Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carnildo (talk | contribs) at 05:15, 16 August 2021 (→‎(Posted) Afghan Government collapse). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Tadej Pogačar in June 2022
Tadej Pogačar

Glossary

  • Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
    • Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
    • A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
  • Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
  • The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.

All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.

Nomination steps

  • Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually - a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
  • Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
  • You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.

The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

  • When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
  • Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
    • If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
    • Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
    • Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).

Voicing an opinion on an item

Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.

Please do...

  1. Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
  2. Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
  3. Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.

Please do not...

  1. Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
  2. Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
  3. Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
  4. Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. Oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. Discuss them here.
  6. Use ITN as a forum for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome and are potentially disruptive.

Suggesting updates

There are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:

  • Anything that does not change the intent of the blurb (spelling, grammar, markup issues, updating death tolls etc.) should be discussed at WP:Errors.
  • Discuss major changes in the blurb's intent or very complex updates as part of the current ITNC nomination.
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Archives

August 16

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

  • The Speaker of the Tongan Parliament, Lord Fakafanua, introduces the Illicit Drugs Control (Amendment) Bill 2021 for debate in the legislative assembly. The Speaker wants a mandatory death sentence for serious drug offenses. Tonga has a moratorium on the death penalty and has not used it in more than four decades. (RNZ International)
  • The last living Khmer Rouge leader, Khieu Samphan, appears before a court in Phnom Penh in order to appeal his conviction and attempt to overturn it. The 90-year-old's hearing is expected to last for only a few days as analysts say that it is very unlikely that he will succeed in his appeal. (Deutsche Welle)
  • In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of Uganda strikes down a 2014 law outlawing the distribution of pornography and wearing of "indecent" clothes as unconstitutional. Women's rights groups in the country campaigned against the law since its inception, saying it unfairly singled out women for discrimination. (BBC News)

Politics and elections

Sports


August 15

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


RD: Michael M. Thomas

Article: Michael M. Thomas (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: First reported today (August 15); died on August 7 —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Ernie Sigley

Article: Ernie Sigley (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Highly awarded Australian TV and radio host HiLo48 (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2020–21 Formula E World Championship

Proposed image
Article: 2020–21 Formula E World Championship (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In autosport, Nyck de Vries wins the Formula E World Championship. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In autosport, Nyck de Vries wins the Formula E World Championship, while Mercedes-EQ claim the teams' title.
News source(s): motorsport.com
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Not an ITNR item but could be since it has became a world championship. Unnamelessness (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The physical football can start in a wider range of places in college than in NFL which makes strategy less rote and emphasizes the asymmetry and specialization between the strong side players on the strong side of the ball and the weak side players on the weak side, is that distinct enough? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remember the hundreds of times a game when the fatties get ready for sumo then one snaps the ball? In NFL you can only do that up to 9.25 feet from the centerline, in college you can do that up to 20 feet from the centerline (the one parallel to the side of the field). The ball starting further from the center affects play. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose both on importance and article quality. Formula E is a poor man's Formula One (which is why it's filled with F1 rejects and youngstars hoping to make the step up to F1 in the future). Not important enough to a broad audience therefore. On article quality, it would need a summary like 2020 Formula One World Championship#Season summary. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we're going by the criteria above than we would never post anything that isn't F1 because every other motorsport on the planet is filled with as you put it F1 rejects and youngsters hoping to make the step up to F1 in the future, and given F1 is by far the richest motorsport formula around, again, everything else is a poor man's Formula One by that standard. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well WEC or DTM would be considered way more notable, as they're proper series in their own right (and not filled with rejects like Formula E) But Formula E isn't anywhere near as popular as any of those- the champion is a Mercedes F1 test driver. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • DTM is a terrible example, the winner René Rast is leaving to join Formula E permanently after many years of being on the FE sidelines! Let's also add that DTM famously failed to expand outside of Germany many times and even within Germany struggled to get manufacturers onboard. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not even in the sports news. Kingsif (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: even though it's a FIA world championship, that doesn't grant it automatic ITNR status; whether it should is a different matter. My own view is that if we were to give another FIA championship ITNR status, I'd go for the WEC over FE, because despite the FIA's efforts, it's still not seen as equal to F1, the WRC, or the WEC. Sceptre (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I do not agree with the comments above; this championship is unique, as are the cars, format and everything else about it and does have widespread coverage, more so than most other motorsport events. We should not be looking what newspapers/media outlets post, if we did we'd never post any sports news that isn't top 5-EPL football news; the criteria is it encyclopaedic and is it important, and I would strongly argue yes to both. There's a reason all major car manufacturers and top racing drivers take part, and TV rights are hotly contested by e.g. Eurosport. Also it's truly global, unlike some of the other motorsports that get posted. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should not be looking what newspapers/media outlets post - literally how else would you define "in the news". Please, tell me. Also, Eurosport is basically brand new and everyone hates it for stealing Olympic airing rights for all of Europe so national broadcasters got shafted but go off on its relevance lol Kingsif (talk) 01:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted RD) RD/Blurb: Gerd Müller

Article: Gerd Müller (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  German footballer Gerd Müller dies at the age of 75. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Süddeutsche Zeitung
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: One of the most famous German footballers. SoWhy 11:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Oof, tricky. Legendary in the sport, obviously, but I'm unsure he rises to the level of a blurb ... that's a borderline one. Anyway, oppose for the moment due to unsourced content.Black Kite (talk) 12:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As Müller was a legend in his sport I would support RD only (I dont see a blurb justified). With 555 league-matches and 487 league goals he is/was a unit and regarding this equal to Messi (552 league-caps and 485 league-goals). I would like to know if there are other footballer than müller and Messi who played that many league matches and have a better match-score-ratio. --LennBr (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's odd how I (and many Americans) find it boring that Messi can get only ~0.9 goals per game instead of like 3 or 4 but if a baseballer ever gets 0.4 home runs per game (which is 3-4 hours) again for even 1 season without doping I'd be amazed (my soccer attention span is 2 hours per matchday per World Cup) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I (and many Earthlings) would rather watch MMA, where even the low-card losers regularly rack up 24 to 28 points in 15 minutes. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Afghan Government collapse

Article: 2021 Taliban offensive (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Afghan president Ashraf Ghani resigns as Taliban forces enter Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan ending the twenty-year long war. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Afghan government collapses and Kabul falls to the Taliban during its offensive.
Alternative blurb II: Afghan president Ashraf Ghani flees the country as Taliban forces enter Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, ending the twenty-year long war.
Alternative blurb III: ​ The Afghan government collapses as the capital city of Kabul falls to the ongoing offensive by the Taliban and President Ashraf Ghani flees the country.
News source(s): Alarabiya News, AP, BBC, Guardian, Reuters, Al Jazeera, MSN
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Obviously post it when (if) it happens, but given that Al Arabiya has a pretty good track record of generally being cautious with their sources, I doubt this doesnt come true. --212.74.201.233 (talk) 10:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
Maybe we should wait until 9/11, when the "planned withdrawal" was supposed to be complete? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. What's the tallest symbolic building left standing in Afghanistan? When we see it crumble on TV, then we can safely say mission accomplished, "we got 'em" or whatever again. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think Osama bin Laden's been found. But was it posted at ITN? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I always thought he was killed in 2001, before ITN was cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Meanwhile, wisps of smoke could be seen near the embassy’s roof as diplomats urgently destroyed sensitive documents, according to two American military officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the situation." InedibleHulk (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some of us actually remember this. – Sca (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Smile for the camera, boys. – Sca (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now let the fun begin. – Sca (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did! Got caught in the moment haha JMonkey2006 (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong post posting support for alt 3 or 1; major event that pretty much ends the war, though I don't think saying so would be strictly correct.  Nixinova T  C   04:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 14

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Politics and elections


RD: Gabriel Fortuné

Article: Gabriel Fortuné (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): AJC
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Former mayor of Les Cayes and Haitian senator; died in the earthquake. Article needs expansion, but has enough sources to make it happen. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Haiti earthquake

Proposed image
Article: 2021 Haiti earthquake (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A 7.2 magnitude earthquake strikes Haiti, killing at least 304 people. (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes, ABC, BBC, AP, Reuters, CNN
Credits:
Article updated

Nominator's comments: While there are not yet reports of deaths yet, this has only happend a few hours ago and there is known to be people that got caught in collapsing buildings/etc. I am adding this as something to watch as it has the likelihood to be "bad" (Haiti's just recovering from the 2010 Haiti earthquake of similar magnitude, and the USGS is claiming "high casualties" per CNN above) Masem (t) 16:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the casualalties are not given, that might be interpreted as Wikipedia being racist. 2600:1702:2670:B530:FC7C:D44C:73F6:8E79 (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't go that far, but I do think not including the death toll would be an odd decision considering there are clearly a lot of casualties. WaltCip-(talk) 23:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can say "at least" X amount of deaths to cover the fact that there might be more. -184.56.75.144 (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 13

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections


RD: Alia Muhammad Baker

Article: Alia Muhammad Baker (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.iqiraq.news/society/25691--2003.html
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: This is The Librarian of Basra who saved thousands of books in 2003. I'm hoping for English sources to be available soon. --PFHLai (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Gino Strada

Article: Gino Strada (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Corriere della Sera
Credits:

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: Italian human rights activist and war surgeon, founder of Emergency. This wikibio can use some more clean-up, but seems close to be ready for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Douglas Applegate

Article: Douglas Applegate (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Times-Reporter
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Former member of the United States House of Representatives and 1988 presidential candidate whose death was announced on August 13. Jon698 (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Lab leak is a "likely hypothesis"

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


Articles: COVID-19 lab leak theory (talk · history · tag) and Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Head of World Health Organization investigating origins of the COVID-19 pandemic admits for the first time that lab leak theory is a "likely hypothes" (Post)
News source(s): WaPo, WSJ, NY Post, Le Parisien, El Mundo, Telegraph, France24, AlJazeera, Independent, Fox, Taiwan
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Considering that for over a year the pandemic has been the biggest story, and now officially for the first time the "conspiracy theory" is admitted as a likely hypothesis while "Chinese officials pressured investigation to drop lab-leak hypothesis", with all the misinformation campaigns and discrediting done everywhere, including on this site, I think some kind of update of official mentions need to be published. Even if this is proven beyond reasonable doubt, due to geopolitical games, it is highly unlikely that the WHO would officially accuse anybody, so this might be as much as we will ever get officially. Feel free to shut this down with actual legitimate rationales besides you don't like it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.27.36.191 (talk)
Eugen Simion 14 "Claims" is not an actual determination or finding of fact. It's what someone thinks. That one person thinks it was a leak, and the WHO says a leak is a possibility(which we already knew) are indeed speculation until there is a formal investigation and finding, which is unlikely without Chinese cooperation. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This was never a "conspiracy theory" and was always a possibility. The conspiracy theory is that it was artificially created in a lab, not that it merely escaped a lab. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

August 12

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


RD: Haydée Coloso-Espino

Article: Haydée Coloso-Espino (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://mb.com.ph/2021/08/13/greatest-pinay-swimmer-passes-away/
Credits:

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: “Asia's Swim Queen" from the 1950s/60s. Her wikibio needs more refs and maybe a little bit of work to make it ready for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Johnny Groth

Article: Johnny Groth (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Palm Beach Daily News; United Press International
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Only reported today (August 12); died on August 7 —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Kurt Biedenkopf

Article: Kurt Biedenkopf (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Der Spiegel, Die Zeit
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Politician, Former Minister President of Saxony Grimes2 (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Grimes2 (talk) 07:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: John A. Rizzo

Article: John A. Rizzo (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times; The Washington Post
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Only reported today (August 12); died on August 6 —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth shooting

Article: Plymouth shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Six people, including the perpetrator, are killed in Plymouth in the UK's first fatal mass shooting since 2010 (Post)
News source(s): BBC, New York Times, Le Figaro, El Pais, Die Welt, La Repubblica
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Very rare event in the UK (about 1 per decade on average) so don't judge the death toll by US standards. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 06:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: while I am aware of the rarity of this, this appears to a purely domestic matter. (I doubt whether it is truly an thing that should be in Wikipedia, but that can wait.) It is not of a weight now for ITN. --PaulBetteridge (talk) 07:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and by "domestic", I mean literally to do with a household --PaulBetteridge (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • From that article's talk page it seems it was an "in the news" item. Personally I'd still oppose. Big story in the UK but, sadly, pretty common round the world, I suspect. Nigej (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, because it's not important enough. Being rare in the UK doesn't make it notable enough to post. The killer was a lone gunman & there's no indication of any ideological motive. Jim Michael (talk) 10:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose Yes, incredibly rare in the UK, but the previous event (2010 Cumbria shootings) was a mass shooting as we understand it including some random members of the public being targeted, whereas this appears to be a tragic event confined to victims in one household. Black Kite (talk) 10:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]

  • Comment - probably opposing per above, since the death toll is relatively low. But also noting that the expansion is below 1500 bytes at present so would need some expansion if it were to be posted.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Unusual crime here in the UK, but it would open the door to a flood of shootings in other places where they are nowhere near as rare. Unless this leads to a further tightening of gun laws (which seems unlikely and can be considered at the time if that happens) I don't see how this has any long-term impact. Notable enough for an article, not significant enough for an ITN blurb. Modest Genius talk 10:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd guess actually fairly likely, whether directly by primary legislation, or in terms of the practical application of it in terms of the checks and standards police operationally apply to issue and renew shotgun licences. ("Will you give us access to your social-media accounts?" "No!" "We'll be in touch.") But agree that's a separate issue and possible future article, other than to the extent it's already under discussion in reliable sources and successfully addressed in the nominated article. I must disagree with the slippery-slope argument. One applies one's crampons, rather than getting out the most waxed pair of skis one can find. Shootings where nowhere near as rare will generate less coverage in reliable sources, consequently fewer articles in the first place, and less likely to be of even serviceable quality in any timely manner. And even if such do arise, this can be addressed at the ITN stage simply by pointing this out. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Renomination, prompted (though not directly suggested) by the observations of Effy Midwinter on the article talkpage. This is not, as may have initially been believed given the understandably confused nature of the reporting, a single-household domestic incident, nor one without a political or ideological dimension, per almost all of the opposing !votes. Indeed it has particular significance for being not just a rare UK mass shooting, but the first I'm aware of there with apparent elements of incel movement and misogynist terrorism as either the motivation, or at the least a framing rationalisation of the violence. Initially the leading UK news story ahead of Afghanistan, and still featuring prominently. Presently appearing on the top four stories on CNN's world news page, so not without general importance, either. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Re-opening nomination due to arguments brought up by commenter above, as well as some opposition related to article quality. Article was closed 8 hours after nomination so IMO is worthwhile to open up for a little longer to let discussion play out. The article and the story has undergone considerable development since initial reports so I agree that it's worth re-opening for additional discussion. SpencerT•C 03:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you're saying about quality concerns; the article's rather harshly marked as "Start-Class" at present hopefully a slightly lagging indicator, and it's maybe more B-adjacent at this point. The sourcing seems pretty robust, certainly. But if the first rough draft of history is still a little too rough, then so be it. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, and would have before it had a supposedly OK motive, but it was closed when I first saw it. English mass shooting, unusual enough. Plus, the current blurbs are stale. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As per IP109, somewhat tragically still leading UK news story ahead of the fall of an entire country to a fundamentalist Islamist movement. And I really don't see that "Summer Olympics close (ceremony pictured)" is in the news any more, if it ever was. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now it's clear the domestic crime was just the start of an extremely unusual (for the UK) mass shooting with wider implications (the incel movement). Article quality is fine. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support given our intent here is to encourage and reward improvements to WP, and the target is an entirely new article of some quality. There is certainly reasonable debate on both sides of the significance question, but "qualities in one area can make up for deficiencies in another" (per ITN criteria) GreatCaesarsGhost 12:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, very unusual mass shooting .Jackattack1597 (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now we have more information, effectively (and being quoted as) a terrorist event. Black Kite (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose While the potential connection to incel aspects may be new, we still have the fact that this may simply be a person that was having mental health issues, and still all seems like a "lone wolf" issues and not the start of a fresh wave of potential violence from incels. --Masem (t) 15:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's definitely a connection to incel culture, as the article now pretty clearly establishes, which I think is highly notable in itself. That's not to say it's clear-cut between that and mental-health issues: it needn't be -- and likely isn't -- entirely one, or entirely the other. The two may have interacted -- the perpetrator himself essentially claimed that movement had worsened his own mental health -- or it might be more of a framing rationale. It's certainly lone-wolf in that this isn't an organised attack or conspiracy. But that's true of many incidents classed as terrorism, under the 'self-radicalised' category. Or more precisely, radicalised under the influence of many others, but not with the explicit purpose of this sort of violence. I don't think the 'fresh wave' idea is suggested as part of why this is especially notable or newsworthy. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Why is this reopened? The death toll is low on a global scale, worse incidents happen all the time elsewhere. The guy was a nutter, we knew that all along. Just because people start talking about "terrorism" doesn't suddenly change what happened. And we're not a news ticker.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support I would more support posting if this led to some extended background check being implemented since this guy was apparently a clear danger from social media posts and family reports, but article improvements and the new information seem generally sufficient. Kingsif (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The background checks thing is being more and loudly mooted. The Telegraph had a retired chief constable commenting on this yesterday, and according to the BBC review of The Papers, they've another story tomorrow on this being likely to actually happen -- apparently not yet on their own website, nor is it on the BBC's, so not usable in the article at least until then. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • support - Rare event in the UK. Looks ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't think any kind of immediate action against gun violence is either likely or, frankly, possible in any case, so I don't see why that's the bar for so many. That will come later. In the meantime, we're left with one of Britain's worst terror attacks. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment so this is an incel shooting. It's unusual in the UK, and it's very sad indeed. We have a law that seems to suggest that incel shootings don't qualify as terrorism. It seems odd (to me) that men who find life challenging when they can't have sex with women resort to hating women and then killing them. There may well be underlying issues that are yet to be discussed/released. I still oppose posting this kind of thing, even in the UK where such things are rare as rocking-horse shit. It's sad that there's a section of "society" that feels obliged to destroy another section because of their misgivings. Wikipedia should recognise it in the context of the world, i.e. it's nothing in the big scheme, but it's hugely societally important to recognise in the UK that we maybe dropped the ball on incel culture and its terrifying effects. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because it's not important enough. Though rare in Europe, mass shootings with higher death tolls occur many times each year in the world. Being unusual in its location doesn't make it more important, even though that's the main reason for the Western media being intensely interested in this after having almost ignored the 2021 Spin Boldak shooting, whose death toll was about 100 & which wasn't nominated here. This isn't being treated as terrorism, and even if it were it wouldn't be one of the UK's worst terrorist attacks or mass murders. Compared to the Denmark Place fire, Hungerford massacre, Lockerbie bombing, Omagh bombing, 7/7 etc., this is tiny. There's no international angle - unless you count him liking some American things. Jim Michael (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The Spin Boldak shooting took place in Afghanistan which, as we all know now, is a warzone. Plymouth is not a warzone. Try to get some perspective that doesn't rely on hyperbolic examples. This was the third-worst mass shooting in the UK, with six dead. In Amurica that would have been a mass shooting that happened last week. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the third most deadly mass shooting in UK history: the Ballymurphy massacre, Bloody Sunday, Kingsmill massacre, Hungerford massacre, Greysteel massacre, Dunblane massacre & Cumbria shootings were all mass shootings in the UK with higher death tolls.
Had this happened in the US, it would have been quickly closed with a fairly strong consensus against posting. Jim Michael (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well either you're being contrary or you don't understand what I'm saying, the IRA (etc) vs the Army aren't part of the thinking of the vox populi. Still, I'm not engaging here, it's a waste of my life. In the US, six dead from mass shooting happens almost every month. In the UK it happens perhaps once a decade. Next. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You said mass shootings, you didn't limit it by perpetrator, but even if you do, how do you work out that Plymouth was only the third most deadly? In any case, being rare in its country doesn't make it important to most of our readers or to history. The international media report this prominently because of its rarity, not importance. We wouldn't post a fairly small earthquake due to it being rare in its location. Jim Michael (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you're going here for some kind of "record"? I'll defer to your infinite knowledge, and just stick with facts, it's the worst mass shooting in the UK since 2010. Of course, yesterday and tomorrow we'll see worse in the US. I don't know what you're trying to achieve here. Rarity and importance are intrinsically related. Oh dear........ The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could call it the second-worst mass shooting recorded, all the others seem to be massacres (i.e. intention to kill a large homogenous group, not shoot and hope), if we want to get specific. Kingsif (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On "There's no international angle", per WP:ITN/C, "Voicing an opinion on an item [...] Please do not... [...] oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." I've read a series of comments from Jim Mitchell about the lack of "importance" of this, and can't discern any operable standard that would apply here to preclude this -- while including any reasonable number of other ITN items at all -- short of ignoring reliable sources as being hopelessly biased, and ignoring what's in the news as playing any part in determining what appears as "In the News". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This incident was and is sufficiently important. This was the worst mass shooting in a decade in England (and indeed more broadly in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). The fact that similar shootings may take place in the USA much more often, or indeed in any other country, is irrelevant. The gun laws in England and Wales are much stronger than in almost any other jurisdiction. (NB the gun laws and their enforcement in Scotland are not identical, and in Northern Ireland a firearm including a handgun may be acquired on the grounds of personal protection). It was not a domestic incident – after killing his mother, the killer then used his shotgun in the streets outside his mother's home, to blast, kill or injure numerous others, each of them strangers, including a three-year-old girl and her father. The 22-year-old white blue-collar killer was a mentally disturbed individual who had had his shotgun licence removed after threatening two youths. After he completed an anger management course, Devon Police then returned to the killer both his shotgun licence and his shotgun. This was despite the fact that five years earlier, without provocation, the killer had assaulted a 25-year-old man and his pregnant girlfriend. According to news reports, the killer had also attacked and beaten up his father. The killer's mother had tried without success to get help for her mentally ill son from social services. The killer posted frequent tirades against women and referred to himself as an incel. Many commenters in the UK media, and UK politicians, have questioned the actions of Devon Police in returning the shotgun licence and the shotgun to a person who was mentally disturbed, and the subsequent decision by Devon Police to classify the mass murders as a single incident of domestic violence. 82.15.254.27 (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably oppose per TRM. But it is a tragic event. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose shootings happen in the UK, as they do in every country, some more than others. However firearms offences aren't all that rare in the UK, this story is only different because there is no element of criminal underworld involvement or gang-warfare. Also I suggested this UK-based story a short while back which had far more long term wider implications and affected far more people both directly and indirectly and that was turned down as "local event" despite it being country-wide. This, whilst tragic, only affects no more than one neighbourhood in a fairly average city, with unlikely any long-term consequences; so lets be consistent. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, shootings in the UK are super-rare. Mass shootings even more so. Trying to equate a post-master story with the worst mass shooting in the UK in a decade is bizarre. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nowhere near as rare as you claim. Yes, statistically given the population and size UK's gun violence rate is low, however there's shootings in urban areas like London, Glasgow, Manchester and Liverpool relatively regularly, nearly always gang related or organised crime related, and yes, it's usually targeted against a specific individual. But let's not pretend it doesn't happen at all. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim was about the rarity of mass shootings, not of firearms deaths generally. It would clearly be fallacious to argue that if you wait a while they'll be six deaths in a particular city, so that's comparable to a mass shooting of six people, so I'm certain that's not what you're seeking to do. I can't improve on "bizarre" as a description of the comparison with that other article, and bringing up the lack of success of your own nomination is an especially poor look. Nor as 'turned down as "local event"' even accurate, that was one comment of a whole series of objections, including sustained newsworthiness even within the UK (clearly not applicable here), and specific concerns about the article. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Even then, I would guess the rate of gang shootings/single-person-target shootings/accidental shootings/basically any not-mass shooting in the UK is much lower than in even just Detroit or [insert Middle Eastern city for equity], let alone other areas of equivalent population to the country, enough to be described as rare in comparison to the world. Because guns are stupid easy to get hold of in many places, so random shootings are stupid common. Kingsif (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have a direct comparison to offer framed in those terms for Detroit, but here's a handy sortable table at the country level. (On Middle Eastern cities, I think those are pretty variable: "actually at war" tends to have quite the effect on the stats. (Hi Iraq, Syria.)) But not far off, UK's per-cap gun-murder rate is about 1/20th of the US's (which alarmingly itself isn't even in the top dozen or so "not actually at war" countries). Not to be confused with the total murder rate, of course: there's always people willing to go that extra mile, if they really have to. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Una Stubbs

Article: Una Stubbs (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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: Standard: career/filmography woefully under-referenced. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At least the article is not a stub[bs]. --180.244.163.23 (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your helpful comment. Could you give us a clue on how to improve it? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Absolute fucking A* major irony klaxon. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reminding us all. Great to see ITN looking as vibrant as ever. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 11

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


(Posted) RD: David Levene

Article: David Levene (businessman) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NZ Times
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: This wikiarticle was created by User:Paora one day after the subject's death. --PFHLai (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 10

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


(Posted) RD: Donald Kagan

Article: Donald Kagan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Yale University; The New York Times; Associated Press; New Haven Register
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: First reported today (August 10); died on August 6 —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Tommy Curtis

Article: Tommy Curtis (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Tallahassee Democrat, WTXML.com
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: College basketball player was a two-time national champion with UCLA. Per WP:RSBREAKING, death confirmed on this day after only one initial reporting on Aug 6. —Bagumba (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Neal Conan

Article: Neal Conan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times; NPR; USA Today
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Eduardo Martínez Somalo

Article: Eduardo Martínez Somalo (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Vatican News
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: The camarlengo who led the Holy See for 17 days after the death of John Paul II and the election of Benedict XVI. The article is in good condition. Now I will finish improving some necessary retouching. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Contributor comment. The primary sources policy says: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Though I can't be sure which citations triggered the objection above, the annual volumes of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, cited several times, are the official published record of the Holy See and require no interpretation. They allow us to cite specific dates the deceased got or changed jobs. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Wish there was a little more detail about his career than just positions and dates, but there are a few additional sentences. Meets minimum standards. SpencerT•C 15:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support meets the RD requirements JW 1961 Talk 21:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 10:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Lionel Messi joins PSG

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


Article: Lionel Messi (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Lionel Messi joins PSG on a two-year contract. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Nominator's comments: Messi signed for another club and he'll no longer be a one-club man. His transfer to PSG has been top news for days. --Stop racism immediately (talk) 09:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Tony Esposito

Article: Tony Esposito (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC, NHL, Chicago Tribune
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Hockey Hall of Fame goaltender, one of the top 5 goaltenders of all time. Article is not good enough for the front page yet, but hopefully his passing will bring attention to the article and perhaps it will be ready in a day or so. NorthernFalcon (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Andrew Cuomo to resign

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.


Proposed image
Andrew Cuomo
Articles: Andrew Cuomo sexual harassment allegations (talk · history · tag) and Andrew Cuomo (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Following several allegations of sexual harassment, New York governor Andrew Cuomo (pictured) announces his resignation. (Post)
News source(s): UPI, NBC News
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: I know this is a US state level politics (which ITN usually doesn't do), and I know that the resignation isn't going to happen officially for two weeks, but I would argue that this has been a long-brewing story since last Dec. 2020, has been been covered internationally (eg [4]) and has some other impacts. NY being one of the US's more populous states, and this, alongside the recall election stuff in California for Gov. Newsom, are things that have made world news that would seem to be ITN appropriate. Masem (t) 16:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said New York was a fully sovereign state, just that it is a sovereign state - time for bed? it backs up what I'm saying No it really doesn't, maybe you should read them with this nom in mind. You keep throwing around that New York is a "sovereign state", and the article pretty clearly shows that no subdivisions are. I assume you're saying it's a federated state with sovereignty (you should say "autonomy" and/or specify not nation-state to prevent the confusion). And as the federation list shows, and what my point very obviously has been from the start, is that US states are no more special than hundreds if not thousands of other nations' states using the same system - and others not on that list with a non-federal system - so creating an ITN "exception" would not be an exception in the slightest and would certainly justify nominating any political mishap from, say, the island of Nevis. P.S. I don't know why you're harping on about Scotland/UK when I mentioned so many other examples but you cling to your one line of Westminster-devolution defense ;) Kingsif (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Autonomy and sovereignty are two different things. New York is both autonomous and sovereign. Scotland is autonomous, but not sovereign. Federated_state describes this concept in more detail. But I think we are also arguing semantics -- i.e. there are two different definitions of what it means to be a sovereign state; New York fits one definition, but not the other. Anyway, I'm perfectly fine with events from the Island of Nevis being in ITN. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 22:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just got the weirdest deja vu (of something else, not this thread), but, note about Nevis taken, let's agree that New York isn't an actual sovereign state by UN definitions, that Scotland needs to gain independence just to make this thread funnier, and that if you would support every New York-equivalent-'state' story being posted then I have nothing more to offer. I think it sets an awful standard but if you would stick by it no matter where, you do you. Kingsif (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Local politician leaves because he was a jerk to women. Pretty much not the sort of thing ITN covers, even if it is New York.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Describing the governor of the fourth most populous state in the US as a "local politician" rather downplays the significance of this story. It has received international coverage, as Masem notes - it's on the front page of bbc.co.uk.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Good riddance, but ultimately local/regional news, even if the locale/region is itself important. I would say the same thing about the California recall business, regardless of its outcome.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. He will be replaced by another Democrat, the state legislature hasn't changed, and there is another election in a year which he probably wouldn't have run in. The actual impact here is minimal. Resigning from Congress has more of a ripple effect, and we still don't post those. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose local politician resigns after being a dick. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per longstanding consensus that we eschew sub-national political news in all but the rarest cases. This is a run of the mill scandal that brought down a prominent state governor. Big deal. Are we going to start posting provincial scandals with regularity? If not, then I see no reason for this beyond the usual US centric bias. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question It seems that we routinely reject state political news as being too local/parochial, and not of interest to the world as a whole. But perhaps the fact that it is featured on dewiki means that people around the world do care about what's going on in the US, and we shouldn't have a knee-jerk WP:RGW reaction whenever state news is nominated? -- King of ♥ 17:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe the answer to that (which I personally agree with to an extent) is that we are here to post stuff that's in the news and encyclopedic; that's why we'll likely post the ISS docking when it happens and not the Bezos-Branson flights even though the latter were far more in the news. Cuomo's fall might be in the news right now but is neither completely unprecedented nor will it likely have any lasting impact; furthermore, if we start doing US subnational politics we'll probably have to start doing the subnational politics of other countries like China and India, which would be a mess. Also, this isn't the first time enwiki has chosen to be more selective than our peers; we refused to post a country's censorship of Wikipedia even though frwiki(?) and a couple of other sister projects did.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Relatively minor in the grand scheme of things.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator Masem and Pawnkingthree. Jusdafax (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There could be the argument than unlike other "regional politician does scummy thing" stories, Cuomo has some international prominence. But that only flies if what he is doing is equally remarkable compared to lesser peers. Unless it brings major political downfall, sexual harassment stories are nothingburgers, and I'm pretty sure even then, the downfall is the story. Resigning as NY governor isn't such a downfall IMO. Kingsif (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC) Let's put it this way: when Boris Johnson inevitably resigns due to sex scandal, I will oppose posting that. His replacement as PM will, as ITN/R, probably be posted. So I'd certainly oppose Nicola Sturgeon Omar Prieto doing it. It's basically celebrity gossip. Kingsif (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't think this rises to the level of prominence needed to post a subnational leader's job status. 331dot (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle (despite being subnational this is an abnormally prominent news story), but recommend waiting until the guy actually resigns in two weeks. osunpokeh (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Local news, no international significance Abcmaxx (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abcmaxx International significance is not required, if it were, very little would be posted. 331dot (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

    • There is a whole section of the criteria for "significance", which is generally held to mean international (or at least non-parochial) significance. As for the Tsimanouskaya business, it is internationally significant in that it shows the antics of the Lukashenko regime during the Olympics; although New York is (probably the City alone, definitely the State) more objectively important than the entirety of Belarus, subnational entities are held to a boatload-higher standards if their stories are to be posted at all. Allowing subnational politics on ITN opens the door to potentially thousands of gubernatorial and mayoral elections being nominated, which even if shot down would be a timesink for ITN participants, and it's almost guaranteed that there will be a US/UK bias in such nominations that would exacerbate pre-existing systemic biases.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • So I looked into that section. It lists as an argument which is not helpful "Arguments addressing how many international newspapers/news channels are or are not covering the story". We have a whole "Please do not" above stating "oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country" so in fact it seems that not only is there no "international significance" requirement but it's actively discouraged and oppose !votes based on that criteria should be ignored. In fact, evaluating consensus in that way I'm considering marking this as ready. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • This isn't even affecting the whole United States, it's affecting just a single state, and fairly strong historic precedent has been to not post subnational politics. Since none of this counts as Wikipedia policy or even guideline, !votes cannot generally be discarded and pure numbers matter quite a bit more here than at stuff like AfD; given that the opposes outnumber the supports almost 2:1, no admin in his/her/etc. right mind would post this at the moment. You can mark it if you'd like, just know that the tag will be quickly removed.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Parochial politix. Lacks general significance. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Sexual harassment in the workplace is nothing new. – Sca (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? Many other countries' top-level regional divisions are much more just as autonomous than US states and Canadian provinces. The UK is literally four distinct countries. India, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy and to an extent France and Germany, have state-equivalents that are so different they have their own languages. Australia's are separated by a giant desert. Do you want to get noms every time Sardinia's leadership screws up? Kingsif (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Semantics
  • How does one determine if a sub-national location is "semi-sovereign" versus "unitary local government"? And how are the countries of the UK different (and "less sovereign") than a US state? Chrisclear (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rockstone: This explains so much about your thinking. I've never seen "federated" described as "semi-sovereign". If that's "official" in any capacity, please show me. And no, of course I re-read the federated states page and I can't see it. Kingsif (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "semi-sovereign" apparently is not an official phrase -- I am not sure where I came up with that or if I invented it out of whole cloth.. That being said, Political_divisions_of_the_United_States#States describes the dual sovereignty concept of US states and the federal government, and indeed the Federal Government's powers are heavily limited compared to other federations. This article may be an interesting read on the matter, as this might also. It even extends to our judicial systems -- each State has its own laws and criminal justice system, and decisions in one state's court has no bearing in another state's. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 23:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume (hope?) you're not kid-splaining to me, since my understanding is most people on earth have inadvertently had to learn about the US State vs Federal system thanks to the omnipotence of American culture (and I've been saved more than once by state law), but this is nothing I didn't know and IMO no more "sovereign" than any other federation. (Can I interest you in Scots law, though ;?) Maybe the specifics give more power to the States than in other federations, I don't know every country inside out, but the system is no different than (what it should be but de facto isn't) in Venezuela. Kingsif (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, what? They are not sovereign, that's a simple fact. You can make an argument that they are culturally more distinct than individual states, but you can't argue that they are sovereign. All the powers the countries of the UK have are granted by the Government of the United Kingdom and could be taken away by simple vote in the UK's parliament. The UK is considered a unitary government. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 21:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't saying they're sovereign, I'm saying that 1. US states are definitely not sovereign states, and much further from being so than various European subdivisions. 2. many if not most countries in the world have top-level regional subdivisions that are equivalent to the US and Canada, so your argument made no sense. I deal with Venezuelan topics a lot, which has an identical system to the US, and dear god you do not want nominations in here every time someone screws up there. The point was that if we give more leeway to federated states, it's not exclusive at all. 3. more off-topic, but you asked. In practice, there are many nations whose regional subdivisions are much more distinct from their central government than the US. They are less like nations with subdivisions (which is how I would describe the US), and more like lots of regions that have been stuck together. (Yes, this is especially true in western Europe where borders have been redrawn many times over the last century and so regional identity and politics seem adamant to prevail.) While, in the UK example, London could un-devolve, and Washington cannot do that in the US, California and New York are far more similar than Kent and Orkney. The practical relationship of the UK countries is more like the US with Puerto Rico, because of devolution. And until Alaska competes in the Olympics with Canada, or Florida with Cuba, you can't say the US's federated states are more autonomous than Northern Ireland at least. Kingsif (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. The US states are sovereign states. Not fully sovereign, but they are sovereign. You're wrong regarding US states being "subdivisions" and your understanding is flawed. Each state is politically independent of one another. Kent and Orkney could disappear by act of parliament in the United Kingdom; the US Congress could not get rid of California or New York. If you mean that they are more alike culturally, you are correct, but that doesn't mean they're any less sovereign. Northern Ireland is only autonomous because the United Kingdom gives it that power. The UK Parliament could decide to ignore NI parliament's decisions or destroy their autonomy at any time. That's what makes a political division sovereign or not. But we are getting off-topic. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 22:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2. That's not true at all. See Federation -- about half of the countries of the world are unitary, and half are federated. And also see "The difference between a federation and this kind of unitary state is that in a unitary state the autonomous status of self-governing regions exists by the sufferance of the central government, and may be unilaterally revoked." -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 22:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The US states are sovereign states. Not fully sovereign, but they are sovereign. Since sovereignty is an absolute by definition, part-sovereign is not sovereign. That's the bottom line. A federated state will have sovereignty-you-mean-autonomy within its federation, but is not a sovereign state. That's not true at all. See Federation -- about half of the countries of the world are unitary - I said "many", did you want me to specify "about half"? Fine. Doesn't change the damn point, does it? Back to that: I made a point, and you definition-debated us to off-topic territory instead of accepting it. As you point out, "about half" of the world is made up of subdivisions of equal autonomy to New York. Ping me to support when you nominate all their screw-ups. Kingsif (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In all fairness, the governments of all those countries (especially India) are quite more centralized than the US, which is still probably the most decentralized country on Earth (excepting maybe the UAE or Switzerland) in terms of political power. Marriages and criminal justice, for example, are a federal matter in Canada and IIRC India, but are state issues in the US; devolution in the UK can be unilaterally revoked by Westminster but not federalism by Washington. However, that doesn't apply to culture, which is still fairly homogeneous in the US even with the north-south and blue-red divides.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @John M Wolfson: Shhh. But yeah, my first instinct was to compare with Venezuela which has the exact system of the US, but then I couldn't remember if I'd ever nominated a comparable state-level Venezuela item and didn't want to risk the hypocrisy. I will say when I learned Spain is unitary I was very surprised. Kingsif (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Banedon, #Please do not... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive. You've been told this over and over. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu Why are you telling me this instead of all the other people above who are opposing because it's local news? Citing the "please do not" is also silly becaues it just encourages people to switch to the effectively-equivalent-but-not-complained-about "doesn't see enough global news coverage". Besides, "local news" does not mean it relates to a single country, because in this case it relates to a single state in a country with fifty of them. Banedon (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this hypothetical, how's Giuliani dying? Kingsif (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Peacefully in his sleep surrounded by family members. I was talking about the "autoblurbs" that former POTUSes and UKPMs get, whether that applies to mayors of huge cities; I don't recall whether we blurbed David Dinkins. Or you could imagine he has a glorious suicide on the 9/11 anniversary if that's what you'd prefer.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd only blurb it if it involved flamingos somehow. Kingsif (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose local politics story. I wouldn't support a similar item about the resignation of the Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh, whose population is higher than that of New York, so I don't see a good reason to support this nomination. Chrisclear (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pointed then that you would phrase it that way, as clearly you accept that New York State is substantially more significant than Chhattisgarh. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Naga Thein Hlaing

Article: Naga Thein Hlaing (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC Burmese, RFA Burmese, VOA Burmese
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Htanaungg (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't have an existing article - it was created today. It's perfectly reasonable to question notability in that case (though the lack of a prior article is not itself a reason to question notability). GreatCaesarsGhost 21:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The citing sources in the article are from BBC, VOA, RFA, The Irrawaddy, and The Myanmar Times; I have no idea why you are talking about the notability. It clearly passes GNG. Htanaungg (talk) 05:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A non-Burmese speaker would, upon review the article and its citations, be unable to verify notability for themselves. I don't know that the citing sources are about the target or address him in a non-trivial way. Please note I'm neither opposing nor nominating the article for deletion, merely suggesting it's appropriate to have those discussions here. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You pity me for not speaking Burmese? Uh, okay. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing: Climate Change

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


Article: Climate change (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press, Reuters, The Guardian, The New York Times, BBC, ABC
Credits:
Nominator's comments: In light of the IPCC Report and the numerous disasters worldwide which have been attributed to climate change, I think it is time that we finally put Climate Change into the Ongoing section. For years, the science has been clear: climate change is already happening. Like the COVID-19 pandemic, this is an ongoing crisis. JMonkey2006 (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2021 in climate change? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Say goodbye to all standalone natural disaster blurbs, if and while you guys win, excepting possibly earthquakes. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

August 9

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


RD: Cameron Burrell

Article: Cameron Burrell (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Houston Chronicle
Credits:

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: American athlete. No cause of death given yet. –FlyingAce✈hello 20:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Rand Araskog

Article: Rand Araskog (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): WSJ
Credits:

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: American businessperson. Article is currently a stub and will need significant work before it is ready for homepage / RD. I will get to it. In case someone wants to go for it before me, please feel free to do so. Thanks. Edits done. Article meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC) Ktin (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Close, but needs some copyediting (and perhaps some additional detail if available). Phrases like "He spent the early years building the group's telecom business and developed the System 12 a digital routing and switching solution for telecom companies" seem promotional (what exactly is a "solution for telecom companies"? The link also leads to a disambiguation page). "Dismantling the conglomerate from multiple businesses" is also a little unclear-- were various entities sold? Spun off as separate companies? "Dismantling" seems to parrot from the WSJ obit title without explaining what this actually means. SpencerT•C 13:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed dismantling. Substituted it with divesting, which is it what it really was. Eg. Sheraton Hotels sold to Starwood Hotels and Resorts. Fixed the disambiguation for System 12 - a telephone exchange system. Hopefully not too promotional. If there are any additional edits that are required, I can get to it later tonight.Ktin (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. SpencerT•C 19:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ktin: do you have the link to the Bloomberg ref? Seems broken on the article. - Indefensible (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Will check this evening. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Replaced the Bloomberg link with a different one. For some reason it was pointing to a robots page. Thanks for the catch. Ktin (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better refs are needed for info on his father, ITT's problems with politicians, and his various awards (French Légion d'Honneur, Order of Merit of the Italian Republic, Order of Bernardo O'Higgins, ...) Perhaps these sentences should be removed if better refs are unavailable. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi PFHLai. Many thanks. All of the information on father and ITT international relations are from the WSJ obituary. The awards were pointing to a deadlink which I restored from archive.org Hope that's good. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. Thanks for the new footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Lester Bird

Article: Lester Bird (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [5]
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Former Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda LukeSurl t c 12:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Olivia Podmore

Article: Olivia Podmore (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Stuff, NZ Herald]
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Needs a bit more expansion Joseph2302 (talk) 10:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Bob Jenkins

Article: Bob Jenkins (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): IndyStar
Credits:

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: IndyCar and NASCAR lap-by-lap announcer. There's several things needing citations. rawmustard (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) IPCC say global warming can be stopped

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


Article: IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report says that, if greenhouse gas emissions are halved by 2030 and net zero by 2050, global warming can be stopped. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report says that if immediate action is taken to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and achieve net zero by 2050, climate change can be halted.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change releases the first part of their Sixth Assessment Report, arguing that greenhouse gas emissions must be halved by 2030.
Alternative blurb III: ​ The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change releases the first part of their Sixth Assessment Report, saying that quickly cutting methane emissions would help limit climate change.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change releases the first part of their Sixth Assessment Report, saying that the world is at its hottest for 125 thousand 125,000 years.
Alternative blurb V: ​ The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change releases the first part of their Sixth Assessment Report, saying that the world is at its hottest for 125 thousand 125,000 years, but that we can stop global warming.
Alternative blurb VI: ​ The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report finds that global warming can stop intensifying at x°C if net greenhouse gas emissions are halved by 2030 and reach zero by 2050.
News source(s): BBC, AP, Reuters, dpa, WaPo, LA Times, NYT
Credits:

Article updated
  • Comment. Without actually opposing this, this is just a report detailing a possible outcome if certain things occur; sounds like a lot of WP:CRYSTAL to me. Lots of groups have predictions or projections related to climate change, why should this one be given more weight? 331dot (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
good question - answer is because it is a consensus and has been approved by governments Chidgk1 (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Governments do not have to approve UN reports; this is a consensus of those writing the report. There are many reports and predictions out there. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are right there are many reports - but for climate change the IPCC ones are by far the most important. The governments approve the summary of each report. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot now that alternative blurbs have been suggested which are not projections can you support any of them? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure there are lots of possible blurbs - I just fancied an optimistic one - please suggest alt blurbs - thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's going to happen. WaltCip-(talk) 10:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have not managed to download it yet so I am not sure it does say we can stop climate change. But everyone please suggest alternative blurbs. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality article is a stub. If it's that important to be ITN-worthy, there must be much more that can be said about it. Rather than the one line of text suggested for this blurb. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure a lot more will be added over the course of the week once the IPCC website manages to cope with the load of people downloading the report. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more so have rerated "start class" Chidgk1 (talk) 10:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph2302 Now someone else has improved my version can you support one or more blurbs? If not is there another improvement I can make?Chidgk1 (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd propose an alternative blurb, somewhat like: The IPCC releases its Sixth Assessment Report, urging the nations to halve the greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. --Tone 09:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure any blurb you guys agree is fine by me. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that, or we'll end up with just "The IPCC releases its Sixth Assessment Report" without any details. WaltCip-(talk) 11:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I retract - I too now see the flaw in altblurb2 so do not support that one. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now have 2 paras on report content - hope that is enough to start with - expansion continues. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Much better now, striking my length concerns. Modest Genius talk 15:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alt2 looks good to me, better than my own one. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously she means she does not support altblurb2 as I have now added a new last one. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given the infrequencies of the IPCCs, I would support posting something about it, but I disgree with the blurb's focus on future action since this has been a message of all prior IPCCs for the most part. I would instead focus on actual findings, such as the average global temperature rsing ~1 degC higher in the last decade. --Masem (t) 13:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you find that a bit depressing, whereas actions are more likely to cheer readers? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As others have pointed out, the current blurbs focus on CRYSTAL factors, whereas ITN tends to be grounded in what actually happened. Yes, its more depressing, but its also what is been proven true. Again, I support posting something about IPCC as each iteration has been important. Now, that said, you can work in something like both. "The 6th IPCC reports that the Earth's average global temperature rose 1 degC in the last decade, but asserts climate change can still be halted." --Masem (t) 13:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK have added another alt - that is probably enough from me Chidgk1 (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh maybe passed blurb limit or I did something wrong as not showing up - anyway you can see by source editing.Chidgk1 (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to put it can be stopped on shouldn't it be worded to make clear that you're still stuck at whatever level it eventually stops at (somewhat above the 2050 level) and it'll take thousands of years to reverse back to normal? Unless the carbon already released is removed by something that doesn't seem to be inventable any time soon or you wait a few thousand years for it to go from air to carbonate seafloor rocks. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have probably suggested enough blurbs - feel free to suggest one yourself or support one or moreChidgk1 (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report finds that global warming can stop intensifying at 2 (1.5?)°C if net greenhouse gas emissions are halved by 2030 and reach zero by 2050.? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CRYSTAL cautions against making predictions of the future in articles, it does not prohibit discussing notable predictions so long as they are clearly discussed in context - which the target article here clearly does. --LukeSurl t c 14:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL; also, some (though admittedly not all) supports are RGWy, contrary to our purpose and spirit as encyclopedic.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – On significance. Suggest Alt5: "The Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC declares that Earth is the hottest it's been in 125,000 years." – Sca (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as WP:CRYSTAL with elements of WP:RGW. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This report is in the news, that's not CRYSTAL. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the disagreement is about the report's issuance itself. That's clearly in the news. Its just the focus of the blurb on what is definitely a CRYSTAL prediction, which really doesn't work as ITN items based on past nominations. Just having a blurb that issues a statement of the situation tied to the IPCC is sufficient to avoid this problem and cover the story. The article on the 6th IPCC obviously can talk to this prediction, just that it doesn't work well for ITN blurbs. --Masem (t) 14:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem, when top climate scientists issue a report like this, I don't interpret anything that they say as CRYSTAL. I take it as foreknowledge. Posted hook is fine by me. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree the hook is a good compromise, but the issue is that we still need to be careful on putting too much weight on forward-thinking steps. Someone brought up RGW and that along with the "if" nature of the statement makes any blurb that said , to an extent "if we took steps now, we can stop climate change" as a bit of scaremongering, which is a bit beyond neutral for ITN. However, a neutral assessment was found with the blurb, noting the changes and that actions to prevent further change have been proposed. --Masem (t) 16:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, the data for the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) is released under a CC license, just not the figures themselves - data is located here [6]. Figure SPM.1(b) is the nice telling image of showing the effect of anthropogenic change on temperature and likely could be recreated to use as a figure/image here. --Masem (t) 14:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unbelievable - I can't understand the argument that this is WP:CRYSTAL. These are scientists who have made this their life's work and have come out and said, with all credentials and conviction behind them, that this is what is going to happen. What are you waiting for? Someone to take out a thermometer 10 years from now and say "yep, it got 1.5 degrees hotter"?--WaltCip-(talk) 15:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. The report is what it is. Whether anyone here agrees with it is totally irrelevant. It's majorly in the news and should go into the box pronto. Period. – Sca (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

I agree, this is nothing to do with WP:CRYSTAL. For a start, much of the report is organising and synthesising measurements that have already been made. The modelling work is explicitly clear on the range of possible outcomes and where the uncertainties lie. This isn't speculation about the future, it's the most authoritative statement for 8 years (since the previous IPCC report) on what is currently known about climate change . Modest Genius talk 16:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Czechs have gone for a long one:

Mezivládní panel pro změnu klimatu vydal první část své nové hodnotící zprávy. Uvádí v ní, že lidská činnost prokazatelně způsobila nárůst teploty na Zemi a vedla k menší stabilitě celé planety.

which apparently means:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has issued the first part of its new assessment report, which states that human activity has demonstrably caused an increase in temperature on Earth and destabilised the entire planet. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, but I find the blurb misleading. I read the news differently than what the blurb suggests. We cannot avoid global warming, it's too late for that. What is possible is to avoid truly catastrophic climate change if we are able to cut CO2 emissions as mentioned in the blurb. See here: "The new report also makes clear that the warming we've experienced to date has made changes to many of our planetary support systems that are irreversible on timescales of centuries to millennia. The oceans will continue to warm and become more acidic. Mountain and polar glaciers will continue melting for decades or centuries. "The consequences will continue to get worse for every bit of warming," said Prof Hawkins. "And for many of these consequences, there's no going back."" So, it's like the case of a patient who ignored doctor's advice to stay healthy for too long and now has to undergo quite intrusive medical procedures just to save his life. So, the best prognosis for the patient assuming successful medical treatment is that at he'll survive but in a poorer health condition. Count Iblis (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support blurb, Alternative blurb or Alternative blurb II--PJ Geest (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Posted There appears to be strong consensus for posting this; all of the proposed blurbs, however, seemed rather unencyclopedic for the Main page so I decided to go with one that was more generic, neutral, and hopefully not placing any undue weight on certain sections/findings.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @John M Wolfson: Good call. I'm happy with the posted blurb. Modest Genius talk 16:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel the blurb somewhat misrepresents the report, as this report has been very clear in not framing climate change as a future event but as a current event. We can simplify as "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change releases the first part of its Sixth Assessment Report, detailing the state of knowledge of climate change and describing its effects." FemkeMilene (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting comment – The blurb strikes me as rather complex. Suggest we shorten and simplify, perhaps as:
"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change releases the first part of its Sixth Assessment Report, detailing the state of climate change and describing its possible future effects."
Sca (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alternative blurb IV, with a typo correction (change "for" to "in"). Alternative II implies that the IPCC is an advocacy organization. Alternative III gives undue weight to methane rather than carbon dioxide. The main blurb and Alternative I say that climate change can be stopped, which is technically correct but probably misleading for the general reader since we are definitely going to get at another approximately .4 degrees of warming. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think blurb IV is better than the currently posted one about possible future effects / the proposed simplification(s). FemkeMilene (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the current blurb is fine as is, which is why I refused to post any of the originally-propsed blurbs. Alt IV gives undue weight to a specific finding and is borderline alarmist.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the current blurb is mostly fine and I do understand that other blurbs may have been unduely highlighting some of the findings. This is sort of what the current blurb does too, by only highlighting possible future effect rather than current effects and known future effects. Why not simplify to 'effects'? FemkeMilene (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh sorry, I didn't notice that something had already been posted. The current blurb looks great, better than Alt IV. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting oppose The complete lack of agreement on what blurb should be used demonstrates the reason why this shouldn't be blurbed. A semi-regular report was released. It doesn't tell us anything new, and doesn't suggest anything new that will happen in the future. For one brief glorious moment, a bunch of academics got a boost to their publication stats. Everyone else will see what they want to see for a day, and move on. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have you noticed whether it's in the NEWS?Sca (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IPCC reports are rare, the top of the field on climate reports and state of the art, they have to be posted, even if no one can agree on a blurb and it has to default to "the report was released". Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So the blurb is essentially a panel on climate change releases a report on climate change. Great work everyone. Stephen 22:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the final result was a very milquetoast blurb. I'm not very pleased with it. We could have gone with a blurb that succinctly summarized the report and its findings, and that would have been damn well interesting for readers. But Wikipedia is allergic to such bold machinations in the fear that it may fly in the face of WP:NPOV, WP:RGW, WP:NOTADVOCACY, etc.. So we're left with something that basically leaves the average reader questioning what the heck is newsworthy about some stuffy folks in labcoats writing a report about the weather. WaltCip-(talk) 22:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You're damn right, and especially with such a controversial/politically fraught topic I highly doubt anything else would have flown, certainly none of seven(!) originally proposed.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Only controversial in my country full of flat Earthers, Fauci haters, graphene oxide/microscopic tracking chip COVID vaccineists, moon hoaxers, 9/11 truthers, Jewish space lasers and other conspiracy theorists. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget Canadian brainwave meddling, "we" invented Global Research (the website, not the discipline or way of life). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of climate change is not (genuinely) controversial, but nor was it revealed by the report. It is policy recommendations and specific numbers that become inherently political, and thus ultimately toxic and controversial. Without any comments on the recommendations themselves, stuff like "global warming can be stopped if we cut emissions X percent by year Y" has absolutely no place on the front page of the world's greatest encyclopedia.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting oppose WP:CRYSTAL . Given how politically engaged climate science has become in the West, I wouldn't trust this report either. 212.74.201.233 (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your last three !votes on ITN have all been WP:NOTFORUM violations. Stop it. WaltCip-(talk) 00:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I mean, the blurb just says the report was published, that's already happened. Your crystal ball work in reverse? On to the reason: wow, you have no idea what you're on about, do you? If this particular group of scientists can't be trusted then the moon could be made of cheese. There's skepticism and then there's choosing to push anything that goes against status quo, and you're doing the latter: look at the sources about news rather than blanket oppose because you personally don't like the subject the news deals with. Kingsif (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Any further discussion on "the matter" should go to the Ongoing proposal. - That's somewhat disingenuous considering that the Ongoing proposal has now been closed as WP:SNOW.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.

For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents: