Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates: Difference between revisions
UlyssorZebra (talk | contribs) →Russian cruiser Moskva: Reply |
|||
Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
* '''Support''' In several ways a major event. [[User:Yakikaki|Yakikaki]] ([[User talk:Yakikaki|talk]]) 20:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC) |
* '''Support''' In several ways a major event. [[User:Yakikaki|Yakikaki]] ([[User talk:Yakikaki|talk]]) 20:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC) |
||
* '''Oppose''' covered by ongoing. If the fact it is the first sinking of a major military vessel during war since wwii, that seems to be a DYK blurb. --[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 20:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC) |
* '''Oppose''' covered by ongoing. If the fact it is the first sinking of a major military vessel during war since wwii, that seems to be a DYK blurb. --[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 20:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC) |
||
*: It's not even the first: the cruiser ''General Belgrano'' was sunk during the Falklands War. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] ([[User talk:Carnildo|talk]]) 21:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support'''. Large warships do not sink every day, even if the cause is disputed(the Ukrainians say they fired missiles at it while Russia does not acknowledge that- though the rest of their ships moved further away). [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 20:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC) |
*'''Support'''. Large warships do not sink every day, even if the cause is disputed(the Ukrainians say they fired missiles at it while Russia does not acknowledge that- though the rest of their ships moved further away). [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 20:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC) |
||
*'''Note''' I've corrected the original blurb and alt1 to the proper active past participle (had sunk->sinks). - '''[[User:Floydian|<span style="color: #0051BA;">Floydian</span>]]''' <sup>[[User_talk:Floydian|<span style="color: #3AAA3A;">τ</span>]]</sup> <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Floydian|<span style="color: #3AAA3A;">¢</span>]]</sub> 20:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC) |
*'''Note''' I've corrected the original blurb and alt1 to the proper active past participle (had sunk->sinks). - '''[[User:Floydian|<span style="color: #0051BA;">Floydian</span>]]''' <sup>[[User_talk:Floydian|<span style="color: #3AAA3A;">τ</span>]]</sup> <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Floydian|<span style="color: #3AAA3A;">¢</span>]]</sub> 20:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC) |
||
Line 46: | Line 47: | ||
:: Their reporting is not perfect. This ship is larger than ''General Belgrano.'' [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 21:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC) |
:: Their reporting is not perfect. This ship is larger than ''General Belgrano.'' [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 21:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC) |
||
*'''Support''' Fuck you Russian warship. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] <small>([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Keep wearing the mask...]])</small> 21:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC) |
*'''Support''' Fuck you Russian warship. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] <small>([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Keep wearing the mask...]])</small> 21:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC) |
||
*'''Oppose'''. Just a more-or-less routine part of an ongoing war. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] ([[User talk:Carnildo|talk]]) 21:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
==== (Closed) Killing of Patrick Lyoya ==== |
==== (Closed) Killing of Patrick Lyoya ==== |
Revision as of 21:17, 14 April 2022
Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here. |
In the news toolbox |
---|
This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
view — page history — related changes — edit |
Glossary
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality. Nomination steps
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
Headers
Voicing an opinion on an itemFormat your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated. Please do...
Please do not...
Suggesting updatesThere are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:
|
Archives
April 14
April 14, 2022
(Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
Russian cruiser Moskva
Blurb: Russian flagship cruiser Moskva sinks in the Black sea off the coast of Odessa (Post)
Alternative blurb: Russian flagship cruiser Moskva sinks following an explosion off the coast of Ukraine.
Alternative blurb II: The Russian flagship cruiser Moskva sinks following an explosion off the Ukrainian coast.
News source(s): BBC, DW, RIA
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Venkat TL (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: This ship (of the "Russian warship, go fuck yourself" fame) has now sunk. Unclear casualties. Quoting BBC "The 510-crew vessel was an important symbolic and military target, and has led Russia's naval assault on Ukraine" Venkat TL (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Bully for the good guys. But alas this is just part of the dreadful landscape of war. And the war is already linked in ongoing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- P.S. This definitely needs RS sources linked in the nomination. The last I looked this had not been confirmed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ad Orientem, Beeb added Venkat TL (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- P.S. This definitely needs RS sources linked in the nomination. The last I looked this had not been confirmed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Largest warship sunk by hostile fire since 1945. Jehochman Talk 20:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Do not forget ARA General Belgrano --Andrei (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- The Moskva is still larger though (in tons displacement and in length), albeit only slightly. UlyssorZebra (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Do not forget ARA General Belgrano --Andrei (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support, but also proposing alt1 --Andrei (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- and better image is File:Russian cruiser Moskva.jpg --Andrei (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support In several ways a major event. Yakikaki (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose covered by ongoing. If the fact it is the first sinking of a major military vessel during war since wwii, that seems to be a DYK blurb. --Masem (t) 20:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's not even the first: the cruiser General Belgrano was sunk during the Falklands War. --Carnildo (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Large warships do not sink every day, even if the cause is disputed(the Ukrainians say they fired missiles at it while Russia does not acknowledge that- though the rest of their ships moved further away). 331dot (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Note I've corrected the original blurb and alt1 to the proper active past participle (had sunk->sinks). - Floydian τ ¢ 20:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support. According to The Guardian, it is the most significant naval vessel to be sunk since the Argentinian cruiser General Belgrano was torpedoed during the 1982 Falklands War. [1] This makes it notable and interesting. UlyssorZebra (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Their reporting is not perfect. This ship is larger than General Belgrano. Jehochman Talk 21:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Fuck you Russian warship. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. Just a more-or-less routine part of an ongoing war. --Carnildo (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
(Closed) Killing of Patrick Lyoya
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.
Blurb: The killing of Patrick Lyoya, who was shot in the back of the head by a Grand Rapids Police Department officer, sparks outrage against police brutality in the United States (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times, CNN, CBS News, Estadão, Ludwigsburger Kreiszeitung, AP, BBC, Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by WMrapids (talk · give credit)
- Wait As with several other numerous protests around the world, we need to see if there's longer-term effects from it. I would also add that reactions when there is police misconduct against minorities are frequent, and unless this turns into the next George Floyd situation, we should be careful. --Masem (t) 01:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Wait per Masem. Not ITN-worthy for now as this is not a newspaper. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Wait Per Masem. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Wait Should not post this unless it actually sparks some type of serious unrest. It's too early to say that it will. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 03:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose The proposed article documents a stale event with a section on the protests, whereas Police brutality in the United States is way too general. If this protest doesn't deserve a stand-alone article, I don't think it's notable enough to get included.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose many killings, particularly in the US, spark protests. This one has not as yet generated ITN-worthy coverage. We are not an American news site, so don't need to cover every US news story. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose because it's nowhere near important enough. Police killing people is common in some countries, including the US. Nothing about this case makes it important enough for ITN. It's more suited to DYK. Jim Michael (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose ... per previous three. If this becomes a major legal case, the verdict could be nominated here. – Sca (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose fled police during a lawful traffic stop, made a grab for a police weapon, got shot. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
April 13
April 13, 2022
(Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
|
RD: Freddy Rincón
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC Sports, Marca, Sky News
Credits:
- Nominated by Kacamata (talk · give credit)
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: His death was announced, recently . One of the best South American footballers of the 90s. Unfortunately, the article is far from ready, but I thought it was worth nominating it. --Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 06:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose For Now, per nom. But he does seem like a legit multinational star, arguably died young and definitely injured five other people in dying. So a blurb would at least make sense, whether or not he was previously known to North American football fans. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I would argue against a blurb; I don't feel he was particularly transformative. Unable to lead his national team to glory, only once named his league's best player... he was unquestionably great, but not worthy of a blurb IMO. -- Kicking222 (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I assume a blurb would come under the "death is the story" criterion rather than the "transformative" one.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I would argue against a blurb; I don't feel he was particularly transformative. Unable to lead his national team to glory, only once named his league's best player... he was unquestionably great, but not worthy of a blurb IMO. -- Kicking222 (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality as the article needs a lot more sourcing. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
April 12
April 12, 2022
(Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Sports
|
RD: Larysa Khorolets
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ukrinform.ua (uk) - nz.topnews.media en
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit)
- Created by Wizardman (talk · give credit)
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: First Minister of Culture of Ukraine, before: actress, afterwards: many positions including professor, - added from Ukraininan obit, but having to rely on translator. Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
RD: Gilbert Gottfried
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Official Twitter account, WaPo, People, BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Andise1 (talk · give credit)
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: Just passed away. Andise1 (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not yet ready for posting as the filmography needs to be sourced. Of course, this was just announced so it will likely take time. I wonder if a blurb would be appropriate here.--WaltCip-(talk) 19:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Nowhere close to top tier or transformative leader here. Blurb would be inappropriate. --Masem (t) 19:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Pretty much unknown outside the US, I'd say. Black Kite (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Outside of there he's just a talking parrot. And hey, Hollywood Squares aired in Canada as well! - Floydian τ ¢ 20:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- And Canada. He's known to us, too. Kurtis (talk) 03:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, we know him alright. Knew him as a peg or two below Bob Saget and Norm Macdonald, but more charmingly influential than Louie Anderson. At least that's how he's remembered in Northern Ontario comedy networks, in case you're not the Kurtis I know; if he was a rock legend, he'd be Corey Hart, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I suspect you're thinking of Kurtis Conner. My name is Kurtis Co—erm... a strikingly similar surname that also happens to start with the letter "C". Kurtis (talk) 05:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- No, my guy is too lowkey for Wikipedia or Vine, and his last name begins with W. Funny how that almost turned out, though, small world. If I ever run across North York Kurtis at a true north club, I'll have to remember to introduce myself properly (as for you, hi, I'm Hulk!). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Pleasure to meet you, Hulk! Are you, perchance, this Hulk? To the best of my knowledge, he is also inedible (assuming you don't cannibalize Bruce Banner). Kurtis (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- A common misconception, let me tell ya, but I'm "actually" a twisted mutant offshoot of that brother from another mother. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Pleasure to meet you, Hulk! Are you, perchance, this Hulk? To the best of my knowledge, he is also inedible (assuming you don't cannibalize Bruce Banner). Kurtis (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- No, my guy is too lowkey for Wikipedia or Vine, and his last name begins with W. Funny how that almost turned out, though, small world. If I ever run across North York Kurtis at a true north club, I'll have to remember to introduce myself properly (as for you, hi, I'm Hulk!). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I suspect you're thinking of Kurtis Conner. My name is Kurtis Co—erm... a strikingly similar surname that also happens to start with the letter "C". Kurtis (talk) 05:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, we know him alright. Knew him as a peg or two below Bob Saget and Norm Macdonald, but more charmingly influential than Louie Anderson. At least that's how he's remembered in Northern Ontario comedy networks, in case you're not the Kurtis I know; if he was a rock legend, he'd be Corey Hart, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Pretty much unknown outside the US, I'd say. Black Kite (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Nowhere close to top tier or transformative leader here. Blurb would be inappropriate. --Masem (t) 19:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose It's not too bad, but there's a number of unsourced statements and the filmography. Black Kite (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb, but would support RD when any citation issues are fixed. rawmustard (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support RD once reference issues are solved. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb - certainly neither transformative nor top of his field... Unless that field is cancel culture. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb – Accomplished, perhaps, but not 'transformative.' – Sca (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb as per above comments on the matter. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support RD after the reference issues are done. --TheDutchViewer (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb—An iconic comedian in his own right, but I don't think he quite rises to the level of Robin Williams or Richard Pryor in terms of significance. Kurtis (talk) 03:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support RD No more tags, sufficient overview, familiar name. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- There are many places that should have citation needed tags- I have added all the ones I noticed. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I stand by the remaining two-thirds of my reason, adding only the fact that it's truly in the news (if that counts). InedibleHulk (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose RD as well for now, as there are many sources still needed, and the article violates WP:CSECTION (shouldn't have controversy sections). Joseph2302 (talk) 07:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Now called "Jokes". InedibleHulk (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support RD, oppose blurb: The article seems to have been cleaned up a lot from the original opposing. But I would oppose a blurb as he wasn't that well known outside the US (mostly known just for his work as Iago and of course "YOU FOOL!!!") and not transformative or top in his field. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Too many unreferenced paragraphs. Filmography also needs sources. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose for now based on quality concerns, mostly over referencing issues. When those are fixed, I would only support an RD posting; death does not require additional explanation in the form of a blurb, so RD is sufficient. --Jayron32 12:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support RD Culturally significant figure within comedy and voice acting. Was a staple on the Howard Stern Show - one of the most listened to talk radio programs in the world. 94.157.236.103 (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support RD, Oppose blurb Gottfried was amazing and def deserves an RD, but was nowhere near known/transformative enough for a blurb. The Kip (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality to be included in the RD, not notoriety, but quality is also taken into account. The "Filmography" section has no sources. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support He was one of the most famous and beloved comedians in the 1990s and late 2000s and his death is significant in popular culture. Plus his voice credit is also notable especially considering the uniqueness of his voice. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 22:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support, A familiar and famous name, enough information. Alex-h (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Lack of references in Filmography still to be dealt with.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
(Closed) 2022 New York City Subway attack
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 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.
Blurb: In Brooklyn, 16 people are injured, 10 of whom were shot, on a subway train by a gunman. (Post)
News source(s): NYT, CNN
Credits:
- Nominated by WaltCip (talk · give credit)
- Comment: Isn't this nom a wee bit early? Last time I looked, this was an encyclopedia, not a news outlet. --cart-Talk 17:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose No deaths reported, so this doesn't seem ITN worthy. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 17:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Its a bit early to say it isn't ITN worthy, as deaths could still occur. No WP:MINIMUMDEATHS exist either. DadOfTheYear2022 (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- It won't take that long for this event to reach a critical point. I'm OK waiting; just figured it would make sense to nominate it while it was in the news.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per Hcoder. The criteria we have used is the same, so it's not ITN-worthy for now. Nor does it look like a terrorist attack, which is always an aggravating factor in situations like this. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Wait many are coming here to oppose this for the "usual reasons". Please don't. Lets just wait to see what the motivations of the shooter are. If political it's terrorism and we can weigh in on that, if otherwise we'll just close it for the "usual reason". Please lets not erect a wall of opposes just yet. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Wait but leaning oppose. Far too soon for this. That said, early reports suggest no fatalities. Mass gun violence is a more or less daily event in the United States and unless there is something that marks this out as truly unusual, I generally lean against posting events that are almost routine in the area where they occur. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- How routine is a coordinated attack in the NYC subway system? Sir Joseph (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not to mention one involving smoke bombs and explosive devices. WaltCip-(talk) 19:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not routine. Someone tried to jihad a station in the 2010s but luckily made a suicide bomb error and just caused ear pain and a few minor burns, mostly to himself. A guy shot four thugs on the train in the early 80s but at least one later admitted they were robbing the shooter and the shooter had PTSD and long-term injury from a surprise shove through glass in a previous robbery (one of the shot guys later raped a pregnant teen). There may be more but that is all the subway robberies in the metro area I know (LIRR is not the subway) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- How routine is a coordinated attack in the NYC subway system? Sir Joseph (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose mass shootings are commonplace in Amurica and this appears to have limited notability. Suggest it's redirected to the ever-increasing perennial "mass shootings in the United States in [YEAR]" article. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support - In the news, article is in good shape and smoke bomb attacks in the US aren't typical. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support While gun violence in the U.S. is an ongoing problem, it is indeed not the norm for a dude to walk on to a subway train, throw smoke bombs, and open fire while having some potentially explosive devices on hand, and escaping the scene, leading to a manhunt. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose No deaths, gun violence in the U.S. is already very common (the 2022 Sacramento shooting which had six deaths wasn't even posted) and per Hcoder3104 and Alsoriano97. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose – Per all previous opposes. Scary for NYers, but wider impact seems negligible unless some significant motive surfaces. AP: "Five people were in critical condition but expected to survive." – Sca (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - 2 weeks ago I tried to get a massacre in Mexico that killed 20 people to the front page and wasn't able to. Sheila1988 (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Latin America has 8% of the worlds population and 33% of the murder. WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a reason to post (or to not post) BTW --LaserLegs (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose – this is a normal occurrence in the United States. Yes, it is awful and prayers to NYC, but this isn't notable world news on a global scale. cookie monster 755 20:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Seems that many editors here need a refresher:
#Please do not... oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive.
– Muboshgu (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Seems that many editors here need a refresher:
- Seems you need a refresher on the intent/spirit if you think that applies to the Cookie Monster's comment. It wasn't an oppose because it is only American, it was an oppose (by my reading) because US shootings (as a category of event) aren't news. Kingsif (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Kingsif, I said "many editors". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Seems you need a refresher on the intent/spirit if you think that applies to the Cookie Monster's comment. It wasn't an oppose because it is only American, it was an oppose (by my reading) because US shootings (as a category of event) aren't news. Kingsif (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose as this is a routine incident. Americans shoot each other literally every day and sometimes even more frequently. A shooting in the United States is like a minor traffic accident in any normal country.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Haven't seen any news coverage, and I was reading on two apps before logging in. So it isn't in the news cycle, though local sources clearly exist. At least need to wait to see if it was a bad mugging or a bad terror attack. Kingsif (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment – Looks like a clear consensus against posting. – Sca (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - not interested in violating WP:3RR (so I won't undo his edit again), but User: The Rambling Man is quite obviously an involved editor. Will an uninvolved editor please review this closure? -- RockstoneSend me a message! 23:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yawn. When anyone can see a clear consensus, they can move to close. Your edit-warring is not welcome. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Given that you reverted my contention regarding consensus, it's not edit warring on my part. Don't make involved closures on ITN. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 00:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yawn, stop wasting my time. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Given that you reverted my contention regarding consensus, it's not edit warring on my part. Don't make involved closures on ITN. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 00:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yawn. When anyone can see a clear consensus, they can move to close. Your edit-warring is not welcome. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
April 11
April 11, 2022
(Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Joe Horlen
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Oklahoma State
Credits:
- Nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)
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.
– Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
RD: Wayne Cooper (basketball)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Oregonian; New Orleans Privateers; National Post (Reuters)
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)
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.
Bloom6132 (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Looks to be satisfactory. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) South Africa floods
Blurb: Flooding across KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, leaves at least 250 people dead. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, New York Times, BBC, AlJazeera, France24 (AFP)
Credits:
- Nominated by Cyclonebiskit (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Another significant flood event in this ever-wetter world. Rainfall started on the 8th but the major events did not start until the 11th. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Rainfall has been way below average for the past six months where I live. HiLo48 (talk) 05:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- You live around Melbourne right? According to climate change in Australia it's supposed to get drier, at least on average. And the natural volatility of hot Outback-y fire years followed by floods, bumper crops and mice explosions seems to be getting worse. I heard that each of your 3 oceans has an El Niño-y cycle which contribute to the interesting problem of different Australian cities having opposite problems in the same summer 2022. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed. Sydney had its average annual rainfall by early April. Stephen 22:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- You live around Melbourne right? According to climate change in Australia it's supposed to get drier, at least on average. And the natural volatility of hot Outback-y fire years followed by floods, bumper crops and mice explosions seems to be getting worse. I heard that each of your 3 oceans has an El Niño-y cycle which contribute to the interesting problem of different Australian cities having opposite problems in the same summer 2022. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support article is sufficiently detailed, very well referenced, and good enough for the main page. Major news sources are covering the event. Checks all of the boxes for me. --Jayron32 12:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment – BBC puts toll at at least 59. – Sca (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- That BBC article has now been updated, and says 250. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Please update the article itself, with new sources, to show the changes, so that we can update the blurb as well. The correct order to do this is 1) cite the source 2) update the article text 3) update the blurb. We need steps 1 and 2 before we can do step 3. Thanks. --Jayron32 14:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've started a discussion on the talkpage, as there appears to be different numbers. But the fact there's more deaths means that it's probably more ITN worthy, in my opinion (once the details in the article have been sorted out). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Seems to have been fixed in the article. I've updated the blurb above. --Jayron32 14:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support in principle 250 deaths is significant, and there is continued coverage on sources such as the BBC. Article needs some work e.g. being consistent on number of deaths, before it can be posted. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- AlJazeera says "officials" put toll at 259, France24 "at least 253." -- Sca (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Both of which are consistent with "at least 250"; two significant figures is likely enough once we get over 200ish. Incrementally increasing the numbers every single death is not all that useful, though of course if the numbers significantly change, we can update the blurb. --Jayron32 15:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- AlJazeera says "officials" put toll at 259, France24 "at least 253." -- Sca (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support in principle ... pending some expansion of 540-word article. – Sca (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support per Sca; its current length does not do justice to the available coverage. SN54129 15:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support because it's easily important enough & the article is good enough. Jim Michael (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's getting there. (About 700 words now.) -- Sca (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support, likely to be more rain-related disasters soon Sheila1988 (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support - notable natural disaster with significant death toll. The Kip (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Posting, the article looks long enough now. --Tone 06:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
(Closed) 2022 Indonesian student protests
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.
Blurb: Students across Indonesia protested against rumours regarding delayed election and Joko Widodo's third term. (Post)
News source(s): DW, Reuters, The Star (Malaysia)
Article updated
- Oppose so far I don't see ITN-worthy. Protests as there are in many places and whose effects, for now, are trivial. Moreover, they are based on "rumors". _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- How about alternative blurb, as there are demands aside of the rumoured election delay and third term.
- Alt blurb: Students across Indonesia protested against delaying 2024 election, extension of Joko Widodo's term, and rising price of cooking oil.
- I think its ITN-worthy just based on how widespread the protest is, that the protest occured not just in big cities in Java but also spread to almost all provincial capitals. Nyanardsan (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I still think that simple protests are not ITN-worthy per se. There has to be something else: very important changes in the political landscape (local, regional, national), clashes or notorious violence in the streets.... _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Apparently here at ITN the only protests that are posted are those that result to deaths. IANAL, but presidential term extensions might need a constitutional amendment(?) and may be ITN if indeed is pursued all the way. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Evidently, because deaths resulting from clashes in protests are rare and notorious. Protests that are apparently peaceful or very minor in scope, on the other hand, are commonplace and usually trivial. And I have my doubts that a small constitutional amendment is ITN-worthy, frankly. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I actually checked 2020 national electoral calendar, and there were at least 10 constitutional referendums, but ITN only posted two: those in Italy and Russia, plus an independence referendum in New Caledonia. I mean, that's par the course on ITN posting news mostly participated by white guys... but I suppose a referendum in Indonesia, the world's third largest democracy, if ever they'd want Joko Widodo, the person with the largest mandate on Earth recently, can run again is most certainly not a "small constitutional amendment." Howard the Duck (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- The referendums in Russia and Italy proposed the reform of something more (3 articles at least of the Italian constitution and many more changes in Russia) than the simple limit of the term of office of a head of state/government. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's true, and I love that you're focusing on the quantity of the amendments, but not on the quality. Loosening of term limits are quite a big deal. FWIW, Indonesia never had referendums(?), and I'm assuming such amendments should lead into one, but it seems that in this case it won't so I dunno how that should play out. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- The referendums in Russia and Italy proposed the reform of something more (3 articles at least of the Italian constitution and many more changes in Russia) than the simple limit of the term of office of a head of state/government. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I actually checked 2020 national electoral calendar, and there were at least 10 constitutional referendums, but ITN only posted two: those in Italy and Russia, plus an independence referendum in New Caledonia. I mean, that's par the course on ITN posting news mostly participated by white guys... but I suppose a referendum in Indonesia, the world's third largest democracy, if ever they'd want Joko Widodo, the person with the largest mandate on Earth recently, can run again is most certainly not a "small constitutional amendment." Howard the Duck (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Evidently, because deaths resulting from clashes in protests are rare and notorious. Protests that are apparently peaceful or very minor in scope, on the other hand, are commonplace and usually trivial. And I have my doubts that a small constitutional amendment is ITN-worthy, frankly. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Apparently here at ITN the only protests that are posted are those that result to deaths. IANAL, but presidential term extensions might need a constitutional amendment(?) and may be ITN if indeed is pursued all the way. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I still think that simple protests are not ITN-worthy per se. There has to be something else: very important changes in the political landscape (local, regional, national), clashes or notorious violence in the streets.... _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose so far I don't see ITN-worthy. Protests as there are in many places and whose effects, for now, are trivial. Moreover, they are based on "rumors". _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment The protests are mostly based on a "rumored" election delay (which apparently isn't happening anymore along with the rumored term extension). Unlike the other economic breakdown protests that we have posted so far (Kazakhstan, Sri Lanka, Peru) this is a secondary factor here and I am hesitant as to that, would like to wait and see if they sustain. Gotitbro (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose – Not widely covered. Impact doubtful at this pt. – Sca (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - With a lack of high-level political/social change, deaths, or notable coverage, this doesn't seem INTR-worthy. Maybe ongoing, but for the moment they're just street protests. The Kip (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Unless I'm mistaken, these lasted for less than one day, demanded a stronger assurance of Election Day proceeding as planned and got it. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose as per InedibleHulk, it appears to be less than one days of protests. News coverage seems to have dissipated massively today. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
January 2014 interstellar meteor
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.
Blurb: U.S. Space Command confirms, in April 2022, that the first known interstellar object entered Earth's atmosphere in January 2014. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Declassified data confirms the first known interstellar object arrival to Earth's atmosphere.
News source(s): JPL, Vice NASA primary source
Article updated
- Oppose – Stale. – Sca (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per Sca. Really? I mean, 3 and 8 years respectively, but really? Come on. Don't violate WP:STALE like that... :( Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment we complain about things being "unconfirmed" and when confirmed complain that they're stale. IDK what to tell you. Probably this is more suited to DYK anyway though. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support This is a lot less stale than the light from stars billions of years ago as these impacts and fireballs are happening right now. Here's a good account of the matter which makes the point that it would precede the discovery of ‘Oumuamua, thought to be the first interstellar object, by three years. We ran the ‘Oumuamua story in 2017 describing it as the "the first apparent interstellar object to pass through the Solar System". Our article now explains "It is possibly the second interstellar object known; the first being a purported interstellar meteor that impacted Earth in 2014". So, it might be good to publish this update as a correction. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- The update is thin. Also, the preprint was from 2019, and the news at the moment is that the data has been declassified, which is not the incremental update. --Tone 08:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- The declassification is the confirmation. ITN should not publish unconfirmed results, and this is just the confirmation of the hypothesis from a few years ago. 81.181.130.106 (talk) 11:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on multiple grounds: no peer-reviewed paper despite years of opportunity to write one; Avi Loeb's preprint which originally suggested the interstellar classification was submitted to a journal in 2019 but never published, suggesting it failed to convince referees during peer review; even if it's true there's limited significance, as little can be learnt from a single bolide; and even NASA seems to think this is a minor footnote to their press release, which says "the short duration of collected data, less than five seconds, makes it difficult to definitively determine if the object’s origin was indeed interstellar". Frankly I'm not convinced this is well enough established to merit even one paragraph our article, which seems to over-state the confidence, let alone an ITN blurb. Modest Genius talk 11:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Barely in the news, insufficient update, questionable notability.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agree. -- Sca (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support - seems worthy imo - further support/background text/references copied below - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Talk page dump
|
---|
NOTE: Copied from "Talk:Interstellar object#Interstellar object on Earth?" - for consideration/discussion: FWIW - seems an interstellar object may currently be on Earth - recent news[1][2][3][4] may be of possible interest to some I would think - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC) BRIEF Followup - Updated the lede of the 'Oumuamua article as follows => * FURTHER Updates (also for consideration/discussion) - originally in the "Interstellar object" article as follows:
References
|
- Oppose Per Sca. Yeah, might be just a teeny bit stale. This was news when it happened. I don't think it will make nearly as many headlines. 108.16.109.139 (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose this was in the news in 2014, which is when it should have been posted in my opinion. It's certainly not got ITN-worthy level of news coverage right now about it. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Update - To be clear, the LEDE in the "Interstellar object" article has been newly adjusted, in part, as follows =>
"The first interstellar object which was discovered traveling through our Solar System was 1I/ʻOumuamua in 2017. The second was 2I/Borisov in 2019. They both possess significant hyperbolic excess velocity, indicating they did not originate in the Solar System. Earlier, in 2014, an interstellar object was purported to have impacted Earth, based on its estimated initial high velocity."
- hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
RD: Gary Brown
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Click2Houston, ESPN
Credits:
- Nominated by Fakescientist8000 (talk · give credit)
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 American football running back and coach. Father of 3. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Weak oppose the article is quite short, a bit of expansion would be good. He played 8 seasons in the NFL, and there is two sentences of text about this. There must be some more that can be said about his NFL career. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) New Pakistan PM
Blurb: In Pakistan, Shehbaz Sharif is elected 23rd Prime Minister of Islamic Republic of Pakistan after his predecessor is successfully removed from office though a no-confidence motion. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Following the no-confidence motion to remove Imran Khan, Shehbaz Sharif is elected the new Prime Minister of Pakistan.
News source(s): Dawn Al Jazeera NDTV.com CNN
Credits:
- Nominated by Elminster Aumar (talk · give credit)
Article updated
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: nominating ITN for 23rd Prime Minster Elmisnter! (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Adding an altblurb which can be used to replace/update the current blurb at ITNC. --Masem (t) 12:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support replacement altblurb. BilledMammal (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support replacement with altblurb DogeChungus (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support – Routine update. Favor Alt1. – Sca (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I think the parliment election of Sharif should be discussed to a degree in the no-confidence article such that would remain the target article. Sharif's article is also well-sourced (as a quick glance) and can also be a target. --Masem (t) 12:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Original blurb does not mention the no-confidence motion, links to article relevant articles mentioned. Elmisnter! (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support with ALT1 replacing the current Imran Khan blurb. Change of head of state is ITNR, the no-confidence vote article is already bolded on ITN (so is clearly good enough), and Shehbaz Sharif article looks good enough too. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Posting. The update is kind of short, namely that he was elected the new PM, but this is really all what can be said at this point, and the rest of the article is in a good shape. --Tone 13:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
April 10
April 10, 2022
(Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
(Posted) Tropical Storm Megi (2022)
Blurb: Tropical Storm Megi (satellite image shown), kills at least 80 people, in the Philippines. (Post)
News source(s): GMA News, Manila Times, BBC News, Yahoo News, CBS News, AlJazeera, France 24 (AFP),Manila Standard (AFP)
Credits:
- Created and nominated by HurricaneEdgar (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Chlod (talk · give credit)
Article updated
HurricaneEdgar 03:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support - Notable storm with significant death toll.--Tdl1060 (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support article looks good enough, and unfortunately there has been a significant death toll. Which means it meets requirements to post on ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Photo Request Since death is apparently the significant part, not meteorological record, could something illustrating destruction at least better convey this, maybe from a human eye level? I know free images aren't exactly easy to find or shoot, so it's not a dealbreaker. Just a suggestion. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Also, these storm images don't really add much, when you can barely see them on the front page, yet alone understand what the significant is. So I don't know why we insistently post them on ITN anyway, if/when this gets posted, I imagine an admin will replace the clear image of a person with a confusing image of a storm. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agree. -- Sca (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- There's a picture of a landslide in the article but at 100px it doesn't show much, just mud... that buried a village. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Also, these storm images don't really add much, when you can barely see them on the front page, yet alone understand what the significant is. So I don't know why we insistently post them on ITN anyway, if/when this gets posted, I imagine an admin will replace the clear image of a person with a confusing image of a storm. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Posted --PFHLai (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
RD: Philippe Boesmans
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Le Monde;
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Grimes2 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit)
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: Belgian composer Grimes2 (talk) 09:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Self-taught as a composer, he became composer in residence at La Monnaie in Brussels, where his last opera will premiere in December. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support, although "Other compositions" could use refs, the remainder of the article is well sourced and substantive. IMO movies, books and music are all published sources in of themselves and don't actually need references, but others may think differently. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- The reference for all works is right below the header Works, and not repeated for individual ones. Some works have additional other refs. The link goes to the IRCAM site which offers two lists, by performers and by date. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
(Ready) RD: John Drew (basketball)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): AL.com; The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Bagumba (talk · give credit)
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.
Bloom6132 (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comments: It does not seem right for the wikibio to have more words in the section on his drug addiction than that on his playing career. He was a two-time NBA All-Star (not to mention a CBA All-Star, too!) --PFHLai (talk) 04:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- @PFHLai: done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the expansion on his playing career, Bloom6132. This wikibio is long enough (700+ words), Its footnoting and formatting look fine. This is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 10:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Suficient breadth and sourcing.—Bagumba (talk) 08:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
The Masters
Blurb: In golf, Scottie Scheffler wins the Masters Tournament. (Post)
News source(s): CNN, AP, NPR, BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Sunshineisles2 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Johnsmith2116 (talk · give credit) and Compy90 (talk · give credit)
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.
Sunshineisles2 (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- We have a prose summary! We need some more citations in certain places and the tables need the "scope" parameter per MOS:DTAB. Close to ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Fails MOS:JARGON. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality needs more sources, and agree that there's too much jargon. The selection criteria section is ridiculously long and complex- I know most golf tournaments seems to have this field and criteria explanation, but it's way too long and complex for anyone without extensive subject knowledge to understand. It has loads of numbers in brackets that aren't explained (I assume there some numbers of criteria in some golf rules somewhere, but it's not explained anywhere in the article). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality Once issues are addressed, Support per WP:ITN/R Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 17:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. Maybe it's because I'm familiar with golf, but I'm not seeing what the issue with WP:JARGON is here (though I agree the whole qualifying section is a mess and probably not needed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calidum (talk • contribs) 10:29, April 11, 2022 (UTC)
- Was curious about that too. I see the term "bogey" should be linked to Par (score)#Bogey. What else is the issue, beyond the qualifying section needing some cleanup? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- This issue has come up in previous golf noms. Probably every golf term such birdie, eagle, tee shot, chip-in, front-nine etc will have to be linked. (Also I'm not sure what the "top shelf of the green" is exactly.)-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- The article doesn't even explain what the sport is – there's no link to golf. And it doesn't explain the particular format – stroke play, match play, handicap, pro/am, gender, &c. Wikipedia is supposed to be a general encyclopedia written for readers who know nothing about the topics. It's not the sports pages, written exclusively for fans and followers of the sport. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Following my comment, someone added the word "golf" to the lead! Looking at the edit history, I notice some heated edit-warring about the colours of the score-card. It's also amusing to note that the page has a list of plants with wikilinks – the names of the holes at Augusta – Tea Olive; Pink Dogwood; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Was curious about that too. I see the term "bogey" should be linked to Par (score)#Bogey. What else is the issue, beyond the qualifying section needing some cleanup? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality Per above. Alex-h (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
April 9
RD: Dick Swatland
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Patch.com
Credits:
- Created and nominated by BeanieFan11 (talk · give credit)
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.
BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Length (400+ words) . Footnotes Formatting Coverage , I assume his career in real estate has nothing to write home about. This wikibio is READY for RD. BTW, that was a lovely retirement quote. --PFHLai (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Michael Degen
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Die Zeit
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Grimes2 (talk · give credit)
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 actor, director and writer. Short, I hope it's enough. Grimes2 (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Grimes2, filmography needs to be sourced. It'll look longer if you add another sentence or two of summary to the lead. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. AGF foreign language sources. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
RD: Chris Bailey
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC News, The Guardian, The Sydney Morning Herald, Nine News
Credits:
- Nominated by Clem Urry (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Doc Strange (talk · give credit)
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: Punk rock pioneer
- Oppose way more sources needed, have orange tagged it for sourcing issues. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hello Joseph2302...more sources now added. 58.179.71.231 (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
RD: Jack Higgins
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Deadline Hollywood, Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)
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: Novelist famous for numerous spy novels including The Eagle Has Landed. Sadly needs much sourcing imprvovement. Masem (t) 12:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose almost all the career section is unreferenced. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Birgit Nordin
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Stockholm Royal Opera
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Grimes2 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Soprano, decades at the Royal Opera, famous as Queen of the Night in Mozart's Magic Flute film, sung in Swedish, directed by Ingmar Bergman - there could be more. Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Looks as if she died 7 April, but the news came around only yesterday, - leaving it here for now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support - Good enough for RD. Looks ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support per BabbaQ. Article looks fine. Nothing to complain about. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Eleanor Munro
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Ktin (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Netherzone (talk · give credit) and Vexations (talk · give credit)
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: Death announced on this date. Article has not been updated. I will give it a go. If someone wants to lend a hand, jump right-in. Thanks. Edits done. Article meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support well sourced now, more than good enough for RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
2022 Grand National
Blurb: In horse racing, Noble Yeats wins the Grand National ridden by jockey Sam Waley-Cohen. (Post)
News source(s): (BBC News)
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Lankyant (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Jdbwright91 (talk · give credit), Edinburgh2022 (talk · give credit) and Bcp67 (talk · give credit)
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: ITNR sporting event Lankyant (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Article should be updated with the race results and prose about the race itself, per norm for such sporting events. --Masem (t) 01:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Race results added just needs prose Lankyant (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality This is far from being anywhere near good enough for the front page: barely any prose whatsoever, most of it is stats table, and even assuming a little paragraph or two could be written about the race, that would still not really solve that this isn't the kind of high-quality content we want to be showcasing to our readers (mostly because it isn't "high-quality", even if it technically is statistically accurate). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality Lacking any substantial prose. Lacking sources. Large paragraphs are completely unsourced. AusLondonder (talk) 10:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Death toll My attention was caught by the final section entitled "Equine fatalities". This is rather euphemistic but makes the point that several horses died. The number now seems to be up to four but the article only lists three. This seems quite a remarkable death toll for a sporting event but the article's lead doesn't mention it nor does our blurb. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality as there is no race summary text, and very little text at all. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) Imran Khan loses no-confidence motion
Blurb: In Pakistan, Prime Minister Imran Khan loses no-confidence vote after the Supreme Court decision on the constitutional crisis. (Post)
Alternative blurb: In Pakistan, Prime Minister Imran Khan is removed from office after losing a motion of no-confidence.
News source(s): Geo, Al Jazeera, AP, BBC, Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by DogeChungus (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Elminster Aumar (talk · give credit), Mar4d (talk · give credit) and User4edits (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Apologies for the article as no standalone news articles were available at the time of posting. DogeChungus (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support This is the first successful no confidence motion in Pakistani history against a Prime Minister, and as Pakistan is such a large country, this is definitely newsworthy. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support per above. First time this has happened in Pakistan, a country with the fifth largest population in the world. Cheers. WimePocy 20:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support per above. A new Prime Minister will probably be elected tomorrow as well. CreativeNorth (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support per above. Major international news. Thriley (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support per above. Hamza Ali Shah Talk 20:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support The vote of no confidence can be posted on notability, and his succession will be ITN/R. Vanilla Wizard 💙 21:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support per above. First time it has happened in Pakistan. Noticable developments in the region. Haris920 (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Fifth most populated country in the world, first event of its kind in the country, likely to have long-term implications on the future of South Asia, will probably result in a new Prime Minister taking power sometime soon, in short, basically all the arguments presented by the good people above. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 21:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Major political event in an important regional power. The Kip (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Wait for Successor, as usual, tack on Alt. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment there was a previous discussion about this which can be found below on this page. Should we close that discussion to avoid confusion between the two? Hamza Ali Shah Talk 23:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support alternate version: In Pakistan, Prime Minister Imran Khan is removed from office through a motion of no-confidence.⭐ Ahmer Jamil Khan 💬 23:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support alternate version: per above. Tow (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose for now until Khan's successor is appointed, mentioning in the blurb that a motion of confidence has taken place. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment When will this discussion be closed, it is a clear support vote. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Wait Per InedibleHulk DarkSide830 (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support post NOW! Those wanting to wait are asking for this to be delayed for an unknown period of at least two days. That's not acceptable. This is big news NOW! HiLo48 (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Can the discussion be closed? It is a major event and should be updated. It is all over the news as well.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] ⭐ Ahmer Jamil Khan 💬 03:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Wait A successor prime minister is very likely going to be appointed in a short while which will automatically make this ITNR, as already pointed out both items can be tacked on as the case has been for past noms. Another thing to remember is that ITN is not a "breaking news" ticker, we have and will wait. Gotitbro (talk) 04:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support as per above votes - No need to wait. And we need to link this article as well No-confidence motion against Imran Khan Sherenk1 (talk) 05:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support, (edit conflict) but I've altered the links: no need to link "motion of no-confidence" in general when we can link the specific one (and that article has more details on Khan being ousted than the other one. Not opposed to waiting, but it's always possible that there won't promptly be a successor (nobody gains the confidence of the house) and we'll have to wait for elections, so we shouldn't delay too much on that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - We shouldn't wait based on a WP:CRYSTAL just because a succession is ITNR, when we should have already posted one of the 2 nominated articles above to Ongoing. What if the successor's article is not upto the mark? Are we not going to post anything at all? Is this one of those WP:GEOBIAS at work again? 119.159.203.68 (talk) 06:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support per Dunutubble.--Tdl1060 (talk) 06:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support per SteelerFan1933 BilledMammal (talk) 09:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support because he has lost his position as PM. Add his successor to the blurb when it becomes known who it will be. Jim Michael (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support – Per previous. Head of govt. in a country of over 200 million. – Sca (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Mar4d (talk) 12:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Posted with a more concise blurb: "The Prime Minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan, is removed from office by a motion of no-confidence." Sandstein 13:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Sandstein: Please consider putting "ending a constitutional crisis" at the end of this blurb and shortening the controversial posting of the 'Protests in Peru' blurb instead. Also consider replacing the current picture with one of Imran Khan's. Hindustani.Hulk (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- That wasn't part of the blurb proposed above. Blurbs should be concise. Whether this ends the ongoing crisis is OR. The Peru blurb can be discussed in its section below. Sandstein 16:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agree. -- Sca (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- That wasn't part of the blurb proposed above. Blurbs should be concise. Whether this ends the ongoing crisis is OR. The Peru blurb can be discussed in its section below. Sandstein 16:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Pakistan parliament ousts Imran Khan in last-minute vote". the Guardian. 2022-04-09. Retrieved 2022-04-10.
- ^ "Imran Khan ousted as Pakistan's PM after key vote". BBC News. 2022-04-10. Retrieved 2022-04-10.
- ^ "IMRAN SHOWN THE DOOR". www.thenews.com.pk. Retrieved 2022-04-10.
- ^ "Imran Khan becomes first PM to be ousted via no-trust vote". The Express Tribune. 2022-04-09. Retrieved 2022-04-10.
- ^ Chaudhry, Dawn com | Fahad (2022-04-09). "Imran Khan loses no-trust vote, prime ministerial term comes to unceremonious end". DAWN.COM. Retrieved 2022-04-10.
- ^ Agencies. "Pakistan PM Imran Khan ousted in a no-confidence vote in parliament". Khaleej Times. Retrieved 2022-04-10.
- ^ "Pakistan PM Imran Khan gone after losing no-confidence vote". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 2022-04-10.
- ^ "Imran Khan's unceremonious exit as Pak PM: A timeline of events". Hindustan Times. 2022-04-10. Retrieved 2022-04-10.
- ^ "Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan loses trust vote in National Assembly". The Hindu. PTI. 2022-04-10. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2022-04-10.
(Closed) Ongoing removal: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
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 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: Since we're already posting every incremental instance of media hysteria about this story as a blurb, the ongoing item is superfluous. One or the other, not both. When admins stop !vote counting and posting Russia blurbs based on pile-on WP:WGR supports we can put it back in OG. Serious nomination, I honestly think it's pointless to have both an endless parade of blurbs AND ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC) LaserLegs (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I disagree that anything is being posted based on "media hysteria". As far as I have seen, all the instances of war crimes have been reported fairly and sensibly, at least by the British press. And I'm not sure how you distinguish between valid !votes and "pile-on" !votes. If that's obvious to you, you should make that clear at the time? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose We should stop the 'endless parade' of blurbs, but we should in turn keep this as ongoing until a peace agreement can be arranged. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose – Out of the question. No. 1 continuing story worldwide, at this pt. overshadowing even the (subsiding?) pandemic. – Sca (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- While I agree with the position that removal of the ongoing is basically BS, ITN's purpose is not to highlight stories that have massive coverage in worldwide news (ITN is not a news ticker, nor is WP a newspaper). We are looking to post articles that reflect the best quality we can do that happen to be in the news, along with a subjective view to avoid certain biases (eg excessive US politics, for example). We have to keep that in mind here for stories out of the Russia-Ukraine war too, given we have Ongoing already present. Just because this one attack killed 50+ and injures 300+ doesn't outweigh that hundreds of Ukrainians have already died before, for example. --Masem (t) 17:10, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose This strikes me as an incredibly bad-faith proposal. How about rather than diminishing the deaths of innocent civilians as an "incremental instance of media hysteria" and snidely accusing editors of basically being woke keyboard warriors by attempting to link to WP:RGW(but instead linking to Wikipedia:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars) you try and assume good faith and consider what ITN is for. It's called "In the news" for a reason. According to the opening paragraph at WP:ITN, ITN "serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest." Of course you seem to think ITN is for pathetic celebrity trivia such as Will Smith being banned from the Oscars. I literally cannot fathom how utterly insulated from reality you must be to think that nugget of celebrity gossip is more relevant to the frontpage of a global encyclopedia than a nuclear-armed UNSC member blowing up children. AusLondonder (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- well said! _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Fair comment. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- We declined to blurb (and failed to nominate) countless very important events during the pandemic with the understanding that Ongoing covered them. Never in this did we suggest these events were trivial, only that we expect a great many important things to happen within the context of the COVID. So too should it be with Russia. The removal of anyone from a human rights body that includes *CHINA* is laughable under normal circumstances, but absurd here. But there it sits, mocking anyone who cares about the credibility this project. True, the solution is to stop blurbing, not remove the ongoing. LL has a long history of making pointy suggestions here out of frustration, but they do so with good intent. It's the exact opposite of bad faith. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, good faith, perhaps. Every knows "nuclear weapons = good human rights", no? That's the inescapable absurdity. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- "LL has a long history of making pointy suggestions here out of frustration" that's a really interesting way of saying they're wasting our time and sounds to me a lot like the literal definition of bad faith. Regarding trivialising the situation I'll let the words of LaserLegs speak for themselves: "incremental instance of media hysteria" when we're discussing posting a couple of lines about a brutal bombing of civilians fleeing war. Please don't insult us by talking about "mocking anyone who cares about the credibility this project" when LaserLegs was here arguing for us to become the Daily Mail and post puerile celebrity bullshit on our main page *literally yesterday* AusLondonder (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - Still top news across the world, I see no good argument to pull. PackMecEng (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - this is the biggest massacre of people in Europe for 75 years. Of course this is extraordinary times, and of course there will be ITN posts and Ongoing as well.BabbaQ (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - definitely still ongoing. Polyamorph (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - it is ongoing, and a major news item. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - Bad-faith proposal. Schierbecker (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Post close note: no nominator's argumentation is not "spot on" at all. You might want to re-write the close rationale in a way that reflects all the comments. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- The argumentation that we shouldn’t post a blurb and an ongoing item for a story at the same time deserves attention but not here and not in this way. That the removal from ongoing is unanimously opposed and the discussion should end immediately is clear. The closing rationale reflects both.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- ... "incremental instance of media hysteria"? No. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- That particular comment, albeit not in the spirit of good faith, doesn’t affect nominator’s right to raise a concern. The problem is that it was done in the wrong place where the majority was able to dismiss it by completely ignoring it. That said, it’s very natural to close the discussion and guide the nominator to a better suited place for his concern.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not disputing the right raise a concern. And yes, I agree it's the wrong place to do it. But I will not accept that current posting of items has anything to with a reaction to "media hysteria". The opening sentence of this nomination, i.e. the entire premise, is not "spot on". Sorry, no. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- That particular comment, albeit not in the spirit of good faith, doesn’t affect nominator’s right to raise a concern. The problem is that it was done in the wrong place where the majority was able to dismiss it by completely ignoring it. That said, it’s very natural to close the discussion and guide the nominator to a better suited place for his concern.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- ... "incremental instance of media hysteria"? No. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- The argumentation that we shouldn’t post a blurb and an ongoing item for a story at the same time deserves attention but not here and not in this way. That the removal from ongoing is unanimously opposed and the discussion should end immediately is clear. The closing rationale reflects both.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Kiril Simeonovski, that was a bad closing statement. Keep it neutral. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Dwayne Haskins
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:
- Nominated by Chevvin (talk · give credit)
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: Tragic early death - article is well-sourced — Chevvin 15:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support this article is comprehensively cited Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Suggestion: Could use another ref for his one year of inactivity at Pittsburgh. --PFHLai (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like someone else fixed it before I could get to it. — Chevvin 21:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 23:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
(Closed) 2022 AFL Women's Grand Final
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.
Blurb: Adelaide wins the 2022 AFL Women's Grand Final (Post)
News source(s): The Age
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Hawkeye7 (talk · give credit)
- Created by Global-Cityzen (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Article is in good shape. Fully referenced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose There's no prose describing the final itself, only box stats. Black Kite (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- It will be filled in tomorrow after the newspapers come out. Like I did this last year. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's fine, I am simply pointing out that it would've been better to nominate it when that was done. Black Kite (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've filled it in now. The quixotic effort to document women's sport continues. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose The sporting news from Australia that I'm seeing is the 2022 Australian Grand Prix, not this event. I wasn't even sure what AFL was and so had to look it up. Seems too minor and so not getting the coverage given to other sports like MMA or horse racing. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- The AFL Grand Final is at WP:ITN/R. I seem to vaguely recall a rule which meant that if a male event is at ITN/R, then the female equivalent is as well. Maybe someone could set me straight. Steelkamp (talk) 11:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Only if they are held concurrently, like the tennis Grand Slams. The men's and women's AFL finals are separate events. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agree, this exactly. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, women's sports are never noteworthy in their own right, only if they are part of men's events. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's not what I was saying. I was saying women's sports need to demonstrate their notability/importance for ITN, and it shouldn't be presumed just because the men's equivalent event is ITNR. And I don't believe the coverage of this event meets the ITN threshold. And I've opposed many other men's sports events here for exactly the same reason, so stop trying to accuse me of sexism when I'm only trying to apply the ITN guidelines on importance. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, women's sports are never noteworthy in their own right, only if they are part of men's events. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agree, this exactly. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Only if they are held concurrently, like the tennis Grand Slams. The men's and women's AFL finals are separate events. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- The AFL Grand Final is at WP:ITN/R. I seem to vaguely recall a rule which meant that if a male event is at ITN/R, then the female equivalent is as well. Maybe someone could set me straight. Steelkamp (talk) 11:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment It would be better to nominate the article, when that was done. Alex-h (talk) 10:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose we're not obligated to post this just because we post the men's equivalent event, ahich gets way more coverage than this. Article is also insatisfactory for ITN article quality too, but I still oppose posting even if fixed. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support AFL final is in WP:ITN/R and the women's event shouldn't be treated any differently. Now stop being sexist. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 13:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's not sexism, it's based on the amount of coverage. The men's and women's competitions are separate events not run at the same time, so should not be considered the same. There is barely any coverage of the women's AFL compared to the men's one, and not enough to demonstrate that it should be on the front page of ITN. This is an application of ITN rules on importance, not an application of deliberate sexism like you claim. Go complain to the world's newspaper companies that they didn't cover this as well as the men's event, because that's the reason why it's not being supported for posting. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Wikipedia is not there to WP:RGW. Sports coverage is sexist - not much we can do about that, but we can't start applying different standards to men and women's events just because "sexism". Looking at a variety of international (non-Australia) news sources, neither the Grauniad; BBC; CBC or NBC have any mention (much less "prominent mention") of this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - sadly, it just isn't in the news. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
April 8
April 8, 2022
(Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
International relations
Law and crime
Science and technology
|
RD: Chibuzor Nwakanma
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Telegraph (India)
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Ktin (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Dominus Moravian (talk · give credit) and PFHLai (talk · give credit)
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: Nigerian footballer. Article is a bit on the shorter side, but, meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Rater.js says C-class, but, I think it is atleast a start-class biography. RIP. Ktin (talk) 03:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Long enough with 400+ words. Footnotes appearing where they are expected. Formatting looks right. This wikibio is READY for RD. If possible, please fill in the empty stats slots in the infobox. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. Please can I request a pair of eyes on this one. Meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
RD: Mimi Reinhardt
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)
- Created by Thriley (talk · give credit)
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: Oskar Schindler's secretary – Muboshgu (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comments: In the section on "Early years", only the first sentence is referenced. In the section on "Oskar Schindler", everything is sourced to the same source. Can we have more footnotes and references, please? --PFHLai (talk) 10:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
(Closed) Will Smith banned from attending Oscars
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.
Blurb: Actor Will Smith is banned from attending the Academy Awards for ten years after slapping and verbally harassing comedian Chris Rock during the 94th Academy Awards. (Post)
News source(s): CNN, Al Jazeera, BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Andise1 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- While this is significant outcome from the event, in words of Michael Bay, Oppose as there are far more serious things happening in the world right now. --Masem (t) 23:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support this has been a top story since it happened, the article on the subject if very high quality and since the LAPD didn't press charges this seems to be the end of the disciplinary path for the matter. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Celebrity gossip with zero near or long term significance. The fact that it is getting attention in in the MSM does not alter that fact. We are not Page Six. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose An unimportant story. Thriley (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Shouldn't the blurb be more neutral? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose celebrity gossip/procedures. NN Bumbubookworm (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose because it's trivia. Jim Michael (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose suited for DYK. This would be ITN, if Wikipedia stooped to the levels of gossip magazines. *yawn* Next! Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Kramatorsk railway station attack
Blurb: Russia launches a missile strike on a railway station in Kramatorsk, Ukraine, killing at least 50 civilians and injuring at least 300. (Post)
News source(s): CNN, BBC, AP, Reuters, France24 (AFP)
Credits:
- Nominated by Davey2116 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: I know the invasion is already in ongoing, but this bombing is global front-page news due to the number of civilians dead. We posted the Bucha massacre which killed 320 civilians, so not to be morbid but I wonder what number we should use as WP:MINIMUMCIVILIANDEATHS. Davey2116 (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Unlike the massacre from last weekend which was vastly unusual for a war, this is what is expected of war activities, and thus covered by the ongoing. --Masem (t) 20:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support This massacre of civilians at a train station who were fleeing the invasion is clearly a war crime and easily important enough to post. It's far from normal military combat. The article is easily good enough to post. If an attack by a VNSA group or a rampage killer had a similar death toll, we'd have posted it within a few hours of the article being created. Likewise an earthquake, flood, gas/chemical/radiological leak, accidental explosion or transportation disaster. Jim Michael (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per Masem. The war is linked in ongoing. I am sorry to say it but this is pretty par for the course when we are talking about Russian war crimes and we can't post them all. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support A mindless and indiscriminate war crime against civilians. Both sides say Tochka-U missiles were used. Possibly with cluster munitions warheads. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Wait– Apparentlyanother horrific war event, [2] [3] [4] [5], but Russ contend they had nothing to do with it. Story seems still to be developing. – Sca (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)- @Sca: If Russia had nothing to do with it, doesn't that make it more newsworthy? It would not then be covered by the ongoing matter. BD2412 T 22:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
"Pro Russian media outlets and several Telegram channels reported earlier in the day that Russia had launched a successful missile attack on "Ukrainian forces" at the Kramatorsk station. When it became apparent that the attack killed a large number of civilians instead, the announcements were allegedly removed, and Russia started calling the attack a hoax"
Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)- (edit conflict) Russia first claimed that they had launched a missile towards military targets in Kramatorsk, but subsequently about-faced in an attempt to deny responsibility. ([6]:
Some initial reports on Russia state media said the missile fired at Kramatorsk hit a military transport target. Subsequently Moscow denied responsibility for the strike. It then blamed Ukrainian forces.
) If [7] is a reliable source, then this is even more silly than it sounds. I mean, in the long list of denials of war crimes by people who committed them, this must be one of the least credible. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)- I think the point is that the event is ITN-worthy irrespective of who was responsible. We covered the 2020 Beirut explosion before anyone knew what had caused it. BD2412 T 22:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Beirut explosion did not happen during the war and its consequences were really devastating for the Lebanese economy. However sad it is to say, the murder of 50+ civilians is not really an out-of-order war crime. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- The Atlantic Council is a think tank but is generally OK to use. Russia's banned it though back in 2019 as apparently it endangered the constitutional foundations of Russia. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think the point is that the event is ITN-worthy irrespective of who was responsible. We covered the 2020 Beirut explosion before anyone knew what had caused it. BD2412 T 22:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Sca: If Russia had nothing to do with it, doesn't that make it more newsworthy? It would not then be covered by the ongoing matter. BD2412 T 22:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think we should post every war crime Russia commits in ITN, unless they are so outrageous and unusual that they spark some real actions (at least by mass expulsions of diplomats, which don't mean much in practical terms but are at least more than "deep concern" and "condemnation"), as was the case for the Bucha massacre. Saying that some war crime is "run-of-the-mill" is probably inappropriate in general, but I wouldn't say that this particular incident would be something that would be seen as something "extraordinary". Besides, with all due respect to the heightened interest in my fatherland, we should probably limit the number of Ukraine-war related ITN items to these: major military victories (fall of Mariupol/breaking its siege, capture/liberation of really major cities, (God forbid) attack on yet another country or probably wholesale retreat from northern Ukraine, which I would find good enough for ITN but is a little stale at this point), major diplomatic actions that carry real consequences for the war (suspension from decisionmaking bodies carrying substantial power, such as the UN in general or its Security Council in particular, announcement of meaningful ceasefire/truce, beginning of trials of Russian officials responsible for war crimes in the ICC/ICJ, total economic blockade or at least in the oil/gas sector etc.) and some particularly heinous war crimes. Other stuff happens in most, if not all, wars with active military combat, thus it is covered by the ongoing event listing. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose we have this in ongoing already. We shouldn't have posted the last thing we did, or the UN thing, we certainly shouldn't post this. Enough already, it's in ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Just to explain why this doesn't need a separate blurb: Russia isn't going to admit deliberately targeting civilians, and Ukraine will never consider it anything other than deliberate. All we know for certain is that the train station was bombed. It's not going to change the outcome of the war one way or the other, it's not pulling NATO in, it's not galvanizing the Russian people for or against Putin - in short it's an utterly insignificant tragedy in the middle of a tragic war which is already posted in ongoing. If so many news outlets had not been in precisely the right place at precisely the right time in a whole huge country with thousands of kilometers of battle front to witness this event it wouldn't be getting the attention it's getting with Jake Tapper shrieking about "genocide". This is what makes it media hysteria adequately covered by the ongoing item. The supports have done nothing to highlight the significance of this event as it would impact the course of the war. Yes, if this had been a terrorist attack in wherever we would blurb it - if the terrorist attacks in wherever weren't already parked in ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support If this many people were killed in a terrorist attack - or even a hurricane - it would be on ITN already. The fact that it is happening in Ukraine should not be used as a reason to make an exception. BilledMammal (talk) 03:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Missile hit on fleeing civilians to the loss of 50+ people. Single significant tragedy in and of itself. CoatCheck (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- ongoing is for lower-level things, individual events (such at 50+ people dying in a brutal attack by Russia) is notable enough for ITN. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 05:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support On the basis that it's a significant tragedy in isolation, but to address the "ongoing" points - I keep seeing them and it's just gotten tiring. In my opinion, ongoing is utterly useless at helping readers find a specific story - but to focus on this case... Ongoing links to a full recap post of the 2022 invasion - it has its place, and is important to have, but finding the latest developments? Did a ctrl+f in the ongoing target article, and the only result for "Kramatorsk" was unrelated to this attack - the link to this article is buried in a collapsed box, which only lists the name of the city alongside dozens of others without much context for why it's listed there. How can readers clicking that ongoing be expected to find any info on this within a reasonable amount of time? It is useful as a hub that connects to other articles, which connect to other articles, and for providing a relatively brief recap of the macro-level machinations that have brought the situation to where it is. However, it is not enough to just assume anyone who is unaware of this attack could find this information, nor a good way for people aware of the attack to find information on it. "See ongoing" can be useful, and we obviously don't want to flood ITN with stories from one specific war - I'm relatively still new to Wikipedia, and even I am not confident in navigating the absolute wall of text that target article is. Canadianerk (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support A lot of oppose arguments here don't make a lot of sense. This is clearly in the news in a significant way, has attracted international attention and coverage, and is not a routine event. The argument that "It's in ongoing" is unhelpful. The main article is enormous and barely addresses this attack. I completely concur with what BilledMammal said. A natural disaster or terrorist attack on this scale would be posted without question. The fact the attack was perpetrated by Russia on a peaceful neighbour makes it even more ITN worthy, not less. AusLondonder (talk) 06:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I wonder what’s the purpose of the ongoing item if we single out every single attack in the invasion. No matter how much is this in the news, the sticky’s purpose is to contain this. I was against posting the Bucha massacre as well, and I knew it’d make a precedent for posting single events. There are many other deadly attacks which made the news in the past weeks, but we didn’t even consider them for posting. The sticky is fine, live with it, ITN shouldn’t become a Russia-Ukraine news-ticker.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- If we posted "every single attack" that the Russians had launched against Ukraine, they'd certainly be no room for any other news items. And I suspect ITN would need to cover not just the whole of the Main page, but several thousands of pages thereafter. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- There are currently two stories directly pertaining to Russia and resulting from the invasion in the ITN box: the invasion sticky and the blurb on the suspension from UNHRC. If we post this, then exactly a half of all stories (four blurbs and two stickies) would relate to the invasion. We denied every single story related to the COVID-19 pandemic as a global event, which was tons of times more important than this invasion, just because it was posted to ongoing, so there’s absolutely no room to make any exception and navel-gaze on Russia. In sum, a resounding no from me.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think it may be difficult to quantify how many tons of times that might have been. There may be a structural problem with the existing posting policy for ITN. I don't see the reporting of hideous war crimes as "navel-gazing" on any level. You have made your view on this very clear. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- There are currently two stories directly pertaining to Russia and resulting from the invasion in the ITN box: the invasion sticky and the blurb on the suspension from UNHRC. If we post this, then exactly a half of all stories (four blurbs and two stickies) would relate to the invasion. We denied every single story related to the COVID-19 pandemic as a global event, which was tons of times more important than this invasion, just because it was posted to ongoing, so there’s absolutely no room to make any exception and navel-gaze on Russia. In sum, a resounding no from me.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- If we posted "every single attack" that the Russians had launched against Ukraine, they'd certainly be no room for any other news items. And I suspect ITN would need to cover not just the whole of the Main page, but several thousands of pages thereafter. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support it's the number one news story in the world right now. We frequently post terrorist attacks with similar death tolls. Worthy of inclusion despite the war being on ongoing. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support - number one story everywhere. Definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 10:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Significant enough to override the fact that we have the invasion in Ongoing. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Support– Saturday's coverage (and consensus 2:1 in favor here) convinces me this attack on civilians, killing 50+, rises to ITN significance level. [8] [9] [10] [11] – Sca (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)- Oppose ITN is not a Russia-Ukraine War news-ticker (as it wasn't for COVID-19 either) and this is already covered by ongoing, despite what is being claimed here ongoing is not for forward linking every major update but an acknowledgement of constantly developing news stories which are receiving top coverage all over (likewise with the pandemic). Excluding exceptional noms, e.g. the Bucha massacre, coverage for this should not be expanded at ITN (we have already posted more blurbs about this than we ever did for the pandemic). Gotitbro (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Heavy coverage in the media and headlines. It holds a significant death toll; constituting a relatively unusual level of mass casualties contrasted to most fatal events in 21st-century Europe. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Tragic and needless suffering, but Wikipedia is not there to WP:RGW, and ITN is not supposed to be a news ticker for events which happen every other day (and given that this comes just days after the previous war crime, that seems an apt if distressing definition of this). Additional concerns about balance of the ITN coverage, as others have expressed: this is Wikipedia, not Russian-invasion-of-Ukraina-pedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's the heedless, lethal violence against civilians trying to flee that raises this to major significance. You may say "that's war," and it certainly was in WWII, but since then int'l. law ostensibly made such militarily unnecessary attacks on civilians illegal. -- Sca (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- And yet this is the second time in the past week that this kind of horrific and illegal event makes it into worldwide news. We can't include everything which gets in the news, we need to have some balancing criteria, and frankly, between the previous 300+ casualty event, the UNHRC resolution, and this, this seems the least significant (however unfortunate) of those. War is war. Hell is Hell. And of the two, war is a lot worse. Sadly, not something we can do anything about, but given this is already covered by ongoing, doesn't seem necessary to overload the ITN section with stuff related to it. Think that Category:War crimes during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine kinda illustrates the point how, unfortunately, this is "happening every other day". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly. The ongoing line was exactly created to avoid spamming ITN with headlines on the same topic over a short timeframe. If we're going to post any blurb about the war, it needs to rise beyond a stardard war type action. --Masem (t) 17:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- In the big picture, the UNHRC expulsion might be more telling politically, but none of the above persuades this user (retired journalist) that ITN -- probably the most-read fixture on the main page -- should ignore an event of such high mortality and putative villainy. -- Sca (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- ITN is not about popularity/readership of stories, that's a function of a newspaper but not an encyclopedia. We're also amoral so we cannot let emotionally charged stories alter our views of what we put into the blurbs (which is often a problem with RD blurbs). We're trying to focus on quality articles that happen to be in the news and we purposely created ongoing for a situation like the Russia-Ukraine war to avoid spamming the box. --Masem (t) 17:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not talking about 'readership,' talking about significance. -- Sca (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly, something that happens so frequently it practically doesn't get out of the news cycle isn't significant enough to start posting every instance of it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- So, you're saying the violent deaths of men, women and children in an unprovoked war of aggression are no more significant than deaths from hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, etc.? Sca (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- We are here to write an encyclopedia (and showcase it's good articles), not express moral outrage over the recent events. And, unfortunately, since they have been happening every day for the past month and a half, and since this is the least significant of the recent news items about this, yes, this isn't significant enough on its own to justify a blurb separate from the ongoing. I'll remind you we didn't post a single blurb for COVID (which killed millions) once it was in the "ongoing" section. WP:BIAS is also something to consider: Ukraine is not the only place where things happen in the world. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- The pandemic is not a result of human volition, but an act of nature. The war is due to human decisions -- an example of humankind's inhumanity to humankind. -- Sca (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, and? We are not Russian-invasion-of-Ukraine-pedia; no matter how inhuman (or rather, but disappointingly, very horribly human) the events may be. Not every event which happens there is ITN-worthy, even if it gets reported across many news outlets. We have the ongoing section for a reason. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- The pandemic is not a result of human volition, but an act of nature. The war is due to human decisions -- an example of humankind's inhumanity to humankind. -- Sca (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- We are here to write an encyclopedia (and showcase it's good articles), not express moral outrage over the recent events. And, unfortunately, since they have been happening every day for the past month and a half, and since this is the least significant of the recent news items about this, yes, this isn't significant enough on its own to justify a blurb separate from the ongoing. I'll remind you we didn't post a single blurb for COVID (which killed millions) once it was in the "ongoing" section. WP:BIAS is also something to consider: Ukraine is not the only place where things happen in the world. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- So, you're saying the violent deaths of men, women and children in an unprovoked war of aggression are no more significant than deaths from hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, etc.? Sca (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly, something that happens so frequently it practically doesn't get out of the news cycle isn't significant enough to start posting every instance of it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not talking about 'readership,' talking about significance. -- Sca (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- ITN is not about popularity/readership of stories, that's a function of a newspaper but not an encyclopedia. We're also amoral so we cannot let emotionally charged stories alter our views of what we put into the blurbs (which is often a problem with RD blurbs). We're trying to focus on quality articles that happen to be in the news and we purposely created ongoing for a situation like the Russia-Ukraine war to avoid spamming the box. --Masem (t) 17:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- In the big picture, the UNHRC expulsion might be more telling politically, but none of the above persuades this user (retired journalist) that ITN -- probably the most-read fixture on the main page -- should ignore an event of such high mortality and putative villainy. -- Sca (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly. The ongoing line was exactly created to avoid spamming ITN with headlines on the same topic over a short timeframe. If we're going to post any blurb about the war, it needs to rise beyond a stardard war type action. --Masem (t) 17:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- And yet this is the second time in the past week that this kind of horrific and illegal event makes it into worldwide news. We can't include everything which gets in the news, we need to have some balancing criteria, and frankly, between the previous 300+ casualty event, the UNHRC resolution, and this, this seems the least significant (however unfortunate) of those. War is war. Hell is Hell. And of the two, war is a lot worse. Sadly, not something we can do anything about, but given this is already covered by ongoing, doesn't seem necessary to overload the ITN section with stuff related to it. Think that Category:War crimes during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine kinda illustrates the point how, unfortunately, this is "happening every other day". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's the heedless, lethal violence against civilians trying to flee that raises this to major significance. You may say "that's war," and it certainly was in WWII, but since then int'l. law ostensibly made such militarily unnecessary attacks on civilians illegal. -- Sca (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Mass killing of civilians and this attack is receiving worldwide condemnation. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment – After 24 hours, 13-7 in favor of posting. Marked "attn." – Sca (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- This is not only supposed to be a WP:VOTE, consensus is still developing. Gotitbro (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't say or mean to imply that posting should be based merely on vote-counting. IMO, it's the volume of user comments and the length of time this nom. has been extant here that combine to merit admin. attn. That, and the widespread RS coverage. -- Sca (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- This is not only supposed to be a WP:VOTE, consensus is still developing. Gotitbro (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Per RandomCanadian. This attack is part of the ongoing war. I worry if another equal or worse attack occurred today, then we would have three Russia related news items as well as the war under ongoing. We cannot cover every major atrocity of the war on ITN. Thriley (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose' On Ongoing already. SpencerT•C 20:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per RandomCanadian. Already in ongoing.--Tdl1060 (talk) 05:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per RandomCanadian. Suggest close as consensus is unlikely to develop. --WaltCip-(talk) 14:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support This is clearly in the news in a significant way, Heavy coverage in the media and headlines. Alex-h (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Incremental updates to battle results are not necessary when there is already an ongoing link. That's why it is in ongoing. --Jayron32 12:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose To avoid the feed being overwhelmed by Ukraine news we probably need to keep events posted here to the standard of being fairly unique which isn't really the case for missile attacks on the civilian population.--Llewee (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Suggest close Clearly consensus to post is not going to develop. It's time to move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- On to 10,000 dead in Mariupol? [12] [13] -- Sca (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- 'Oppose per RandomCanadian. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Already covered by ongoing. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support I don't think anyone believes this should go onto ITN because we want to right great wrongs; I'd believe that this far more important than Russia quitting some random UN committee that nobody has heard about/cares about. If we really want to get stingy about that one blurb, an admin could always just boot it off and put this on there. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- And just so we're clear, the "random UN committee" bit was sarcasm. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose ... not because it wasn't newsworthy, but it's gone pretty stale. Sca (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Regrettably, yes. But those 57 people (at least 5 of whom were children) are still dead and those 109 people are still wounded. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- If only... -- Sca (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Regrettably, yes. But those 57 people (at least 5 of whom were children) are still dead and those 109 people are still wounded. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
HD1 (galaxy)
Blurb: HD1, the farthest known purported galaxy, is discovered 13.5 billion light-years away from Earth. (Post)
Alternative blurb: HD1, the most distant purported galaxy, is discovered 13.5 billion light-years away from Earth.
Alternative blurb II: HD1, the earliest purported galaxy, located just 330 million years after the Big Bang, is discovered.
Alternative blurb III: HD1, the most distant and earliest purported galaxy, located just 330 million years after the Big Bang, is discovered.
News source(s): The Harvard Gazette
Credits:
- Nominated by Sherenk1 (talk · give credit)
- Created by Drbogdan (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Notable scientific discovery. Sherenk1 (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support in principle, but the article should be expanded beyond a one-paragraph summary.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support - As OA of the "HD1 (galaxy)" article, the article seems about as up-to-date with substantial relevant information as currently available - the technology may be limited and unavailable at the present time for even more informations - perhaps somewhat due, for example, to the amount of calibration time and related still needed for the best operation of the James Webb Space Telescope at the moment I would think - however - further additions and edits to the article are more than welcome of course - there may be even more information to extract from the noted references on the article page for those more familiar with this material than I am at the moment - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support per above. Interesting scientific discovery but I would like to see the article expanded. Davey2116 (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support per above. Can the article be divided into separate paragraphs? It doesn’t read well the way it is now. Thriley (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose solely on article quality. It's kinda stubby in terms of text. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose the list of furthest galaxies lists this as "Formulative understanding" (whatever that means) as opposed to "Confirmed galaxy" for all previous "record-holders". The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - Done - separated text into sections - per suggestion(s) above - seems much better after all - thanks - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Altblurb added per Rambling Man's oppose and to reflect language in the article and what I understand from the refs. I find the article short, but minimally comprehensive enough as a layman in the field; it feels like it covers everything I would like to know. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 04:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- The sky's the limit? We published another story like this last month: Farthest known star discovered. What's seems to be happening is that researchers are measuring the red shift of everything they see and seeking headlines when they find a big one. The trouble is that the number of such objects is literally astronomical. The article says "the researchers claim that use of the new upcoming space telescopes could help discover over 10,000 galaxies at this early epoch of the Universe". So, we'll be publishing a story like this every month unless we establish some additional threshold of significance. Something more than it being yet another early star/galaxy/nebula/whatever. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'll be a bit on the conservative side on this one as well. List of the most distant astronomical objects has the second-farthest identified galaxy GN-z11 at 13.39 GLy, which is not that different from 13.5. WHL0137-LS last month was different because it was a star, not a galaxy, and the the previous farthest known star was much much closer. --Tone 08:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- 300 million years after Big Bang vs 410 makes some difference in the many unknowns of the youngest galaxies. A bigger ratio after cutting off how long old the universe was when the oldest galaxy formed from each timespan. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- I know. But the article does not really explain the significance to the reader, it just says that it was discovered. And it says that the JWST will likely find even more of them. It is a good story but the significance in grand scale is not clear. Tone 14:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- 300 million years after Big Bang vs 410 makes some difference in the many unknowns of the youngest galaxies. A bigger ratio after cutting off how long old the universe was when the oldest galaxy formed from each timespan. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support per above. But it would better to expand article. Alex-h (talk) 10:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose – Per Andrew. Meh. – Sca (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Seems like a pretty major discovery, one should keep in mind not all current news is political. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- No, some of it is military. -- Sca (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Andrew. ITN can not turn into a ticker of every time we find a new farthest X thing. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Which part of "per above"? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose The previous one was widely covered in all sorts of news, I barely see any mention of this (for example, the BBC still has the star mentioned, but nothing about this; so not "in the news" by any account. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- No - Seems "BBC News"[1] has an article on the "HD1 galaxy" after all - as do other reliable news sources, like "The New York Times"[2] - and many others, including "Forbes News"[3] (also see "Google Search", and the noted reliable references in the "HD1 galaxy" Wikipedia article itself) - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, well, still, that article doesn't appear on https://www.bbc.com/news/science_and_environment ; (where the one article which is put into the spotlight is [14]). Obviously they don't judge it significant enough to appear on the front of their science coverage, much less their main page. My point still stands. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- No - Seems "BBC News"[1] has an article on the "HD1 galaxy" after all - as do other reliable news sources, like "The New York Times"[2] - and many others, including "Forbes News"[3] (also see "Google Search", and the noted reliable references in the "HD1 galaxy" Wikipedia article itself) - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Update - newly adjusted LEDE to "HD1" article => "
HD1 is a purported high-redshift galaxy, and is considered, as of April 2022, to be the earliest and most distant known galaxy yet identified in the observable universe, located only about 330 million years after the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago, a light-travel distance of 13.5 billion light-years from Earth, and, due to the expansion of the universe, a present proper distance of 33.4 billion light-years.
" - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ BBC News Staff (10 April 2022). "Astronomers spot oldest and most distant galaxy, new study claims". BBC News. Retrieved 10 April 2022.
- ^ Overbye, Dennis (7 April 2022). "Astronomers Find What Might Be the Most Distant Galaxy Yet – Is the object a galaxy of primordial stars or a black hole knocking on the door of time? The Webb space telescope may help answer that question". The New York Times. Retrieved 10 April 2022.
- ^ Carter, Jamie (7 April 2022). "Meet HD1, The New Most Distant Galaxy Found 13.5 Billion Years Back In Time And Close To The 'Big Bang'". Forbes News. Retrieved 10 April 2022.
April 7
April 7, 2022
(Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
New leadership in Yemen
Blurb: Rashad al-Alimi becomes the new leader of Yemen as chairman of the Presidential Leadership Council. (Post)
Alternative blurb: President of Yemen Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi resigns and appoints Rashad al-Alimi as chairman of the new Presidential Leadership Council.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Alsoriano97 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Surprising change in the internationally recognized leadership of the Republic of Yemen. The two linked articles need work, but in the case of al-Alimi's I don't think much more can be added as content. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm iffy on the application of ITNR here. The PLC is essentially a government-in-exile; the extent to which it "controls" anything in Yemen is as a the pretense of a foreign expedition. In any case, the article requires significant expansion. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Hellmuth Matiasek
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/nachruf-auf-hellmuth-matiasek-der-kluge-praktiker-17949591.html FAZ]
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit)
- Created by LouisAlain (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Grimes2 (talk · give credit)
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: Theatre director, manager, head of drama schools, librettist - article was mostly there. Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Looks good to go. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
(Closed) Mass of W boson
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.
Blurb: A measurement of the mass of the W boson is inconsistent with the Standard Model. (Post)
News source(s): Guardian, ABC Australia, Nature,
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bumbubookworm (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Oppose Reading the Guardian article, this doesn't fundamentally change the Standard Model but begs for additional replication and checking to see if their results can be replicated. So there's no major impact now. --Masem (t) 23:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose big if true. But not suitable for ITN. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose, as the sources say, this is big but still too early to call the Standard Model not-working. And it is already known that it is not complete, missing dark matter and such. --Tone 09:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's been known from the beginning that it isn't the theory of everything. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose, Per above. Alex-h (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose it's a theory that needs re-replicating, wait until if/when it's actually confirmed, if it does change the standard model. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
RD: Fujiko A. Fujio
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): South China Morning Post Nikkei Asia France 24
Credits:
- Nominated by Ornithoptera (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Unikittu (talk · give credit)
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: Part of a duo who created Doraemon, among other works, the character is recognized as a very well known cultural icon. Fujiko A. Fujio is the pen name of Motoo Abiko. Ornithoptera (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Notable person. Rin (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Completely unsuitable for RD at the moment, there is precisely one source in the first nine paragraphs of the Biography section. Black Kite (talk) 12:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Huge amounts of unsourced material. AryKun (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) Russia Suspended, Quits UN Human Rights Council
Blurb: The UN General Assembly suspends Russia from the Human Rights Council, and Russia quits. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Russia quits the UN Human Rights Council after the General Assembly suspended their council membership.
Alternative blurb II: The United Nations General Assembly adopts a resolution suspending Russia from the Human Rights Council.
News source(s): Reuters, Associated Press, Al Jazeera, UN News, NPR, Axios, The New York Times, Forbes, The Washington Post
Credits:
- Nominated by SusanLesch (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: The second time a country has been suspended (Libya in 2011). Russia is a GA. Human Rights Council needs more sourcing but isn't hopeless. P.S. Chronology of when Russian quit isn't clear so blurb was reworded. SusanLesch (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Big shakeup and internationally recognized. Second time this has ever happened as well. Ornithoptera (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support - Part of historic event in Europe. BabbaQ (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose: barely/not mentioned at either article. Not groundbreaking/decisive news given the current conflict. — Bilorv (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose A member state, whose temporary membership expires in one year from now, being suspended from a body with 46 other member states doesn’t have any major impact and isn’t newsworthy at all. Major news would be Russia’s removal from the UN Security Council, but this is very far away from it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. With half the countries abstaining, removal from the Security Council is out of the question. This is the first time a permanent member of the Security Council was ever removed from any UN body. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support rare event of international importance. BilledMammal (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support rare and fully expected. Continued place on the Security Council is a matter of nuclear weapon capability, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support - it's in the news and article quality is sufficient. Levivich 22:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Article in good shape and it's a rare event. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. Thank you, but the article isn't quite ready. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment There's more meat on the story at Eleventh emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly#7 April, if that could be pipe-linked instead of the broader UNGA article. Moscow Mule (talk) 01:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with this. Best to link it to the emergency session article or to the United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/3 article. Pilaz (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agreeing with Pilaz's point, the United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/3 article is much better suited for an alternative blurb. Ornithoptera (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- The ES-11/3 article would be best if this is to run. — Bilorv (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Altblurb2 submitted for your consideration, then. Moscow Mule (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- The ES-11/3 article would be best if this is to run. — Bilorv (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agreeing with Pilaz's point, the United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/3 article is much better suited for an alternative blurb. Ornithoptera (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with this. Best to link it to the emergency session article or to the United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/3 article. Pilaz (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support notable, given the last time was in 2011. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 03:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Little to no impact of a body that doesn't live up to its name. If they do something in regards to sentencing Russian officials than may be that would be worth posting, but being suspended from a human rights council when it's generally believed that you are committing the crimes the council combats isn't exactly surprising and has very little impact in the grand scheme of things. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Extremely rare occurrence, and it being a SC member makes it all the more notable. The Kip (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Oppose on qualitytarget article is orange tagged for needing more sources. Unless that is fixed, the whole discussion is a moot point. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)- Support alt2 Given that Russia's removal from the UN Security Council is impossible under current rules (as compared to Soviet Union's expulsion from the League of Nations after Winter War), this is likely as far as it could go in the UN. Brandmeistertalk 08:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support rare and notable. Alex-h (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support alt2. Article is short, but sufficient; it is well referenced and lacks the orange tags that Joseph2302 notes may be a problem with other targets. --Jayron32 12:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support – Very widely covered and tellingly indicative of Russia's international standing due its brutal invasion of Ukraine. Favor ALT2 – but with this small clarification: "...from the UN Human Rights Council" or "its Human Rights Council." (The relevant 'Suspensions' section of the main target article seems well-documented.) – Sca (talk) 13:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support ALT2 only as this links to the article about the actual event, and that article is good enough article quality. ALT0 and ALT1 both bold United Nations Human Rights Council, which is orange-tagged, and so not an acceptable article target, and anyway, linking to the specific event article is way better for readers. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Often a separate article about the event is optimal, but this one seems rather thin. In this instance the main target article appears to be a better choice, and I don't see the orange tag about "tertiary" sources as being necessary; overall, the article looks well-documented. But either article would be OK to get this event into the box. -- Sca (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose as the UNHRC has barely got any real power and by itself triggers little. As a political development signalling something, sure, it's big deal, but would it have made much difference if Russia stayed? The only one is probably reputational, and even there there are other members with record of human rights abuses. Withdrawal from the UN, that's a thing, or suspension from the Security Council, which could even see blue helmets in Ukraine, but both are very unlikely to happen. This development is more or less shrugged off in Russia, which means that it's not important for them and they would continue bombing and shelling and pillaging regardless (I'd imagine that the EU's announcement of a total energy blockade would be more blurb-worthy). It's therefore barely a key event in the invasion, and, while meriting a mention in the current events section, falls way short of a blurb. For a perspective of how all of these grand political announcements are treated in Ukraine (more or less), see this Twitter profile (the example is about the European Union but is perfectly applicable to the United Nations as well). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- The United Nations Human Rights Council also has sections with lots of citation needed tags too. Whereas Eleventh emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly is more than good enough at explaining this, as it covers the entire timeline of issues around it, which the general article does not (it has one paragraph). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- OK, but which blurb links to Eleventh emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly? Am I blind? -- Sca (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Getting articles mixed up, sorry. Maybe we should be linking Eleventh emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly, but linking to United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/3 is better than the general article in ALT0 and 1. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- OK, but which blurb links to Eleventh emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly? Am I blind? -- Sca (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- The United Nations Human Rights Council also has sections with lots of citation needed tags too. Whereas Eleventh emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly is more than good enough at explaining this, as it covers the entire timeline of issues around it, which the general article does not (it has one paragraph). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose little-to-no-impact body. This is not actual news or significant in any way. Just a diplomatic development, only slightly more meaningful than expelling diplomats. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. Is it possible to link Russia? It's a GA. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- FTR I note that another admin undid the linking per a discussion at ERRORS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. Thanks, Ad Orientem. I was out yesterday, but learned about WP:SEAOFBLUE and overlinking. -SusanLesch (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- FTR I note that another admin undid the linking per a discussion at ERRORS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
(Closed) Ketanji Brown Jackson
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 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.
Blurb: The United States Senate votes to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court. (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times, Associated Press, Reuters, The Guardian, CNBC, The Washington Post
Credits:
- Nominated by Sdkb (talk · give credit)
- Comment on global perspective: I very much want ITN to be a global venue, but to say that this isn't significant enough to post makes us basically a parody of ourselves. Much of the opposition so far (e.g.
Members of supreme courts around the world are being voted all the time
) evidence a fundamental lack of understanding of American politics. Most countries' supreme courts are not nearly as powerful as the U.S. Supreme Court, which heads the entire third branch of its government, so it's not an analogous situation. And most don't appoint judges to lifetime tenure. Further, we need to cure ourselves of this idea that to be global, we need to treat all countries, no matter how big or small, identically. A major political development in the U.S. is fundamentally more newsworthy than a major political development in Liechtenstein. That isn't because we're giving any special treatment to the U.S.—it's because the U.S. has 329 million people whereas Liechtenstein has 0.04 million. We should treat countries equitably, not equally. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)- Here's a sampling of publications of record from around the world, all of which currently have the Jackson nomination on their front page in the local edition: Le Monde, Der Spiegel, The Guardian, Asahi Shinbun, South China Morning Post, The Hindu, etc. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- China and India combined contain 36% of global population. The United States contains about 4% of global population. Would an “equitable” ITN reflect these numbers? Thriley (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, so 4% of ITN would be news related to the United States? If so, this news item wouldn’t make it in my opinion. Thriley (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'd have to disagree. Just because the United States has 4 percent of the world's population doesn't water down the fact that it has a massive influence on the world as a whole. We, instead of pointing to a number and immediately changing ITN policy because of it, should instead take each submission on a case by case basis. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- of course, this also keeps the court at a 6-3 conservative/liberal split and hence means little to the overall issues widely known with SCOTUS (eg shadow dockets) until that ratio changes. Status quo remains, outside the first for racial/gender equity. This is not like RBG dying with Trump in position to move a 5-4 to 6-3. --Masem (t) 20:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Also reported in WPost: [15] in case y'all want more links. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Article is in a high-quality state, news outlets are providing an adequate level of coverage to indicate newsworthiness. --Jayron32 18:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Article is good (and semi protected). Definitely notable for American history. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose This vote, while well-covered in media, doesn’t have the significance to be on ITN. Nothing changes in the philosophical dynamic of the court. I assume the last three nominees to the Supreme Court did not make it to ITN. Jackson shouldn’t either. Thriley (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Amy Conan Barrett's nomination was not posted. Brett Kavanaugh was posted, then pulled. Neil Gorsuch was not posted. But none of those had the historic nature of the first Black woman to be appointed.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- If Jackson’s race is the reason for this to appear on ITN, then it should be mentioned. Otherwise, this is a uneventful news story that does not fundamentally change anything. Thriley (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support - ready for posting. Notable in American history.BabbaQ (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose when the election of members of the Supreme Courts becomes ITNR we will talk about this. For now it’s another American joke. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Alsoriano97, (a) typically something like a SCOTUS nomination would get support at ITN before getting an ITNR nomination, (2) these "anti-nationalist" comments, best term I can come up with, are not helpful for discussion in any way. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose as a routine vote. Members of supreme courts around the world are being voted all the time. We don’t need a precedent for this.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose We wouldn't post a judge joining the Supreme Court of any other country. Only notable aspect is that she is the first black woman on the court; but let's put it another way: would we post the first time a Muslim was added to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom? NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose does not change the ideological status quo, and we routine don't post such confirmations from elsewhere. Being the first African American female justice can be a DYK. --Masem (t) 19:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Historic nomination that is receiving widespread coverage.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I think we should lean towards rewarding good articles that are wholly created (rather than merely updated) to reflect recent events, as this supports the intent of ITN. But I the significance here fails to cross even a lowered threshold. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's an extremely editor-centric perspective. Current events articles would still be written and updated even if ITN ceased tomorrow, so that's not a very strong raison d'être. The value of ITN is that it makes it easier for readers to find content that will be of strong interest to them. And there are a lot of readers right now who are interested in this news. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- You are mistaken. While the main page is organized in such a way as to facilitate certain benefit to readers, its raison d'être is to promote improvements to the mainspace. This is in no way editor-centric, by the way. Readers benefit. GreatCaesarsGhost 23:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's an extremely editor-centric perspective. Current events articles would still be written and updated even if ITN ceased tomorrow, so that's not a very strong raison d'être. The value of ITN is that it makes it easier for readers to find content that will be of strong interest to them. And there are a lot of readers right now who are interested in this news. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - First X in Y is a tired argument. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose the ideological balance of the court stays the same, so it comes down to just the first person of a demographic to be appointed some internal post, so no. Bumbubookworm (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support - this is groundbreaking news, it is truly a historical moment. Netherzone (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Opposeideological balanceis is not changed. Shadow4dark (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Historic from an American perspective, and great for her and the nation as a whole, but not entirely unprecedented or groundbreaking on a global stage. NorthernFalcon and Kiril Simeonovski put it quite well already. Ornithoptera (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Weak support given that she is going to be a historic addition to the court, and this story has global RS coverage and is of particular interest to many readers. However, I would alternatively support a standard of posting an item only if there is a change in the ideological balance of the court. This would retrospectively justify posting the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a blurb rather than RD. The only other confirmation since Clarence Thomas in 1991 that would be debatable is Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, since he replaced the swing vote on an arguably 4-4-1 court to solidify a 5-4 conservative majority, which has obviously had a large (detrimental) impact on many issues affecting millions of people. Davey2116 (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose More appropriate for 2022 in the United States. Do we post things on ITN about judges getting appointed to the Supreme Courts of other countries (Canada, France, Australia, Japan, Germany, etc...)?Canuck89 (Converse with me) 22:05, April 7, 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. We don't normally post supreme court appointments, and I see no justification for posting this. BilledMammal (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose, one change to a court of one nation that doesn't affect ideological balance is not exactly earth shattering. Kafoxe (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support. The article is in good shape and this is in the news internationally. -- Tavix (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support - it's in the news (globally not just in the US) and article quality is sufficient. Levivich 22:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - It's really just a case of a judge being promoted, it's a domestic matter that has no significance globally in the grand scheme of things. If I didnt turn to American media, I wouldn't really hear much about it. 4iamking (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - While historic indeed, it's only historic in the U.S. therefore it's domestic news not global news. Can't really see her confirmation having any global ramifications/impact and therefore not global news worthy. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose We almost never post domestic political events below the level of national elections because every country has their own version of something like this and we can't post them all. This isn't saying the event lacks significance. It is saying that the significance outside the borders of one country is pretty limited and we would almost certainly quickly decline any nomination of a similar nature from any other country. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - While historic in the United States, and thrilling on that basis, I don't think it reaches a level of global significance as a domestic political event. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment -- this was closed too early to come to the conclusion that this will not be posted. This should be reopened, in my opinion. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 03:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- If it is, I'll only disappoint you. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't say how I'd vote. :-) -- RockstoneSend me a message! 04:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter how you'd vote! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't say how I'd vote. :-) -- RockstoneSend me a message! 04:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- If it is, I'll only disappoint you. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com]
rather than using <ref></ref>
tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref>
tags are being used, here are their contents: