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.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually - a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
The gap between Italy and Germany's 10 year bond yields increases by 200.2 basis points. Italy comes under intensifying pressure to sell off the public assets. (Reuters)
At least 14 people are killed and 100 others are missing after a cloudburst causes severe flooding in Sikkim, India. (CNN)
The Lhonak Lake bursts its banks, causing major flooding and impacting 22,000 people. It its the worst such disaster in the region in over 50 years. (Reuters)
Large parts of the Teesta Dam have been washed away, with multiple large bridges also being destroyed. (NOS)
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.
Strong oppose this Wiki article only has one sentence, meaning that it is insufficient article size for ITN, and this article may be a future candidate for deletion. 4me689 (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on the nom other than the article quality has a long way to go. On a wider note, all(?) the reporting on this appears to trace back to the Daily Mail, which according to WP:RSP has a "reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication". Ed[talk][OMT]21:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support Article is good enough, and the unusual circumstances of plunging 50 feet onto power lines killing over twenty people should allay any NOTNEWS concerns.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support ALT2 Article is in good shape and circumstances are considerably more unique than the average bus crash. TheKip17:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not wish to express any thoughts on notability yet, but I have two concerns regarding alt2. Firstly, plunge is linked to Bus plunge an article about the journalistic practice of reporting bus plunges. That seems like a weird choice, especially since the article itself says some believe that such reports aren't about newsworthiness but to fill space. It's an interesting choice to include that on an ITN blurb, since ITNs notability/significance standard is supposedly higher than the news. Secondly, why is "killed" the bold link? Shouldn't it be "when a bus plunges", as that's the event? It's common practice, for example the bottom blurb on ITN right now has "a suicide bombing" bold linked, not "killed", and it seems to comply more with MOS:LINKCLARITY. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror17:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's especially strange for us to link to bus plunge, an article about newspaper phrasing, when it's Wikipedia's decision to phrase the blurb in this way. I've removed the link, but left the rest alone in case others would like to weigh in. Ed[talk][OMT]18:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Notability of the incident is derived from the relative young age of the suspect and the shooting's location in one of the most popular malls in Thailand, not so much its death toll per se. JaventheAldericky (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Please do not...Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive." PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that the picture can be changed to something else since this picture does not depict an accurate image of the shooting. Also, dont put a picture of the shooter. He is a minor. Ilantheeditor (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Knew this nom was coming. It’s historically significant, but domestic enough that it doesn’t have the reach to be blurbed. I don’t believe we posted his election as Speaker either. TheKip21:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
His non-elections were news in Europe. His eventual election was not. In contrast, news are going to be full of his ousting today, and not just in Europe. Renerpho (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Domestic political drama, and its only a speakership, not a position of leadership of the country. Dont think any other non confidence vote for the speaker of a legislative body would even be considered here. ✨ 4 🧚♂amKING21:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not unusual for a lot countries. If the presidency was vacated and the speaker assumed power, that would be a completely different story, with different considerations. (and qualify for ITN/R even). ✨ 4 🧚♂amKING13:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Support Alternative Blurb 1 Much more notable than his election back in January. If I recall correctly, this has never happened before. This is notable, and relevant. BigCheese76 (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The removal of the leader of a legislative body of a UN security council member, a first for that country, isn't important? What is important enough? 331dot (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The removal of the President of the United States would be important enough. We don't post domestic squabbles here. If this were any other country, it wouldn't even be considered. If it's not the leader of a nation, I won't consider posting it. Noah, AATalk21:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but we should be posting good articles about events that are heavily in the news, since this is in the news. Please see "please do not" above. Ukraine might have a strong interest in their being a speaker. 331dot (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While the Speaker plays an important role in US politics that makes the American Speaker different from the Speakers of other countries, the Speaker doesn’t have the executive role that a Prime Minister has. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the same way that the election of the speaker of the British HoC or the resignation of the president of the French National Assembly isn't important enough. Please. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Speaker of the HOC is non partisan, unlike the Speaker of the US House which directs legislation. And, we can't consider what isn't nominated. 331dot (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we can use examples to support our arguments. Where is the prohibition?
The Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives is not a Head of Government or Head of State, and does not assume diplomatic functions. No matter how much of a director of the legislative process he may be (I guess it is good to advise you to know how it works in other countries). _-_Alsor (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - seems unremarkable - even if it's rare in that nation. We (rightfully) refused the ouster of the Canadian speaker of the house last week - even though it was under much more unusual and controversial circumstances! And I doubt we'll see a nomination for today's election of Canada's new speaker - despite the historic first of being the first black speaker! I'm not sure it's even the most significant event to occur in the USA Congress in the last week! Nfitz (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how that's relevant - it's more about the significance of the event and the news coverage. I don't think Nazis were involved in McCarthy's ouster. Nfitz (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG support. Has received international breaking-news coverage, and is a significant event. Among the top news of the day. Perhaps a better blurb should be found though. SecretName101 (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Elisecars727 It is not required that an event be international news to be posted. As said above, "Please do not Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive." 331dot (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support because this is a first in history, and also has international impacts (will delay further US aid to Ukraine). I probably wouldn't support if this wasn't a first. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak supportSupport Yes, this is domestic politics, but it is true that it made news internationally. Renerpho (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC) Removing the weak qualifier. I fully support, on the same grounds as I gave earlier, and per Nomader's and Tamzin's votes below. Renerpho (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The US system of government is explicitly designed so that power is not concentrated in one person – not even the President. The Speaker is quite significant in passing budgets, as seen recently, and now the recent temporary deal is unlikely to hold. There will then be further brinkmanship and financial instability which will be significant because of the size of the US. As this hasn't happened before, we're in interesting times. But the blurb should be like the alt in specifying that this is the US speaker, as many readers won't already be familiar with the details. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the first time in U.S. history this has happened. Analogies to other countries that routinely shake up leadership are inapt because the U.S. political system functions very differently. Oppose votes on the grounds that this is a national issue should be discounted per ITNCDONT #2. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose domestic politics and he can return according CNN. Not important enough for world news as he is not head of state or government. Shadow4dark (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it might not but there is no constitutional crisis and he might return. We will repost this anyway if they come with a successor. Shadow4dark (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose part of the political circus the House has been. Also understanding that we are to try to combat external systematic bias by understanding that the press are going crazy over this but it presently has little ramifications in how this country is governed. --Masem (t) 21:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no Speaker, the House cannot pass legislation to keep the government open past mid November, and the government not operating is certainly significant. 331dot (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to arguments with counterarguments in a civil manner is hardly bludgeoning. It is debatable as to if the temporary speaker can move legislation. Is this ITN, or isn't it? 331dot (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether or not the comments are civil. Responding to nearly every oppose comment in a discussion to contradict them is bludgeoning. In Wikipedia terms, bludgeoning is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. It is undesirable and considered a form of disruptive editing.Noah, AATalk22:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to "contradict", I'm trying to discuss and persuade, as is everyone here. I've already conceded one of your points above as "fair enough". If that's "bludgeoning", then we all are doing it. If you would like to discuss this further with me, please use my talk page. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ten comments in 35 minutes, may indeed be excessive User:331dot. I'm confused though - if the Speaker is at home with the flu for a week ... does the entire House come to a halt? Surely not. Nfitz (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The office isnt vacant then, there is an acting speaker. Right now the only business the House can consider is who to elect speaker. nableezy - 03:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By my count, 331dot has responded to five out of nine opposes. Not what I would call "responding to nearly every oppose comment", nor "contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own", nor bludgeoning, nor excessive. ---Sluzzelintalk22:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a possibility this mess will lead to another gov't shutdown in 45 days, but anything outside of "McCarthy outed" is all speculation, even by the media. The only other thing that the media are stamping on in a non-opinionated matter is this being the first time that has happened -- however, superlatives like this, particularly when only limited to one chamber of one country's governing body, do not make for good ITN stories.
The media is riled up on this showing the GOP as the clown show they have been all term, but that's all opinion and which does not make for good ITN coverage. Masem (t) 23:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this were any other country, people would be supporting and then replying to oppose votes saying "you only opposed because this isn't in America". We can keep speculating like this, or alternatively, we could stop playing the "you're just biased" game every time a new ITN blurb comes up. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's still the closest thing to a Prime Minister the US has. As you presumably know, in a Parliamentary system, the Prime Minister is the head of both the Legislature and the Executive. In a Presidential system like in the US, the President is the head of the Executive. The Speaker is the head of the Legislature, so in that respect, the speaker basically has the same legislative powers as the Prime Minister does. In addition, the Speaker is chosen from the members of the House, again, similar to how a Prime Minister is chosen. -- RockstoneSend me a message!18:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for this claim? Democrats won't help McCarthy, and what will persuade the rebels to change their mind? 331dot (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obligatory Canadian oppose because of (insert whining about Americentrism). In all seriousness, this is big news, but is it really that important outside of the US? If it leads to a shutdown, I'd be tempted to support, but in the meantime, let's wait a while. LilianaUwU(talk / contributions)22:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We would likely post a US government shutdown(IIRC we posted the last one) but we certainly wouldn't post it as "30 days ago Kevin McCarthy was tossed out of the Speaker's chair which led to this government shutdown". 331dot (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeToo many Support arguments of the form "IF this isn't resolved quickly, we WILL have a crisis." That means this event in itself isn't huge for the country, yet. It is huge for the Republican Party, but I don't think one party's problems in any country should make it here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Struggling to see the impact here. He was only Speaker for nine months, and seemed to spend most of that time just trying to hold on to his job. The House will elect another Speaker in due course. Yes it may be a "first", but it's not going to actually affect anyone in the way a government shutdown would. It is, ultimately, internal political squabbling. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Three of the four proposed blurbs say "ousted". That's both slangish, and unclear. Might look good in tabloid headlines, but we should do better. Ousted how far? From the job, the House, the party, the country, Washington...? Is ousting a physical action, such as defenestration? (It sounds a bit like it?) HiLo48 (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per 331dot. Interesting story with global coverage, historic occurrence in U.S. politics with some international ramifications. Solid prose article. Davey2116 (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - meets I and II of WP:ITNPURPOSE; readers are certainly looking for this item now, and it will intrigue those who are perhaps less engaged in U.S politics but will no doubt still interest them. Historic moment as well. — Knightoftheswords23:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, we use ITNCRIT to decide what items to display in the box. ITNCRIT distills ITNPURPOSE into quantitative and qualitative aspects to consider. Masem (t) 00:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - might I also add, I think we should really do away with "we shouldn't post because I believe we wouldn't post if it happened in x instead of y!" arguments. They're essentially the discussion equivalent of WP:CRYSTAL; being based on pure speculation, and have accomplished nothing aside from further narrowing the pool of select few topics that even have a chance of getting posted on here. — Knightoftheswords23:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support now that McCarthy has announced he is no longer seeking the Speakership ([3]) -- he's just out completely. Per WP:ITNPURPOSE, it clearly is something that people are searching for now and would showcase the quality of our article on the matter. I'd also argue to Hurricane Noah's point on the Acting Speaker -- they aren't actually... doing anything. They will do nothing until they vote on who the new Speaker is, basically the US government stops functioning completely and will have a series of votes now. Nomader (talk) 00:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a follow-up to a Comment I made earlier, a question from a non-American unfamiliar with the details of US political machinations - What's he out of? The job of Speaker, the Republican Party, the House (does that need a capital?), Washington? My earlier concern was about three of the four proposed blurbs saying "ousted". Huh? We are global. Let's please be clearer. HiLo48 (talk) 02:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Next question. By whom? And so what? What's it mean? What happens next? Just repeating headlines intended for internal US consumption is not good enough for this global encyclopedia. HiLo48 (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, and I could see an argument that we should wait until a new Speaker is elected before posting this as well -- I prefer the third Alt version here which I think is the clearest and most concise summation of the situation as it stands now.
A faction of Republicans joined Democrats in voting out the Speaker, highlighting intra-party conflict that has honestly never happened before in the U.S. The House needs a Speaker to operate. Without one, it can only vote on "Who should be Speaker", preventing any legislation passage at all, including funding for Ukraine and other internationally-important notes. I'd liken it to the 2010 Australian Labor Party leadership spill in Australia or the 1990 Conservative Party leadership election in the UK -- except... this has never happened before in the American system, so it's just kind of chaos right now. It's also not the leader of the country, but in the American system, the Speaker is a critical piece to allowing government to function so I'd argue this should still be included. Just what a mess. Nomader (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see a number of comments saying it's "local," but by that definition we shouldn't consider the change of Prime Ministers or Kings either; this is counter-productive, and is just an example of a lot of Wikipedians forgetting the 2nd "Please do not" guideline. Just because McCarthy wasn't Speaker of the House for the entire world doesn't make it "too local." And while not being the sole head of government (contrast to the analogous position of PM in the world's many Westminster-styled parliamentary systems) is a difference, that actually only really applies to the rational for the change in Speakership to not be ITN/R.
In short, there's a lot of folk forgetting that we're not debating whether all Speakership changes are ITN/R, but rather whether this particular event is "newsworthy," as well as having encyclopediac significance. These two parts are pretty self-evident: we have loads of evidence of heavy reporting of this event all over the world, and its significance is already established given this event Already has a substantial article.
It's pretty hard to question that this whole event cycle (of replacing Kevin McCarthy as speaker) is easily on the sort of event that we post: it is highly unusual. And because the ouster itself is the unusual part, that's what'd be posted, not the eventual election of a replacement. Nottheking (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support As plenty of other domestic political events across the world have been featured in the news and this is a first time in the United States congress, at least recently, it's an event worth a blurb in my opinion. --AXEdits (talk) 00:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per 331dot, Nomader, and others. If this becomes a routine occurrence in the House, then sure, we shouldn't post it. For now, it is an unprecedented event that has resulted in the removal of the #3 government figure in the world's superpower. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trump's not going to be elected Speaker: a few Republicans might vote for him, much like how they did during the January elections, but it's just political grandstanding. -- Carnildo (talk) 21:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose internal politics. If the head of state / head of government is affected then sure, for everyone else I oppose regardless of what country it is. Banedon (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "only head of state/government" is for ITN/R. We're not discussing whether all US Speaker changes are ITN/R, (this isn't even the page to discuss that!) but whether this particular event is noteworthy. And to call it "internal politics" is to ignore #2 of WP:ITNCDONT. - Nottheking (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The office of the Speaker of the House has existed continuously since April 1, 1789, and the speaker is second in the line of succession to the US presidency. The speakership is an exceptionally powerful office, and this is the first time in 234 years that a speaker has lost his job through a vote of the House of Representatives. This is an unprecedented development in US politics, and has an immediate impact on military assistance to Ukraine. Cullen328 (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support this one as I did the similar event in January. The house speaker has never been removed before, and is a crucial role in the government — the House of Representatives has a lot of power over diplomacy, and a lot of the dispute stems from the funding of Ukraine; it is by no means solely internal politics. I agree with Rockstone35, many may be misconstruing the role of the Speaker of the House as the US does not use a Westminster system. Unknown-Tree (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support (altblurb 3) - While I came here with the intent to oppose this to avoid Americentric bias, particularly considering we did not post Anthony Rota's resignation in Canada, it does appear that this is making pretty big news elsewhere, or at least across the pond where it is the top story for the BBC [4] and The Telegraph [5]. I think a lot of the opposition here is ignoring WP:ITNCDONT: Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. And while I understand and support the idea that we should avoid ITN being solely or heavily America-centric, I wouldn't want to overcorrect in the other direction and not post something historic in the U.S. in the name of WP:GLOBAL. estar8806 (talk) ★01:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Altblurb3 at least avoids the tabloid word "ousted", using "removed" instead. That's good. But this non-American is still confused. Who removed him? Really? The article says the House did, but I'm getting the impression that his party has turned against him. Is that what's really happened here? If that's case, THAT is surely the big news here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
8 Republican members of the House who were unhappy w/McCarthy voted w/the Democrats to oust McCarthy. 1 of the Republicans (Matt Gaetz) made the initial motion to vacate. B/c of the slim Republican majority, there were enough votes to remove McCarthy. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Being unprecedented does not make an event more impactful. If we don't post speaker elections, I don't see the point of posting a removal. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing saying we don't post speaker elections, we just haven't, in the past, because they're not notable enough for here. A speaker gets elected every two years in the US House. This is the only time a Speaker has been removed. -- RockstoneSend me a message!01:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The question in my mind is if a change in the Speaker was not considered notable enough to post in the past, why now. DYK is a great place for interesting factoids. The most important thing here is the Speaker has changed, and it appears consensus is to not post such changes. And with all due respect you did compare the Speaker to a PM above, which simply does not follow. Yes, this hinders the functioning of the government, but the Speaker is hardly the most powerful person in US politics, not by a mile. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The most important thing here is the Speaker has changed -- That is not my impression, and it doesn't seem to be what's reported in the news. The most interesting thing is the fact they have been removed, not that they have changed. Renerpho (talk) 03:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, wait ~ I agree with Estar8806, but I believe we should wait until a new speaker is voted in - however long that takes - and include both McCarthy's ousting and the newly elected speaker in the blurb, so that ITN isn't filled up with two separate blurbs discussing McCarthy's ousting and the election of his successor a few weeks later; if this blurb is posted now, I'm sure ITN will have another nomination for the newly elected US speaker whenever that happens, and that would certainly seem a little over Americentric. Alternatively, we could post the blurb now and change it when a new speaker is chosen, but it depends on whether McCarthy's ousting or a newly chosen Speaker of the House seem like more ITN-worthy blurbs. If McCarthy's ousting seems more covered among news sites, then I agree the blurb should be posted now. Daneellis11402:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.216.43.157 (talk) [reply]
Oppose. Speakership of a house, not that significant, even if a first for that country. We can't post speakership changes for all countries. Posting just this one only adds to the systemic bias. Usedtobecool☎️02:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the US Speaker of the House is significantly more powerful than the Speaker of the House within a Parliamentary system. Not posting this would indicate systemic bias against the US (which is a serious problem here). Just because it's from the US doesn't mean it's 'not' newsworthy. -- RockstoneSend me a message!03:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However more powerful they are, they are still just the Speaker, working within the basic confines of the role, that is largely universal. If anything the post mid-term development in the US House show, it is that. I can not take any claims implying the US is the one suffering from bias anywhere seriously, unless accompanied by overwhelming evidence. Usedtobecool☎️03:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
they are still just the Speaker, working within the basic confines of the role, that is largely universal. Not at all. In Westminster countries, the Speaker is a more procedural office. The Speaker of the U.S. House has a near-unchecked pocket-veto (in the colloquial sense) over all legislation in the United States, in that they can prevent it from ever coming to a vote, and have enormous power to shape what legislation does come to a vote. They are either the second- or third-most powerful person in the U.S. government, depending on what responsibilities a given vice president has. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is why I say that the Speaker is the closest thing to a Prime Minister the US has. Notwithstanding alsor's incorrect insistence that that's not the case, the Speaker is the most powerful member of Congress, and is the leader of the legislature. It's hard to make direct comparisons between the Presidential and Westminster systems, but the Speaker in the US has the legislative power of a prime minister, even if not the executive power (which falls to the President and his cabinet). -- RockstoneSend me a message!05:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Speaker of the House is not even 'remotely' the same between the USA and Westminster-style Parliametnary systems. The better parallel with the latter is... the Prime Minister. In both cases their powers, the rules for their selection, etc. 'are more or less identical'. (down to the fact that while each lower chamber can elect anyone they wish for their respective posts, the winner is almost always just the leader of the majority/plurality party of the chamber)
So saying it's "not significant" would be the same as saying that the oust of Liz Truss wasn't significant, as another case of a party's leader being forced out after a short, turbulent premiership due to losing the support of their own party. As a reminder, no election of the UK House of Commons was held, with only an internal party leadership vote that elected Rishi Sunak to succeed her. And at the time... There was overwhelming support with nearly no one opposing posting it.
And this was NOT ITN/R, because that was instead applied to Rishi Sunak's election four days later. Both events got posted as their own blurbs. - Nottheking (talk) 05:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The difference of the American system is that you elect the executive and the legislature separately, so that the two branches can in theory be truly independent of each other. That extra power that occasionally comes from it, lies in the House, not its Speaker. The Speaker may appear to do big things when proxying for the majority; that does not mean they did said big things with the power inherent to them. To wit, the Speaker prevents a bill from reaching the floor not because they themselves have the power to decide which bill gets a vote and which does not, but because they, by virtue of being Speaker, have the majority behind them, and can use that majority to fail said bill on the floor anyway. If they don't have the majority support in blocking the bill, the majority can simply vote them out and elect a Speaker who will put the bill to a vote. The Speakers in other countries have enormous power in shaping and influencing what gets done too, by the simple fact that, in almost all cases, an influential member of the Party and the House is who gets elected Speaker in the first place.
As for the comparison with the prime minister, as you all acknowledge, the PM has executive powers. The Speaker does not. So, yeah, the Speaker is like the prime minister except for lacking any executive powers and just staying in the House, in other words the Speaker is like the Speaker, same as everywhere else. Usedtobecool☎️07:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, in my world, "local politics" covers the mayor, the city council, county supervisors and perhaps state legislators and the like, and issues within a relatively small geographic area. . The United States is widely considered the "world's sole superpower", and the "locale" it encompasses stretches from Nome, Alaska to Key West, Florida, a distance of 7,252 kilometers, and from Bangor, Maine to Kauii, Hawaii, a distance of 8,350 kilometers. The US has a population of over 330 million people. This is not a local matter. Cullen328 (talk) 04:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If we are to consider that this position is analogous to the one of prime minister/second-in-command (actually third here?) in other presidential systems, the argument goes that we don't post those here at ITN (neither elections, including this, nor changes/drama thereof) and would be setting a bad precedent for a flood of such noms especially to do so based on internal party squabbles. Though further significance to this might be added if it does have immediate effective impact but so far all that has been posited is basically CRYSTALBALLing. Gotitbro (talk) 03:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I currently count 22x support, 20x oppose, and 2x wait, and no indication that this is leaning in either direction. Is there any chance we will reach a consensus, given how controversial this topic seems to be? Renerpho (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote. Hopefully the closing admin will take into account the significant number of opposes that are based either on misstatements of policy or misunderstandings of how the U.S. system of government works. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - In addition to being unprecedented, it’s being reported as a sign of fundamental instability in the party controlling one of the chambers of the legislative branch of government, and is already causing paralysis of that body’s functions. It’s equivalent to a mass protest event that disrupts a country’s governmental functioning or the removal of a head of government given that the U.S. government is not unitary and depends on the basic functioning of each constitutional institution to act. Also, I don’t think we should wait until McCarthy’s successor is chosen, because that could be weeks or months away. SS451 (talk) 03:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - This event is notable and has received front-page attention even from non US media, such as the BBC and CBC News. To state that it is "domestic" neglects the fact that almost all news is "domestic" in some sense. It isn't notable just because the guy left, but because he was ousted in a historic first, and the instability that it indicates for Congress. Let's not reduce this down to just "some guy got fired from his job." It's the most powerful person in the United States legislature losing their job to significant in-fighting in their own party.aaronneallucas (talk) 04:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Really, the "significant in-fighting in their own party" is the major news here. Do we normally post political party in-fighting? HiLo48 (talk) 04:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Party infighting is playing a role, but it's hardly the major news, considering it has been going on for years. There is a lot more to this news item. Renerpho (talk) 04:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re blurb Based on some feedback this non-American is getting and some clarity I am finally seeing, I propose Alternative blurb IV: In the United States, Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy is removed from office after eight rebel Republican members voted against him. This is the real issue here. Someone else will be in the Speaker's position in no time. It's not a constitutional crisis for the US. But the Republican Party is in a bit of a mess. HiLo48 (talk) 04:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support This is unprecedented and while it is for now local to the US government, the speakership is a huge deal here and this could have massive ramifications especially since US is playing a big role in the support of Ukraine. He's declined to run again as well, this might be local news but it is MASSIVE local news and I think it warrants posting. Jbvann0504:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Saying this will have huge ramifications is speculation, and ultimately this is just a squabble that doesn't involve the head of the executive and I can't imagine we'd even consider such a posting for any other country. — Amakuru (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stats Our readership naturally thinks this is a big deal and isn't waiting for ITN's permission. It's not just Kevin McCarthy that they are reading to understand the issue. The related topics include:
As McCarthy has said he won't stand again, attention will shift to the Speaker pro-tem, the election of another Speaker and the pending shutdown. Perhaps there's an umbrella topic which would be suitable for Ongoing? Andrew🐉(talk) 09:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a factor for gauging reader interest but is really not a basis to judge ITN suitability (see for e.g. WP:POPULARPAGE). A comparision can be made with WP:TOP25 to see how that rarely corresponds with ITN. Gotitbro (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be the only metric we go off of, but if a current events item is getting a significant amount of readership then I believe that increases notability. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's honestly bordering on disruptive at this point, as he continues to do so despite being repeatedly warned otherwise. TheKip16:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I Oppose posting this on the basis that we dont normally post removals, and I'm not sure this is significant enough. Would definitely support posting the new speaker once they are sworn in as speaker (or however they are officially made speaker). QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question The proposed blurb states this is the first removal of a speaker in the US (with supports also based on that aspect) but the article adds a qualifier that this is the first time it has happened during a Congressional session. I gather that the speaker has been removed before then just not through this procedure? Gotitbro (talk) 10:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I agree with 331dot. While Kevin McCarthy is not the leader of the world or the country, his removal as speaker of the House of Representatives is getting much news coverage and it's the first kind of thing to happen in the U.S. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 (☁＝☁＝✈) 13:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is unprecedented, and while an argument can be made as to how really notable it is, it's the first time this has ever happened and it's also getting a ton of news coverage. Important enough for ITN, even. River10000 (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted - I'm seeing a weak consensus above to post. There are a few more supporters than opposers, and ITN's guidelines call for giving less weight to people who oppose because an event is happening in a single country. In addition, I gave less weight to opposes based on "he can return" given the later news that he will not be. Ed[talk][OMT]14:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support per everything above. Trying to counter systemic bias does not mean killing all US stories, IMO these should be treated the same as European countries Aaron Liu (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was there any consensus for this current blurb? The current blurb reads as if McCarthy was removed from his position as a Representative, which is not the case. He was only removed as speaker. Jbvann0518:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jbvann05: The specific decision on what blurb to use is often left to the posting admin, as most people don't support/oppose specific wordings. In this case, there were a few people that specifically supported alt3, so I posted a slightly shortened version. I have no objections to any changes, but the process for that is WP:ERRORS. Ed[talk][OMT]18:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support. That it's front page news across the US should really be enough to demonstrate significance, but let's put that aside. While it's not front page news everywhere in the world, it is in enough countries to demonstrate global significance (e.g. Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Ireland, Spain), which makes sense, because Speaker of the House is the #3 leader in the US (behind Pres and VP), and it's the first time in history the Speaker has been ousted. Glad to see this was reopened and posted. Levivich (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: I noticed this as the top story on the BBC and it's gotten worldwide coverage as there seems to be a panic in Paris. The 2024 Olympics seems to be a particular factor so I'm not sure which the best article is and haven't found an update yet. The NYT associates it with the Paris Fashion Week so the search continues... Andrew🐉(talk) 17:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The fact that Paris is hosting the Olympics in 2024 does not make a bedbug outbreak more notable. I am finding it difficult to take this nomination seriously. But assuming it is genuine, oppose due to lack of encyclopedic value. Chrisclear (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per above. Seems like a non-story anyways, only really gaining traction because the French government is paranoid about something derailing the 2024 Olympics PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The news cycle is not that slow that we start posting one of the most common health issues which adds nothing to it (CRYSTALLBALL as for any effect on the Olympics). Does not appear to be a convincing nomination either. Gotitbro (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose, WTF was this person thinking when nominating this, this is so small and so absurd to nominate, if this happens in any other city that was not hosting or soon to be hosting an Olympic games, no one would attempt and/or even think to nominate this, it is absolutely not newsworthy. 4me689 (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Agostini's article is new and needs expansion (and an image). Agostini and Krausz each have an unsourced paragraph. L'Huillier seems OK. In all articles, the Nobel win is mentioned, but needs more context and sourcing. After a bit of work on the articles, this should be postable (but I don't have the time right now). Sandstein 10:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bothj Agostini's and L'Huiller's articles need "Research focus" or a similarly titled section to explain the body of their work, beyond what they were just awarded for. Krauzs' needs to be updated with Honors and Awards in the body as to call out, at least, the Nobel. And as noted, Agostini's is ways away from being ready, as it only has one secondary source so far. --Masem (t) 12:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Articles are brief and merit expansion and copyediting, but appear broadly sourced and are updated with the prize. Sandstein 10:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Karikó's has one "better source needed" tag and one statement summarizing the research that should sourced, but both articles are otherwise good. --Masem (t) 12:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. Can anyone capable, attempt at creating a composite of image of the two winners? Masem indicated that they are busy off-wiki. Ktin (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Since no other admin seems to be around, I've taken the unusual step of posting my own nomination, given the unanimous support. Sandstein 17:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
I would have opposed too, because this isn't ITN material, but the claim about the film music makes perfect sense to me. This may have been her signature song. Renerpho (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
There are between 50 and 55 sports ITN/Rs per year. That's one per week (and not all of those get posted because they're not up to quality standards). I don't think that's overkill. What you do get is clustering of events at certain times (as currently - the same thing happens around May/June time) which makes it appear that there are far more. Black Kite (talk)10:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs much more prose, mostly tables. It'd be great to see a speedway article on the front page, but the quality is nowhere near good enough. --Bcp67 (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
He could have put it in a more respectful way, but as unfortunate as it is, events like these are relatively routine. ITN should not be a tragic disaster ticker. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing against posting, but nightclub fires are not particularly rare occurrences, owning to a combination of generally poor building codes, pyrotechnics, overcrowding, etc. Curbon7 (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An answer to "ITN should not be a tragic disaster ticker" could be that we need to nominate and post a wider variety of content more often. Ed[talk][OMT]02:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When is the last time a nightclub fire with tragic consequences in a health and safety conscious country like Spain occurred? Abcmaxx (talk) 07:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Wikipedia is not for news coverage, it's for encyclopedic coverage. Likewise, ITN is not for news stories, it's for encyclopedic subjects that happen to be in the news. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of those were former nightclub fires, to be fair. Whole other ballgame. Still, bit extraordinary how it was the third time for Kitty's (Scotland) this year. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose and wait. Protests, just because they are protests, are not always ITN-worthy. For now, there is nothing to suggest that they will have a noticeable transcendence and impact.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: A plurality of votes does not mean much here as everything rests on coalition building with the smallest parties. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As there is no majority winner, they will have to form a coalition, which will take time. We do usually mention which party won the plurality in the blurb. In any case, a section on the aftermath is needed in the article. --Tone08:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support but Oppose Blurb 1 The term hung parliament is mostly used in the UK, not in countries like Slovakia where a single party almost never wins an outright majority. In fact, searching for Slovakia + hung parliament on Google News shows only 2 results, both from the UK. Johndavies837 (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality, needs more content on the campaigns and the aftermath. The "issues and developments" section is the only prose outside the lead describing the election at all and mostly now looks like outdated speculation. Proposed altblurb3 for simplicity. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱09:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: The source may, at first sight, not appear reliable, but this is a site where only funeral homes can set up new pages, hence it's legitimate and reliable. Article looks ready to me. Schwede6623:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Oppose on quality article is not in good condition: there are paragraphs and lines without sources, missing sections such as "Campaign" and "Aftermath", lack of prose in the results section (which should narrate both the first round and the run-off), as well as a "Background" section that details more about the political situation of the country at the time these presidential elections were called and held. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Comment table heavy is fine, but we need at least a brief summary of the match and a check for citations. I see some unreferenced statements in the article, in addition to things like the attendance. cc AbcmaxxEd[talk][OMT]18:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
I've removed the sentence with the other {cn} tag. I have trouble believing it was "the only time in modern history". Unable to verify that by Googling. So, no {cn} tags left. --PFHLai (talk) 12:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
How do we feel about a blurb? She was a sitting U.S. Senator and a major player in American politics for decades, and remained both up until she died. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell did not get a blurb because people on here thought they weren't internationally known enough (which is crazy), so I don't think she makes the cut. I think McCain got one? RBG definitely did. The blurb guidelines really need some consistency. -- jonas (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb As far as I can tell, this person was not a head of state or head of government. There would be close to zero chance of this being considered for a blurb if she was from another country. In fact, most people would have the common sense not to start a discussion about a possible blurb for such a person. Chrisclear (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose only on quality - background needs sourcing and could be expanded just a notch to explain the origin of the hostilities. --Masem (t) 13:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait This is a complex and contentious part of the world, per WP:ARBIPA, and no-one has claimed responsibility. We are therefore not in a position to explain who dunnit and so should wait until the speculation resolves. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of the proposed blurbs engages in this kind of speculation, only mentioning "a suicide bomber" without connecting the incident to any ideology or organization. Chaotic Enby (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no hard evidence that it was a suicide bombing. It might have been a proxy bomb, a false flag operation, a premature detonation or other malfunction. It's speculation and jumping to conclusions. See WP:DELAY.
Oppose it's not the right time. Snow close because the tendency (with unexplained exceptions) is to wait until the defendant's conviction. It will then, most likely, be ITN-worthy. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In line with all of my previous opposes for indictment/charges and contradiction of BLP spirit. Though a conviction if it happens would definitely be considerable. Gotitbro (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A woman is killed in her house in Uppsala, Sweden, during a bombing attack intended to target the neighbor next door, while two men were killed and another was injured during two shootings the day before in Stockholm and Jordbro, as deadly violence linked to a feud between criminal gangs escalates. (Euronews)
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.
We shouldn't post something that's common in some countries just because it's unusual in the country it occurred in. Something like this wouldn't be posted had it happened anywhere in Africa, Asia or the Americas (except perhaps Canada). Jim 2 Michael (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is not absolut like that. For example, a strike in the US is more common than a shooting and arson attack in a public place in Europe. So simple, clear and easy to check. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- this is not a mass shooting by definition. This is a spree shooting, but at only 3 deaths I don't think it's notable enough for posting on ITN. For me, a bare minimum for posting a shooting is that the event satisfies the criteria of a mass shooting. Aside from that, this type of thing happens everywhere. It is irrelevant that it's happening in the Netherlands instead of another country. Notability is not (or should not) be tied to location. --RockstoneSend me a message!20:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support highly unusual for Europe (unlike, say, the US, or the Disputed Zones of Burkina Faso), and noting that per WP:ITNCDONT, Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country. Serial21:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Again that's the issue with systemic bias. ITN is already pretty biased towards Europe (and the US) in several regards, so having this be news even though it would not be news in another country absolutely contributes to that bias. Chaotic Enby (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The word news comes from the plural of "new" and means "new things", and usually involves something that "deviates from the norms of everyday happenings". A shooting in Chicago is not news because it's not so unusual, it's not such a deviation from the norm (in fact a lack of shootings in Chicago would be more likely to make the news). Same with terrorism in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. Not to say that this particular shooting is newsworthy, but as an explanation of supposed systemic bias, the news is by definition new things that deviate from the norm, which is why a shooting in a low-crime area is more notable than a shooting in a high-crime area. JM2023 (talk) 06:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would support this if it carried weightage (links to terrorism or other high profile relations etc.) but so far that is not the case. The killings in Sweden appear to be at a higher point of notability than these but those too are just the result of local gang wars. We are better off not posting crimes which have no additional significance other than their occurence. Gotitbro (talk) 03:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose I doubt it's dead. Reportedly, Acer pseudoplatanus has "the ability to grow vigorously from the stump when felled". So as long as roots and stump are undamaged, it appears this is still alive. Brandmeistertalk16:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IAR Post-Posting Support. Yes, the tree may not be dead, but the tree, even if it grows back, will not look the same, and being photogenic is what the tree was known for. So perhaps the tree is not TECHNICALLY dead, but something has certainly been lost here. Just let it ride. This isn't as silly as the duck situation. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrospectively agree with the decision. This tree had massive importance and its felling was an unfortunate and disastrous event, whether it will be able to regrow or not. Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That kinda was part of the issue. I still maintain that a university - nor anyone else - can declare a duck dead in abstentia. At least in this situation we can see the tree, and maybe it's not dead, but it certainly won't be the same. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I personally would've been happier with a blurb. Besides resolving the ambiguity of whether it actually died - we'd just say it was "felled" or "cut down", like our sources do - this tree's felling changed the world, in a way that the deaths of most of the people we blurb, who have been retired for five or ten years, do not. —Cryptic20:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I might be in the minority here, but, I think we have taken this a tad too far, with a very open read of “organism”. In some sense it might be a disrespect to the others on the RD carousel as well. Ktin (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Btw it might be worthwhile to inspect where the term “organism” came into the template and the criteria. I am reading the past RFCs and it seems like the discussion was very specifically about “Animals”. I think introduction of “organisms” was an overzealous act. Ktin (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support - The felling of this tree reminds me of The Senator (tree); a 3500 year old bald cypress tree that was destroyed here in central Florida in an act of vandalism (actually, the woman apparently was smoking meth and burned it down, but that's irrelevant). No idea if we posted it to RD at the time, but if it happened today, it would surely qualify. So, too, does this tree, which seems to be of similar importance. RIP. --RockstoneSend me a message!21:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting oppose Missing ducks and half-dead trees are not "deaths". If the tree was actually dead it would be a support from me, but one rooted still rooted in the ground with quite the possibility of regrowth is not it. DYK would have been the ideal posting for this. Gotitbro (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support RD, oppose blurb This is a clear and devestating event, but I'm not going so far as to make this a blurb due to, I'm afraid, the systematic bias towards US/UK events in English Wikipedia ITN. As for why I support this being RD, living beings, regardless of them being human or not, should be included. MarioJump83 (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb This is front-page news and it's likely that the tree will grow more shoots, per coppicing. RD is not appropriate for such complex cases. Why can't we just have a few words to summarise the situation? ITN has become far too parsimonious and terse compared to other main page sections and it is obstructing clear communication. Brief blurbs cost nothing. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You repeatedly say that disasters in which dozens of people were killed aren't important enough to blurb, but you're saying that a tree being cut down is?! Jim 2 Michael (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Makes no sense to blurb the loss of a famous tree. And given that we are purposely blind to RD posting beyond article quality, many of the RDs we post are people that are likely unknown to a good fraction to the readers so being able to click through to read about them is appropriate - same with this case. Masem (t) 13:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus to post this has already been established and this has been done. The issue is doing so in a clear and accurate way. There's already a complaint at WP:ERRORS that the RD entry is wrong. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, we do not consider page views, popularity or fame for ITN items, we have rejected the idea of being TOP25. We are looking for encyclopedic content as well as significance; that is not to say that the felling of a tree could not be either but the bar for that is going to be pretty high, and more that just being a "famous" tree. Masem (t) 20:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The question was the notability of the tree versus the notability of the wedding fire. The evidence is that the tree is the more notable topic. If Masem has some other evidence, they should please present it. If they are saying that ITN doesn't care about evidence and just prefers personal opinions, they should please see core policies such as WP:NPOV. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to a blurb about the act of vandalism. The tree is not dead so it shouldn't be posted as a death, but this well known tree being vandalized seems significant. I think if the General Sherman tree was cut down by vandals or even spray painted, we would at least consider posting it. 331dot (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support converting to blurb. The article is higher quality than most we post here, and it makes a nice change from the normal disaster stubs we post. BilledMammal (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb. I've added a (felled) note to the RD entry to clarify the concern that it's not actually dead. As for a blurb, I think that's over the top, per other comments made above. It's no doubt sad for those who enjoy the view in that part of the world, but with everything else going on in the world, this is emphatically not a story of lasting significance. Trees also get felled in other parts of the world too, e.g. Cotton Tree (Sierra Leone) earlier this year and we don't blurb those, so there's a WP:WORLDWIDE issue to consider here too. — Amakuru (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was the Cotton Tree nominated? "Everything else going on in the world" is precisely the reason to blurb this, not to refrain from doing so. 331dot (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Lahaina Banyan Tree was in the news recently too – I noticed the coverage at the time. IMO, such trees are more historic and significant than the routine sporting events that ITN runs as blurbs. But we have space for all – blurbs are not such a precious and limited resource – we could easily run several fresh blurbs every day, just like the other main page sections. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]
Pull Death is the biological end of a life. Is this tree biologically dead? No. Then it’s not a "recent death" because it is not dead. If it can grow, it’s alive. And if it’s alive…it’s not dead. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support - I would support either the RD or blurb. The tree was technically "felled" but colloquially it is "dead". If someone wants to quibble about it being "dead", then a blurb is the way to go.
Oppose / pull Not dead. It's a species that's notable for being receptive to coppicing. Also, shoehorning this into a section for people (and occasionally animals) who've actually recently died also seems a bit tasteless to me. I love trees, I get that people love trees, but there's a place for this, and this isn't it. EditorInTheRye (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pull / Oppose blurb Not dead, and there's no reason a tree should get a blurb if literal ethnic cleansing of 90,000+ people doesn't. That's pretty much adding insult to injury. Chaotic Enby (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG OPPOSE BLURB - for the avoidance of all doubt, I'm fine with an RD entry, but a blurb is ridiculous, and if we did blurb this, it'd be the biggest example of systemic UK bias on ITN that I can think of (no, we would not be blurbing this if it happened anywhere else). --RockstoneSend me a message!23:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
pull. i think there was a consensus to post early on, when many of us had believed that the tree had died, but now that it is clear that the tree had only been felled, and also has a decent chance of regrowing, i don't think it is appropriate to keep it in the list of recent deaths. to be clear, had the tree actually died, i would have thought that its death would have been appropriate for the list.the arguments that the tree is effectively dead enough for the list make me worried, as they could also be used to argue that people in deep comas who may be described as "virtually dead", or that people who underwent extensive plastic surgery who may be described as "virtually unrecognizable", would also be eligible for the list. keeping the tree on the list may validate those arguments and set a weird precedent.i don't think posting a blurb would be a wise idea. it seems farcical to refuse a blurb for a prominent senator who recently died, only to then turn around and post one for a tree that didn't. dying (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb It's obviously contentious to post this as RD as technically, the tree isn't dead. The qualifier "(felled)" has been added but for many, that's still not good enough. The status quo works for me, but my preference is to have this as a blurb. Firstly, this is a notable event that's making the news around the world. Secondly, it has a lasting effect, as the area has lost a major tourism item. Thirdly, it overcomes the conundrum whether or not this fits under RD as a blurb can explain in a more nuanced way what's going on. Fourthly, I do not buy into the systemic UK bias issue. That Wanaka Tree got vandalised in 2020 but the tree itself is still standing. Had it been cut down back then, Wānaka would have lost its most-photographed item and I suggest that would have been suitable for a blurb nomination (granted, the UK tree is probably better known). That's a tourism item and some Kiwis might say "so what?". But if something fatal happened to Tāne Mahuta, New Zealand would go into mourning for a week, that's for sure. Schwede6601:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any scenario where a tree being cut down in the US would be posted here in ITN? No. Same if it happened in Canada or Russia. The UK gets special treatment in ITN and the systemic bias here has been a problem for years. --RockstoneSend me a message!03:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting conditional support RD. Regardless of whether it could regrow, it is the end of the tree as we know it. The regrown part would be a new thing/offspring. On the person analogy, you have chopped off everything except the head and put that in a magical vial where it can regrow; 90% is already dead. The fact that the stump is alive and could facilitate regrowth is irrelevant. I support converting to blurb and removing the RD equally, as a blurb would also make this known. To clarify, the condition is that there is no blurb posted. I think either we post a blurb or keep the RD. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aaron Liu, i am not sure if i am understanding you correctly. are you saying that, if a notable person with a quality article on wikipedia was reduced to a head in a magical vial, you would support listing that person at recent deaths? if that person then died a year later, would you support a second nomination for that person, assuming that the article remains of sufficient quality? dying (talk) 09:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're talking about, how has Schumacher been ended? He's still alive and in full shape, he just dropped his career. If the tree was just relocated in full shape then nobody would put it in RD. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
His brain was injured in a skiing accident shortly afterward. Now he doesn't drive, talk or walk. His head and legs are still attached, so I guess that's "full shape", but 2013 marked the end of the man as the people recognized him. It wouldn't be right to call him dead, though, just disabled (or differently abled). Same for similar cases, like latter-day Ronald Reagan. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As does this tree, just shorter in the trunk than in its glory days and lacking a crown, like a latter-day Hulk Hogan. As a tree guy, I appreciate how it can be tempting to draw parallels between our lifecycles and theirs, especially since we share the same air and nutrients. But a tree is not a guy, buddy! If this hypothetical and unprecedented magical human "deadhead" does float by this bureau in the future, I say we blurb it first and discuss RD later. Even if he or she wasn't a household name to that point, it's news we can use. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The base is not the body, I'd parallel it to the head. It's not just "shorter". I don't know what happened to Hogan either but he hasn't been criminally amputated AFAIK. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He had a bunch of hip and back surgeries, lost about four legit inches. In his field, four inches counts for a lot more than in Tree's. Trees can take a hell of a licking, next to men, including in proportionate mass loss. The "head", if you insist on analogizing the unanalogizable, is in that cluster of nervelike appendages plants keep underground and drink through. The stump of a stem is like a reduced neck, if necks had aortae, at least in my worldview. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was less referring to his subsequent long-term disability and more to him falling into a coma immediately after the accident. Sorry for not having been more clear, my point was that if a tree being cut to the stump is counted as "dead", it wouldn't be a big step before people falling into a coma without any guarantees (at the time) of waking up would also be counted as "dead". ChaotıċEnby(talk) 01:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about immediately after his injury, when he fell into a coma and it wasn't sure whether he would even wake up. With the current arguments, I could absolutely see people arguing that that could count for "recent deaths". ChaotıċEnby(talk) 01:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled per above. There is serious doubt that the tree is actually dead. Discussion regarding the suitability of a blurb should continue. As of right now I see no consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. No inference of poor judgement is intended to the posting admin. At the time of posting that was a reasonable read of the existing consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-pulling stong support RD. Even if the tree is able to be coppiced, which is not a certainty, it won't be the same "tree" as what it was when it was felled. There is likely not going to be a better time to post this to RD than now. Happily888 (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"It won't be the same tree" isn't a great argument. With this reasoning, people falling in a coma or having personality-affecting brain injuries could be nominated for RD, which would be honestly absurd. Even if the tree lost its iconic parts, it is still the same organism. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 01:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. In the case of a tree, the part which makes it notable (the trunk/branches) is what died. I think it is disingenuous to think that it is a logical step to apply this to a person, if someone has fallen into a coma or has had a brain injury, the majority of the parts which make them notable are still alive. Even if this tree is coppiced, whilst a new replanted tree will have the same DNA as the previous tree, it will not be seen as the exact same tree as the one which has been felled. Happily888 (talk) 03:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the majority of the parts which make them notable are still alive is again a slippery slope. What if a powerlifter lost their arms? If a sprinter lost their legs? ChaotıċEnby(talk) 03:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't have a strong opinion on this either way, I think Happily888 is trying to say that the tree has "died" in the colloquial sense—the tree that so many people have journeyed to see won't be back in full until after their own deaths. Ed[talk][OMT]04:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am conflicted on this one. I agree that this one does not deserve a posting on the RD carousel. I almost fear that posting this one is disrepectful to the other BLPs that are out there. But, that being said, "organisms" is allowed per the current rules. I was initially wondering if the term "organisms" had snuck in in an overzealous interpretation of the policy. But, upon checking it was seen that the term organisms was specifically added based on a discussion in the RFC. So, if we need to change that a new RFC should be considered. Posting this one might have to be on the current interpretation of the rules and that might allow for this one to be posted onto the RFC carousel. Ktin (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The "it is not dead" argument is silly. I know Cat's comment above here is specifically trying to be silly, but the argument that is silly. This is like claiming Henrietta Lacks never died be cause some of her cells continue to grow as the HeLa cell line. The tree is no longer and will never be what it was and so is essentially dead. Perhaps we do not have the proper word for it, because it is not a state we experience, but dead will suffice. Perhaps, you all just do not like having a tree in RD and use this spurious argument because getting what you want is more important then semantics. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'd really like to see more non-human organisms represented in RD (and Wikipedia in general), just not still alive ones in RD. No need for personal attacks and speculation please.
In terms of actual arguments, "essentially dead" doesn't mean dead, and, while I agree that we don't have a specific word for this situation in humans, it's also why the comparison with Henrietta Lacks falls flat. Especially given that we know what "dead" means for a tree, and this isn't it. As regretful as the situation is, it isn't a death. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 22:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think that’s right. I’ve opposed because the tree still lives and will likely regrow. You can’t list a Recent Death if there is no death. I’ve opposed a blurb on several grounds, not least of which is that it doesn’t reach the level (for me) of global events on which we should be reporting. - SchroCat (talk) 06:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC) Edited to readjust slightly with addition of "likely". - SchroCat (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no certainty that it "will regrow", see here: "The National Trust and Northumberland national park hope the tree might regrow,… but the age of the tree might make this difficult." If in about a year's time, it is announced that the tree hasn't regrown, would opposing users in this discussion support posting this then? How long should be waited before determining whether an organism is 'dead'? Happily888 (talk) 06:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added "likely" to regrow, but that doesn't counter the fact that the tree is still not dead. As to the question "how long should be waited...", then it's nowt to do with WP or ITN: as always we go with repeating what the reliable sources say. At the moment they say it's still alive, but once they change, that's a discussion for a different day. - SchroCat (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - does Wikipedia use brain death or biological death to determine if a subject has died? If the former, then I am comfortable posting the tree as a recent death, because it's effectively the same thing as brain death. If the latter, then it shouldn't be posted. --RockstoneSend me a message!21:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There were also differing opinions on latter-day Tom Petty and Tanya Roberts, whose hearts had stopped beating, with organs kept oxygenated on life support. I think we follow the sources, not biology. When RS call a death, fine; when they backpedal, so be it. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's something that never was really stated upon, and honestly, absolutely deserves to be clarified in the RD guidelines. Both for humans/animals and for trees. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 22:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sapling planted at Sycamore Gap removed by National TrustSee here: "A man who planted a sapling at the site where the Sycamore Gap tree previously stood at Hadrian’s Wall in Northumberland has said it is “devastating” that it has been removed. The National Trust dug up the young sycamore planted by 27-year-old Kieran Chapman metres away from the stump of the historic tree, which was illegally felled overnight on Wednesday." Count Iblis (talk) 06:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose blurb A tree getting cut down, no matter how famous, is not a story wide-reaching enough for blurbing. The fact it’s even reached this point feels like a rare genuine example of the oft-cited Anglo-centrism we claim ourselves victims to. Agree with the pull from RD as well, as it’s quite literally not dead. TheKip13:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Oppose RD on quality issues - lack of sourcing throughout body. Oppose blurb as while having received some of the highest awards for acting, there's little given about any impact or legacy he may have had. --Masem (t) 12:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on RD because of sourcing issues throughout the article. While notable I don't think he has significant enough notability to warrant a blurb. Suonii180 (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One line on his role in The Singing Detective, really? I'd argue that was his best-known performance outside Harry Potter. I would need to see some more detail on that before I could support.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
support blurb once the issues are fixed, clearly a more notable individual. we've posted that guy who played Snape i think. we should post Dumbledore too since he was arguably a more important character Daikido (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't agree. We shouldn't be declining to post RDs or blurbs, either one, just because someone tried to game the system; we should be looking solely at whether the current state of the article(s) is good enough to post. —Cryptic21:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a couple factors here: If the filmography (or similar list) was undersourced and shuffled off to a separate article when there was no size issues to worry about, that would be a problem, as that's the literal "sweeping dirt under the rug" situation. On the other hand, if that type of list was actually large and the article was nearly WP:SIZE concerns, then shuffling it off wouldn't be a problem, but as Gotitbro states below, there should be a proper sourced summary prose left in place. Masem (t) 13:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Let's stop looking at whether he should have a blurb or not and focus on the quality of the article first. I just orange-tagged it, as it needs some major source work. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Blurb?. I do not say this often, but, is there an appetite (no pun intended) for blurbing this article? If there has been anyone who has helped millions from hunger and famine, it is him. NYTimes Bio here. Irrespective this is ready for RD. Article looks in good shape. Ktin (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb His name is not familiar to most and so RD would not do him justice. And it's not as if ITN is overcrowded currently – there are only three blurbs and they are 4+ days old. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this a good reason not to blurb? Blurbs should be reserved for well known figures or if the death is the reason for notability. Natg 19 (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is terms like “well known figures” or “not familiar to most” borders on a very ethnocentric read of the world and is not the best way to evaluate impact. If you believe importance and weightage needs to be given to transformational impact — we should evaluate the impact of work. In this case there is a case to be made that elevating millions from hunger and famine is impact like no other. Ktin (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know the name Norman Borlaug, who is given credit for saving those same lives. As the saying goes, "Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan." I don't know how much credit should go to Swaminathan here, but he was not the primary driver of this effort. GreatCaesarsGhost17:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The “I don’t know” of them and hence not worth posting argument is frankly a tad tenuous.
I certainly don’t imply that we should go by a particularly news org, like Time in this case, but posting from the article — “ In 1999, he was one of three Indians, along with Gandhi and Tagore, on Time's list of the 20 most influential Asian people of the 20th century.” Certainly that should mean something. Ktin (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am neutral on this person, but was just commenting that his name is not familiar to most does not seem like a good reason to blurb someone. I don't know if ITN has a purpose to "highlight" lesser known figures in blurbs. Natg 19 (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
isn't ITN meant to highlight news stories relevant enough to receive their own articles or at least significant sections? so posting something with the justification of basically "he's not well known"... well that's really the opposite of a justification, isn't it. JM2023 (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I agree with both of you. We should not be posting because the subject was not well-known. On the other hand, we should not be not-posting because the subject was not well-known. There are many Rfcs that are pending on this topic, but, as it stands today, with our current policies — we should posting major figures who have demonstrated impact by their work. Call it transformational / groundbreaking / anything else. By those grounds, I think the subject deserves a blurb. We should not mistake opposes to the policy to be opposes to the individual case such as this. Policy opposes should go to the talk page. Ktin (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say “I don’t know of them" so don't misrepresent my argument to counter it. Your repeated claims of "elevating millions from hunger" is clearly an attempt to ascribe to him a greater import to the effort than deserved. GreatCaesarsGhost21:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For a blurb I feel the article needs a short section under Public Recognition about the green revolution which can borrow content from that article. His role is mentioned in the lede and scattered through but a single brief section of how he came by that term and what it means ands impact on India's ag industry should be clear.--Masem (t) 15:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb blurbs of deaths in my opinion should only be done when the deaths themselves are famous -- all famous people die, but not all people die famously JM2023 (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your point of view. The editor below references an RfC that has been some time in coming. In its absence, today, we do not distinguish between famous (sic) people dying and famous people dying famously. Best wishes. Ktin (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on blurb, would highlight the life of someone with a little-known but massive impact on the fight against hunger, although I agree that blurbs of deaths could be reserved for the deaths themselves making news. I'd say we should have a RfC about this last point, to have an idea of where we stand relative to this in the future (and, depending on the result, Support if non-famous deaths of famous people can be blurbed and Oppose otherwise). Chaotic Enby (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate it. I know that the RfC has been sometime in coming, but, in its absence, I think there is a strong case to be made for this posting. Ktin (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The death of major figures may merit a blurb. These cases are rare, and are usually posted on a sui generis basis through a discussion at WP:ITNC that determines there is consensus that the death merits a blurb.
I know, and given the repeated discussions (a few days ago with Giorgio Napolitano, now today) often in confusion without clear indication as to what level of notability merits a blurb, I figure it would be better to formalize this more clearly. Chaotic Enby (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Curbon here, being a GA definitely does it and we did post Norman Borlaug, it is only good that we follow in with a quality article which highlights thr further building upon his work. Gotitbro (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Failed. I have not said this so far, but, I think this project has failed its purpose at this point. None of the editors above have had a solid reason for their opposes. Yet, here we are. If we can not blurb a subject who has had transformational impact in lifting millions out of hunger and famine -- I am sorry to say we have no reason to be blurbing any post. Ktin (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should not post any death blurbs simply for being transformative figures. A death blurb isn't some kind of lifetime achievement award. We should only post "death is the story" blurbs. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aaron Liu and @Pawnkingthree -- The problem with both of your views is that they run counter to the current rules. If you really believe that "we should post *only* 'death is the story' blurbs" you should bring it as a proposal. Multiple such proposals have not gone anywhere. The rules as coded right now allows for "major figures" to have their blurbs posted. So, you should evaluate this post as such. Ktin (talk) 04:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Since Borlaug was blurbed & it sounds like Swaminathan played a similarly transformative role in the Green Revolution, a blurb seems appropriate. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb I agree with Ktin - if being the reason that millions avoided malnutrition, famine and starvation is insufficient for a person to be blurbed, then what is? One can't help but wonder if there would be more people in support of a blurb if M. S. Swaminathan was American and not Indian. Chrisclear (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Marking read for blurb. Marking ready for blurb with the following rationale -- All the opposes so far have been based on a forward looking want for a policy change (e.g., want for the policy to be changed to *death as the story* etc.). The rules as it is coded right now allows for death of "major figures" to be blurbed. This posting has to be evaluated with that current policy in mind. If we need to change the current policy -- that discussion belongs to an RFC and not to this nomination. With that said, none of the opposes have made the cases that Swaminathan was NOT a "major figure". I am marking this one as ready for blurb. Ktin (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that they may be a major figure, but not enough to warrant a blurb. The policy itself says that major figures that major are rare. Most opposes on death as the story should already IMO operate under the assumption that he is not a major-enough figure. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On policy, what I believe you are referring to says These cases are rare, and are usually posted on a sui generis basis through a discussion at WP:ITNC that determines there is consensus that the death merits a blurb. Sui generis means "case-by-case" and my interpretation of that is that just that they were by normal means major cannot automatically warrant a blurb, and you are missing consensus here. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I partly agree with what you say here. However, can you give me the rationale for why Swaminathan does not make the cut for a “major figure” who should be blurbed? I don’t see a reason so far. Ktin (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've got this backwards. It's not that all major figures automatically get blurbs, it's that in rare cases a major figure may merit a blurb. It's up to supporters to make the case, opposers are merely saying that the default position, the RD section is sufficient. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a fair assertion. My case is that having saved millions from malnutrition, hunger, and famines — there can not be a greater case for impact. Now, please tell me that that is not the case. I will hold off on making a case that given we blurbed Norman Borlaug, we should have a strong reason not to blurb Swaminathan. Ktin (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant update to this article, not redundant to the blurb, is five words long. We wouldn't blurb the pope's death if his article was in that state. —Cryptic15:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary. The person bludgeoning this discussion and the related one at WT:ITN, insisting that since you consider this person to be major and "the rules" say the deaths of major persons may be blurbed all other considerations are invalid, is you. A substantial update is required by the part of the rules you don't like. I can say with some confidence that no administrator will post this article as the emboldened link in this state. —Cryptic16:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please both assume good faith. I believe Ktin’s objection is that you only quoted part of the update, but as the update was only less than 20 new words I wouldn’t call that substantial either. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it can happen to you, it can happen to anyone, I figure. Anyway, I'll agree that an admin is unlikely to post this September death in October, given how little we all now know about it. But kudos to this old man for a life well lived beforehand! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is clearly a developing story with multiple implications that merit inclusion on their own, so ongoing is completely justified even though it's a bit challenging to find the right article to post.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the Republic of Artsakh article is oranged-tagged, perhaps an article on the decree itself could be created and added to the blurb. A historic milestone in the decades-long Nagorno-Karabakh conflict anyway. The future departure of Russian peacekeepers from the region would probably be the final milestone. Brandmeistertalk10:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per Iamstillqw3rty. We have three months until it happens, and its clear this region is not currently stable, so things can easily change. --Masem (t) 12:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with below proposal. This story really only makes sense in the context of the fleeing of Armenians from Azerbaijan, as Artsakh exists largely because of this group of people. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - Once this actually happens and Azerbaijan actually annexes Artsakh then I would instantly support. Resolution of a 30 year conflict, major change in global geopolitics as a country annexes another country. If situation gains enough coverage and enough new developments happen then I think we could post now. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the current Artsakh ethnic cleansing blurb, perhaps by simply adding as the self-proclaimed Republic of Artsakh declares its intent to dissolve at the end of it. (According to the end of the discussion for that blurb, the potential merge should be discussed here.) JM2023 (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, dissolution of a country - even a non-internationally recognized one - is a significant event. Oppose merging with the existing blurb; ethnic cleansing is so significant it shouldn't be diluted with other news. BilledMammal (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the dissolution of Artsakh, the nation-state of the Karabakh Armenians, is part of the ethnic cleansing of Karabakh Armenians from their nation-state's territory. The nation-state is dissolving because the nation is being ethnically cleansed. JM2023 (talk) 06:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support given the standalone significance, shouldn't be merged with the blurb relative to ethnic cleansing simply because both are about the same country. Chaotic Enby (talk) 02:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the dissolution of a nation's state is inexorably linked to the exile of that nation from that state's territory. Artsakh is being dissolved because and as part of the ethnic cleansing. JM2023 (talk) 06:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since the point is moot, I've proposed alt-blurb 1. Given that the flight is no longer on the front page I think there is a clear consensus here to post. BilledMammal (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment bolded article has two orange tags (update needed and NPOV). Regardless of whether we're merging or posting a new blurb, nothing will move before those are resolved. Ed[talk][OMT]18:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This is a fine bit of fundamental physics – comparable with Newton and the apple. It hasn't been possible to check this before because apple-sized lumps of antimatter don't exist. But I'm not seeing any update yet and so there's work to do here too. ... (later) ... Drbogdan has kindly provided an update. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, we have some cool science-related stories recently! I like this one, but as Andrew says, an update is needed. And some references are missing, I see. Tone09:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While we should feature more scientific stories, I don't see this as a revolutionary discovery, just more a confirmation of what was expected to happen. --Masem (t) 12:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - No update, big unsourced sections, and I too question the relevance of this as confirms what most scientist suspected. If antimatter did "fall up" it would be a different story ✈ mike_gigstalkcontribs12:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - Yes, assumptions of what was expected to happen were confirmed, but one has to realize that when it comes to science - especially theoretical physics - this is a very, very big deal. We can theorize and hypothesize all day long with the best scientific knowledge we have on hand, but it doesn't take but one actual, in-the-wild observation to completely demolish a theory that looks good on paper. We need to publish more stories like this. Duly signed,⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)13:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality The first two sections after the lead paragraph are totally unsourced, as is most of the third. Just out of interest, a question for anyone more knowledgeable - why wouldn't anti-matter react to gravity in the same way as matter? Black Kite (talk)14:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose is this against what the consensus expected to happen? as far as I can remember, the only known difference between matter and antimatter is the electric charge. It is really such big news that one type of baryonic matter falls down just like another type of baryonic matter? What would really be news is if it didn't fall down like normal. JM2023 (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not that this isn't a useful discovery, but I question the interest readers may have in what is effectively the null hypothesis being sustained. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support This nomination will probably fail, but it seems like a relatively important confirmation, even if it's not a surprise. This is also one of those rare headline fundamental physics experiments whose result is understandable and memorable to the average person (the detailed article less so, but that's to be expected). 70.181.1.68 (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle Most science is not "sexy science" à la The God Particle, but as IP/70.181.1.68 states above this is an important confirmation even it was somewhat expected. I have not looked at the article's quality, so am not commenting on that. Curbon7 (talk) 23:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone wondering about the significance of this: General Relativity (which is our prevailing theory of gravity) does not distinguish between matter and antimatter. That's why it would have been a huge shock if antimatter didn't fall down. However, you cannot say that antimatter does not fall down without having done the experiments, and it's possible to devise theories where antimatter falls up, so showing that antimatter falls down is still a notable result. Banedon (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — No opinion on posting as I don't have the scientific knowledge to judge how significant this is. But I really dislike "[subject] does [verb]" constructions, because they're usually awkward and their infrequency can mean those skimming them read "[subject] doesn't [verb]," which is a much more familiar construction. Removing "does" also simply makes it more concise. I've added an alt blurb as such. I also moved "like normal matter" to avoid MOS:SOB issues. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 06:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I don't really think this all that notable. Antimatter was always said to have the same properties of normal matter. But if we are to post it can we please use blurb that doesn't say "fall down?" I know that's how most people think of gravity but its not really accurate. I suggest we quote the article and say something like. "The ALPHA experiment shows that antimatter particles behave in a similar way as normal matter in a gravitational field." I understand that's a bit wordy but it is more accurate. Aure entuluva (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The thing about science is that "well, we always knew that would happen" doesn't mean very much to a scientist. The boundary of theoretical physics is that you can't develop a working theory unless you are able to test a hypothesis such that it can empirically be proven or disproven. What we might regard as restating the obvious (which come on, how many of us here are experts in antimatter?) is in this case another step towards building a rigorous body of evidence, and this experimental outcome is truly a big step. Duly signed,⛵ WaltClipper-(talk)12:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
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.
A magnitude 4.2 earthquake strikes the Phlegraean Fieldssupervolcano near Naples, Italy, the strongest earthquake to strike Campi Flegrei in 40 years. Experts say that an eruption of the supervolcano is not imminent, but called for an inspection of buildings in the immediate area. (Reuters)
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax[http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
