformative" part needed for death blurb. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support blurb I don't know boxing or business inside-out. But I did always know who George Forman was, and so did many people around me who had no interests in those fields. The page List of world heavyweight boxing champions is going to need further reading for me to understand, but Foreman was one of the world champions in a worldwide, highly popular and highly competitive individual sport. Then he had the transformation into a completely new field by having his name in over 100 million kitchens around the world. Unknown Temptation (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb, oppose on quality the Rumble in the Jungle attracted more viewers than the first moon landing—probably a quarter of the world. That's not a transformative just for boxing, that's a transformative event in modern world history. Sure, Ali was the protagonist, but Big George was the antagonist for a reason. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Temporarily oppose until the sourcing issue is dealt with (I've just added two citations, but there are a lot left missing). Once that's done, I absolutely support. Renerpho (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jimmy Carter, Jim Brown, Queen Elisabeth, Betty White, Dilip Kumar, Henry Kissinger, Sidney Poitier were all blurbed, their deaths were not notable, and they were all older than Foreman. BilboBeggins (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's evidently your opinion, but it wasn't the consensus of the community - especially in the cases of Jimmy Carter and QE2. Of the ones listed, only Betty White stands out as an obviously wrong choice to me. But that's just my opinion. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards support blurb as an iconic figure in both boxing and pop culture as a whole. This assumes that his article is adequately sourced and effectively conveys his cultural impact to Wikipedia's readership. Kurtis(talk)01:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb - I think people claiming universal recognisability are overstating the case. Having been part of an effective advertising campaign is not the same as actually having a major lasting impact on a significant field of human endeavour. GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:54, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are still 25 instances of missing citations. I don't think this can be posted until those have been dealt with. Some are relatively easy to handle -- I've just done three! Come on, let's bring this up to standards. Renerpho (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb, Wait on quality per above. Boxing champion and the representative of a world-famous grill brand, but the article still has an insane 20 CN tags. --SpectralIon18:27, 24 March 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.
Support This is not any business/aircraft news and has nothing to do with a Trump ticker. It is important news in the present geopolitical context where there is talk of war everywhere. This plane is the most incredible jet fighter ever. This is important for world domination. Tradediatalk22:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I have literally zero confidence this will actually be pursued, given... yeah. Might reconsider once this actually enters service, but other than that this isn't super important. — EF522:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as I recall, we did not cover any other major contracts/unveilings; the photo shows it was unveiled in a similar manner to the B-21 Raider. (which as I recall was never covered in ITN at any stage) While an interesting development, (and sorely-needed good news for Boeing) I don't really think that major turns of the procurement side of things ever really match up to the level for ITN. It'd be excellent DYK (or possibly even OTD) material, however. Nottheking (talk) 23:03, 21 March 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.
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.
Nominator's comments: Target article needs some more work detailing the impacts on aviation, but this is garnering widespread coverage across all continents. A fire causing the complete shutdown of the world's fourth busiest airport is an extremely unusual story and sends shockwaves across the aviation industry. Unclear when the airport will reopen, but NYT is saying at least 290,000 passengers are going to be stranded globally at this point, up from 140,000 earlier Friday morning. As that number continues to rise, this becomes more and more notable. FlipandFlopped ツ15:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Major international chaos, one of the busiest airports in the world. More than 1300 flights and 200000 passengers affected. Royaltymv (🗨️) 15:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Barring some delays, this seems awfully unimportant to me. The fire wasn't at Heathrow itself, it was at a nearby substation, and I'm questioning how exactly this'll be important in the greater scheme of air safety. Nobody was hurt, they're just going to be late - besides, this was Heathrow, which, while maybe London's biggest, isn't their only airport. Yes, this type of thing is rare and has global effects, but I don't think it's of much importance or blurb-worthy. Departure– (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, events like weather often cause widespread cancellations, and that is not unusual. But, to your point, a fire not even at the airport but at a nearby electrical substation causing a total shutdown of all airport operations for 24+ hours, somewhere as huge as LHR? This was unfathomable within the aviation industry right up until it happened this morning. The NYT offers this quote from the Head of the International Air Transport Association:
"Firstly, how is it that absolutely critical aviation infrastructure — of not only national but also global importance — is totally dependent on a single power source without an alternative? If that is the case — as it seems — then it is a total and complete planning failure by the airport, and we will investigate". FlipandFlopped ツ16:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support as this would cause chaos due to the fact that Heathrow Airport is one the most busiest airports, and a fire could easily cause cancellations of flights. Shaneapickle (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious about the conditional nature of your comments. "This would cause chaos" - it already has. "A fire could easily cause cancellations" - it already has. A comment like that would ordinarily violate WP:CRYSTAL - but you appear to be predicting things which have already happened, and are in fact the main substance of the newsworthy material here. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to apologise. I just don't understand why you would use 'would' and 'could' about facts that were in the very nomination you were responding to, as well as on the front pages of major news sites. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality, support on notability The 4th biggest airport in the world is shut down, the impact of which meets WP:ITNSIGNIF. That being said, the article about the fire and impacts does not meet WP:ITNQUALITY, would expect a significant amount more text added (particularly on Heathrow closure as that is the main story here). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]
It's shut down for a day at most, that is not significant in the larger picture of events. If it was closed for like a week, that might be getting somewhere, but there are disruptions all the time at airports that shut them down for hours to days at a time, weather, accidents, security incidents, etc. There's zero reason to give Heathrow any special attention here for this reason. Masem (t) 17:11, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability. The article could do a better job of explaining the significance, but this is an unprecedented major infrastructure failure with global implications. Thryduulf (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's more about the lack of resilience of major privately owned national infrastructure. They say flights will resume tomorrow fwiw. Secretlondon (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Had this gone on longer, I think it would have been worthy of posting, but flights are supposed to resume later today and it will be open again tomorrow. Airport closures like this happen, though the reason may be different. Atlanta's airport, the busiest airport in the world, had to close two months ago because of weather [8]. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Barring any word of extensive (in the billions) of damages or loss of life, this is a "first world problem" and the temporarily stranding of thousands of passangers is not appropriate to cover at ITN. Masem (t) 16:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until it's clear whether it was an accident or not, it might be significant enough if it's a terror attack (although unlikely given no group's claimed it) Kowal2701 (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At first it sounded like it'd be substantial enough, but disrupting 1,000-2,000 flights is only along the lines of what a typical severe winter weather event might cause. Had this been a prolonged event, or had some other particularly unusual cause/impact, I'd have felt differently. But as it stands, we see numerous disruptions of this scale around the globe every year; the only real difference is that it affected Heathrow and not a different airport. Nottheking (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose When so many of the Support posts use the blatantly tabloid and quite meaningless word "chaos" to support their positions, I'm not convinced we have significant news at all. HiLo48 (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support affects hundreds of thousands of people directly, and more indirectly. Compare that to some of the minor accidents that we post on ITN and it's not a comparison. Banedon (talk) 04:00, 22 March 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.
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: Looking for an ITN topic that isn't morbid, I found this. But an update for this year's report is needed with some detail such as the trend to eat alone. I'm not sure if I'll get to it myself but can promise an ITN credit to anyone who does some heavy lifting. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What should set this apart in significance from the HDI/democracy/ease of business/environmental and a numerous other such indices is not at all apparent. Why unchanged ordinal listings from the top are given and not other changes or just a release of the report is also unclear. Not really in the precedence or importance of ITN items that we post. Gotitbro (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Has zero impact, and its not up to us to try to balance the amount of bad news that is coming out with good news. That's just how the news works. Masem (t) 13:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is reported on by numerous respectable news companies. I started with a couple and since then have seen that it's on the front page of the UK's newspaper of record this morning – The Times. It's not especially good or bad – it's rather a mix. But filtering this out is definitely what you're doing. It's blatant. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This is definitely going to be closed early per the snowball clause, and I was about to close it myself. But I honestly do feel a little differently from the rest so I figured I'd rather be involved than be closer. I appreciate this good faith nom as someone who loves keeping track of indices like this. I keep track of the Democracy Index, the Press Freedom Index, the Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index, the World Happiness Report nominated here, the Gender Inequality Index, and the Global Peace Index. I might be the only ITN lurker who actually finds these annual lists fascinating and wouldn't mind posting one or two of them per year as long as they get enough news coverage. A few years ago, I even took the time to painstakingly enter all the data from all of the indices I mentioned and averaged them together to determine the best country as of 2021 (it was Iceland, barely beating out Norway). But I also have to recognize that this is an exceedingly niche subject matter that very, very few people will find half as interesting as I do. I'd support if I were convinced this is getting enough attention in the news, since I view a country earning 1st place on a major index as analagous to an individual earning an annual award – it's not that different from the sort of things we already post (though I also recognize that some ITN regulars feel we already post too many awards as-is). But even if I outright supported, my lone !vote would be buried in snow. Vanilla Wizard 💙15:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The phrasing of "these explicitly are not competitions or awards and shouldn't be treated as such" implies that the people behind any of these indices have commented on treating them as competitions and advised against doing so, but I'm not aware of any such comments being made. I'm also not exactly sure what it would really mean to "treat them as competitions" – after all, all we'd be doing is stating the name of the country that received the best score, something that these indices already do themselves in their reports, and something the media announces in its reporting. All throughout the actual text of the World Happiness Report is paragraphs of exposition about why Finland in particular received the highest score, we wouldn't be doing anything they're not. I'm okay with us not posting on notability, I just disagree with this implication that blurbing them would be treating them inappropriately somehow. Vanilla Wizard 💙20:12, 21 March 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.
Social media company X files a lawsuit against the government of India alleging that the Indian government is censoring the social media platform along with other information. (DW)
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: African-American portrait photographer. A few uncited statements, and could use expansion of analysis of her work. ForsythiaJo (talk) 18:44, 24 March 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.
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.
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 in principle as IOC president is the top post in the world of sports. A bit more info on the IOC selection process, her relationship with Thomas Bach (apparently her mentor?) would be useful. Khuft (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not ITN material. She's not running a country, it's just an administrative organisation that organises the games. — Amakuru (talk) 07:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can see why the first African and first woman to lead the IOC would be notable. Based upon the fact that other language Wikipedias are running it is precedence enough for me to support it. The C of E God Save the King! (talk)12:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality For all this, this (the current bolded article, about the sesssion) is really a short article (once you ignore the pictures and stats). And if it were to have Kirsty Coventry as featured, that's far away from being close to properly sourced. Masem (t) 13:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bach's election in 2013 was posted, for reference. Personally I'm not convinced the head of the IOC is noteworthy enough for ITN, but I'm not a real expert on the power the IOC president has. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This does not fall under ITNR. ITNR covers general elections for sovereign countries, European Union elections, and United Nations Security Council elections. Natg 19 (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yeah, I see, sorry. Target article is a bit thin/stubby, but I suppose it's acceptable. Since the actual story is about Coventry, though, it would have been a lot better for her article to be bolded. Black Kite (talk)22:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
target article is basicly a barebones news article, which is not representative of quality we are usually looking for at ITN. ITN is not about posting news items, but quality articles that happen to be in the news, and I'd expect far better I'm this case (on the session article). Sometimes news happens and from an encyclopedia POV there is very little we can really write about much less feature it, and this appears to be such a case. Masem (t) 23:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pull, head of an international sports committee is not interesting. Note that this story is not getting much play in the news media. On top of that, the blurb runs against longstanding consensus of claiming that "firsts" are ITN-worthy. Abductive (reasoning)11:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest it's very interesting to some people, and not interesting to others (including you). And there certainly was quite widepsread coverage on the day of the election. Black Kite (talk)11:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of anyone for whom this is interesting. Most of the world watches the Olympics every four years (or two years if including the winter version) and that's about it. This is nowhere near as major a role as the above comments seem to imply. — Amakuru (talk) 12:27, 25 March 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.
Support blurb Definitely a giant of the sport in more ways than one. Signed Michael Schumacher into F1, had long-standing team which promoted many new names, was a renowned commentator and Ireland's best known name in F1. His influence on the sport was enormous. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, undecided on blurb. Good article and undoubtedly a major figure in F1, but I'm not convinced he's the kind of figure than breaks out of that domain into general interest to the extent that justifies a blurb. Big figure in British media after his team ownership days but I'm not sure about wider reach. The US isn't really a big F1 market so may need to give this 12 hours for Austrailia to comment. 3142 (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality many lines and paras are unsourced. Please, check the article before blindly support the nomination. I've added some CN tags and orange tagged the article. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at your tags and many of them strike me as redundant: for example you have tagged a statement that is primarily about Heinz-Harald Frentzen, but there is a link to Frentzen right there and his article is referenced. Just because people reach a different conclusion to you doesn't mean they have not done their homework, indeed, a reader attempting to verify an article or a reviewer assessing quality is expected to scratch a bit deeper than blindly asserting "Oh look there's a sentence without a hatnote there." 3142 (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Our citation policy requires citations to be in the article even if there's a blue link and it is cited there. Articles are meant to be able to be used in isolation (like if someone printed it out). — Masem (t) 12:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
great that the article and tags are checked, it is the only way to ensure that the article has the quality it should have to be posted and that it doesn't have yet. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose RD on quality. Oppose blurb, there is nothing in the article that indicates how he was a major figure in F1. We cannot take handwaving claims of greatness. Masem (t) 11:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality and Oppose blurb per Masem. After reading through his article (and all those uncited statements), I cannot see how he had the sort of "transformative impact" in F1 to deserve a blurb. If the sentences do get cited, I will support for RD TNM101 (chat) 12:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment some of the oppose votes are quite baffling. F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport and is one of the biggest sports worldwide, its popularity in the US is merely an anomaly in the global picture. Jordan revolutionised the sport in that he gave so many notable drivers their debut and the way in which he ran his own team (which is a rarity in F1). He was Irish, Jordan raced on an Irish licence, he lived in South Africa, his popularity was global. The article does not reflect this, but that is a quality issue not a notability issue, we should not conflate the two. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not baffling at all Abcmaxx; there are probably multiple dozen people who would rank above Jordan in terms of impact on Formula One, and if you rank that far down you haven't had that big of an impact. I loved Eddie Jordan's character, kindness, and Belgium 98 will always have a place in my heart, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of that, on terms of being a major F1 figure, has sourcing to say those are elements of his greatness. Those aspects are documented, but not why they contribute towards being a major figure. That's the handwaving I'm talking about. If that can be sourced from multiple RSes including obits, then maybe that helps. But no sourcing of this type means we can't begin to consider that. — Masem (t) 23:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article is in a bit of a better state now, in my opinion. All CN tags have been resolved, and major issues (that I am aware of) have been fixed. Formatting and phrasing has also been adjusted to be more organized/encyclopedic. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not remotely blurbworthy. For the umpteenth time, death blurbs are not for "people I've heard of" it's for the true top contributors. Not sure who might qualify in F1, perhaps Schumacher or Hamilton as legitimate "goat" contenders, Verstappen if he continues his trajectory, but that's about it. Jordan was a charismatic and interesting character, but not transformative. — Amakuru (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb, wait due to quality Per ABC, Jordan was the one last "true" privateer team relying on sponsors, to score wins also being a foot in the f1 or second chance. Amakuro, I ask you DID Verstappen, Schumacher or Hamilton run an F1 team? Koltinn(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb If getting a blurb was in Monaco, Jordan would be in Singapore- not even the same continent of being sufficiently transformative in his field. -- Kicking222 (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb I held back yesterday because of the shape of the article, but it looks much better now, enough for RD. Blurb is not warranted since that should be reserved for the absolute biggest figures in their respective fields, and yes, Jorday was influential, but in the end not nearly successful enough to be considered "a great". Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:11, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD only The article is now good enough to post at RD. Whilst a big name in F1 for a long time, don't think he meets the death blurb threshold of "transformative". Joseph2302 (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The United Nations reports that a UN official is killed and five others are wounded in a strike on a guesthouse. The UN states that the perpetrator is unclear at this time. (AP)
Authorities begin demolishing façades of historic buildings, including those that survived the Battle of Arnhem, following a fire in the city in the Netherlands on March 6. (NOS)
Nicholas Prosper, a 19-year-old who was convicted of killing three family members and plotting a school shooting in Luton, Bedfordshire, England, in 2024, is sentenced to minimum of 49 years in prison without parole. (CTV News)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: The protests were nominated on the 15th, but at that point there really hadn't been much action to reasonably justify a blurb. This would be ITNR, though there is now a 30-day timer before the next PM will be named. Not thrilled will how little this is covered on Vucevic's article nor in the protest article in terms of covering the whole story (I've expressed major concerns on the quality of the protest article just being a massive timeline dump rather than trying to summarize the protests). To add, while he submitted his resignation in January, the parliament accepted it today, making it formal. He remains in that position in acting capacity until the next PM is named, so I could also see waiting until that point. Masem (t) 00:17, 20 March 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.
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 Article is good enough for RD. I have added one cn tag, although that's very minor and shouldn't hold this up TNM101 (chat) 12:53, 20 March 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.
There should be footnotes for the date and place of birth in main prose. Stats table and bullet-points after that both need sourcing. Ditto for stats in the infobox. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 11:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb should probably mention 100s of others that supported Imamoglu were also arrested and have taken steps to block social media and other routes of freedom of expression. Also should add that Imamoglu was to be the candidate against Erdogan in the election (eg this is all politically motivated) Masem (t) 12:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the current target article I feel there should be a target article on the arrest of him and the others along with the related protests that occurred as a result of this. Nonetheless I have added an altblurb for better phrasing TNM101 (chat) 14:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support notability but oppose on current quality This is the strongest politician in opposition to Erdoğan, and favourite to win the next Istanbul election which is widely seen as the last step before running the country (Istanbul is one of the world's largest cities and still is and has been of significant global importance for centuries, so this should be unsurprising). However this should have a Arrest of Ekrem İmamoğlu article explaining in detail the quasi-legal justification and the ramifications of such a move, including the political science behind the democratic erosion. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability Sure, an arrest of a mayor is not sufficiently notable in and of itself, but if it is generating mass protests and wide-scale coverage in global sources, then it can fit the bill. Just as equally, the death of a woman in police custody or a man being murdered on the street by police, in and of itself, would not not be featured on ITN. However, those kind of events can become eligible once it generates both (a) global reaction in the RS and (b) mass protest. Newspapers across all seven continents are covering these protests in depth, just as they did in those examples, so both those criteria are made out here. FlipandFlopped ツ17:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability per Abcmaxx and Flipandflopped - this represents a massive crackdown on the remaining opposition to Erdogan, which IMO is notable. However, oppose on quality given there's no standalone article and the update to İmamoğlu's own article is brief. TheKip(contribs)17:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Altblurb Way better than my original blurb, and way more fitting now that there is a standalone article on the protests rgearding the arrest of the mayor. SymphonicWizard72 (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be posted while the iron is still hot, so it will also bring attention to the current situation in Turkey. "Enough" is also subjective, as the 2025 Turkish anti-government protests article should already be "enough" for ITN notability, even if the mayor's arrest article might not be. SymphonyWizard72 (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability but oppose on quality. The arrest of Istanbul mayor has received international significance. However, some article needs to be address the citation issues. Moraljaya67 (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability but the 22nd March section is useless- if nothing happened today them remove it, or expand it if there were significant updates today. Once fixed, support as meets WP:ITNSIGNIF. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:09, 22 March 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: Sorry if the formatting isn't up to standard, this is my first time nominating. It may seem like an odd choice to put in recent deaths, but I think being arguably the most intelligent and one of the most well known and studied animals justifies being included in the recent deaths page. WhirrSlorward (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t see any reason why RD should be limited to human deaths, so would support when that orange tag regarding factual accuracy is resolved. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An animal’s article can be posted to RD, but Kanzi’s article can’t be posted in its current condition due to the “factual accuracy” tag & b/c more citations are needed. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:20, 25 March 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.
Support Was not familiar with the case but good article. I was a bit hesitant, ITNR notwithstanding, because with this kind of nom it is always an issue are you glorifying heinous acts? However this one has gone as far as SCOTUS which makes it notable enough for me. 3142 (talk) 11:28, 20 March 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.
Support - Well-sourced and written, if brief, though no explanation for the early death. (Sourced update now added by another editor.) Jusdafax (talk) 05:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This stubby wikibio currently has only 205 words of prose. Stats table below the prose are unsourced. Please expand this wikibio and add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability but oppose on quality - the article is mostly background at the moment, with little on the attack itself or aftermath. TheKip(contribs)18:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Al-Shabaab has been making attempts and attacks for years but they don't amount to much when they fail like this. Somalia has been a failed state for even longer due its civil war and so its pirates and warlords naturally generate lots of violence and chaos. It's yet another ongoing armed conflict which we should link generically in Ongoing rather than trying to cover every incident. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Al-Shabaab have tried to assassinate him several times before. If they succeed then maybe it's significant but yet another failure is not. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source?
Also, If they succeed then maybe it's significant - you’ve absolutely got to be kidding me. In what world is the assassination of a sitting, internationally-recognized President not significant? I’ve had my disagreements with your logic before but this is on a wholly different level. TheKip(contribs)23:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, our article lists 2012, 2013, and 2014 attempts, with the only apparent fatalities being 8 in 2012. Technically several times, but this is the most deadly and after a 10-year gap. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions00:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Patar knight I'm clarifying successful assassinations - Andrew seemed to imply that Mohamud actually getting killed by Al-Shabaab would only "maybe" be notable, which is an utterly absurd premise. TheKip(contribs)02:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability requires coverage by independent and reliable sources. There are many hypothetical scenarios in which such an event is so chaotic or shrouded in doubt that we are unable to report it with any certainty. The remaining Gaza hostages are rather like this as it seems likely that many are dead but it's not clear.
And it's interesting to note that the Kennedy assassination is still the subject of debate and getting lots of coverage and attention currently. If you use Google news searching for the the word "assassination", you'll find many current stories about Kennedy but not so much about Somalia. That's what's notable and in the news. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to interpret “in the news” as what’s in American news, Google results are relative to your location. For me in the UK it’s a mixture of JFK, MLK, Trump, and Gandhi. Undoubtedly you’d get different results if you were searching from East Africa. Kowal2701 (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the UK too. My Google News search is nothing but JFK until the third page of results when some references to a computer game start appearing. Google's algorithm may involve more than geography but perhaps our search parameters were different. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By logic, If leader al-Burhan, prime minister Netanyahu or president Zelenskyy survives an assassination attempt, the attacks would already being covered by its respective ongoing wars. ArionStar (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's nothing special for Somalia. The number of deaths in such incidents in Somalia last year was 6,206 which is 17 per day. We just posted another such Somali incident briefly and it got next to no readers. We could fill ITN with nothing but Somali violence but that's what Ongoing is for. And this has been ongoing for decades. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What’s notable here was that the president was nearly assassinated. The United States had 19,000 murders in 2023, and a higher murder rate per 100,000 people than Somalia in 2015 (when we last had data), yet I assume we still posted Trump’s assassination attempt. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability – assassination attempt on a head of state, the fact that it happened in Sub-Saharan Africa doesn't make it any less notable, and we shouldn't cave in to systemic bias. Also, I'm strongly doubting the claim that these happen "daily". Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still not ready. There are three sentences specifically related to the event, the rest is background and the reactions section kudzu that doesn't help explain the event further. Way too little practical content here. Masem (t) 12:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, but support on notability. The article is still quite murky and short on details. Attempted assassination of a head of state, especially with double digit fatalities should be posted. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions00:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are only three sentences on the actual event, the rest a massive background and excessive reaction section. This does not exemplify the quality we look for in new news articles. Masem (t) 16:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article looks fine to me. Comment can we have a shorter blurb, and use a more current picture of president Hassan, like the one in the article? Khuft (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Somalia is hardly a bastion of peace - that violent things happen in violent countries is not notable. That doesn't mean this can't reach a level to be worthy of posting but it has to be backed by a particularly solid article. In this case I'm not seeing it. Firstly, look at the article - look, don't read: there are a lot of single line paragraphs there which instantly raises alarms bells - articles that follow that pattern are frequently a random collection of facts rather than a coherent piece of writing that develops and explores the topic at hand. Reading the article confirms that to me - it has that "bang bang" feel - "here's a fact, now here's another" - there is little sense of the topic developing as the article progresses. Indeed I note that the Attack section that actually discusses the nominal subject of the article rather than background or aftermath is at the time of writing three sentences long. 3142 (talk) 12:52, 20 March 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.
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 oppose Article seems solid enough, and it's fully sourced, but some of the sources seem not the most reliable at first glance. TheKip(contribs)03:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: While Gaza war should probably be placed in ongoing, a single event that kills 300400 people is notable in its own right. This should be evaluated independently of the ongoing nom below. VR(Please ping on reply)06:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The blurb and article take the position that this was a "surprise attack" and blame Israel for breaking the ceasefire. My impression is that there is fault on both sides and the resumption of fighting is not surprising. As this is a contentious topic, we must be quite rigorous in establishing an even-handed, NPOV statement. As the conflict has been ongoing for some time, putting the entry back in Ongoing would be the easiest way of doing that. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson: - you cited this Associated Press report in your 11:59, 18 March comment below. The AP report you cited says in its first paragraph: The surprise bombardment, the deadliest in Gaza since the start of the 17-month war, shattered a ceasefire in place since January.starship.paint (talk / cont)14:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems that the AP report has now been rephrased, rendering that quote obsolete. But, another AP report says: The surprise wave of airstrikes plunged Palestinians back into a nightmare they had hoped might be behind them.starship.paint (talk / cont)15:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Saying that Israel launched a surprise attack does not violate NPOV because, regardless of one's opinion on who's at fault, Israel did launch a surprise attack. MT(710)09:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC's extensive live coverage doe not use the word "surprise" or characterise it in this way. The attacks seem very similar to many previous attacks and, as the ceasefire talks had stalled and the parties are intransigent, seem quite unsurprising. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Refusal to accept a respectable source such as the BBC demonstrates why this topic is so toxic and intractable. Consider this AP report. This states that "Many Palestinians said they had expected a return to war when talks over the second phase of the ceasefire did not begin as scheduled in early February. ... But since that ceasefire ended two weeks ago, the sides have not been able to agree on a way forward with a second phase aimed at releasing the 59 remaining hostages" So, the first phase of the ceasefire expired weeks ago and, as the second phase has not been agreed, hostilities have resumed as expected. How is this surprising? Andrew🐉(talk) 11:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The umbrage was with you saying "well this source that has come under increasing scrutiny for violating its own neutrality rules says" to make your point, not the statement that the attack in hindsight was unsurprising. Had you started out with the AP source and the body of text cited, there would not be any issue. Anyway Support blurbMount Patagonia (talk • contributions) 12:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A general sense of depair for a complete breakdown of ceasefire does not really speak about the unexpected nature of this attack.
And sources can be reliable while still being biased. The war has been going for more than a year now and the divergence of coverage between media sources and scholarly literature would be apparent to anyone who has followed these sources. BBC's bias does not mean that it is to be rejected outright but its neutrality or lack thereof should be questioned especially in such contexts. Gotitbro (talk) 03:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the divergence of coverage between media sources and scholarly literature
Not to fully dispute your point, but what this tells me is that media and scholars have different biases, not simply that the media is biased. It’d be wise to treat no sources around such a contentious conflict, even scholars, as truly unbiased, or at least those with any degree of subjectivity in conclusions - some things with hard numbers are straightforward. TheKip(contribs)05:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sources can be biased but there is a reason secondary [scholarly] sources are preferred to primary news reports on enwiki wherever possible. Reliability and bias different things, and we are as biased as our sources secondary sources are. No one is disputing the reliability of the BBC here but the siginificant criticism it has received for its coverage of this conflict (including internal dissension) is something that indeed needs to be given due consideration if undue weightage is being assigned to it to argue contentious points. Gotitbro (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The death toll is a number attributed to the Gaza Health org (as I am seeing worded in the news reports), so like with the Sudanese massacre a few days ago, the blurb should at least have some type of clarification that the death toll is a claim. Masem (t) 12:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a consensus for the reliability of the Gaza Health Ministry's figures and they have been treated as such. The "claim" terminology should only become operative if they are substantially disputed in this instance, which doesn't appear to be the case as of now. Gotitbro (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and I agree that the GHM is reliable enough that we don't need to attribute it in the blurb, but I do agree with questions about whether this is a "surprise attack", because as far as I can tell, the actual cease-fire ended on March 1, and this strike came after negotiations to extend it repeatedly went nowhere. But regardless, our article does not call it a surprise attack — it says only that it was described as a "surprise attack", which I don't think is strong enough for us to put that claim in WP:WIKIVOICE on the Main Page. DecafPotato (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others, with either "surprise" or "unexpected" being fine, IMO. Per starship.paint, multiple RS describe the event as being a "surprise attack", but on the other hand, per Andrew, AP reports on a general resumption of hostilities as having been expected by Palestinians. Regardless, this is a significant and tragic development in the Gaza War. ArkHyena (it/its) 17:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support ALT1 More precise and also includes relevant context about the end of the ceasefire agreement, which I think is a big part of the story. I'm also fine if "surprise" is used instead of "unexpected", but I think the blurb should include that this effectively ends the ceasefire agreement as ALT1 does. FlipandFlopped ツ18:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - surprise in blurb is simplest. I'd be tempted to note ceasefire violation, given the very unexpected and particular brutal attack. Nfitz (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support A blurb is preferable to simply putting the war back in ongoing, based on the 'renewal' of hostilities marked by this event. It is also a single incident of large-scale warfare, in comparison to the large-overall but smaller day-by-day nature of the war itself. As for the wording, "surprise" per RS - and because we could probably all say we expected hostilities to resume, but perhaps not in this surprising way. Kingsif (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I used a modified version of ALT1, since most commenters noted the end of the ceasefire as a key element. I avoided using "surprise" or "unexpected" since our article and the sources here largely referred to "surprise" in the context of operational secrecy rather than this particular outcome being unexpected or particularly deceitful. Usage generally by RS while common was also not so high that it would be an essential descriptor. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions23:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I think the current blurb works fine, would like to note that sources noting military secrecy also allude/refer to how unexpected this attack was. Ceasefire talks still being seriously considered (at least in the media) till this point. Gotitbro (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And this is what the lead of our article says at this time: "On 18 March 2025, Israel launched a surprise attack on the Gaza Strip effectively ending the 2025 Gaza war ceasefire. Israel's attack killed more than 400 Palestinians, including 263 women and children, making it the deadliest day for Palestinians in the Gaza war, according to the Gaza Health Ministry." Gotitbro (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse Patar knight's perceptive posting as I was thinking myself that the surprise was tactical/operational rather than political/strategic. Isarel's focus seems to be eliminating the remaining Hamas leadership and it seems that about 5 of them were killed in those strikes. The BBC reports that "Netanyahu calls strikes on Gaza 'only the beginning'" and so the war is ongoing again. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support The ceasefire is clearly over and Israel's bombardment of the Gaza strip has resumed. We can wait for another day if we want, to see if there is a sudden reversal and somehow Hamas and Israel agree to enter Phase 2. But that strikes me as unlikely to happen anytime soon, given the sheer death toll of Israel's strikes (200+). FlipandFlopped ツ05:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but wait: If the blurb nom above gets posted, I think it's best to wait for that to roll off before re-adding this entry to ongoing. MT(710)09:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Don't know how to feel learning about this major news update via Wikipedia ping. But, considering RS like The Guardian are saying "Israel shatters Gaza ceasefire", seems enough to bring it to this section of Wikipedia. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
*Weak oppose. I'd wait until there is a renewed campaign for a few more days, since stuff like this always happens during ceasefires. 675930s (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait — Since the blurb for the recent Israeli attack is almost certain to be posted, we should wait until it rolls off to add the war to ongoing. DecafPotato (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait The attack blurb will be posted, but we have no idea if this was a one time thing or if hostilities will continue. If the former, reading this to ongoing makes no sense. Masem (t) 18:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per DecafPotato and Masem. The blurb above will cover it for at least a few days, during which we’ll likely get an answer whether this was a one-off attack or a full resumption of the war. TheKip(contribs)19:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Set up for ongoing I've added this to the "ongoing" list, but the item is as yet hidden. I've left a hidden note with the ITN item; when that falls off, the hidden item can be made visible. Schwede6604:59, 25 March 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 The article does have impressive and detailed day-to-day coverage, which many articles fail to achieve under WP:ONGOING. However, almost all of the coverage is from local or relatively obscure sources. To merit an ongoing placement on the Main page, we'd need to see consistent coverage from a global array of prominent reliable sources. There are a few sources of this type cited in the target article, but these are mostly about tangential issues and not the offensive itself (e.g. BBC articles about Trump's foreign policy in Somalia, or the Somali President meeting with a foreign leader). FlipandFlopped ツ19:43, 18 March 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.
The European Union pledges €2.5 billion ($2.7 billion) to Syria for aid, while the United Kingdom pledges an additional £160 million (€190.3 million). (DW)
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: Similar situation to the Serbian anti-corruption protests after the Novi Sad railway station canopy collapse. Protest have turned violent, and no they haven't resulted in a change of government but several local officials have been arrested. Obviously this if posted should replace the current post regarding the tragedy. The 4 sources in this nomination can be used to expand the article as slightly short at the moment. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait to see if the protests are enduringly notable and have continued coverage, or if this was just a one-off rally in protest of the incompetence surrounding the fire. Lots of accidents and natural disasters will attract criticism and backlash against those responsible, but for something like a fire or rooftop collapse, we'd want to see it transforming into an enduring protest movement for it to meet the ITN threshold. FlipandFlopped ツ17:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Posted to RD; blurb discussion ongoing) RD/Blurb: John Hemingway (RAF officer)
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support- I expanded this a good bit a few years so it would be ready for ITNRD when the time came. Glad he ended up living a good bit longer :). -Eddie891TalkWork02:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb A blurb is a good idea as just posting his name without any context at RD would be literally meaningless. The article could use some expansion but I'll help out with that. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb this is a very anglo-centric view to make this into a news story; he was not the last WW2 veteran, and was one of many who took part in one of many WW2's notable battles. Crudely put, this is essentially WP:OLDMANDIES and is not a remarkable story; all of RD nominations are of notable persons since they have articles. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Anglo-Centric" is a strange criticism to make on what's deemed newsworthy for an English-language website, never mind that he was Irish. Also, the Few are world-renowned for defeating the Germans in one of the biggest air campaigns in history, which is considered a turning point in the war. You can't call this an unremarkable story in any good faith. 675930s (talk) 11:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abcmaxx: "Anglo-centric"? People of many nations were members of The Few. Hemingway himself was Irish. No claim that he was the last WWII veteran has been made. The passing of the last of The Few, as well as the last D-Day veteran, should be properly honoured, as should the passing of the last WWII veteran. Mjroots (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of The Few were from anglophone countries, i.e. former British Empire. I stand by my comment, and blurbing this will would be to pander to anglophone patriotic sentiments, not because this gentleman's death is encyclopedicly more notable than the many other RD nominations. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb - At this point, the "western bias" is just being used to oppose anything related to the west. EF512:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD No one would suggest we post every pilot of this group who died, so the exception here is solely due to him outliving the others. This is not typically a valid reason to blurb. Maybe we would post the last known WWII vet as an exception, but the last vet of a subset of a subset of a subset is an unusual suggestion. GreatCaesarsGhost14:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support for blurb (I'm the OP) It is true we do not typically post last survivors of individual battles, but this is a bit different. The battle of Britain was not so much a battle as a prolonged campaign of both military and terror bombing. One where not just the war, but the survival of civilization itself hung in the balance. This was the only point where Hitler really was on the cusp of winning the war. If not for this man and the other "Few" I do not care to think about what the world would look like today. Yeah, I think that warrants notice at ITN. That aside, I believe consensus exists that this is at least ready for RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support blurb I think this just about rises to the levels needed for ITN. And whilst it's a sad story, it is at least not a disaster, weather issue, space probe, mass killing or an election. Black Kite (talk)15:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb neither meets death as the news topic, nor as a major figure. This is literally old man (who happened to outlast thousands of others that fought in WW2) dies". Masem (t) 15:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a reasonable argument for answering "yes" to this if you consider his "field" to be World War Two veterans. He was a transformative person in his field insofar as he outlived his peers for so long, which caused him to become a sort of ambassador and symbolic figurehead of WW2 veterans for many years. His transformative nature is intertwined with the fact that he lived for so long. FlipandFlopped ツ01:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb - the news story isn't that one particular person died, it's the death of the last person to fight in the Battle of Britain, and fits the "Death as the main story" criterion. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD Quality looks fine for RD standards. Oppose blurb on quality and significance He's not actually a major figure nor did his death itself have any notable qualities. Regardless, the update on the article is too brief and doesn't meet our requirements for blurbs. 139.164.154.34 (talk) 08:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb on notability "last of" is something circumstantial and not ITN-worthy. He was not a major WW2 figure. Posted in RD is more than enough. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb. A country's last WWII veteran is one thing, but will we post the last survivor of Pearl Harbor? D-Day? Leningrad? ~~ Jessintime (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb transformative figures are not limited to talent in a field. It’s for extraordinary work where the fate of mankind’s future is at big stake. He did a lot on that end. DrewieStewie (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Looks like Wikipedia is only considering a blurb because he is the last living person of a group, but none in that group would qualify for a blurb as transformative in their field. It would be different if he was the commander in chief or the oldest man in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.6.200.168 (talk) 13:02, 21 March 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.
Nominator's comments: Looks like a major, life-changing disaster for the country, with local residents and ecologists saying things like "The river died in a single day." The article may need more details and pictures. Trepang2 (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it seems that the event happened on Feb 18, about 1 month ago. Unsure why AP is reporting on this so late. Natg 19 (talk) 06:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Al Jazeera had a good on-the-spot report six days ago. The area has a long history of such pollution from the mining industry [13], [14]. So it goes... As the story seems too stale for ITN, DYK should be considered while the article is still new. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I consider this very significant but unfortunately it is just far too stale to be posted now. Not sure why western news sources have taken a whole month to catch on to this. --SpectralIon03:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The current story appears to be more about the coverup by the Chinese corporation rather than the disaster itself. Gotitbro (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The dam collapse by itself might be stale, but disaster is ongoing and worsens with time, thus not stale, especially given that it's only just being properly reported by media. As for article quality, I believe it's adequate for ITN already. –Jiaminglimjm (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing requires consistent updates. Generally, these are stories which may lack a blurb-worthy event, but which nonetheless are still getting regular updates to the relevant article. In general, articles are not posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening. In order to be posted to ongoing, the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information. Articles whose most recent update is older than the oldest blurb currently on ITN are usually not being updated frequently enough for ongoing status.Natg 19 (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no real information on what long-term impacts would be. It's not a particularly large volume of liquid - 50,000 m³. Compare to the 35,200,000,000 m³ in Lake Mead (Hoover dam). Stating the number in Litres just makes it sound very big. And what's the waste - the article is very unclear. Acidic water? It will flush through - presumably quickly the local rainfall. How acidic? It could buffer quickly. Definitely not ongoing. I don't know it's even notable enough, given the lack of human deaths. Seems pretty minor compared to say the (equally underdiscussed) ecological disaster in the Hudson River. Nfitz (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Has the Hoover Dam burst? There is no use comparing an event with a non-event. The Hoover Dam holds clean water, not "concentrated acid, dissolved solids and heavy metals". At high levels of toxicity the volume required for significant impact does not have to be enormous in absolute figures. Yes, the breach was repaired and the acid was neutralised with lime to an unknown extent, but the impact is going to be measured in the long term. Lack of direct fatalities is hardly an argument, since the Chernobyl disaster only caused 2 immediate deaths, 28 more over 3 months, and 14 further over the following decade. One death was reported in a smaller incident of acid waste leak that only came to light after the Kafue River disaster.[1] Two comparable cases are the 2022 Oder environmental disaster, which was featured on ITN, and the 2000 Baia Mare cyanide spill, which predates Wikipedia and was labelled the worst environmental disaster since Chernobyl - the amount of waste was twice that in Zambia, so in the same order of magnitude. VampaVampa (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The collapse itself happened a month ago, making it stale, and the ongoing aftereffects aren't really a "ITN blurb" thing unless there's a singular moment of elevated importance. TheKip(contribs)03:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Compare 2022 Oder environmental disaster (featured on ITN) and 2000 Baia Mare cyanide spill (grave incident of similar magnitude). Time elapsed since event should not be an argument - the event has not been picked up at all by most major Western news agencies, which is hardly a reflection of the disaster's gravity, as shown by the comparisons cited, but rather of how events in the global South are ignored and underreported. All the more reason to highlight. Consequences are going to be long-term due to the nature of event (environmental pollution). VampaVampa (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there may be major environmental impacts, however, ITN does not post "stale" events, and this event happened over a month ago. Natg 19 (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At least 59 people are killed and more than 152 others are injured after a fire breaks out in a nightclub during a concert in Kočani, North Macedonia. (Al Jazeera)
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.
Oppose several statements, such as date/place of birth are unsourced + entire awards/filmography section is unsourced; there are also unreliable sources used. This will need fixing Jaguarnik (talk) 18:02, 21 March 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.
Support. Article is substantial and looks in pretty good shape, apart from a few unsourced sentences and the usual unsourced albums. An often overlooked and underrated musician. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have moved the discography to a separate article, so that addresses one issue. No-one else has supported and this falls off today, so unless someone wants to comment out the 4 remaining {cn} tags, or even add more refs, this might not make it. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2025 (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: Rm "ready"; insufficient prose update in the article. Article at present states just "He replaced Dr Keith Rowley on 17 March 2025 to become Trinidad and Tobago's 8th Prime Minister." and Rowley's article does not mention his resignation. Were there circumstances that led up to this? SpencerT•C17:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article:Kočani nightclub fire (talk·history·tag) Blurb: At least 59 people are killed and more than 155 injured in a nightclub fire (remains of the nightclub pictured) during a concert in Kočani, North Macedonia. (Post) Alternative blurb: At least 59 people are killed and more than 155 injured in a nightclub fire (remains of the nightclub pictured) in Kočani, North Macedonia. News source(s):BBC, CNN Credits:
North Macedonia If I ever see someone starting some indoor pyrotechnics, I'll be running for the exit as they often end badly. Anyway, the detail that catches my eye is describing the country as Macedonia rather than North Macedonia, which is controversial – see Macedonia naming dispute. And we don't usually link country names, right? Andrew🐉(talk) 11:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality While what's there is sufficient there are several unsourced paragraphs. Likely with more sourcing the article can be fleshed out more. Masem (t) 12:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its still a bit thin (under 10k prose), and I would expect more coverage of what aftermath events there, particularly with the arrest warrants being issued. Masem (t) 14:16, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Investigation" section has been added with relevant information available in reliable sources. I'm struggling to find free pictures, but the article should now be ready for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We pipe Macedonia to North Macedonia throughout the article. The name of the country was contested with the Greek province of Macedonia so I think we need to be more careful. Secretlondon (talk) 13:50, 17 March 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.
Comment: Article body could use additional depth, and information in the lede (e.g. info on Pashtun Jirga) is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. SpencerT•C16:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indonesian lawmakers meet at a Central Jakarta luxury hotel instead of the legislature amidst budget cuts, allegedly to secretly discuss on military law revisions that would bring back dwifungsi, a doctrine allowing military personnel to hold civilian positions. Civil activists try to stop the meeting but are hindered by hotel security. (Kompas)(TEMPO)
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.
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: Mayoral career section mostly discussed bribery cases; is there any additional info about what he accomplished as mayor besides the bribery? SpencerT•C16:12, 21 March 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.
Support, noting that Bichsel was not merely a short story writer, but probably Switzerland's most prominent and influential contemporary writer. Article is in an OK state, but could be much expanded. Sandstein 15:31, 17 March 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.
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: This is the most significant US military operation in the Middle East since Donald Trump took office, according to Reuters 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨Abo Yemen (𓃵)11:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality This is an example of a poor quality news event article that is all too often the case with new event articles on WP - there's maybe three short paragraphs about the actual event, the meat of the story, that perhaps is only 10% of the prose of the article, the rest weighed by the background section. It doesn't need that much background, there's a reasons we have main/seealso templates. If anything, the background should be focused on why the Trump administration focused on the Houthi (which is tied to the admin's attitude towards Iran). I also note that the blurb here doesn't even mentiont the Houthi, which seems to be the specific target of the attacks (being military facilities held by the Houthi, there's no discussion of any Yemen civilans lost in the attack). Masem (t) 12:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the victims are women and children which seemed to have not been there in this article (and I've added that now) but it is mentioned in the Reuters report 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨Abo Yemen (𓃵)12:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support article's OK, although why the cites in the lead? See WP:CITELEAD. I imagine the main sections of the article will expand as further info comes to light. Fortuna,ImperatrixMundi13:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per cyfraw, article seems ready and airstrike attacks on another country which are widely covered by RS seems pretty clearly notable. FlipandFlopped ツ19:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: The article definitely needs a WP:SIZESPLIT into a protest article given the complexity of this unfolding political drama; two impeachments, one arrest, multiple protests, constitutional and political and perhaps even societal crisis. Protests unusually large in scale although aware this has been an ongoing crisis as well. The article is still titled 2024 however there is no consensus how to split or incorporate the current events (from 2025) into the article. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the AP, these appear to be mostly peaceful protests, and thus just one of many protests that are happening due to various reasons across the globe. If anything, the story about Yoon Suk Yeol's release and re-arrest is really the headline here but that's relatively old news itself. also consider that there appears to be major overlap between the crisis and the impeachment article that is causing some of the size issues, it doesn't make sense to try to split off these protests (particularly since they aren't generated major conflict themselves) before the duplicated material is removed and some attemtp to eliminate the proseline is handled. Masem (t) 12:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Protests don't have to violent to be posted. I would argue that the size and scale of the protests is the significant part here. As for the reorganisation of the article; many different options can be debated but in its current form it's just too long and convoluted and would ideally be resolved with wider consensus regardless of ITN. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, but given how long these have been going for, without neither any real change at the gov't level nor any type of violent action means this is just mostly noise at the larger scale. Comparitively, something like the 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest which did have a direct impact (in terms of blocking roads and other similar non-violent acts) would be the type of protests that I think we should focus on for ITN, in addition to those that turn violent. — Masem (t) 20:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as this is just a foreshock of incoming decision about Yoon's impeachment by Constitutional Court of Korea. We can post the decision then. Didgogns (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Doesn't seem to hold special notability compared to the other aftershocks of the martial law declaration we've posted. TheKip(contribs)02:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Looks to be the climax of this ongoing protest, reported worldwide. Very large in scale, especially factoring the size of the population; estimated 100,000 people at the protest. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:09, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I suppose "cumulates" should be "culminates" but such language claiming that this particular event is a decisive climax seem too WP:CRYSTAL. My impression is that the existing regime is unmoved and so it will take more to shift it. As this has been ongoing for months, we should consider an Ongoing entry. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected to "culminates". Protests don't have to be successful nor finite for us to be able to post them. I would argue that 100,000 people out of a population of 6½ million is quite a feat given it's ~1.5% of the entire population. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd also support ongoing instead. The article is documenting the chronology very well and is being constantly updated. Yesterday's protests were the biggest but they will keep going. --Tone10:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality issues Overall these have been maybe large but seem to be mostly non-violent, but the biggest thing that stands out to me is the quality of the page. First, treating the protests using the infobox that is usually used for wars or armed conflict seems excessive and inappropriate, its framing the protests as a battle rather than being a mostly non-violent protest. Second, the bulk of the article is just proseline which is not at all helpful to try to understand the scale and scope of the event, and none which further supports some of the information in that infobox such as explaining the types of protests used or the police response. I know writing proseline as a start of an event may seem helpful to document it, but we should be able to do far better by this point with a narrative style to explain more how and why the protests developed and what reaction the Serbian govt has had to them in summary rather than day by day. Same applies to the list of people and countries/ctieis at the bottom, with that many people and names, its a sea of blue problem, and we should be trying to summarize these better. Masem (t) 12:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support an Ongoing as these protests seem to be getting larger and larger as time goes on, with new news coming out of Serbia very often. Yesterday an estimated 20% of Serbia's population went out to Belgrade to protest, so this seems very notable. User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 14:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – as these are really the largest (so far) in a series of ongoing mass demonstrations, it may be better to nominate this article for Ongoing. ArkHyena (it/its) 22:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't find any proof that the protestors planned a culmination on that day, and thus this really shouldn't be a blurb. They could very well keep getting larger. I will of course support posting if Vucic resigns, and I'm neutral towards making this ongoing. --SpectralIon03:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Three-part vote:
Oppose on quality per Masem. I respect the detail, but the page is a wall of text right now and not easy to get a simple summation out of.
Weak oppose on notability given some of the arguments above regarding "culmination" being informal.
Support ongoing as that seems like a much more apt place for it to go right now.
Nominator's comments: Might be a little early to nominate this and the article does need some heavy work which I'm willing to do over the coming hours. The storm is only halfway done, and later today into tomorrow it's expected to produce an even larger tornado outbreak than it already has. Departure– (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for the potentially historic storm later today over AL and MS. Multiple fatalities and heavy damage are confirmed across several towns, but it’d be better to include the entire event. EF513:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I’d hardly call one of the largest moderate risks ever issued and the third-ever day 2 high risk “extremely common”. EF514:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tylertown, Mississippi has been hit by at least two significant tornadoes and nineteen deaths have been confirmed; the event isn’t even at its peak yet. This is now the deadliest meteorological event in 2025; we posted the LA fires. EF520:20, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Welcome to spring in the Midwest. This type of system is extremely common at this time of year in that region and is definitely not unusual. If the results of the front that is supposed to hit later today in the southern states has a much more devasting impact, maybe there's a reason to reconsider, but not with what has happened so far. Masem (t) 13:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment Not mentioned in the blurb, but the Windmill and 840 Road fire systems were spawned by this, each of which has reached >20,000 acres by now in the <24 hours they've existed. Three deaths were confirmed from blowing dust causing a car crash in Amarillo, Texas. That isn't counting the as-of-yet unknown death toll from last night's tornadoes, let alone those that might happen in the South this morning. Departure– (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No prejudice against a nom on just the tornado outbreak alone, as it's shaping up to be a big one. But that would be the story itself. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The specific problem with that is that this specific low pressure system was the cause or contributing factors to all of the aspects of the blurb. The tornado outbreak is likely to be the most impactful, however. Departure– (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to support based on latest damage data. I'd like us to wait some on more accurate fatality and damage information, but this really is looking quite nasty. Rolling Fork, MS looks like it just got hammered again. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until today's system ends. Changing to Support - pretty large death toll, major outbreak (although not a super outbreak). 3/31 was posted so I don't see how this is much different with multiple intense tors. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon? It affected places from California, Texas, Minnesota, and is in the process of hitting areas of Alabama in the Deep South. Departure– (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What? Many states are affected, including Alabama, Arkansas, California, Texas, Missouri, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, New Mexico. (dust clouds). I could continue, but thats “much” of the US. EF520:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would change the blurb to "Midwest and southern United States", as "much of the United States" is imprecise and the winter storms in the West are not directly related to tornadoes. Natg 19 (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The winter storms are related to the storm system, though. Tornado outbreaks usually aren’t just tornadoes. EF521:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe the article title needs to be changed. It is currently focused on the tornadoes, with some information about other effects. Natg 19 (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Change my support to a proposal of Altblurb I think altblurb should be changed to "Midwest and southern United States" As Natg 19 proposed. Shaneapickle (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article doesn't provide a clear historical narrative. I especially don't like its heavy use of alerts, forecasts and models rather than reports after the event. It describes the event as ongoing and so I suppose it's a compilation of such forward-looking as the stormy weather developed. There are also scope issues as this doesn't seem to be a named weather system like a cyclone. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does it look better now? I’ve removed (should be all) of the unreliable Twitter references (not including the NWS and SPC ones, those are considered reliable) and have removed most, if not all, of the uncited and quite CRUFTy material. I’m on mobile so I probably screwed something up. EF512:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That actually looks better now. Based on the fact that: the entire storm system has caused widespread damage; that there's still ongoing coverage of the system; and that the quality concerns have been addressed (+ this fact also), I'm striking my oppose and now [Support] this nomination. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The altblurb is inaccurate, as while the total death toll is 34, 12 of those were not as a direct result of a tornado and were caused by other aspects of the event. Departure– (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve boldly changed it to “storms and tornadoes”; there is zero reason to discount over half of the deaths from the event. EF515:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Counting all non-tornadic fatalities, this is now the deadliest tornado outbreak in the United States since the December 10, 2021 outbreak, at 34, now beyond the tolls of the March 24 (Rolling Fork) outbreak and the March 31 (Little Rock) outbreaks of 2023, as well as any outbreak of 2022 or 2024. Departure– (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We posted December 10, right? I am on mobile and for some reason it mashes together talk page banners to the point where they’re unreadable. EF517:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I think I’ll go write a “weather as usual” essay on weather at ITN/C. This is definitely historic and by no means “ordinary”. I mean, this is deadlier than every event in 2024 and deadlier than the March 24 storm that was posted. EF519:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. Per Departure, this is the deadliest tornadic event in the US in three years. Coverage of the system in media is still recent or ongoing (e.g. at ABC: [20] CBS: [21]). This is a historic event. ArkHyena (it/its) 20:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - First EF4 tornado since May 2024 was confirmed just a few minutes ago. This is the first time since May 20, 2013 that a tornado had a 190 mph preliminary wind speed; the 2013 one is currently recognized as (controversially) the most recent EF5 in history. EF520:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support In my humble opinion, I do believe that this event is notable and deserving of being featured due to the total destruction caused overall as well as the historic nature of this storm. CaptainGalaxy22:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I am usually skeptical towards our imbalanced focus on American weather events relative to the rest of the world, but I acknowledge this is a recordbreaking (and thus unusual) event that has a fairly high death toll. 40+ people killed is quite high. FlipandFlopped ツ04:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment before posting: in the article, the death toll is 42, not 47. It could rise back to that toll but I believe the 47 toll was a misinterpretation by an RS. Departure– (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I’d post from oldest “readies” to newest to avoid old ones going stale, but the admins know what they’re doing. EF518:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Posted I shall note that it's not clear at all what to replace on the main page. If others would prefer for it to be done differently, please go ahead. I can't contribute to any discussion as I'll be offline for the next 8 hours. Schwede6619:04, 18 March 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.
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.
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.
Strong oppose, no significance outside of the US, no precedent for posting, and "Second presidency of Donald Trump" as a target article is way too general. --SpectralIon23:42, 14 March 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.
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: Nominating this again since the previous nomination happened before the eclipse. Since the eclipse has happened, I feel it is time to nominate it again considering we usually post total solar eclipses. Interstellarity (talk) 11:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have nothing against it. It's a nice event, it's getting some news coverage, and it's been a while since we've covered one of these. Blurp is fine, no need to do anything fancy here. Maybe make it a full sentence (ending with a full stop). Renerpho (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Close The last nom was not closed for being posted too early, it was closed on account of non-notablity. If editors oppose the close, they should open it rather than making new noms. Gotitbro (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Close No, there's still nothing majorly notable about this eclipse that has changed in two days. And really, that's just WP:POINT and disruptive - the previous nomination was closed because it was deemed not notable enough for ITN, not because "it hadn't happened yet". Black Kite (talk)12:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to assume bad faith. The timing was one reason why it was opposed in the first nomination (including by myself; and I've now voted support). Renerpho (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One reason why I've changed my mind which I haven't mentioned yet is the large amount of news coverage I see from Europe and elsewhere. Renerpho (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I commented on the talk page after the previous comment, but before the discussion was reopened. Since I provided some arguments for support that have not yet been given here, and there has been a relevant reply, I am copying those parts of the discussion here. Renerpho (talk) 10:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pity that we can't discuss this eclipse again. There are quite a few interesting aspects of it emerging in the news today. Like, that it's the first since 1967 to be imaged as a solar eclipse from the lunar surface (by Blue Ghost).[22][23][24] I opposed it yesterday because I didn't see anything unusual about this eclipse (which may not have been an accurate assessment), and because of the timing -- it's not been properly in the news before it happened. Compare this 2014 APOD (and no, as far as I can tell, Chang'e 3 didn't image the 2014 eclipse). Renerpho (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
This would of course have to be added to the article before that fact could be featured in ITN. Renerpho (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
We can and are discussing the eclipse again but the discussion is not very edifying. The point you make about the eclipse being viewed from the moon too is a good one but the nay-sayers are not providing or engaging with such evidence and are making ad hominem arguments instead. This ought to have been a straightforward posting of an uncontroversial scientific event which has attracted much interest but, instead, ITN is gridlocked once again. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Support This was the top read article yesterday beating Mark Carney by a significant margin. This demonstrates that there was lots of interest and coverage of this and mainstream coverage has continued: BBC, NYT, NPR, The Times. There was a lot of showcasing of pictures of the event, showing the "blood moon" and we have plenty too. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its been repeatedly said that we do not consider page views in ITNC significance. Some topics will be popular compared to others which is a significance bias that we dont want to reflect at ITNC. — Masem (t) 12:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've got it backwards. WP:ITNPURPOSE starts by saying that we should consider what our readers are looking for. WP:ITNSIGNIF and WP:ITNATA indicate that proof of coverage is required and that our personal interests are not adequate evidence. It therefore follows that evidence of coverage and public attention is not just valid but is expected.
In this case, the evidence is that this story about the moon is getting much more attention and coverage than the other story about the moon which we are currently blurbing -- the Athena landing. The latter is over a week old and so is now getting just a small fraction of the attention. The stories are otherwise similar in being related to astronomy and space and so are both quite respectable and encyclopedic in nature. Per WP:ITNPURPOSE, we should now switch from one story to the other to assist our readership and demonstrate Wikipedia's dynamic nature. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:26, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd also point out that "we usually post total lunar eclipses" is not true - we have posted 3 out of the last 10, and they all had extra notability factors which this one doesn't appear to have. Black Kite (talk)10:37, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support This had had the most news coverage for the past few weeks, leading up to it happened, and it is really notable for the fact that ALOT of pictures has been taken, and is also getting news about it even after it happened.
Strong Oppose Not what we usually blurb on ITN and questionable notability, lunar eclipses are not solar eclipses and happen quite regularily. In fact theres 2 more total eclipses coming in the next year alone.... ✨ 4 🧚♂amKING17:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong again as it's easy to find further coverage such as the reports that one of the recent landers captured the eclipse as seen from the moon to provide an unusual perspective. This nicely ties these moon stories together. CNN, Scientific American, Sky News, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Short of a lunar eclipse suddenly cause dogs to start mooing or birds to fly backwards (which would presumably also be the actual ITN-worthy story), each one is the same and they occur regularly enough. It's not quite "the sun rises", but it's not far off. Kingsif (talk) 04:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being covered in news media is not the only criteria. Given there’s also a decent WP:N bar for article creation in general, coming to ITN and expecting lower standards is what actually makes no sense. Kingsif (talk) 17:31, 18 March 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.
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 His works don't each have a linked footnote-style citation, but they have links to ISBN numbers and all of the citation information you'd expect to find in a footnote if it were linked. Good enough for me and well-cited otherwise. FlipandFlopped ツ19:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated 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.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Former leader of Right Sector in Odesa was assassinated in broad daylight. Somewhat big story in Ukraine at the moment, didn't have a page before I made it a few minutes ago. Scuba16:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Lede states that Hanul is "best known for his blogging and leadership of the Street Front NGO" but only has 1 sentence of information related to this in the body of the article; insufficient depth of coverage. SpencerT•C17:12, 20 March 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.
Comment Looks like the page has been improved substantially these last few days, but I still wouldn't say it's ready yet. 5 sentences have a CN tag, and most of the political campaigns section is unsourced. I'll see if I can find some citations for the last remaining unsourced statements. Vanilla Wizard 💙15:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished citing whatever I could find sources for & removing anything that either could not be verified or seemed out of place in the article. I've also boldly added myself as one of the updaters. @Ad Orientem: when you have time, could you look through the page again to reassess if it's good to go now? Thank you, Vanilla Wizard 💙17:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Closing good faith nom. There is a strong and longstanding consensus that we do not post internal political developments other than national elections and changes of government. Consensus to post this is not going to develop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:50, 13 March 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 an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive."
Strong oppose The blurb is a bit misleading. NHS England, the entity that oversees the NHS, is being discontinued, and its operations shifted to the Department of Health and Social Care. The NHS is the system of public health care in the UK. The NHS itself in England isn't going anywhere. It's a typical reorganization that doesn't put anything particularly new on the table. Departure– (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose this is UK only, and is just about the abolition of a a quango. We don't even know what will replace it yet. Hardly world news. Secretlondon (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Subnational reorganization. We have not posted large restructurings in the USA under DOGE, so I don't believe we should here.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Legendary classical composer Sofia Gubaidulina has passed away at the age of 93. A leading voice in modern classical music, and one of the most important female composers in history, she is probably worth a blurb discussion. That said, Kaija Saariaho was the obvious female classical music death blurb from this generation. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - will support once the citations are fixed. Piano section and works section are unsourced. I added what I could find but needs more work.
As an update, piano section now largely deleted as was seemingly uncited OR /an essay on a single work. Leaning towards supporting but needs a bit more attention on the lead and ref formatting and have spun out the necessarily long but hard to fully cite "works section"; hold on :) Ceoil (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(non-admin closure) Consensus to post will not develop (at least not now). Commenters mention this being an event only relevant to a certain portion of the world, and not an uncommon event (happens multiple times a year around the world). RachelTensions (talk) 21:23, 13 March 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.
Comment Can we use UTC rather than EST? It's mostly north and South America according to our article. I think the picture caption reads as though it is a picture of tomorrow's eclipse. Secretlondon (talk) 09:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to show an image before the event, use a simulated view of tomorrow's eclipse, like the one used in the article. Renerpho (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When was the last time we've featured a lunar eclipse in ITN? The last total eclipses occurred in May 2022 and November 2022; I can't find any mention of either in ITN, even though the latter was particularly notable. This isn't an argument against it (maybe the opposite), it just makes me wonder why we should do this one. Renerpho (talk) 09:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ITN is not a news reel of the happenings in the United States; it's about stories with a global significance. It being the last for a while in the United States isn't enough to bring it to ITN if it's going to happen somewhere else in the world less than a year later. Departure– (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Americas or US makes no difference in this context. A lunar eclipse that's visible from South America will automatically be visible from parts of the US as well. The last (more significant) lunar eclipse in the Americas was in November 2022, and the next one will come in March 2026. There is nothing unusual about this eclipse, or its coverage in the news. Renerpho (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not ITN/R and I don't see that this eclipse is particularly notable; we've posted three out of the last 10 total eclipses and they were all particularly notable for one reason or another (six out of the remaining seven weren't even nominated). I could be cynical and say "because America" but the January 2019 one was also visible there and was one of those not nominated too. Black Kite (talk)11:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As far as it being "regional", the article says The eclipse will be completely visible over North and South America. But there's insufficient importance to post it *after* it happens; unfortunately ITN isn't equipped to make a short-term posting before the event. 217.180.228.171 (talk) 18:07, 13 March 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.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights documents three further reprisal massacres of Alawite minority communities on 12 March in which 158 civilians were killed, totaling 1,383 civilian deaths as a result of fifty separate massacres conducted in western Syria since March 6. (Barron's)
The Houthi movement in Yemen announces it will resume targeting Israeli ships because its deadline for Israel to resume aid deliveries to the Gaza Strip has passed. (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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: The launch of a new space observatory seems to be major science news, comparable to the likes of Hubble and James Webb telescopes. Brandmeistertalk08:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait The launch doesn't seem especially interesting and the article only has a brief sentence about it. As the instrument is designed for a specific survey, rather than being a general purpose instrument like Hubble, it seems better to wait on some results. Also the launch put up a new constellation called PUNCH (Polarimeter to Unify the Corona and Heliosphere) which also has a specific mission. But again there's nothing much to say about this launch phase. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:42, 14 March 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.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Thank you for posting. The article does not appear on the front page at the moment. I assume there was some kind of error? Thriley (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article:2025 Beledweyne hotel attack (talk·history·tag) Blurb: A 24-hour siege at a hotel in Beledweyne, Hiran, Somalia, results in more than 15 civilians and 6 attackers being killed and over 100 Somali Parliament members urging presidentHassan Sheikh Mohamud(pictured) to resign. (Post) Alternative blurb: A deadly 24-hour siege at a hotel in Beledweyne, Somalia, leaves more than 15 civilians and 6 attackers dead, later 100 Somali Parliament members call for President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud's resignation. Alternative blurb II: More than 15 civilians and 6 attackers are killed in a 24-hour hotel siege in Beledweyne, Somalia, and 100 Somali MPs asked President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud step down. Alternative blurb III: A hotel siege in Beledweyne, Somalia, claims 21 lives, hundred Somali lawmakers urge President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud to resign. Alternative blurb IV: At least 15 civilians are killed in an Al-Shabaabattack and siege on a hotel in Beledweyne, Hiran, Somalia. Alternative blurb V: A 24-hour siege-attack at a hotel in Beledweyne, Hiran, Somalia, results in at least fifteen civilians and all six Al-Shabaab attackers killed. News source(s):APIdil News Credits:
Support per above, an already high and still rising death toll with the possibility of causing world leader change. I am also going to pre-emptively support a merge blurb with this blurb if Mohamud resigns. --SpectralIon03:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - significant casualties, large political implication in Somalia. Article looks good enough.
Support ALT4 only owing to several issues with the other blurbs:
The overall death toll of 21+ includes the six Al-Shabaab attackers themselves - we shouldn't count them in the blurb, only the victims of the attack.
The MPs simply asking for Mohamud's resignation is not notable by itself, and that aspect is WP:CRYSTAL anyways, considering we don't know if he actually will resign or not. If he does, then we can add it to this blurb as something like "At least 15 civilians are killed in an Al-Shabaabattack and siege on a hotel in Beledweyne, Somalia, later prompting PresidentHassan Sheikh Mohamud's resignation.," though it would almost certainly be worthy of a separate blurb on its own (as ITN/R). TheKip(contribs)04:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Somali Civil War has been going on for over 30 years and, per the list of ongoing armed conflicts, generates thousands of deaths annually. This just seems to be more of the same as the AP source says nothing at all about the President. Instead it says "Al-Shabab, which opposes Somalia’s federal government, frequently carries out bombings and assaults targeting government officials and military personnel in the Horn of Africa nation." Andrew🐉(talk) 21:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The ALT4 blurb talks about "civilians" but it appears that they were targeted specifically because they were military and political leaders and so were part of the federal government rather than being uninvolved bystanders. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Big event in Somali politics and potentially destabilizing, Blurb 1 is good but perhaps too long if the resignation dosen't pan out Normalman101 (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any evidence in mainstream news coverage that this is a big deal. It just seems to be a routine insurgency attack which has been crushed by the government. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New low This article only had 147 readers yesterday and barely got over 1,000 at best. It hasn't been in the news since the blip six days ago and the president seems to have other problems to worry about now. Just about any current news is more significant than this. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As has been stated many many times, ITN is not about featuring articles with high pageviews, but about featuring quality articles that have been in the news, even if those do not draw many views. Masem (t) 23:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of readership shows that the topic is not in the news. It doesn't seem to have had any continuing coverage since the blip six days ago. And so nobody is looking for the topic. It's stale; a waste of space. And its quality is nothing to boast about either. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't really much enduring, "non-blip" coverage of elections in places like Liechtenstein and Belize, either, and yet we still blurb those events under ITNR, in order to have equitable and consistent coverage across continents. Similarly to how we apply that principle for elections, it applies for mass shootings and disasters. I sympathize with your approach to assessing notability and generally agree we should blurb things which are attracting public interest, but the longstanding tradition of ITN seemingly does not bar "low-interest" articles from being posted; in fact, it's a procedural rule that we will post certain categories of articles no matter how little interest they tend to attract. FlipandFlopped ツ18:05, 19 March 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.
Support the arrest and conviction of Saakashvili is notably one of Russia's demands (listed by Sergei Prikhodko) to Georgia for the return of its own territories and the privilege of becoming a Russian client state.[3] Bummer to see Georgian Dream are just openly sabotaging their own nations sovereignty to make Putin feel happy. Scuba03:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose This seems to mainly only affect Georgia and somewhat affect Russia and pretty much nowhere else. Even with a pro-western government, it is unlikely that Georgia would ever join on Ukraine's side. Also, these are obviously made-up charges for the purpose of power consolidation, and while some might find that more notable, I personally think it makes it less notable as the former world leader did not commit an actual crime. --SpectralIon03:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose unless I'm reading the article wrongly, he has been imprisoned since 2021 serving a 6-year sentence originally imposed in absentia in 2018. Given that, I'm not sure this is as notable as it might otherwise have been. Black Kite (talk)12:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Conviction of former head of state is already significant in itself, but this has wider significance within the overarching story of Russia-Georgia relations under Georgian Dream, as per Scu ba. FlipandFlopped ツ13:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretically support due to the geopolitical context & since Saakashvili is a former President of Georgia. However, I oppose on quality since the article needs more references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:55, 15 March 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.
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.
I'm not sure if I can leave a support on my own nomination, but in case it helps, all three articles should meet the ITN criteria, especially with regard to being sufficiently-cited. Toadspike[Talk]08:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This doesn't seem to be in the news outside of Switzerland and so the readership for all three articles is tiny. If we give every member of the council WP:ITN/R status, then Switzerland is given seven times the representation of other countries. But it does seem a sensible stable system compared to the risks of having a single supreme leader. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:ITNELECTIONS subsection of ITN/R specifically outlines that elections of new members into the Swiss Federal Council meet the requirements. The 2022 elections, for example, also got posted. If you wish to discuss a change for this guideline, this nomination is not the place. YuniToumei (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:ITNELECTIONS. The Swiss system is peculiar: the seven-member Federal Council is the collective head of state and government. By convention, members are reelected until they choose to resign. Therefore, the only election of political significance is the initial election of a new member. The general (re-)elections every four years are pro forma and not newsworthy, and neither is election to the rotating and purely ceremonial presidency. Sandstein 16:52, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looking at the articles right now, they are already pretty decent (Pfister is a little short and the election article has 3 CN tags), I think they will be completely fine by the time a consensus emerges. --SpectralIon03:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I returned this from the archive for another day of consideration. If only one support, I would have silently left it there, but with three supports and a ping to admins, I'd like to know why not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this qualifies for ITN/R as Greenland isnt a soverign state, so this is technically a sub-national election. However I still think its notable as it is a significant change for Greenland in an Election that has greater significance given todays geopolitics. ✨ 4 🧚♂amKING14:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, if it wasn't clear; I do support the blurb as I think it is notable regardless of it not being ITN/R, both because the election result itself represents a significant upset to the makeup of Greenlandic politics, and because of all the foreign attention on the territory generating a lot of news over this election. ✨ 4 🧚♂amKING05:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support; I wouldn't usually support a sub-national election (as Greenland is not a sovereign state but part of the Danish Realm), however given the circumstances surrounding the election and Donald Trump's threats to Greenland I think we should still post this. I could be convinced otherwise but I think that the context around this particular election makes it ITN-worthy. User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 14:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Democrats are against the US annexation. The election wouldn't be some magical "elect us to be American" deal either way. Departure– (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification, I mean the Democrats that won a plurality in this election, not the US Democratic party. I feel this is being partially nominated on the edge of "pro-annexation party won". Regardless, I don't think this is going to cause a major status quo change in the Greenland situation. Departure– (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my comment. I'm afraid what the Greenlanders want and decide may be of little significance given Ukraine, a country with almost 1000x bigger population and a vastly bigger economy is being often sidelined by the US and is struggling to repel an invasion. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're all against it. Nevertheless, the election on a hot-topic issue is notable of itself. As would be essequibo voting against or for venezuela.49.206.4.204 (talk) 08:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the Somaliland and Taiwan precedents. Granted, not comparable situation as the aforementioned countries, but still exercises a high degree of autonomy and is a country in every aspect even if not fully sovereign. Furthermore probably the most pivotal election in its history, with unprecedented worldwide attention far surpassing that of other elections of even fully sovereign democratic nations at the moment. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite not being ITNR, this election is garnering a higher level of coverage in the RS than most states' national elections which we would otherwise post. The increased interest is certainly due to Trump's proposed annexation, but it is clearly "in the news" nonetheless. It would be overly bureaucratic and strange to reject posting this, when this is clearly is a more newsworthy election than most others we post as ITNR. FlipandFlopped ツ18:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Meets notability due to the amount of coverage (despite not being ITN/R), and the article has a lot more cited prose than a lot of elections do this early after results. We have the background, platforms, results analysis, in addition to the usual quality tables. ~Malvoliox(talk | contribs)19:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Somewhat of a subnational election, but also not really given Greenland is mostly autonomous, and it's been receiving a high level of attention given the current circumstances. TheKip(contribs)19:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support' - doesn't qualify automatically as ITN/R, but it's certainly very much significant and in the news, with the USA's threats of invading Denmark. Nfitz (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Normally not a fan of blurbing subnational elections. However, this one has an unusual level of significance given the ongoing threats by President Trump to annex the island. The "weak" is due to a few tables being somewhat unclear on the sourcing. I am going to assume that is an easy fix. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Soft support although not an independent country, Greenland is so autonomous I feel like they should be an exception for ITN. Scuba03:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vastly more significant than most sub-national elections as an area with self-government and because of the whole Trump fiasco. It also helps that this is a gigantic upset. --SpectralIon03:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Trump shenanigans should not let us get carried away. We do not post elections of the Scottish Parliament despite the independence movement there, similarly for Catalonia, Puerto Rico etc. The politics of Greenland itself appears to be dominated by the Greenlandic independence movement and this isn't as big a sea change as one would make it out to be. There would be definite notability if this was a referendum or similar. Gotitbro (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gotitbro I think the argument here as for the blurring of lines with subnationality is that Greenland exercises quite a lot more autonomy that Scotland or Catalonia do, subjective as that may be. It seems more akin to the Netherlands' semi-union of equals with Curaçao and Sint Maarten, rather than being a true territory. TheKip(contribs)05:00, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The ITN criteria doesn't prevent the blurbing of subnational elections, if found notable based on their merits; just most often they are not. Greenland, while not a sovereign nation does have a lot more autonomy from Denmark than Puerto Rico, Scotland and especially Catalonia have from their national governments. ✨ 4 🧚♂amKING05:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would also support posting a subnational election in Scotland or Catalonia, if that particular election was garnering widespread, substantive, and/or "unusual" levels of coverage in the global RS. It isn't unique to Trump's influence or to Greenland. FlipandFlopped ツ05:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support although sub-national (and not ITNR), it is notable in recent context. As an aside the sub-national, defeat of the communist party in west bengal was also posted.49.206.4.204 (talk) 08:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sub-national elections. The influence of Trump's crazy and unworkable proposals are circumstantial, stop giving prominence to everything he does and says. There are more important things at stake in this election. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It's borderline, but I'm leaning support because of the combination of 1) Greenland already being one of the "most country-like" subnational regions and 2) the fact that this story is very much In The News™. As others have pointed out, just because it's not ITN/R (as in, not automatically eligible) doesn't mean it's therefore automatically ineligible for ITN. We just have to evaluate elections like these on a case-by-case basis, and I think in this case, there's a good enough reason to post. It helps that Greenland is still much more than just a territory or province, and even more autonomous than other subnational entities referred to as "countries" like Scotland, so this doesn't set a precedent that we should be posting subnational elections more often. But I also agree with Flipandflopped that we certainly could post subnational elections in other areas with a significant amount of autonomy and/or notable movements seeking to gain further autonomy or independence, just as long as those elections are very much in the news and more notable than typical subnational elections for one reason or another. I don't find the Trump fiasco on its own to be a very compelling reason to post; obviously Trump will not annex Greenland, there is absolutely no mechanism on the table for him to actually do that. It's not for sale, and no one seriously believes an American invasion of Denmark is imminent. But this election was a major upset whose results differed greatly from the polls, and it's receiving considerable coverage in international media. Vanilla Wizard 💙11:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trump did however alledgedly (not a lot of sources reporting this) order the military "to plan options to expand the presence of American troops in Panama and potentially try to reclaim the Panama Canal." (nbc) so i suppose if he really is going to go through with panama greenland might unfortunately be on the table. not saying this has any relevance to the greenland nom just throwing this out there bc i saw you mentioned greenland and the potential of a us invasion Ion.want.uu (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support yes, it is a local election; however the results are clearly a response to Trump declarations, becoming a subject of international coverage. ArionStar (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Toss out the Trump angle for a second, as it was almost certainly never happening anyway. The real background here is an almost 180 degree reversal in the composition of the Inatsisartut. Siumut had their worst result ever, and even combined with Inuit Ataqatigiit, the two parties COMBINED have never performed so poorly. Naleraq controls 8 of 31 seats, which could potentially cause an even greater independence push. This is purely conjectural, but these results show a real shift in Greenland politics (I suggest anyone editing here to look through the "Analysis" section of the article). DarkSide830 (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a blow to Trump in the sense that any election could and would have been, seeing as none of the major parties in Greenland had any interest in becoming part of the US, and almost all are in favor if independence. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The vote tally stands at 15 in favour, 4 opposed (including softs). The rationales have been clearly fleshed out. That's enough for a consensus decision, and nobody has objected on quality, so I am tagging ready. FlipandFlopped ツ22:11, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Obviously not ITNR, but just as obviously really prominently in the news. It feels like we have quite a lot of 'ready' items that aren't getting posted for some reason. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Updating the tally given by @Flipandflopped almost 2 days ago (assuming that it was correct at the time), and adding subsequent (and my own) support, we're now 18 in favour, and 4 opposed.
At present, ITN/R status is given to general elections in all entities on the list of sovereign states. This list describes the difficult and controversial nature in formation of a list, and uses criteria/methodology that I am broadly in support of, with the majority of states listed meeting all criteria. It also includes a short list of 'other states', including Taiwan, Somaliland, Niue, Cook Islands, etc. Each of these 'other states' is unique in its nature, and can be described as being of a sui generis nature. Greenland itself is widely considered to be of a sui generis nature, even (or especially) by Denmark - with Greenland not being part of Denmark, nor being in a federation of states with Denmark. This 'other' status is also recognised by the UN (where Greenland represents itself in some committees), with Greenland also having its own representation to the US and EU, where in the latter, Greenland is not part of the EU. I think, even without Greenland being a topical and newsworthy issue, as a case of sui generis, the 'otherness' of Greenland makes it vastly different to almost any other 'subnational' election. Montezuma69 (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative blurb as there is an active hostage situation and the incident was a major terrorist attack. I oppose the article's quality though, as it is a stub. Once it has more information I think it should be posted. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait on article quality per above, and Strong Support on notability once it is improved as there are hundreds hostage and at least dozens if not also hundreds dead. --SpectralIon18:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until the article is expanded and updated but after that is fixed I strong support the altblurb (although the other one would be fine as well. This is a really major event with most likely over 50 people killed and at least a hundred taken hostage. User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 21:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support 30-200 deaths is obviously significant. I'm concerned both that the article seems pretty light content-wise, and that details on the event seem unclear even in the mainstream media. –DMartin03:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support The hostage crisis is now over, and the article has been mostly updated and expanded. Over 340 hostages who were eventually rescued and over 100 deaths is certainly nothing to scoff at, and the hijacking is a relatively unusual event by Pakistani terrorist attack standards. The total death count is still unclear, but I believe that the real numbers will come soon. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on significance, but the article still is unclear to the number of casualties. The infobox states "59 [deaths] (including 33 militants)" but the prose mentions 100 dead. Natg 19 (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for actual conviction by ICC (which seems most likely to happen). Since he was not a sitting leader at the time, this is not really the best point to post this, based on several more recent stories around world leaders and crimes they may have committed. Masem (t) 04:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Respectfully disagree with Masem. Being arrested and detained on an ICC warrant is already quite rare, but on top of that it's an arrest of a former world leader, who was until 2022 the head of state for a country of over 100,000,000+ people? That is a once in a lifetime event. Both the arrest and the future hypothetical conviction (if it happens) probably clear the barrier for notability, independently of one another. FlipandFlopped ツ04:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with focusing on the arrest of a former leader (not sitting leader) is that it somewhat of a POV throw of guilty-before-proven innocent BLP violation, given that the usual metric for the inclusion of any criminal trial is the conviction or sentencing. If it were a world leader, like in the case of South Korea's president, that's more a factor related to the change of power in that country. Also, given this list of ICC indictments, "once in a lifetime event" is an extreme stretch. Masem (t) 04:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Laurent Gbagbo is the only other former head of state who was arrested by the ICC, in 2011. While the argument that being "arrested and detained on an ICC warrant is already quite rare" (there were 22 instances), and this being a "once in a lifetime event" (the last being 14 years ago), a former head of state being arrested is indeed very rare, this being second in history. I don't think we'll see an arrest of a sitting head of state no matter how atrocious the charges are. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - slanting oppose per Masem, wait for conviction.
Weak oppose - Masem provides a good point. If a sitting world leader was arrested, it merits inclusion in the bulletin, but considering Duterte is a former chief executive that has so far only been accused of committing crimes (even if he already admitted responsibility elsewhere), it would set the wrong precedent in Wikipedia's news coverage. On the other hand, Duterte is the first Philippine chief executive (sitting or otherwise) to be arrested based on a warrant issued by an international court. LionFosset (talk) 06:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support given he was in office fairly recently, combined with the infamy of his "war on drugs," but I won't fight to have it posted. TheKip(contribs)05:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PERP doesn't preclude the high-profile arrest of an already notable figure from being included on the Wikipedia, as evidenced by an article like "Arrest of Rodrigo Duterte" existing at all. If the fact and circumstances of an arrest are so unique or newsworthy as to be independently notable (e.g. a rare ICC warrant arrest of a prominent head of state), then nothing in WP:PERP precludes a blurb, so long as the wording of the blurb does not incorrectly connote guilt. This was the precedent we set with Netanyahu, for example. Everything currently in the blurb is factual, no? FlipandFlopped ツ17:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the primary blurb is not factual as Duterte was arrested by the Philippines police not by the ICC as the latter doesn't have a police force. This is a bit weird because the Philippines no longer accepts the jurisdiction of the ICC. It appears that the arrest is political in nature and some kind of power play by the Marcos faction. The alt blurb only presents one side of the story and so is prejudicial. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is the alt blurb prejudicial? It is plainly factional and neutral without having prejudice about whatever underlying politics are going on. The ICC warrant is a real warrant (no comment whether the ICC is a legitimate institution or not). Natg 19 (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's plainly factional because it uses legal language which legitimises the matter. The ICC is not respected in much of the world -- China, Russia and the US all oppose it in various ways. If it's not legitimate then this might be considered extraordinary rendition. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it would be more fitting if this gets posted to ITN once he is already convicted, though I personally would not mind that this gets posted now. After all, while it is not the first time that a former state leader was arrested by the ICC for crimes against humanity (or any other similar cases), this is the first instance that a former Filipino president was arrested by the aforementioned court. Vida0007 (talk) 10:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support per the points stated below by Patar knight, not to mention that there has been a precedent for this (Gbagbo in 2011). The arrest itself is a rare instance, and the case against Duterte is considered to be special and complex, so much so that it is different from the usual court cases which usually fall under WP:BLPCRIME. Vida0007 (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support With ICC arrests and warrants for them, the notability is such that we have to move beyond the absolutism of BLP crime. They are clearly high profile, uncommon and definitely in line with the recent precedents we seem to have set up with the Putin, Netanyahu etc. postings. Further, this comes with the recent expansion of ICC's actions beyond smaller states. That Duterte might be convicted is inherently WP:CRYSTALBALL and does not affect this notable news now. Gotitbro (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think we should wait for a conviction, which will be years away. We previously ran Netanyahu receiving an arrest warrant. Secretlondon (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even if he is acquitted years from now this is big news. An ICC arrest warrant actually being carried out is nearly unprecedented. Bremps...16:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is a notable event and is in the news around the world. The fact that he hasn't been convicted is secondary - the news of his arrest is what's newsworthy at this very moment, and running this blurb does not imply he is guilty. RachelTensions (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as I am sure has been pointed out, ITN only posts convictions. In this case, there is a good chance that somehow strings will be pulled and he will be set free in a few hours or days. Also, the support notvotes seem to be engaging in a little bit of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Abductive (reasoning)17:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that this event is the result of a power struggle within the Philippines, and this method was chosen to shaft him. So, not as interesting. I am still opposed. Abductive (reasoning)23:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per all above. We don't post indictments but this is a proper arrest, and one of the most prolific events done by the ICC recently. We did post warrants being issued for Netanyahu and other figures due to the Israel-Hamas war so I don't see why seeing an arrest would be less notable. Departure– (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see any RGW banditry here (what am I missing though?!), most supports seem to be based on the notability of an CC arrest warrant being carried out per se. As is mine. WP:PERP's primary concern is "not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured". We are not creating an article, we are mentioning a notable historic, globally-recognised fact. Cheers, Fortuna,ImperatrixMundi17:13, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. This will certainly cause political and domestic drama with Duterte's popularity and the Marcos-Duterte feud. --SpectralIon18:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ICC arrests of former heads of state are extremely rare, with the only previous example since the court's creation in 2002 being former Ivorian president Laurent Gbagbo in 2011, which we posted (and sitting heads of state have never been arrested). This is massive news both in the Philippines and around the world. The privacy interest that underpins WP:BLPCRIME (a subsection of WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy) is almost entirely mitigated by the fact that this a former head of state who was in power until very recently (2022), the charges are not something minor, and the charges are not obviously frivolous (we have an extensive parent article at Philippine drug war). What BLPCRIME does bind us to do is to avoid imputing guilt before a conviction, which is done by making sure that it is made clear that these are just charges. I've proposed an altblurb that clarifies that the ICC did not arrest him, but it was pursuant to an ICC warrant, as well as the context of the charges, which we included in previous ICC head of state blurbs. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions20:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the arrest itself, regardless of any future outcome, is highly unusual. It was some kind of secret operation, in a country that is no longer even an ICC member! In fact, I would argue that it is much more surprising (and thus notable) than any possible future trial or conviction. Toadspike[Talk]20:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support first blurb, the "first planet" part of the second blurb seems unnecessary with only 8 main planets we can readily observe. I will add the IAU recognizes these as well. There are a couple of unsourced Para eay in the article that should be fixed. Masem (t) 23:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary oppose - The article has not been sufficiently updated to include all 128 new moons, and discussion of the new moon discoveries isn't fully fleshed out yet. To be blunt, I dislike the generic moons of Saturn image here as it does not depict the outer irregular moons at all. I'll be uploading an image showing all of Saturn's irregular moons, including the 128 new ones, shortly after I make this comment. Nrco0e(talk • contribs)23:52, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this article does get updated in time, then sure I'd go for the firstsupport the 3rd blurb. The number "200" is rather arbitrary in my opinion. Nrco0e(talk • contribs)23:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While "the news is severely lacking X" is rarely a reason to use X in WP:ITN, this one has actually been used in the news (example 1, example 2), just less often than one might hope. The originally proposed image -- a generic image of some of Saturn's regular moons -- is not representative of the discovery. Renerpho (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't much like either blurb. Mention of a "record" is weird and out of place, and the 200 cutoff arbitrary; and both have the jarring connotation of these moons being new, not merely newly-discovered. Besides, Saturn already had more confirmed moons than any other planet. —Cryptic00:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting and generally good material for ITN, but I've got to oppose until the article is updated accordingly. As long as it needs that hat note, it's not ready. Renerpho (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC) Changed to support now that the article has been worked on. Renerpho (talk) 06:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is currently in the process of being updated. The list of moons is currently being expanded. Should be fully updated in short order. GN22 (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping I've filled out the list with all 128 new moons now, with the help of a Python script I wrote to convert MPC orbital elements into the Wikipedia table format for this list. I'm quite glad this method has saved a lot of time and potential wrist pain, though I hope other editors find out before they end up wasting time manually filling out the table. Template:Ping I saw you working on the list. You can stop and rest now :) Nrco0e(talk • contribs)22:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - I don't see the impact of a bunch of new moonlets just a "few miles wide".
Wait for the article to update, then Support Altblurb 3. Even if they're pretty small, 128 new moons is quite a lot and this is a major astronomical discovery. --SpectralIon04:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support ALT3 per others. I'm not sure if it is wise to emphasize Saturn's "record" count—these moons were all already there, we just hadn't found them before. Regardless, this is clearly IT/N-worthy, considering it has received appreciable attention from science communication outlets and media, including the New York Times[35]. It is also astronomically significant, as expanding the number of known moons allows astronomers to clarify the dynamical history and origin of Saturn's outer moons (per Ashton et al.'s preprint [36]). ArkHyena (it/its) 22:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If these moons had been discovered within Saturn's rings, I'd agree with that argument. Given they're irregular (orbiting much further out), they're of genuine scientific interest though, and the number of new moons makes this a great discovery. Renerpho (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That said, some news outlets got this story wrong, and are reporting it as if it were related to the pieces that form Saturn's rings.[37] That's unfortunate, but Wikipedia can deal with misinformation like that, and I think our Moons of Saturn article handles it well by clearly distinguishing between the kinds of satellites, and we've already switched to an image that's representative of the discovery (see the comments above by myself and others). Renerpho (talk) 06:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose most of the moons are very small, and therefore minor. I don't see how this has any impact except in a small niche of solar system science. If this leads to the IAU defining a "moon", we can post that then. Banedon (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus so far seems to be to post blurb 3. Eight supports for blurb 3, one support for blurb 1. Four opposes to all three blurbs. GN22 (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the type of important scientific discovery that an encyclopedia should highlight and readers will be interested in. --121.6.6.229 (talk) 11:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt blurb 3. The discovery of so many moons around a planet in our solar system is a historic and unusual event worthy of recognition. Bluemarsman (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget, Saturn has a ring system made up of countless particles, so it (in theory) already has a lot more "moons" waiting to be discovered. To a lesser extent, the same goes for Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune. Banedon (talk) 04:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Andrew, Banedon and GenevieveDEon. These tiny objects are of no significance, for a planet that already has thousands of small objects resulting from the ring system. And it's not like these have just come into existence, they just happen to have been announced in a larger than usual group. Unmarking as ready, because I don't think there's consensus to post here. — Amakuru (talk) 08:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FYI influence/notability aren't a matter of discussion for RD, only the article's quality. 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. Regardless, soft oppose on quality as the entire "Early life and career" section is unsourced. Estreyeria (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for the record, I disagree with where that discussion is heading and have added my opinion to that merge discussion (in support of your preferred choice). As of right now, I don't think Khalil even passes WP:GNG on his own. The target article should be the detention article, if we are going to post this at all (which per below I also disagree with). FlipandFlopped ツ03:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The arrest of a University student who attends an Ivy league university, spurring local protests in an American city, is not news of a sufficiently global character so as to merit inclusion on ITN, which generally features globally reported news with a significant impact. We would not even be debating posting this if the Indian, South African, Chinese, French, Russian, Brazilian, literally any other government started proceedings against a University student protestor, causing local backlash. If or when this causes a more systemic impact with large-scale protests, along the lines of the Mahsa Amini protests or the George Floyd protests, then I think we could reconsider. FlipandFlopped ツ02:58, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The most probable consequences of this I can see (court cases, deportations ...) are both internal to the US and relatively minor compared to things like the US-Mexico-China-Canada trade war. If something more dramatic happens (such as auxiliary effects in Israel, although I'm hard-pressed to see any realistic possibility), reconsider then. Banedon (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good faith nom. In the grand scheme of things this is pretty pedestrian news. Although arguably a legal abuse, I could throw darts while blindfolded at a list of recent actions by DJT with a very high probability of hitting one with greater legal and constitutional significance. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Both stories are part of the larger picture around the Trump administration and civil rights, including the arrest itself (which is one of a long list of these), and protests (which there have been numerous and not just to any single event). Focusing on any one that doesn't have any immediate international effects (like the tariffs and trade war) is just not going to work for ITN. (obviously, this is based on the fact the protests remain non-violent and lack any type of inappropriate response at this point). Masem (t) 04:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - just one in a series of actions by the government of the US. No particular notability.
Template:Reply When you nominated this, the article was just one sentence. That is impossible to assess. Write the article first; nominate it once it has been updated, to at least close to postable quality. ITN is not a breaking news service. This was clearly a premature nomination - even hours later, the article doesn't clarify the impact of this event, presumably because it's still unknown. Modest Geniustalk16:06, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I thought some wikipedians could nominate the event quickly after the article was created, so i had to nominate it quickly. I know ITN is not a breaking news service. BakhosLet's talk!04:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. The article doesn't give enough information currently, and looking at news reports they don't have much more information either so there isn't (yet) anything that it can be expanded with. Thryduulf (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's now clear that this is a significant enough incident and the article is in good shape, no need to wait any longer. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Only makes sense to post if there is a significant oil leakage or a large number of deaths (which this doesn't seem likely to be the case). The collision and fire itself is not a significant enough story for ITN. Masem (t) 14:47, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait too much is in the air to post. I suppose that goes without saying. No reporting on injuries or deaths in the article, nor threats of an oil spill, both of which may occur in the coming hours or days. Departure– (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not a routine accident given the size of the ships involved but definitively not a major event. Impact appears to be limited to only one non-fatal casualty, potentially an oil spilll, and one big headache for the ship owners and insurers. 2607:FA49:553D:1900:6456:4768:7E7C:1845 (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This doesn't seem to be of international importance. We are absolutely not a rolling news source. Articles on the main page should be really high quality. Secretlondon (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Significant (and rare) major maritime accident. Unknown number of persons missing + jet fuel + sodium cyanide + both ships on fire close to shore... yeah this is a blurb worthy event. Obviously there is also the potential for serious environmental impacts. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was the subject of an absolutely huge controversy at WP:SHIPS back in 2014. There were multiple discussions that eventually resolved to deprecate the use of that term because it was deemed too niche. FWIW I was strongly opposed to that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's arrant pedantry of a most unhelpful kind - most people just don't know the word 'allision' and no clarity would be gained by using it. It's also untrue: a ship riding at anchor is not a fixed object in the sense that a pier is. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, less significant than other oil spills that weren’t posted. If this happened elsewhere, it would not have a snowball's chance at getting posted
Support alt unusual incident which is making global headlines, so support. And while I sympathize with Andrew's insistence on using the proper terminology, I think we should go with how the most prominent reliable sources are describing it. Unfortunately, the New York Times and BBC are using "collision", while only minor more niche maritime news sources are using "allision". FlipandFlopped ツ23:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Two total confirmed/possible casualties, neither ship is notable on their own. An unusual incident, sure, but shipwrecks aren't uncommon, and this doesn't seem to have a special/lasting notability beyond the novelty of a collision. TheKip(contribs)05:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impossible to know in advance whether something will have lasting significance, but at the moment we are looking at an international investigation and multiple sources suggesting the likelihood of a environmental crisis. That suffices. Fortuna,ImperatrixMundi11:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - We don't usually post things because sources think something will happen. Two casualties and no significant impacts. EF512:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whilst "off Withernsea" is cited as the location in the article, and both alternative blurbs, a wider audience might find that reference too parochial. Associated Press and the BBC identify the location simply as in the North Sea and 20km off the East Yorkshire coast. AP goes further and talks in terms of 240 km north of London. The mjor ports of Hull and Grimsby are detailed on maps, whilst Withernsea (population 6,159) doesn't get a mention.
Support One person has died and another has been arrested on manslaughter charges. Also, the environmental effects are looking worse by the minute. Black Kite (talk)18:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strike my earlier wait vote, and strong oppose, this isn't seeming notable. One alleged death wouldn't be much of a reason to post, and I'm not convinced about the ecological effects being any worse than numerous other oil spills that haven't been posted. Departure– (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As has also probably happened several times since in all kinds of traffic incidents around the world... Tragic, but this incident is already falling out of the news cycle. Latest I can find is that even the environmental impact will be very limited, "Regular aerial surveillance flights continue to monitor the vessels and confirm that there continues to be no cause for concern from pollution from either the Stena Immaculate or from the Solong." [39]2607:FA49:553D:1900:ED46:542:F41B:49DF (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this is premature. This is not a change in PM, it's the change in the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. Wait to see if Trudeau resigns (which is almost inevitable), and renominate if Carney becomes Prime Minister. I'm not sure why people keep nominating things prematurely. It's not a contest. Also, it was a leadership vote. It was not an election. Nfitz (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not premature. The party members elected him; if it shouldn't be called an election, then you need to get the article title changed. Trudeau had already announced he will resign(that triggered the election), they will decide the exact moment soon, but no one thinks this isn't going to happen. 331dot (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And Putin announced he wasn't going to invade Ukraine. Either way, renominate when that happens - which normally take one to two fortnights. Nfitz (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz is correct. Trudeau is still the PM until he steps down, which should happen in the next day or two. Carney right now is the PM-elect / PM-designate. Natg 19 (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get that, but we posted Trudeau's announcement of resignation before his actual resignation, and Trump's victory in the U.S. election before he was inaugurated, then I don't see why we can't post this prematurely. Hungry403 (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We posted those events because it'd be months before the followup events actually happened. Carney will be PM in a matter of days, if not hours. Just wait until he actually is. RachelTensions (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Leadership of a nation changed. We posted Trudeau's announcement of resignation, so we can post the results of it too. Hungry403 (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trudeau hasn't resigned @Hungry403. He announced his intent to resign. The leadership of Canada has not changed. The leadership of a political party has changed. Historically under these circumstances, the transfer of power to a new PM takes about 2 to 4 weeks. Though with the threats by Canada's enemies to take over the country, these are not normal times. Nfitz (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article says "Earlier this week, outgoing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he expects the transition to happen "in the coming days or week." So I expect it to happen very soon. Natg 19 (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Mark Carney has been voted as leader of LPC and is now legally the prime minister elect (or next prime minister/prime minister in waiting). To become acting prime minister, he first needs to be sworn in by the Governor General (a representative in Canada of Britain's King Charles III) - this swearing in is an inauguration. Montezuma69 (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting here is the equivalent of not posting the result of the 2024 U.S. presidential election because there is a chance that maybe Trump wouldn't end up be inaugurated; i.e., WP:CRYSTALBALL. DecafPotato (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not that equivalent as his (Carney’s) inauguration is almost imminent, likely on 10 March by or before noon. Normally in the morning of the next day the outgoing PM will tend his resignation to the Governor General and then in less than one hour or so the new PM will be appointed. Starting from the same day the new Cabinet will be named and most of them will get appointed, too, with some junior roles being appointed in the following days. — Boreas.04:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is purely my deduction but I reckon everyone can see this time is different, since Carney is not an MP and surely he will not choose to be filled in by a by-election and as he has already expressed his intention to call an election immediately, the delay in the name of transition will be unfounded this time. They will finish the transition immediately and Carney will immediately go to the Governor General to ask for the Parliament to be dissolved and a GE to be called, if I may take a guess here, on 21 April. This time it is the precedent of John Turner to refer to, not anything else. He became the leader of the LDP on 16 June and PM by the end of the month, 9 days later he dissolved the Parliament and a GE is called in September. But back then, the LDP used just one day to elect a new leader, not over two months, with the Parliament being prorogued for an unusually long period (in many other Westminster systems this might even be considered unlawful). The Parliament is to be resumed this week and you surely cannot imagine Trudeau continuing to take two weeks in the Parliament as the PM ;) Currently it’s the best time for the LDP to call an election and they will call it as soon as possible. — Boreas.06:02, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While it is purely my deduction, many a press did use the word ‘immediately’ this time, for instance, FT claimed ‘Carney is expected immediately to replace Trudeau’ in their article.
But I would like to correct the record that I just read in The Globe and Mail that the Parliament is to be prorogued until 24 March (Wow! Canadian Parliament can be prorogued for so long?! Three whole months?!), so I was wrong (I remembered having read somewhere that the Parliament will resume this week, mea culpa). If so, then I stand corrected on my statement of an immediate PM change. I reckon it will not happen until the Parliament resumes. And the expected GE will also be delayed into May I think. Thank you for letting me correct myself ;) — Boreas.06:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct @Chu Tse-tien he'll be sworn in Friday. 3 months isn't particularly long, given it included the extended Christmas break. They didn't prorogue until after the Christmas break started, so all they've really done is delay the next sitting by 8 weeks, and with other breaks, they've only lost 20 days of sitting. The Christmas break for Ontario is still longer, as they don't resume until April (without proroguation!) Though I guess they'll now lose another 4 weeks or so with an election. Nfitz (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support and support to post now. Article quality requirements are met. Now is when this is news, not when Carney technically assumes the executive tomorrow or the day after. NorthernFalcon (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but suggest a little delay until the midday of 10 March by when he sure will be appointed as the new PM and all the confusions above shall then be cleared. (Besides, by the time he becomes the new PM, there shall be a honorific prefix of ‘The Right Honourable’ added on the top of the infobox of him, since in Canada this life-long prefix is conferred to every new PM, not necessarily requires them to be an MP.) — Boreas.04:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting ASAP. The leadership election win is the news, the swearing in is a formality and can be updated if the blurb is still in the box at that time, which seems likely per the Globe and Mail [40] saying that this time it will be days instead of the usual weeks (e.g. Campbell in '93, Martin in '03) Other Commonwealth countries typically do the leadership switch the day of or the day after, so the closest parallel was Chris Hipkins being posted to ITN succeeding Ardern as NZPM upon being the only candidate in the race upon close of nominations on Jan. 20, 2023 [41], and only being officially sworn in on Jan. 25. Most of the blurbs did mention the party, with the bolding of the new PM/leadership election seems split, possibly dependent on page quality, which shouldn't be an issue here (e.g. Australia: Gillard, Rudd, Turnbull,Morrison; NZ: Hipkins; UK: May, Johnson,Truss, Sunak.) The two in Wikipedia's lifetime that did not mention the party were UK: Brown and NZ: English. I've suggested ALT2 based on the Hipkins post. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions05:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very clear he will be Prime Minister, those saying "There's nothing saying the leader is the PM" have zero argument, they are technically correct and if those circumstances applied here they would have merit, but it has been said by the leadership candidates, by Trudeau, the media, and the Party leadership that yes, the newly elected leader will be Prime Minister. He will likely be sworn in tomorrow if not the day after. TheFellaVB (talk) 06:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. The election is likely to be far more "in the news" than his swearing-in will, whether two days or two weeks away. TheKip(contribs)06:37, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until Carney becomes PM. We did not post Shigeru Ishiba becoming the new LDP leader and only posted him when he assumed office as Japan's Prime Minister. Not sure what's different in Canada's case. Tofusaurus (talk) 06:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Trudeau is still PM and seems quite active in the role currently. As Canada's international relations are quite volatile currently, events might affect the succession and so we should wait on the formal transfer. ITN will look contradictory if it posts the succession ahead of it actually happening and then has to post a blurb such as the current tariff one in which Trudeau is still acting as PM. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is patently in the news now, and similarly to election blurbs, the time the result is known is the correct time to post it. The Mark Carney article needs some work so in wouldn't bold that, but the election article itself is good to go. Given the large volume of support already, marking as Ready. — Amakuru (talk) 08:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Marking as ready is improper as the discussion has not been open for a full day yet. It's not appropriate to rush this as we already posted Trudeau's intention to resign and his article is a controversial topic which requires special care. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:47, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no requirement that a topic can't be marked as ready before a certain period AFAIK, especially with 1) a clear consensus as to posting and 2) this is ITNR. What controversial topic does this fall under? BLP? We're posting the election, not the person. Canadian politics is not a CTOP. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a common complaint when nominations are posted before all time zones have had a chance to comment. WP:ITN/A says "Template:Tq"
Talk:Justin Trudeau says emphatically at the top that "Template:Tq" I'm not sure of the details but suppose that there's a history of disputes.
Wait, then support Let's wait for when Carney actually becomes Prime Minister of Canada, either immediately or in a few weeks' time. What is truly ITNR and ITN-worthy is the change in the head of Canada's government, not the Liberal Party's internal elections. His previous position at the Bank of Canada is totally irrelevant. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, it is apparently wikia policy not to post subnational elections/leadership changes, so the change of the Governor of Canadia should not be posted any more than the Governor of New York or California would be. This also means it was WP:UNDUE to post the initial announcement Governor Trudeau made if it was indeed posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:1C20:8C00:391A:3B70:2716:467F (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Prime minister is the national leader of Canada. I don't know where you got the idea that this is a subnational 'governor'. I'll assume good faith, but this could also be read as trolling. Modest Geniustalk11:30, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's embarrassing that so many are chiming in without knowing what they're talking about. A hint: if you're an American with no background in Canadian politics having made no attempts to educate yourself, maybe sit this one out. He hasn't become PM yet and there's no reason to post this until he has. JDiala (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait then Support as per above. The Westminister system of handling this is wonky, and although I don't expect surprises, the possibility exists that the Governor General invites someone other than Mark Carney to form a government. --NaturalRX16:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The possibility of that is less than say a US presedent trying to perpetuate an overthrough of the governement and convince the vice president not to approve the president elect. So you would support on waiting to announce a new US president until after inaugeration just in case. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:50, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, him winning the leadership election is much more notable than him taking office, as I doubt the latter will make headline/leading news due to it being an expected consequence of the former. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. He's been elected and is now the Prime Minister-designate. Holding off until he's officially appointed would be like holding off announcing a US presidential election victory until the president-elect was inaugurated. Azixw (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until Trudeau resigns. Change in head of state is ITN/R, not party elections. I think when Carney takes over is the best time to post. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting now I've said in the past that I support posting when the leadership election is won, as opposed to when the ceremonial transfer of power takes place - it is quite literally more "in the news" + widely covered upon revelation of who the next leader is. The official swearing in ceremony, by contrast, is a mere formality which garners relative less coverage. FlipandFlopped ツ23:00, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - there's indications in the leading media the transition may be much quicker than usual. And now it's not 5 minutes after the announcement, the article has been improved. The suggestion by an IP that the Governor of Canada shouldn't be posted, is more vile American warmongering in support of fascism. Perhaps the entire IP rangeblock should be banned. Nfitz (talk) 05:56, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Posting Now. I've seen some arguments demanding it wait until the formality of the Governor-General appointing him to actually post this, but that would be incongruent with how Wikipedia handles Constitutional Monarchies: when the Brits change their PM, we post it as ITN/R when it's clear who the next PM will be. We didn't wait for the queen to formally appoint the PM. And for those unfamiliar, the Governor-General in this role simply serves as the stand-in for the British monarch. Nottheking (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, Starmer was appointed PM the day after the general election. Even the surprise of Sunak becoming PM was only 3 days after Truss announced her intention to resign. Nfitz (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until he takes office. Please be patient, and consider that the coverage of that moment will be bigger news than this internal party election. Abductive (reasoning)17:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it is an intra-party affair after Her Excellency the Right Honourable Mary Simon announced that she was swearing in Prime Minister Carney on Friday. Nfitz (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What's the delay. Trudeau resigned this morning, and Carney is sworn in as Prime Minister. The proposed blurb is now stale. Suggest "Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau resigns and former Banks of Canada and England governor Mark Carney is sworn in as PM. Nfitz (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on quality, not sure about notability. I'm not in the loop about cricket (or sports generally). It does look like a different ICC tournament is on WP:ITN/R (the Men's T20 World Cup), and I'm not sure about the difference in notability for Champions. However, the article has a good amount of sufficient quality prose, both about the content and context of the game, and it's fully cited. ~Malvoliox(talk | contribs)01:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose a sideshow of a never ending demand for live content to broadcast, not ITNR and only 8 eight teams (a sideshow for live content). It is neither the world cup nor the t20 world cup, nor the ipl (which is someone ITNR). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportsnut24 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on notability. This is very much the second tier contest in men's one day cricket, behind the World Cup. Given we already blurb the World Cup, the 20/20 World Cup and the test World championship, not to mention women's events and the Ashes, it would be excessive to also blurb this. — Amakuru (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For anyone opposing — while, I respect your opinion — the question to ask is — what changed since 2017 for the notability of this event to change? If there has been no change to this event’s notability since the last time we posted, I do not think that argument holds. Ktin (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What changed is the introduction of so many other cricket "championships". There seems to be one every six months. And we won't/cannot post them all. HiLo48 (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the 2017 criteria were, as wasn't active at ITNC then. But I under the current WP:ITNSIGNIF criteria, I would not have supported posting 2017 final, even though it had more coverage than 2025 (as was India/Pakistan match, which generally increases coverage). Champions Trophy is about the 5th biggest competition in cricket, possibly lower, which isn't high enough to post (T20 and 50 over World Cups, World Test Championship, IPL, Ashes are all way more significant and we'll covered). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as this doesn't meet WP:ITNSIGNIF. It probably isn't in the top 5 most notable cricket events, and isn't even the premier 50 over competition (the Cricket World Cup is). Posting in 2017 when criteria was different to now does not mean it has to be posted in 2025 using our current criteria. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I am also currently opposing on quality. The sections on each innings are too short, and there is way too much meaningless trivia in e.g. the match details notes using every stat they can find. Fails WP:ITNQUALITY. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Cricket is an extremely popular sport in large parts of the world; if anything we under-represent it on ITNR. This is a second-level tournament, a smaller version of the World Cup held in the gaps between those events. If we were to post another 50-over format competition, this would be the one to go with. I'm not entirely convinced it's significant enough, but what tips my !vote is the article quality - there are good prose summaries of the group stages and final, which has often been the problem with sports nominations and I would like to reward. I think we can post this, but explicitly without it setting a precedent or being considered for ITNR. Modest Geniustalk11:23, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not in ITNR. The only international cricket results we post are The Ashes, The Cricket World Cup and the T20 World Cup (male and female). The Champions Trophy is really minor in comparison. The C of E God Save the King! (talk)17:00, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Something not being on ITNR is not a reason to either post or not post something. It must be judged on it's notability and article quality. Comments whose only rationale for (not) posting is related to ITNR should be disregarded. Thryduulf (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Disagree that a national championship in a given sport inherently makes it notable enough, especially when we already post a lot about other more prominent cricket tournaments to begin with. Not seeing enough global impact or widespread coverage in the RS to justify posting this. FlipandFlopped ツ23:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is historically the second most important cricket tournament internationally (after the World Cup). It's absence on ITNR is not on account of importance but that no one nominated it for approval, the tournament being in abeyance for almost a decade. Its return further adds to the notability, this edition also marked the full return of international cricket to Pakistan after 15 years (2009 attack on the Sri Lanka national cricket team). We have similarly posted the World Test Championship even though it is much more novel simply on account of its notability. To put Ashes and IPL above this (if we are talking about international coverage) in terms of importance, simply due to their presence on ITNR, does not really hold weight. Gotitbro (talk) 03:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Well-known playwright from South Africa. More people have heard of him than some of the other people we have posted on RD. Djprasadian (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb - Most important playwright to ever come out of South Africa. Extremely significant during the years of apartheid when the far-right was in power. Nfitz (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Soft oppose--The article is in mostly great shape, but there's one uncited sentence around his death claiming two factoids (that might not need to be there): a) he was the last surviving person who played with Joe Dimaggio and b) he was the last surviving member of the 1953 World Series winning Yankees. If those details are either removed or reliably cited, we'll be good to go. ~Malvoliox(talk | contribs)08:14, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to verify whether the death toll cited in the blurb is accurate, so I did a little bit more research. That figure comes from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, and has now been re-reported by the New York Times. However, the NYT article is clear that "the allegations could not be independently verified [...] another monitoring group, the Syrian Network for Human Rights, reported that government security forces had only killed some 125 civilians. It said that men of all ages were among the casualties and that the forces did not distinguish between civilians and combatants". The 340+ claim does not seem sufficiently independently verified among the RS to make the main page.
Although Djodjor is correct that this is a horrific death count for only two days of conflict, the current blurb makes it seem like 340+ people were executed and massacred in a singular mass killing, such as what occurred with the Flour massacre, for example. Per the NYT, this is not what happened: the NYT article linked above discusses reports of indiscriminately dropping crude bombs from helicopters and aggressive guerrilla tactics throughout Tartus and Latakia, which has resulted in dramatically rising civilian casualties. Heavy civilian casualties due to indiscriminate tactics is distinct from a singular massacre of hundreds of civilians, which is what the blurb implies. That might still be sufficiently notable for ITN, but we need to make sure the blurb is accurate.
In addition, the blurb claims the massacre was committed by Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham. However, the target article for that organization refers to it in the past tense in its first sentence and claims it was disbanded in January 2025. Either the blurb or the lede of the article it links to is therefore incorrect.
Wait per Flipandflopped's first point — independent confirmation is needed. SOHR has also updated its death toll to 745 civilians. Another issue is that the target page appears to be about a broader range of attacks starting in December, not this specific clash on March 6–8 (which might merit its own article). I would support posting this to ITN on notability. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks♥) 22:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With the amount of coverage this massacre has received, I strongly support posting it; *not* posting this high-profile story would be a failure on our part. This massacre did occur, it is only the death toll that hasn't been independently confirmed (Reuters and BBC have still been unable to confirm the death toll). Altblurb1 without an exact death toll seems sufficient. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks♥) 16:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While a counterinsurgency campaign typically has civilian casualties, the events unfolding in Latakia are being characterized as deliberate massacres by multiple sources, including the BBC and CNN. It seems a bit flippant to dismiss the events as simply side effects of an insurgency when there is ample evidence that this is a pogrom and should be treated as such. FossilDS (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is the latest phase of the continuing Syrian Civil war which is no doubt generating much conflict and misery. But the article Western Syria clashes (December 2024–present) has quality issues with multiple orange tags. And it says that misinformation is rife and so we should be wary about selective reporting of inflammatory claims. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights seems respectable but is based in the UK and mostly a one-man operation so we shouldn't just repeat their output.
More generally, the Syrian conflict seems like the Somali civil war which is nominated below. They are both classified as minor wars as they generate 1-10,000 deaths annually. There are 6 major wars listed which are worse and so we should keep our coverage in proportion. The entire region of the Middle East seems to have endemic conflict just about everywhere -- only Jordan and the Gulf States are shown as peaceful.
Neutral—In principle, I would support a blurb on the notability of these massacres as a major (and deeply unfortunate) development in this new phase of the Syrian Civil War, What gives me pause is the attribution of the massacres to the Syrian Armed Forces, without any further context or elaboration, when the question of culpability remains up in the air. As the two proposed blurbs are currently worded, the underlying message being conveyed is that the current Syrian government, under Ahmed al-Sharaa, ordered these killings. In reality, we don't actually know whether they were perpetrated as part of a systematic and centrally-organized campaign of persecution against the Alawites, or if they were spontaneous acts of mass murder committed by rogue combatants within the SAF. In his response to the violence, al-Sharaa explicitly pinned the blame on pro-Assad elements attempting to discredit the new government; for all we know at this time, he may be right. In short, I do think this is a significant enough development to merit a blurb, but I want us to be very careful about how we phrase it to avoid inadvertently giving any particular narrative undue weight. Kurtis(talk)12:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Specific targetting of civilians from a minority ethnic group is clearly significant, being a part of a larger ongoing conflict does not downplay it. Labelling these as counterinsurgency operations is abhorent. A blurb along the lines of "A massacre of Alawite civilians has been conducted in western Syria" would be better. Gotitbro (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This happened. There are dozens of videos of people being shot. The whole "independent confirmation" thing just strikes me as lowkey racism, where you need some organization ran by white people to verify the atrocity before it is deemed truth, and the Syrian human rights groups are inadequate. But such verification may never come because the West supports these jihadists. JDiala (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When there are major human rights violations, there are usually non involved human rights orgs that get in on foot to provide independent confirmation (eg as in the recent evrnts in Gaza). The assertions of a closely involved org are something to be suspect of in terms of the appropriate quality of the article.
That said we have confirmation there has been a major violent escalation over there last several days, and asserting that in the urn as the factual statement along with the assertion on >1000 killed, is a far more neutral way to do this without waiting for the additional verification on the exact number. Masem (t) 18:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the worst atrocities of the modern era. It's basically a Yazidi-tier genocide. Calls for independent confirmation are, in my view, textbook systemic racism in action (see comment above). In any case, we have multiple WP:RS stating as a matter of fact that the events occurred, including the US State Department and AP headlines, so it is suitable to include at this point. JDiala (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A possible compromise position which may please everyone is simply including the word "reportedly" in the blurb. I should clarify that I'm not super keen on this, but it could be a way to streamline the consensus process here. JDiala (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Major and tragic event that is escalating as we speak. Media is conflicted on exactly what branch of government-affiliated fighters are committing these atrocities so leave that out for now and add it in when that's stable. Bremps...19:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support This news is headlining multiple organizations including the BBC, and the scope and scale of the massacres have provoked widespread international reactions. This clearly goes beyond the causalities one would expect from a war, and and Wikipedia should recognize at such.FossilDS (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support This NEEDS to be added. This is not just some clash in the ongoing civil war, but a notable series of events including the worst violence over a few days since the days when ISIS still held considerable territory in Syria. As someone who was cautiously optimistic about the developments since December, I had to face reality after seeing how awful these events are-they are notable of their own accord, and even if one still hopes the government brings accountability for this, to just pretend it's not a major event disturbs my conscience. And just because some of the facts around them are still ambiguous doesn't make them not worthy of the newsbox. There have been many attacks/massacres/other similar events that have made the news box even if casualties/perpatrators were unclear or being debated.
Strongly oppose the blurbs as a WP:V, and WP:NPOV violation. The CTV News article is a RS, but it clearly attributes the death toll to the SOHR, not its own voice. It also blames the killings on "Sunni Muslim gunmen loyal to the government", not the Syrian Armed Forces. Al-Jazeera adds that "Al Jazeera was unable to independently verify the death toll."[43] The other issue is that sources are reporting that 125 government security force members and 148 militants were also killed in the violence[44]. We need a better blurb.VR(Please ping on reply)19:17, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Updated vote I agree in spirit with Template:U and others that atrocious massacres have certainly happened, but strongly caution any posting admin to post altblurb 3 only. The original nomination of this blurb confidently, and yet objectively incorrectly, attributed the massacres to Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham. This has since been modified to accuse the Syrian Armed Forces (an arm of the the new Syrian government). There is an understandable rush to support posting on notability, fuelled by the moral outrage, but this initial inaccuracy underscores that who exactly committed this massacre is still being investigated. We have to be very careful that what we are blurbing is accurate and independently verified. Among the RS, there seems to be a general agreement that many of the massacres were committed by anti-Assad groups. Howwever, there is a major difference between Sunni Muslim militant groups who are allied with the government committing the massacres, and the military directly committing the massacres on order of the new Syrian government. Wikipedia should not be the first to break a story and confidently accuse a state of war crimes, when the NYT BBC CTV etc are not yet willing to do so and are only relaying the Syrian Human Rights Monitor's accusations in passive voice. FlipandFlopped ツ19:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support only ALT3 per Flipandflopped. These are the largest clashes since the fall of the government and the civilian deaths only add to to why it should be posted, but assignment of blame is still unclear and we should post a safer blurb. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions20:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ALT3 is the best option here, but there are two problems:
The article still attributes the killings to the Syrian government, which is false.
The article correctly says that some of the civilian killings were perpetrated by the Assad loyalists, but ALT3 only refers to the revenge killings, which implies that only the government allies were responsible, which is false. MT(710)10:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Altblurb 3 Massive number of deaths per above. I'm fine with all blurbs but I find Altblurb 3 the best as others also have. --SpectralIon03:59, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Altblurb 2, as Alt3 obscures the targeted nature of the majority of the killings. And yes, ArionStar is right - this needs to be posted while it's still current. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reliable source, besides the Syrian Human Rights Monitor who originally made the claim of SAF were the perpetrators, that has independently verified massacres directly committed by the state (and not just republished the SHRM's claim in passive voice)? If so, I'll change my vote. I insist on this only because that is a big allegation and it will be featured on the main page of the Wikipedia; it requires independent verification by reliable sources. FlipandFlopped ツ15:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Removing "ready" due to quality concerns. Outstanding orange undue weight tag at Template:Section link. About a handful of outstanding inline "needed" tags in the article. As an aside, a blurb with reportedly feels MOS:WEASELy and perhaps an indication of WP:RSBREAKING issues, even though days have passed.—Bagumba (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Template:ITN candidateSupport. For your information, I have never had any close relationship, friendship or local knowledge of Gabrielle Davis. I created the article about her (and other related articles) because of her notable local political work regarding the 2010 threatened closure of local museums by Canterbury City Council. I took the article's photo of her, and it was kind of her to permit that. All my own edits on the article had to be separately referenced by my own efforts, so as to provide citations (so no OR by me). I have not spotted unsourced edits in the article (which is on my watchlist), but if you are aware of any, please let me know so that I can search for citations. If she made a will, then the exact date of death will be announced when the probate is published, but that process can take months. I could apply for and pay for her death certificate now, to get an exact date, but if you want me to do that, please tell me now, as the process can take more than a week, via the GRO. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 08:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC) (Update: The full birth and death dates have now been supplied. Storye book (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC))[reply]
The notability of the article is not that she had a particular job (of councillor and sheriff). It's about what she achieved, in spite of council policy. If it were not for her work, Herne Bay would have lost its museum, which represents the town's identity and heritage. If she had just done her job as local councillor, i.e. done what she was told to do in the council chamber, there would be no Herne Bay Museum. Storye book (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article has plentiful references, especially on the firing squad execution. Only slight quirk is that they are mostly at the end of paragraphs, but that's ok — WikiContributor0830 (t) 02:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A couple of CN tags (not many) but the following sentence definitely needs one as negative unsourced BLP: "At age 18, Sigmon's string of criminal activity began in Greer with an armed robbery charge on May 29, 1976". SpencerT•C03:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Appears to be cited and somewhat whole. Last section should be renamed "Legal issues" but that's a small thing. Bremps...02:28, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please help ITN voters out by specifying a blurb and adding a nomination editor? Just because something in the news a lot, doesn't mean it merits a blurb. ❤HistoryTheorist❤20:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure the articles get updated enough for ongoing, there are other conflicts such as Myanmar civil war (2021-present) which also unfortunately don't meet the criteria (WP:ONGOING)
Oppose Ongoing are meant for stories that would have near daily coverage and updates to their articles (in addition to quality issue), not simply because the event is ongoing. This gets some coverage from time to time but given how prolonged it is, most of the media seem to give little coverage of it. Masem (t) 23:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to it being too soon. Likely that Athena toppled over just like Odysseus, but all we know now is that Template:Tq as far as I can see in this CNN live update, that's limited to just reporting that the Athena is generating power. Scuba17:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt2 landing was actually a success, ITN/R
Oppose Watching the feed, I didn't see any indication that they lost contact. Though it does seem that it is again on it's side. WAY too soon. Nfitz (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking increasingly likely that it landed too close to a boulder that is blocking the sun, and radio signals, on one side of the lander resulting in a loss of power... or it tipped over. But it never went out of contact unexpectedly. Scuba19:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the landing was a disaster, and they've now permanently lost contact with it, I don't know why there's any support. These attempts are frequent enough these days, I don't think we need to post the crashes. Nfitz (talk) 08:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Technically all of these supports are correct on this, although it did get to Mons Mouton it was 250 miles away from its designated landing spot, but it still landed on the moon. So based on ITN/R, the moon was a technical landing designation, but it stil dident get to its destination, and its based on my specific ides and thoughts along with the other supporters, Chorchapu is supporting the alt blurbs not the og blurb. Shaneapickle (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until more information is known. We're not a breaking news service. ITN shouldn't put a blurb on the Main Page until the outcome of the landing is clear - and the article has been updated accordingly. Did it crash, land safely, or something in between?Modest Geniustalk19:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still wait. The press conference last night has provided some information, but it remains unclear what the status of the spacecraft is. It seems to have landed but either been damaged or fell over, and isn't generating enough power to operate the science experiments. Maybe this is recoverable or maybe it's terminal; we don't know yet.Modest Geniustalk12:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I now oppose. It is now clear that the spacecraft landed in the wrong place, fell over, couldn't generate power from its solar panels, and was unable to complete its mission. I don't think ITN should be posting unsuccessful attempts, regardless of the positive spin that the company is attempting to put on it. Modest Geniustalk11:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It still falls under ITN/R due to the fact it reached an area that was part of its mission was to go to the SOUTH POLAR REGIONS OF THE MOON. Shaneapickle (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know the updates say there is some communication and experiments on board are running, but if it did land or topple on its side, like IM1, I don't know if we'd call that a successful landing for ITNR. Masem (t) 23:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, it hasn't toppled over, it's just angled away from the sun so it isn't getting a full charge. Scuba00:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They don't know how it's oriented outside of the poor solar charging, and it will be a few days before any craft will be ae to sight it and conform. — Masem (t) 00:25, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mind you, "destination" is the key word for the ITN/R criteria, not status. So in this case, the fact that it accomplished "A soft landing on the Moon" (even if it tipped over) means that it did manage to arrive at its destination. Whether it could accomplish its mission at its destination is another matter entirely, and not covered by the ITN/R criteria. (and would be impractical to cover, given that the at-destination durations of these missions readily exceed the lifetime of any ITN item on the FP) Nottheking (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait as per others. As the ITN/R criteria specifies, "destination" is critical. This both means that the blurb needs to mention its destination, and likewise, a final statement on its condition (whether it was a success, partial success, etc.) should be known. (on an aside, this does mean that had it failed to land at all the argument could've been well-made that it failed to meet the ITN/R criteria) Nottheking (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support and has added an alt. It's now been confirmed it's on its side and the company has declared its mission cannot be completed given its orientation. -- KTC (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose According to the Guardian (see link) it didn't even land where it was supposed to, but 250 miles away. That doesn't sound like "reaching its destination" per ITNR, at least in my book. Khuft (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Spacecraft never bullseye their landing. There's a reason "Astronomical distances" is a term. The overall target was... To land in the polar regions of the Moon, which it definitely made it to. Nottheking (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am neutral on this, but doesn't "destination" for ITN/R in a more general sense mean the Moon? I assume this is distinguishing between successfully landings (or entries into orbit) and failures. Natg 19 (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in spaceflight this is the general sense. So the broad category here that makes it "to Lunar orbit and beyond" is that it reached "soft landed on the Moon." The arguments that it somehow isn't on the Moon because it deviated a distance from where they aimed it would be like claiming that the Mars Perseverance Rover failed to reach its destination because it didn't bullseye its target either. Nottheking (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support AltBlurb 3. We now have confirmation from RS that the mission is "dead," though it did achieve its destination of a "soft landing on the Moon." The exact landing location isn't as critical here: when it comes to landing on other bodies, successful missions still tend to land many km away from the targeted spot. Nottheking (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the "destination" was the targeted destination, not in a crater hundreds of kilometres away. Is the "soft" landing on the Moon the first time it hit, or the second time when it impacted on it's side? Nfitz (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, we had no problem with all the "2020" sporting events (such as the Tokyo Olympics) being held in the wrong year. And to answer your question, we have an article that defines "soft landing." The lander was undamaged, just that its position was incorrect for the function of some key components. (namely its solar panels, needed to keep power) Nottheking (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Just wanted to note here that I've updated the proposed blurbs to reflect the fact that "Athena" is actually the name of the lander. "IM-2" is the name of the mission that flew the lander. — AFC Vixen 🦊 01:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb 3 as ITNR It reached its destination, which was the moon. Like it or not, the current ITNR criteria does not include additional conditions about how scientifically impactful the subsequent mission must be, nor about the relative accuracy of the landing. If folks disagree with this, we should take this as a sign that we need to narrow our space exploration criteria (something I might actually agree with, because I think we verge on being a space news ticker). However, this clearly meets the ITNR requirements as written. FlipandFlopped ツ23:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IAR Oppose. Understanding the ITN/R principle at play, this is very much a dead-end story. The mission accomplished nothing past landing (not even doing that properly). There will be no scientific findings from the rover in the end. Not even the only Commercial Lunar Payload Services mission this month. What exactly is the value in running this story, independent of INT/R guidelines saying we do so? DarkSide830 (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as all linked articles seem to be in good shape(though I must admit I understood very little of the last one). Barto and Sutton's articles do need to be updated to reflect the award. –DMartin05:38, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready. Although the two articles look decent at first glance, it turns out that neither says anything about Barto or Sutton's work. They cover education, academic appointments, and awards, but give no description of their research i.e. the reason why they won the award. There should be at least a paragraph (with multiple references) in each article describing the research they did.Modest Geniustalk15:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can anyone take a look at this nomination and the articles? These are ready to go to the mainpage IMO. Ktin (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless I'm missing something - seems like a breach of WP:MEDRS to me. Claims like this, that a particular drug is effective or not effective against particular diseases, should be cited to secondary review sources, whereas the above claim references an individual primary study. Putting up something that looks like medical information while the article clearly says "It was also said that taking self-medicating with aspirin should not be done yet" seems like a red flag to me. — Amakuru (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a peer reviewed Nature article associated here, [45], linked in BBC article (which is usually consistent in pointing to the published paper). This should not be taken as my sign of support, as this is a first step towards a cancer blocker. — Masem (t) 18:00, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that was my point. I actually don't think MEDRS iS overly strict at all actually, given the stakes. As much as we put in big letters that Wikipedia is a crowd-sourced encyclopedia, and does not purport to be any sort of medical guide, it's still eminently possible that readers will see things in our articles relating to their own medical conditions and potentially act on what we write. With that in mind, it's vital that the information we present represents the prevailing medical consensus. Individual research, peer reviewed or not, very often doesn't represent the overarching prevailing science. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The BBC story reports that a) this effect has been known about for a decade, the new discovery is just determining the mechanism; b) the experiments were all in animals, not humans; and c) clinical trials are only just starting. This isn't a cure for cancer. That's backed up by the cancer prevention section of our article. Modest Geniustalk17:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on notability. This is a big step in a long process of discovery, but the sourcing just doesn't back up that it is ITN-worthy (framing of the reporting by all 3 sources here only claims a improved understanding of an already known prevention mechanism) ~Malvoliox(talk | contribs)18:37, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: this is not really that groundbreaking. We've known for a while that there is an association between aspirin and reduced incidence of CRC. Like Modest Genius said, this is just about the mechanism. Like most news about cancer, it's something interesting to keep an eye on but this does not change management. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls?18:44, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tried my best to bring it up to Wikipedia's standards by changing the language used anyway, but it's a very brief article for a very long career, and I'll admit that the wording is still clunky. Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 09:57, 6 March 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. 675930s (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I am unsure why you have voted to oppose? No blurb was asked for and as you said, the article is well-sourced and that's what matters for RD. Youraveragearmy (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is in the news and there's a good amount of content for a new development, so this feels like the only real obstacle to me. Template:U, do you think a blurb saying they announced the development would be better than stating it in wikivoice? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸00:45, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, science and medical topics need to have peer-review to make sure that we are not featuring junk science on the main page; otherwise, this is closer to PROMO (even if news sources are reporting on it). Its similar to the quantum chip from a few weeks back - it was more a product announcement at its core, without a peer reviewed source on the actual chip. — Masem (t) 01:14, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even with peer review, this isn't anything exciting. This was possible since the 90s and it was only a matter of time before scientists did it. I would support if it was scientists recreating the woolly mammoth while keeping it alive. DotesConks (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Let's wait until they do have a woolly mammoth. We don't want to mis-fire posting every step along the way, even if it makes a good newsbite (at least before the scientist talking heads come in and clarify for those listening past the headlines). Kingsif (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can Jiakun's article be expanded? May have to look to other language wikis, but that feels woefully short for this recognizition. --Masem (t) 02:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support the original or alt1 blurb; alt2 is too wordy. ITNR and the article is in decent shape: updated and adequately referenced. I've just added two Template:Tl tags, but those aren't vital. It's unfortunate we don't have more images of his work, but that can't be helped. Modest Geniustalk11:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb 1 or original blurb. This is basically the Nobel Prize for Architecture. Article is a bit short, but fine. Khuft (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this point. There are multiple wildfires going on across the globe and in terms of scale this is not large (even if largest for Japan). Masem (t) 15:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support original blurb We regularly post American and Canadian wildfires which do not even come close to breaking the national record, I see no reason not to post the largest wildfire in Japanese history, especially when the impacts of the fires (mass evacuations) are prompting global coverage (NYT, BBC, etc). FlipandFlopped ツ15:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support original blurb -- the biggest wildfire in a country's history can be reasonably considered internationally notable to some extent, and it's not like we don't post all the national elections results. Plus, the photo is good. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks done. This was also reported on ERRORS. The current blurb has "becomes the largest in the country in at least five decades." Natg 19 (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The link to this article is still prominent on the mainpage. However, the article needs to be updted. AFAIK, the rains tamped down the fire about a week ago, all evacuations are now lifted. Authors might want to reflect it in the lead. --Викидим (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment US has been in trade war with China since 2018, and this is even analysed in research papers (see Fajgelbaum & Khandelwal, 2022, Caliendo & Parro, 2023 and Alessandria et al., 2024). Also, note that the Biden administration didn't reverse the tariffs imposed by the First Trump administration, and even imposed additional tariffs on China in May 2024, which went into effect in September 2024 (CNN). So, China should be excluded from the blurb as this isn't really new, and the nomination should focus on whether the imposed tariffs on the neighbouring countries are notable enough.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting. This was nominated in February but consensus was to wait until the tariffs take effect. Disagree with excluding China because the new tariffs on China are a lot larger than the old ones and will significantly disrupt global supply chains. ITN historically neglects economic news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.6.200.171 (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until we know they go into effect. Blurb also needs to add that at least Canada has stated intent to tariff US goods in retaliation, as from last time, its the fact it was escalating into a trade war was the reason many supported posting. There's still hours before this could happen and things could change so just wait until we have an official word on this. --Masem (t) 12:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian counter tariffs are already in effect - and took effect last night, User:Masem at the same time the USA ones took effect. I'm not sure what you are waiting for. The first round of the Canadian tariffs aren't as extensive, but targeted on vulnerable, mostly luxury, items and states. The second round in about 3 weeks will be more extensive - but I don't think we should wait for that. Nfitz (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb — Tariffs on China are also relevant, though maybe don't need to be bolded. I proposed an altblurb that includes that Canada and China imposed retaliatory tariffs (both of which have entered force, alongside the U.S. tariffs, about five hours ago as of writing). Wording can be changed to "all three countries" if Mexico imposes retaliatory tariffs of its own, which is highly likely, and Mexico's president Sheinbaum is expected to announce them in her news conference this morning. DecafPotato (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb. This is a significant shake-up to geopolitics. I prefer the alt blurb, as it uses the active voice; the use of passive voice in the original blurb strikes me as a bit weasel-worded. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - alt blurb - but is "trade war" the best description? The Americans have been clear that it will use economic coercion as a weapons to force Canada to become part of the USA. That makes this an act of war. On the other hand, the description is more apt for the other 2 nations. Nfitz (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb but I'm not sure if China should be included, that's been happening for ages now. Oppose using any other phrase than "trade war" since we shouldn't really put too much trust on what could very well be posturing. Yo.dazo (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting, though exclude China as it's only an escalation as opposed to the start of an entirely new trade conflict. Bremps...17:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should mention tariffs on the EU unless they actually go into effect; right now Trump has just said he might/will impose them and hasn't even set a date. DecafPotato (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, and also prefer altblurb 2 per Bremps. The Canada/Mexico/EU tariffs are the start of a new trade war, and are more uniquely notable, whereas the tariffs on China are a readjustment to an already existing trade dispute. Better to make clear to the reader the most central development: a new trade war has begun amongst the Atlantic powers. FlipandFlopped ツ17:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Most participants did not oppose the inclusion of the Chinese tariffs or only weakly opposed, and the same was true for the "trade war" wording, for which the only voiced opposition touched on using stronger language. EU tariffs are only a threat for now, so not included. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions22:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pull or modify to altblurb 4 Per the Toronto Star and NYT, Trump has essentially reversed the tariffs. Only a narrow minority of exports that are not currently governed by the USMCA agreement will still be tariffed, and even among those exports, he's lowered it to 10% on anything energy-related or all potash-based goods. The current blurb has now become misleading. FlipandFlopped ツ22:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a "narrow minority": 50 percent of imports from Mexico and 62 percent of imports from Canada will still face the tariffs. (per inverted US gov figures from ABC); "imposes and partially suspends" is my preferred wording. "Reverses" falsely implies that billions of dollars of goods entering the US are not still facing 25% taxes and also ignores that Canada's retaliatory tariffs are staying in place for now as well. DecafPotato (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've implemented an update using "delays" instead of "suspends", which could be misinterpreted as the US suspending some pre-existing tariffs while imposing new ones, which isn't the case. In addition to the federal tariffs still in place, multiple premiers have indicated provincial retaliatory measures will remain in place until the tariff threat is ended (including Ontario's 25% surcharge on energy to the NE USA). It hasn't changed significantly to pull in and of itself, and we would need consensus here to do so. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions05:27, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. At the time I made that comment, it was unclear what exactly was being exempted and the NYT was reporting partially inaccurate claims. I rescind my vote. FlipandFlopped ツ14:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Replace It's not clear why this topic of tariffs has been selected from amongst the general stream of radical orders from the new US administration. But the headlines describe this as Tariffs by Whim and Trump Whipsaws on Tariffs and so it seems too chaotic and uncertain for our blurb to be stable.
Simply put: the culture of Wikipedia generally frowns upon emphasizing political events within a country (outside of the mandatory ITN/R "selection of Prime Minister" via general election or other event) that don't immediately and directly impact other countries, regardless of how far-reaching the ramifications are. (particularly compared to say, a single sporting match) However, tariffs are by nature international, so this passes the threshold that most draws support. Nottheking (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tariffs are international events - affecting multiple countries. Much of Trump's other EOs are "local" politics only relevant to the US. Natg 19 (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that the "selected articles" with permanent dead links should either be referenced or removed. Apart from that, there are two citation needed tags. Schwede6622:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support — good, well-written article with extensive history & supplementary article surrounding one of Scotland’s highest selling paintings ever Hauntbug (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Good, clear article. I have expanded details of his death with everything currently known, for fullness - i.e. location, when he was discovered, who announced his death (his publicist), lack of suspicious circumstances, and publicist's comments on his passing (via The Guardian). Montezuma69 (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Sourcing and citations are good, but it feels as though there could be some additional information added to the article. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist800011:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We also have this image (thumbnail right), with both Sean Baker (Best Director) and Mikey Madison (Best Actress in a Leading Role) if we want to feature both of them as the two named winners (though the photo may be a bit wide for the limited in-the-news space). ~SuperHamsterTalkContribs04:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was posted with a link to a dab page! And then someone moved it, while it was on the main page! I've tidied up but none of this was urgent as we are not news. Secretlondon (talk) 08:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question Since Baker won four Oscars, is the parenthesis when using his photo going to somehow address this, or just the biggest two (Best Director, Best Picture co-winner)? Kingsif (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is cool but i feel the blurb is kinda oddly written. im an ESL myself mayhaps someone could rewrite it to sound less odd? Udder1882 (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not important enough. This is not the "First commercial moon lander" it's the "First ... moon lander ...by Firefly Aerospace". Big for them maybe but not big enough for ITN. Nigej (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an ITN/R event, even if it was mistakenly nominated with a blue box rather than green. So its importance is automatic; this page isn't the place to discuss whether an editor feels it's important or not. Nottheking (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Second is a press release so not a reliable source. Third states this "The first mission by Astrobotic last year suffered a catastrophic failure of its propulsion system prior to its scheduled landing attempt. The second, operated by Intuitive Machines, got its Odysseus lander to the surface in February last year; though it tipped over on landing, the instruments it delivered remained fully functional." Masem (t) 18:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not debating this here anymore. I'll point out that "tipped over on landing" is a strange indication of success, and if numerous NASA press releases can act as sources, so can one from Firefly. Celjski Grad (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fully functional perhaps - but many payloads were unable to complete their mission. Or even be deployed. Some others were unable to be deployed because of the complexity of the emergency landing. Also with not enough sun for the solar panels, the entire lander failed after only 7 days. Nfitz (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The qualification is that Odysseus was not a successful landing mission: the tipping over precluded many of its objectives, though naturally, it was in the company's best interests to stress what objectives were able to be accomplished in spite of its failure on landing. The lander's electronics failed (and contact was lost) about a week after touchdown as a result of its orientation, meaning it only achieved approximately half of its design life of 14 days post-touchdown. So this is a difference of "partially successful" vs. "successful." Nottheking (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether true or not (as brought up by Masem), we need to at least be internally consistent. The IM-1 article currently says in the lead: Template:Tq Hence, a proposed blurb cannot say that this is the first commercial Lunar lander. Either the article, or the blurb, has to change. Schwede6600:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is now fully addressed two points up. And even if true - how is it relevant with ITN/R already met? Nfitz (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the issue remains. Multiple respectable media such as the BBC and CNN describe this is being second. Where the claim of being first is reported, it is attributed to the press release rather than being stated as a plain fact. So, as this is commercial and promotional in nature, we should just say that the probe landed without stating claims of first/second in Wikipedia's voice. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually ITN/R. The ITN/R criteria for space exploration has become vanishingly small, but a soft landing on the Moon is one of the few events that qualify. Hence, there should be no discussion on editors' personal subjective opinions on how important the subject matter is, but rather as for whether the article itself is of quality for ITN. Nottheking (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck those !votes that oppose on grounds of importance to reflect ITN/R. Andrew Davidson is presumably opposing the blurb wording, and that is within the rules. Schwede6600:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Striking !votes seems too heavy-handed. ITN/R is just a guideline and so explicitly says that "exceptions may apply". We had a huge fuss previously about this when several editors felt that a launch was not actually significant. IIRC a rules hardliner who refused to accept that there might be exceptions was banned from ITN after the matter was taken to ANI. That case established a precedent that opposition to such space stories may be legitimate. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a flurry of such moon probes this year. IM-2 launched four days ago and is scheduled to land in just three days from now. And there's a Japanese probe in transit too which is planned to land in April. ITN is going to look weird if it's full of moon probes powered by ITN/R. At some point, we have to raise the bar again. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strange that two in one year is a "flurry," (and if this article is still on the FP when that occurs, we can easily put the two together) yet we have a minimum of 14 different Football & Rugby ITN/Rs each year. (with another 8 that take place every few years) It would seem that some would argue that anytime an INT/R without a fixed recurrence date does show up, folk will make the argument that the condition should be removed. the vast majority of the Space Exploration category was already removed, and at that rate there'll soon be nothing left. The point of ITN isn't to be a ticker for which heads of government are in and out, but to actually cover what's "in the news." Nottheking (talk) 13:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is a bit short but I don't see any citation issues. By the way, I modified the template to mark this as ITN/R. Whether this is the first or second commercial moon landing can continue to be discussed. --SpectralIon00:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The rendering seems fine so I've added it. It's ironic that being commercial makes the mission more difficult to report. If they want coverage, they should release CC images too. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I saw a few opposes last time I checked this, then realized it met ITN/R. It would appear that I was beaten to the punch. Oh well. qw3rty09:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support First lander of 2025, and reported on by various different news stations, has notability. It has to go on the In the News due to ITN/R. Shaneapickle (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A third of the biography section is just an anecdote about him meeting an Estonian politician. Overall the quality needs a lot of improvement before this is ready for the main page. Yakikaki (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Almost ready -- Didn't see any citations for the disbanding of Gary Walker & The Rain, and couldn't find one to add on a quick search. The article looks ready otherwise. Count this as support after that is cited. ~Malvoliox(talk | contribs)18:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb. Doesn't rise to the level of significance required for a death blurb and while a traffic accident is not "old person dies of old age" I'm not seeing any evidence that the death is the main story here. It's not ready for RD due some uncited prose and a complete lack of citations in the discography, filmography and awards sections. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am expanding the biography at the moment. The biography is short, probably stubby, with much of the content unsourced, i.e. discography section is mostly unsourced. Although there is a tag stating to expand from the Chinese Wikipedia, the sourcing there is not ideal. Thus the expansion may take a couple of days. I am leaving an orange tag, which I may eventually remove upon completion of the expand, giving a suggestion for others to help to expand his article at where possible. – robertsky (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A lot content have been added to the article over the last few hours by many editors. There are still the awards section uncited for now. Making good progress. – robertsky (talk) 02:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
soft oppose the target of this nomination should be the ceasefire itself. If/when there is said article I would change my vote to support. Scuba13:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on the article updates. Neither have been updated with more than a couple of sentences and neither goes deeper than “a ceasefire was declared”. I think more content is needed first before this is considered. ✈ mike_gigstalkcontribs13:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality, open to supporting on notability but the target articles do not include any real depth of coverage about the ceasefire as noted above. FlipandFlopped ツ16:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ITN nomination is not about the notability. It is a notable event, but a comprehensive update or a new target article must be created Nyanardsan (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We don't necessary need a new article as long as there's a reasonably significant update in a target article to reflect. However, the current article is a mess and needs a lot of work, including likely some split of matter (not necessarily the ceasefire) to even get close to posting. Masem (t) 03:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not intending to do a lot of work on this - if that is necessary and no one else steps forward in the next day or two then please close this nomination Chidgk1 (talk) 09:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose though interesting, we do not usually post product announcements. And agree with Nfitz that this is a long time coming. Natg 19 (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Maybe if we were talking about the discontinuation of Microsoft Windows, given how ubiquitious it is, where there was no obvious replacement for it, but Skype users are being transitioned to Teams, so its not like people are losing functionality. --Masem (t) 01:57, 1 March 2025
Oppose both now and on the actual date of closing. Online services are discontinued all the time. Not of historical consequence. –DMartin05:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
Done thanks — Amakuru (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
.jpg)
and 
to create one image? Bremps... 22:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=small}
? Thanks. Bremps... 19:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
.svg)
.png)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Thank you mate 
QalasQalas (talk) 09:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
