Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS. Archives of past nominations can be found here.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.

A blurb is a one sentence summary of the news story. An alternate suggestion for the blurb is called an altblurb, and any more suggestions get labelled alt1, alt2, etc. A blurb needs at least one target article, highlighted in bold; reviewers check the quality of that article and whether it is updated, and whether reliable sources demonstrate the significance of the event. Other articles can also be linked. The Ongoing line is for regularly updated articles which cover events that remain in the news over a longer period of time. RD stands for the "recent deaths" line, and can include any living thing whose death was recently announced. In some cases, recent deaths may need additional explanation as provided by a blurb; this is decided by consensus.

Brahim Ghali in 2019
Brahim Ghali

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated).
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
    • Preferably use the template {{ITN candidate}} to nominate the article related to the event in the news. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable secondary source. Press releases are not acceptable. The suggested blurb should be written in simple present tense.
    • Adding an explanation why the event should be posted greatly increases the odds of posting.
  • Please consider alerting editors to the nomination by adding the template {{ITN note}} to the corresponding article's talk page.

Purge this page to update the cache

There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN.

Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template.

Headers[edit]

  • Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.
  • Items can also be marked as (Ready) when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked (Ready), you should remove the mark in the header.

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

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

Please do...[edit]

  1. Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
  2. Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. Maybe the previous reviewer has missed a problem, or an identified problem has now been fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes may also help administrators identify items that are ready for promotion to the ITN template on MainPage.
  3. Point out problematic areas in the nominated article and, if appropriate, suggest how to fix them. If you know exactly what to do, by all means, go ahead and fix it as you see fit.

Please do not...[edit]

  1. Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  2. 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.
  3. Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  4. Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. Oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. The criteria can be discussed at the relevant talk page.
  6. Use the discussion section of an item as a forum for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome of a nomination and are potentially disruptive.

Suggesting updates[edit]

A posted ITNC item that needs correcting can be addressed in two ways:

  • For simple updates, such as updated death tolls in a disaster, linking issues, spelling or grammar corrections, or otherwise anything that does not change the intent of the blurb should be discussed at WP:ERRORS in the ITN section.
  • For more complex updates that involve a major change in the blurb's intent, that should be discussed as part of the current ITNC nomination.
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Archives[edit]

January 29[edit]


January 28[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


RD: Tom Verlaine[edit]

Article: Tom Verlaine (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Lots of citations needed, will be working on it Mooonswimmer 01:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Czech presidential election[edit]

Proposed image
Petr Pavel
Article: 2023 Czech presidential election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Petr Pavel (pictured) is elected as President of the Czech Republic. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Petr Pavel (pictured) is elected as President of the Czech Republic, defeating Andrej Babiš in the runoff.
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Petr Pavel has won the race according to projections and early results. Well PM is the one in charge which does not make this ITNR, but the president holds significant appointment and foreign policy power. President Zeman overused his powers, making the presidency pretty powerful. Very watched in Europe by the news and many observers. BastianMAT (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)744cody (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Not ready as article needs to be updated. Added ITN/R label. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 14:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ok I just looked at Wikipedia:ITN/R and I'm not very sure now whether or not this qualifies as ITN/R, so I'll remove the label. I'll still support on notability even if not ITN/R, but the article is not yet ready. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 14:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This definitely counts as ITN/R, I've updated the template. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 16:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @The Bestagon check now, it's still 99.99% reporting (there's always a few problem wards that take forever) but the main figures (58-42 and turnout over 70) are staying where they are and are already being reported in RS. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 16:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - both election and bio articles look good to me as of now. Levivich (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. A presidential election by a popular vote should certainly count as ITN/R, even for countries where the president holds limited power. If our ITN/R guidelines say something else, they should be changed/clarified. In any case, support this item on notability. Both bolded articles appear to be in sufficiently good shape for posting. Nsk92 (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak support This is a decently significant election, and it probably should qualify for being a successful candidate. However, it should be noted how few powers the Czech president really has, the impact on the country because of this election is likely to be minimal. Also, I believe the alternative blurb would be better to be used. Quinby (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Changes in head of state are WP:ITNR, so it doesn't matter if you personally consider it significant or not. Curbon7 (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No they are not. Read the criteria again. --RockstoneSend me a message! 20:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Changes in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government, in those countries which qualify under the criteria above, as listed at List of current heads of state and government... President of Czech Republic is the head of state and thus does administer the executive office of the state, plus he is the commander in chief of the armed forces, another executive position. Heads of state are ITNR. Levivich (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    But he does not administer the executive; the head of government does. The monarch in the UK is the head of state; but he is not a member of the executive and does not administer it. --RockstoneSend me a message! 20:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Note for admins (cc @Tone), the file in the suggestion has questions surrounding its potential copyright. I'd suggest File:Gen. Petr Pavel (2018) (cropped).jpg should be used instead, as is on the 2023 election page. Quinby (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. I was looking for this on the front page.--2601:C4:C300:A210:7836:446C:8BFA:F5CE (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak Oppose -- This is not ITN/R, as the President of the Czech Republic is not the head of government. ITN/R says: "Changes in the holder of the office which administer the executive". The President of the Czech Republic does not administer the executive, the Prime Minister does. Switching from ITN/R yes to no. I do however see discussion of this in the news, and the fact that he was a former general means there is something more notable here than "new President". --RockstoneSend me a message! 20:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Elections of the Heads of State like the Czech president are not ITNR. This doesn't prevent it from being included in ITN, it wouldn't be the first time. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note that the last two Czech presidential elections in 2013 and 2018 were both tagged as ITN/R. Has there been a recent discussion which changed this? – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There was a discussion in 2021 that defined which kinds of transitions are ITNR. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think there was a more long drawn out discussion than that one but I'm too lazy to look for it. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - The President in Czechia is far more powerful than ceremonial leaders you see in many parliamentary democracies, even holding veto powers similar to the USA. This is a major change - I see no reason to not post this, especially given the international coverage. Nfitz (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is almost ready, I'd just like to see some more about reactions, then I can post. --Tone 21:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Tone: Just added a paragraph about domestic reactions to that section – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Supporty worty - Per the above statements PrecariousWorlds (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Altblurb looks nice PrecariousWorlds (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, obviously Both articles are in good shape and seems like a significant election which has European-wide consequences (mostly on the Babis aspect). Curbon7 (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Article is in good shape. Internationally covered. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blurb: Tyre Nichols and ensuing unrest[edit]

Article: Death of Tyre Nichols (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Protests erupt across the United States, including in Memphis, Tennessee, following the release of footage showcasing the death of Tyre Nichols during an altercation with Memphis police (Post)
Alternative blurb: Protests erupt across the United States, including in Memphis, following the release of footage showcasing an altercation with Memphis police before the death of Tyre Nichols.
Alternative blurb II: ​Video of the death of Tyre Nichols is released, leading to protests in the United States.
Alternative blurb III: ​The death of Tyre Nichols leads to protests in the United States.
Alternative blurb IV: ​Video of the events leading to the death of Tyre Nichols leads to protests in the United States.
News source(s): [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Renominating as the footage was released and the protests have already begun Knightoftheswords281 17:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment Regardless of whether or not this meets the significance threshold (which I would assume it does), all three bolded articles have pretty fundamental issues when it comes to sourcing, holisticity, and possibly WP:BLPCRIME. Curbon7 (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd also like to point out that there is an ongoing discussion about merging the first two targets. This should be resolved before posting, assuming that consensus develops that the item is notable for IT. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 06:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Caution I'm not a BLPCRIME extremist, and there is nothing wrong with noting the charges against high-profile murder suspects. But you can't say they killed him yet, as the current blurb does. Not allowed, anyway, it's prejudicial. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Changed per WP:BLPCRIME Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Now it's inaccurate, since he died a few days later, but it's better as far as I'm concerned. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose as currently written. There don't appear to have been 'riots' - our own article says one protestor, at one protest, was arrested for jumping on and damaging a police car. The editorial bias involved in regarding that as 'riots' is pretty stark. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Changed Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose again. Police abuse in the US is routine and this is not a local newspaper. Not serious riots with international interest/impact. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The coverage this is getting is way beyond "local newspaper", or we wouldn't be here. And "international impact" has never been an ITN criteria. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So were the protests in Northern Ireland, but we posted those. --RockstoneSend me a message! 20:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Doesn't seem to meet the standard of global significance that seems to be demanded for ITN these days. 2A02:C7F:2CE3:4700:D111:9D08:A092:825C (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not out here demanding global significance. National news can be well worth including. But this is a developing story, and the current framing (not to mention the premature fork into three articles) is unhelpful. I think we need to wait and see for a bit. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Opposed - Purely internal US matter, and no evidence of outsized or extraordinary impact or consequence. Not notable for the vast majority of English speakers. If ITN started featuring US police abuse, it'd be able to feature nothing else. Melmann 11:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We started a few years ago, and didn't go that nuts with it, still mostly crazy about elections and reelections. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't think 'purely internal matter' is a knock-down argument in cases like this. An internal matter can be worthy of ITN if it's big enough. But I don't think this is, yet, and attempts to talk it up with words like 'riot' are counter-productive. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The "only affects one country" argument has been essentially deprecated because of how poor it is. Curbon7 (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Can we PLEASE STOP using arguments like "this is an internal matter"? What part of the admonishment in the rules above that say "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" are people failing to read? -- RockstoneSend me a message! 20:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait - This is only Day 1. If this turns out to cause widespread unrest like in 2020, this could be posted. Wait to see where this goes. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Neutral but this whole demand for global significance is silly. Nothing in ITN requires that an item be globally significant to be posted. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think many tend to immediately discount US stories as a sort of "counter culture" to how American-centric the internet can be at times, but the USA is so central to global institutions and orders, domestic politics essentially become international from the get-go. Something like this can have far-reaching effects PrecariousWorlds (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait per PrecariousWorlds, but I don't think that opposing for the lack of global significance is valid. In fact, a lot of WP:ITN/R items lack any global significance, but are still considered perfectly notable. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 12:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait Nothing yet of the scale of the George Floyd protests, in terms of both scale and violence levels. Could escalate but premature to do that now. --Masem (t) 13:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - top international news for the third straight day. Nationwide protests last night. More protests planned tonight. ITN stale. There are so many nominations we could be posting right now, but nah, let's just update once a month because "global significance". Levivich (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Top? Where? _-_Alsor (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • BBC, Le Monde, El Pais, are three I just checked. Yesterday I posted stories from those three that were the top then. Levivich (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose unless it escalates into a George Floyd level movement or if riots take place. There are more significant examples of ongoing civil unrest in Bangladesh, Ghana, Haiti, Lebanon, Spain, Sudan, and Tunisia, among others. The Tyre Nichols unrest is very minor overall, certainly not significant enough for ITN. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - world-wide news, and this nonsense about international impact is just that, nonsense. We have a an entrenched contingent at ITN that refuses to allow what is widely covered world-wide to appear because it happened in the United States. What pray tell was the international impact of 2022 St Helier explosion. But things that are widely covered across the world, proving the lie in the claim that there is no international interest, cannot be included for reasons that the guidelines to this page expressly say are not valid. Please do not item 2: Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. These opposes should be tossed out wholesale, and this place needs an overhaul to actually include what is provably widely covered material on the front pages of news sources around the world. Front page of Reuters, BBC, Le Monde, El Pais, Al-Jazeera (Arabic). It is bs that a set of users have effectively claimed ITN as a member of the EU. It doesnt have to matter to you if this is in the news. It is however in the news, it is widely covered, around the world, and it should be posted here. nableezy - 15:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We are an encyclopedia that covers a wide range of topics, and not just a US/UK news ticker, which is what happens if you want to follow only the breadth of coverage of a topic as you suggest. That's why we repeat that we are not a news ticker and not simply a mirror of what happens on the front pages of major papers. If you want to work in that space, that's what Wikinews is for, not an encyclopedia. Masem (t) 16:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That has not been true no matter how many times you have repeated it without basis. Wikipedia is not a news ticker. In the news is literally about directing our readers to topics they have seen, wait for it, in the news. If you dont want to cover things in the news then go help out at DYK, or at FAC, or on this day. This however remains the portion of the main page meant to help our readers find our coverage on the things that are widely covered, once again all together now, in the news. nableezy - 17:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's not what ITN says, it is to show quality articles on topics that happen to be in the news. Being in the news is a necessary but not sufficient element prior to posting. We are still selective because this is the front page of an encyclopedia and we need to strive to avoid the media's systematic bias against most topics that are not directly US or UK related. We want a broad selection of topics, not the narrow selection that "following the news headlines" would generate. It should also be obvious that not every major world trending news headline is the basis for a WP article. All that is that ITN is tuned to capturing encyclopedia topics, not following the news. Masem (t) 02:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If your standard is that we are not a UK news ticker... then why did we post so much internal UK news last year? --RockstoneSend me a message! 20:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Youre confusing factions here. Masem isnt one of the editors who reflexively supports anything UK related and opposes anything US related. He does however have these very longstanding and, in my opinion, very wrong ideas on some things related to what the standard for inclusion here should be, which as best as I can tell is either being ITNR or having some wide-ranging impact on several countries, and some other quirks related to his reading of BLP and DUE, but you are barking up the wrong tree with that question to him. But there are editors here who would have voted against including the assassination of MLK here as racist violence against Black people is common in America, and this one man did not have any world-wide impact, so include in RD, but when the riots start potentially blurb. nableezy - 21:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And how many times did we post last year about news in the USA? _-_Alsor (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oh hey, theres one. nableezy - 21:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not as often as we posted about news in the UK, actually. We even posted about the riots in Northern Ireland last year, and the fact that Sinn Féin won in the Northern Ireland parliament; even though Northern Ireland is not a sovereign state, and the riots were insignificant. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 00:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The USA is so central to global institutions and orders, domestic politics essentially become international from the get-go. Something like this can have far-reaching effects PrecariousWorlds (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree that domestic politics often have international implications due to the fact that the US is the world's sole superpower, but at the same time, there are domestic events that happen in the US that while important, don't warrant a blurb. Great example: the 2022 Florida Gubernatorial Election saw Ron DeSantis win in a landslide; while his victory annoyed and upset me greatly (since I live in Florida) and has important implications at both the state and national levels (Ron DeSantis is probably going to try to run in 2024), the event is not worthy of ITN. --RockstoneSend me a message! 00:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Although I agree that the "global impact" arguments are invalid, we should still wait as the level of the protests so far is nowhere near to the George Floyd protests, for example. (Note that GF should not be the standard for protests, but there has not been any of the unrest or chaos that would make these protests more "postable". Until then, they're just another protest movement.) The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 16:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Do you realize the GF protests were the largest and longest lasting BLM protests in history? Why does that have to reach that level to be ITN? Why is multi-day international coverage and nationwide protests not enough, it also has to be record-breaking? Levivich (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I literally said that GF should not be the standard. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 16:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yet you also said it's nowhere near, and that it's just another protest movement unless there is unrest and chaos. Think about what you're saying: nationwide BLM protests receiving international coverage is not news unless there is violence? White man gets elected: instant ITN. White guy plays bar games (snooker, darts): automatic ITN for a week. But people of color protest? Nah, it's gotta be violent or it's not news. Woman PM resigns? Not news. White man replaces her? Put his picture up for a week! This is systemic bias, again. Thinking BLM protests aren't newsworthy unless they're riots is systemic bias. At ITN. Again. And it's not just you, look at the oppose vote just above: oppose unless there's riots or it's the level of George Floyd. This is sheer bias, it's not logic, it's not the application of our global consensus, it doesn't advance the underlying purpose of ITN, it's just plain bias. Levivich (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ok. I was wrong in making the comparison with GF was wrong, and in fact almost my entire above comment was a catastrophe, so I'll just strike it. However, I never intended to say that BLM protests aren't newsworthy in their own right - this applies to all protests, even if they are thousands strong. Otherwise, the ITN section would feature nothing else. Let the story develop, and if the protests persist, then we can post. And by the way, I'm not white, not American, not European. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 16:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Nableezy: You and I have been normally on diametrically opposing sides when it comes to ITN/C, but I couldn't agree with you more. You hit the nail right on the head. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I appreciate that, but Ive always been right, even when you were wrong ;) nableezy - 17:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ah, never mind, here we are back to being diametrically opposed again. 😌 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I concur, I think Nableezy and Bestagon have summed up the arguments pretty well PrecariousWorlds (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This blurb reads as a little sensationalist. Protests have not "erupted" - there have been a few and each have been of relatively small scale. I'm fine waiting, but as of now I would be opposed to this nom. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Unfortunately police brutality in the US is very common, and Black Lives Matter protests too. Vriend1917 (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Police brutality may be common, an officer being charged with murder is not. nableezy - 18:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Police brutality might be common (although on a larger scale, while way too common, it's still rare), but not of this caliber, on video. --RockstoneSend me a message! 20:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment If protests continue, we could instead post those to Ongoing instead of blurbing. Curbon7 (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- for all those opposing, would you oppose if this was happening in the UK? It seems to me that this more than meets the requirements to post; it is indeed "in the news" by any metric. Stop with the anti-Americanism. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 20:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Big difference: in the UK (in Europe in general), this doesn't usually happen. If it happened in Brazil, would you support it? I certainly wouldn't. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What part of this story is it that you think usually happens in America, besides the initial beating of an unarmed Black man by police. Because it is unusual that there is video, that the police are fired, charged with murder, or that the video is released. It is unusual for multiple cities to have protests related to that video on one night. Which part of this is usual to you? nableezy - 21:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If this happened in Brazil, and video were released, and people were outraged about it? Yes. Also, although police brutality is less common in the UK, it's not unheard of. --RockstoneSend me a message! 22:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't take the country into consideration when deciding significance. For something of a political nature, you might consider scope, impact, or duration, among other things:
    • The number of people directly affected is low. I would expect hundreds of thousands if not millions of people to be directly affected for it to be posted on the basis of scope.
    • There is no evidence of significant short-term impact. It's not likely that Memphis is going to be plunged into anarchy or have to undergo significant reconstruction, so it shouldn't be posted on the basis of impact.
    • There is no evidence that this will still be significant or relevant in WP:TWENTYYEARS, so there's no argument for duration.
    If any of these three things changes, then I would strongly reconsider my oppose !vote. Compare the Peru protests, for example, which brought parts of the country to a standstill and plausibly may have affected national-level governance. Anti-Americanism is certainly a problem, and it should be prohibited on Wikipedia just like any other bigotry, but I don't think this is it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Major news, global RS coverage. I will remind users that !opposing "solely because the event is only relating to a single country" is invalid. Davey2116 (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Impacts seem exaggerated. Riots? Looking around, I see reports of his death - which may be notable. But nothing about riots, and the protests seem relatively peaceful. I am seeing lots of coverage - but not about riots. Did we do a RD for this? Nfitz (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Removed mention of riots in first blurb. Knightoftheswords281 (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose unfortunately, police brutality like this is fairly common in the United States, and there don't seem to be full-on riots yet. Protests like this is also fairly common in the U.S. Editor 5426387 (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 27[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Posted) Azerbaijani embassy attack[edit]

Article: Attack on the Azerbaijani Embassy in Tehran (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​An armed attack on the Embassy of Azerbaijan in Iran leaves one person dead and two injured. (Post)
News source(s): CNN, Reuters
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Lethal attacks on embassies seem pretty rare and this one is the first such on an Azerbaijani one. Article is up to snuff. Brandmeistertalk 16:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support. As per the nom, deadly attacks on embassies are quite rare - a rough estimate from List of attacks on diplomatic missions would suggest an average of once a year. The significance is increased by this being the first one on an Azerbaijani one, making this a very big deal there. It's also been reported across major global news outlets. I think this is a good example of an event that's blurb-worthy without being ITN/R or all over the place in Anglophone media. The article is in good shape, too. --GGT (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Attacks on embassies are significant. The article is sufficiently long and sufficiently well-cited. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per GGT. Levivich (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Attacks on embassies are quite rare, definitely something important. Vriend1917 (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Per above PrecariousWorlds (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak Support only on the grounds that it was very likely a terrorist incident. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support I think an attack on an embassy, whether terrorist or state-sanctioned or otherwise, which results in death of a state official is clearly something we should be posting. Curbon7 (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cyclone Cheneso[edit]

Article: Cyclone Cheneso (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Cyclone Cheneso kills at least 24 people in Madagascar. (Post)
News source(s): BNN Network (Associated Press) AfricaTimes
Credits:

Article updated

 HurricaneEdgar 00:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Weak support article looks good. 22 deaths is quite significant. It seems that last year a tropical storm hit Madagascar leading to 142 fatalities, and that would have been nominated if the article quality was good enough. Azpineapple (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - Even though it isn't as serious as last year's storm, 22 deaths isn't a small number. The article is pretty good as well. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 15:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per above. Levivich (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support As said by @The Bestagon Vriend1917 (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Query Is the inclusion of "For the latest official information, see: links" standard for ongoing storms? Curbon7 (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jenin killings and East Jerusalem synagogue shooting[edit]

Article: 2023 Jenin killings (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​The Israeli Defense Forces conduct a raid in Jenin with seven Palestinian militant and two Palestinian civilian fatalities. A Palestinian gunman kills seven Israeli civilians in East Jerusalem in response. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​A mass shooting at a synagogue in East Jerusalem kills seven Israeli civilians one day after the Israeli Defense Forces conduct a raid in Jenin with seven Palestinian militant and two Palestinian civilian fatalities.
Alternative blurb II: ​A mass shooting at a synagogue in East Jerusalem leaves seven Israeli civilians dead, following a raid conducted by the Israeli Defense Forces.
Alternative blurb III: ​A Palestinian attack at a synagogue in East Jerusalem kills seven Israeli civilians, following an an Israeli raid in the Jenin refugee camp that killed nine Palestinians, including two civilians.
News source(s): Al Jazeera (Jan 26 raid), Reuters (Jan 26 raid), New York Times (Jan 27 shooting), AP News (Jan 28 shooting)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: I was hesitant to post this, but it appears that this is a significant political escalation. I've done my best to write a few options for neutral joint blurbs. Note that the Israel–Palestine conflict is listed as a contentious topic, and editing restrictions may apply to this discussion. I will support sanctions against any user that attempts to WP:DISRUPT the conversation, use it as a WP:FORUM, or WP:BLUDGEON the process by replying to everyone that has a different opinion than them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • There are several parts that could be included, but the most significant outcome so far, obviously besides the loss of life, is the Palestinian Authority suspending security cooperation with Israel ([7], [8]). Could be something like The Palestinian Authority suspends security coordination with Israel as tensions escalate following an Israeli raid in the West Bank and a Palestinian attack in East Jerusalem. Also, the two articles maybe should just be merged together. nableezy - 21:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Id support altblurb1, but would prefer now offered alt3. nableezy - 23:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • While I do think it should be posted, we shouldn't conflate the killing of people at a synagogue with those killed during a raid on terrorists. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    How would we be conflating them if the synagogue attack was a response to the raid? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The two events are clearly connected, with several Palestinian factions and sources celebrating the synagogue shooting as "revenge" for the raid. Plus, the "raid on terrorists" also killed civilians. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 05:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support combined blurb – Muboshgu (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Procedural comment All editors participating in this should be aware of the sanctions and remedies established in WP:ARBPIA. Per those remedies, this discussion is restricted to users who have ECP. As a personal note, as this is a clearly contentious area, let's all try to stay on topic and keep the temperature low. Curbon7 (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Combine them, all major sources report one as a response to the other. Else, neither. Selfstudier (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Alt blurb 3 should say "at" rather than "on"? Selfstudier (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support blurb on the attack, and support altblurb one if there is a consensus to combine. However, oppose combining as while coverage of the attack does mention the raid the blurb puts undue emphasis on the raid - the BBC article on the attack, for example, includes 24 paragraphs, of which only one discusses the raid. BilledMammal (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The article still mentions the raid, which proves Thebiguglyalien's point that it's seen as a retaliation. Only talking about the synagogue attack makes it seem like the attack came out of nowhere, when the timing shows it's most likely otherwise. Mount Patagonia (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • They are connected, but to comply with WP:N we need to ensure that we reflect the respective emphasis in reliable sources. None of the proposed blurbs do this, as they put too much emphasis on the raid. BilledMammal (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Just to be clear, this is not a blurb about the attack that just happens to mention the raid. This is a blurb about two significant events. The raid has received extensive coverage in its own right. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support altblurb I or III. This is clearly a tit-for-tat attack, so it's important to mention both. To only blurb one or the other invites accusations of bias. Mount Patagonia (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait. I think it stands to reason that these two events are connected, but it might be worth us waiting for a bit more verification. To link these events. Sure Hamas claimed responsibility, but I don't feel we should be inclined to take their word for it. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It could be best to wait a bit, I'm not seeing a clear cut claim from Hamas/PIJ in the latest sources. Of course, viewing it as just a coincidence seems a bit of a stretch. Lone wolf is a possibility, however. Selfstudier (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The lone-wolf aspect of it is what I'm wary of yeah. Hamas could totally be piggybacking off it. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak Support On the one hand both incidents involved multiple fatalities and are clearly terrorism related. But being brutally honest, this sort of thing is not exactly uncommon in that part of the world. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support alt3 - The Guardian described the Palestinian attack as "the worst in years" and made the connection with the Israeli raid, describing it as "the deadliest in two decades". Both events are thus significant and connected. Note as well that the death toll has risen to eight. The articles are good enough too, except for one CN tag in the 2023 Jenin killings article. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 05:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Also, the Israeli raid killed ten people and not nine, so the article should be updated to reflect that. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 06:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, no strong preference about which blurb. Levivich (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Since there has been more violence today, I would support (and prefer) an updated blurb that works that in. Maybe even a generic "violence erupts" blurb if it's too complicated to discuss the individual events. Or, better, Support adding I-P conflict to ongoing where it should have been the entire time ITN existed. Levivich (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose The NYT report says that this is "latest escalation of a particularly violent cycle in the region, where the situation — never calm — began to worsen last spring". So, it's an ongoing situation. This appears in the list of ongoing armed conflicts as going back to 1948 with about 27,000 deaths total to date. That just rates as minor, as these things go. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak oppose per Andrew. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Support - Escalation of the conflict, In The News. While I can see the argument that this is unfortunately nothing new in Israel/Palestine, I still think that this should be posted on the basis of notability. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Altblurb III PrecariousWorlds (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Violence around the Gaza Strip region (including into Jerusalem) is sadly too common there due to the long-term conflicts there. --Masem (t) 13:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is being described as the worst terrorist attack on Israelis in years. [9] Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support altblurb 3 to avoid undue weight. And yes, consider me warned about the discretionary sanctions. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    After much ado, ds is now ct :) Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Comparison with discretionary sanctions Selfstudier (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ooh, that's right. I forgot all about that change. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Update: A 13-year-old Palestinian gunman injured two Israeli civilians in East Jerusalem today. Adding an AP News article to the sources list, but I'll leave any additions or rewriting of the blurbs to discussion. In regard to significance, the new source also notes that the Jan 26 raid was the deadliest single incursion in the West Bank since 2002, so it's not business as usual for the region. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This article gives a longer perspective, the temperature has been increasing slowly for a couple years now and the new Israeli government is considered to be raising it some more. Definitely not business as usual. Selfstudier (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support alt3–sadly too common, but still important. -- lomrjyo talk 20:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Closed) Douma chemical attack[edit]

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



Article: Douma chemical attack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: OPCW released a report, that Douma chemical attack was committed by special forces of Syrian Army. (Post)
News source(s): [1][2][3]
Credits:
 Jenda H. (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose First off, the article hasn't been edited since November 2022, so there is no update to the article to evaluate. Secondly, so what? This report isn't telling us anything that we didn't already know. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Per @Muboshgu PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per above Editor 5426387 (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ "THIRD REPORT BY THE OPCW INVESTIGATION AND IDENTIFICATION TEAM PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 10 OF DECISION C-SS-4/DEC.3 "ADDRESSING THE THREAT FROM CHEMICAL WEAPONS USE" DOUMA (SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC) – 7 APRIL 2018" (PDF). OPCW. Retrieved 27 January 2023.
  2. ^ "Watchdog blames Syria for 2018 Douma chemical attack". BBC News. 27 January 2023. Retrieved 27 January 2023.
  3. ^ "Watchdog blames Syrian gov't forces for 2018 Douma gas attack". www.aljazeera.com.
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.

RD: Sylvia Syms[edit]

Article: Sylvia Syms (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): GB News
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Referencing needs improvement! Mjroots (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(closed) Blurb: Tyre Nichols[edit]

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


Article: Death of Tyre Nichols (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Five officers of the Memphis Police Department are arrested for alleged involvement in the death of Tyre Nichols (Post)
News source(s): [10]
Credits:
Nominator's comments: May possibly fall under WP:TOOSOON, however, I think this is notable enough and may be bolstered tomorrow by the potential video. Knightoftheswords281 17:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait for Altblurb We don't really do arrests, but we certainly do video-bolstered outrage, if sufficiently bolstered. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose unless the situation changes. Arrests on their own are not notable, and the response will not be notable unless it escalates into citywide riots. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose as said by @Thebiguglyalien Vriend1917 (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Top story at BBC.com right now: Tyre Nichols: Biden urges calm over Memphis police murder case. When the BBC is reporting that the US president is urging calm ahead of a video of police brutality that will be released Friday night, it's an indication. It's likely there will be protests, and it's likely to stay in the news, and we're likely to post it, the only question is what the blurb will say exactly. It's not just the BBC, also The Guardian, Le Monde, El Pais, and of course it's the top story in all US news outlets right now, and the video isn't even out yet. Support, we can update the blurb as events progress. Levivich (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    He's not exactly urging calm, he's "calling for peaceful protest", outrage without violence. That could make a good altblurb. Not every day the president calls on citizens to protest a criminal matter rather than just let the judicial system do its job.InedibleHulk (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • An arrest of a police officer for the killing of a civilian in the United States is absolutely notable, and rare. From the NYT in 2020: Law enforcement officers kill about 1,000 people a year across the United States. Since the beginning of 2005, 121 officers have been arrested on charges of murder or manslaughter in on-duty killings, according to data compiled by Philip M. Stinson, a criminal justice professor at Bowling Green State University in Ohio. Of the 95 officers whose cases have concluded, 44 were convicted, but often of a lesser charge, he said. Shades of Laquan Mcdonald in the arrest only coming when the video is ordered released, but absolutely notable, absolutely in the news. Support. nableezy - 05:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Main page should adhere to WP:BLPCRIME policy:

    For individuals who are not public figures...editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.

    Bagumba (talk) 06:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oppose per this policy. This is a mere allegation and should not be in the mainpage. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 06:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No police officer is named in the article. The police officers that have been charged have indeed been charged with a crime. That is verifiable fact. And nothing in BLPCRIME says we cannot say so. If you feel it does, then it is a BLP violation to include the charges in the article. Do you actually think that is true? nableezy - 07:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I just read the article and the five officers were named. You can't rely on the state of the article unless it is completely locked. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm pretty sure people Joe Biden and Al Sharpton highlight in federal public safety reform campaigns become public figures. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:BLPCRIME. Btw, this is another case of police abuse in the United States. It did not have the same international impact/coverage as George Floyd. So no, it’s not ITNR worthy. Not now, not later. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    George Floyd also wasn't on George Floyd's level until after the viral violent video, so it's not fair to compare yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:BLPCRIME, which articles featured on the main page should adhere to. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 10:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • BLPCRIME? For internationally-reported arrests of police officers? That didn't stop us from posting about George Floyd, and we create these articles all the time. Tonight there will be protests, give it a minute. Levivich (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The key part is that as these are not public figures as BLP defines, their mere arrest is not something we should be shouting from the rooftops by plugging it in an ITN box. Masem (t) 14:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose mere arrests; even a conviction seems unlikely to be significant enough to justify a blurb. So far there are minimal signs of broad impacts. If major protests erupt, then we can consider those on their own merits, in a separate nomination. WP:CRYSTAL applies. Modest Genius talk 13:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Why a separate nom and not this one? Levivich (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Likely as there was nearly no protests comparable to the Floyd ones from this event - the PD took a rapid step to outright fire the officers than cover up anything, and given the racial makeup of the fired officers, its hard to bring in racial motivation as it was in the case of Floyd. So there's nothing to report beyond the remaining legal trials from these arrests, yet. If they all get off completely free, there could be riots from that, but that's not going to happen until the trials happen. Masem (t) 14:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • It's still top news today, 2nd news cycle, and it will stay in the news all weekend. The video is being released tonight. There will be protests tonight and this weekend. My question was: why a new nom and not this nom? I don't see the point in closing this today and making a new nom tomorrow. Levivich (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • And ITN doesn't care how much a topic dominates the news, otherwise we'd only be covering US and UK politics and pop culture. And if riots actually break out, we'd likely need a rescoped article, but they might not even happen. It would be better to start a fresh ITNC if the riots are the key story. --Masem (t) 14:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose The notable aspect of events like this is what happens afterwards, from possible unrest to criminal proceedings/convictions. The arrest itself is too soon to post, as we do not yet know the impact of this case. Kafoxe (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The BLPCRIME votes make zero sense to me, if you feel it is a BLPCRIME issue then nominate the article for speedy deletion. This is widely reported, BLP does not exist as something to suppress uncomfortable material if and when it is widely reported in reliable sources. nableezy - 18:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose unless a conviction is secured, this article is not ITN-worthy. Editor 5426387 (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose as it stands. This is a tragic death, but it is too early to determine its significance. BD2412 T 19:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.

January 26[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections


(Closed) ChatGPT passes graduate level exams from law and business schools[edit]

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


Article: ChatGPT (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ChatGPT passes graduate level exams at the University of Minnesota and at Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:

Article updated
 Count Iblis (talk) 06:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose It's an interesting story but ChatGPT is already a top-read article since the tool was announced – #4 yesterday, for example. We can expect a stream of such achievements and so it's more of an Ongoing item now. I asked it what it thought and it replied, "As a language model, I do not have the capability to take exams or have qualifications. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to announce this news on Wikipedia or any other external platform." So, it's modest too. I'd like to see how it does with some other tests such as the senility test which Trump boasted of passing. Or those common, "are you a bot?" tests. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Niratias! This language model didn't "pass", it simply provided more of the correct answers while utterly failing the part where it advances in some meaningful way, like a human would. No qualification, no new job opportunity, not even a feeling of accomplishment. No class would accept it as a colleague, only a tool to pitch out first drafts really quickly, like the way "real" artists feel about very talented but creepy image generators. It's not being modest, it's being honest, and that's another problem. Without reason to lie and get ahead, I believe it when it says posting would be inappropriate. It knows things we don't about why. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose really Count?? _-_Alsor (talk) 07:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is exactly what I expect from Count. -- Kicking222 (talk) 08:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Assume Good Faith. No need to be patronising. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nor can we ignore the obvious and the facts. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - Per @InedibleHulk. I do think we shouldn't immediately discount GPT-related nominations, as this is causing such a stir. But, as Inedible pointed out, it's a bit misleading to say it 'passed' the exams. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In actual modesty, I didn't point it out, I just "finetuned" what Andrew said the bot said. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - natural language processing, but otherwise not impressive. Not exactly rocket science being tested, and not exactly headlines. Juxlos (talk) 10:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.

RD: Jessie Lemonier[edit]

Article: Jessie Lemonier (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Not missing too many citations, but the sources needed to be checked, and it seems as if the article could be expanded. Mooonswimmer 17:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose Almost all of the citations appear to be primary sources, including tweets and team press releases. Additionally, the article is far from holistic; the entire early life and collegiate football career is missing, and his professional career is not even bare bones. Sources available on newspapers.com may help at least some of these problems (as he played at Liberty, sources on his collegiate career may be available in Virginia newspapers; similarly, info on his career with the Chargers and the Lions may be available in newspapers from those states). Curbon7 (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 25[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(closed) 2023 BU misses Earth[edit]

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


Proposed image
The projected path
Article: 2023 BU (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Near-earth object passes 2,178 miles (3,506 kilometers) above the Earth's surface (Post)
News source(s): BBC; Space.com, Gizmodo
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Closest approach is this Thursday 2607:F470:E:22:C547:4EE8:EF72:5589 (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Unless it actually hit the earth, this is not notable. MyriadSims (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - even if it hit the earth, unlikely the world would notice. Levivich (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I can't see the point of posting this. According to the article, nothing would happen even it is was hurtling towards Earth: Assuming the asteroid is at the larger size estimate of 8 meters in diameter, an impact by it would not reach the ground intact and would breakup around 30 km above the ground. Hence I can't see why this is ITN-worthy. Anyone interested could nominate this at DYK. Schwede66 23:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's pretty much how high the Chelyabinsk meteor broke up. Could see a lot shattered glass and social media chaos. Not as much as when a 20-metre bolide does it, by my crap math, but maybe a third. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support It's impressive that this has been detected and analysed so quickly. According to JPL, "this is one of the closest approaches by a known near-Earth object ever recorded". Andrew🐉(talk) 00:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "One of the" isn't impressive, on its own. One of the three closest approaches might sway me, but one of the Top 40 will leave me as bored as TomMasterReal. The quick detection and analysis of spacerock data is just one of the many amazing things about scientific measurement capabilities in the 2023 AD. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    4th except for meteors including predictions from now till 2201 AD starts (maybe a longer database exists?). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fourth just leaves me in my usual state of moderate wonder on what might have been. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose this is not a major event, it's just a rock in space that is a couple thousand miles above the Earth. TomMasterRealTALK 00:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Something didn't happen today is not ITN material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To be fair, the proposed thing will happen tomorrow, so far away. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose -- would be worth posting if it were actually to hit the Earth, or at least, if it were something that would be dangerous if it did hit the Earth, but since it will not hit the Earth, and is not dangerous, there's no reason to post it. --RockstoneSend me a message! 05:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per prior. The Kip (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Unlike the other astronomical story nominated, this doesn't really have any noteworthy value. The object wasn't visible from Earth, and had no real significance. Good faith nom, but I don't think this should be posted. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. It's only 'closest' if you ignore the ones that hit. Astronomers have spotted objects this size that actually impacted the atmosphere, predicted exactly where it would happen, and recovered the meteorites on the ground (e.g. 2008 TC3). Such a small meteoroid is no danger to anyone. This has DYK-level interest, but isn't suitable for ITN. Modest Genius talk 12:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - A literal non-event. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose – Really cool subject! Sad that our article doesn't even have section headers. It's a stub really. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Opening of East Side Access[edit]

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


Proposed image
Articles: East Side Access (talk · history · tag) and Grand Central Madison station (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Construction of the East Side Access project and Grand Central Madison station in New York City is complete and open to the public. (Post)
News source(s): New York Times, Forbes, Bloomberg
Credits:

Both articles updated
Nominator's comments: One of the largest and most significant transit infrastructure projects in the United States, complete after many years of planning and construction. Full service did not start yet, but the station is fully open and being served by temporary train service, which is not relevant to the project itself. VarietyEditor (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Quality and significance seem met. Only question is timing.GreatCaesarsGhost 21:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment The news coverage is there, and the article is in excellent shape, but- and I say this as an NYC resident- I'm not sure how important this is to anyone besides Long Islanders? -- Kicking222 (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Insignificant to no NYC resident and its impact and international coverage is nil. Bona fide nom. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I love trains and public transit, and I personally find this super cool, even as a non-NYC resident. However, major construction projects happen all the time. If this project had some kind of notable fact - e.g. predicted to be the most trafficked route in the world, most expensive rail project of all time, first use of a new rail innovation - I might consider it blurb-worthy. I think this is better suited for DYK. e.b. (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The article is ineligible for DYK. It could be nominated for FAC though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support High quality Good Article. I found it pretty interesting. Would encourage people to nominate more articles like thios. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Needs work It appears that there will just be a "limited service to Jamaica" initially and so there seem to be some loose ends still. And the reference to Jamaica may puzzle some readers who associate this name with the Caribbean island. But the delays and budget overruns on this project make Crossrail look good and so some airing of the agony is appropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - While it's true this is an opportunity to put a Good Article up on the Main Page, we did not post the Northern line extension to Battersea in September 2021, which would probably be considered about the equivalent to this type of event. Seems a bit unfair to snub one but not the other if our intention is to diversify our news on ITN. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 00:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Another infrastructure project that was way more significant was the Elizabeth Line, again in London. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose major public transit events happen all the time, just because it's in NYC, doesn't mean it is ITN worthy. TomMasterRealTALK 00:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I don't think the blurb clearly explains what the "East Side Access" is. Even for US readers, this seems like a niche topic for ITN. (Will it play in Peoria?) Zagalejo (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose an interesting article, of refreshingly good quality, but this is a two-mile rail link; this isn't near the level of significance of events we typically post. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Two-mile extension of an existing line in a single city. Doesn't meet notability benchmark to me. The Kip (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose On grounds of significance (or rather, lack thereof). Compusolus (talk) 11:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak oppose - This is interesting news, but, per above, I don't think it qualifies for ITN. I'm going with Weak Oppose, however, as I don't think large infrastructure projects should immediately be discounted for ITN. I don't think 'East Side Access' really qualifies as a mega project (though it will certainly transform transit in NYC!), but something like a brand new high-speed rail line in the US could be notable. I think once/if California High Speed Rail, or Texas Central Railway, or something of the sort is completed, we should consider it for notability. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also think we should seek to diversify the stories we post, as it seems like 90% of nominations are either sport-related, changes in head-of-state/government, or X tragedy kills Y people. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.

Dissolution of the Moscow Helsinki Group[edit]

Article: Moscow Helsinki Group (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​The Moscow Helsinki Group, Russia's oldest human rights group, is dissolved by a court order. (Post)
News source(s): RFERL, Euronews, Bloomberg
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: We posted the dissolution of Memorial as "Russia's oldest... human rights group", but the Moscow Helsinki Group appears older, being founded in 1976. Article needs some more work, but update is there. Brandmeistertalk 16:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support Article is in good enough quality, is updated with the relevant information and well referenced, and the story is being covered by major news organizations in a way that indicates this is significant. Checks every box. --Jayron32 16:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment There are a few (like 3) cn tags on major claims. Curbon7 (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Significant news and sufficient quality. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Definitely news worthy, it shows that human rights in Russia are degrading each day, I also agree with the other supports. Vriend1917 (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The article is good quality, news is newsworthy. Editor 5426387 (talk) 17:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If Age Matters, the group by this name that started in 1976 lasted six years and the one shut down today began in 1989. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose While broadly associated with the blanket term "human rights", the original group's main purpose was annual reporting on Helsinki Accord violations by the Soviet Union. In 2023, this job has largely been taken over by a much larger and hourly collective of reporters and international information agencies, commonly called "the news". The "2010s and 2020s" section mostly has it defending itself from accusations that it's a Western tool, not defending the sort of people that "human rights" came to closely stand for in the same period. Basically, it was already dying and this court ruling was as formal as it seems. Perhaps we can still watch for news on whether any board members are convicted of crimes in the wake. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Per @InedibleHulk. I would also argue this is partly covered by ongoing. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 12:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak oppose as this is clearly tied to the ongoing war entry. Justification by being the oldest rights group in Russia doesn't really establish its larger relevance that is not already covered by the ongoing. If it were the case that, say, the Red Cross closed down, that would be of a scale worth posting. --Masem (t) 13:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I get what you're saying, but the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement is practically too legit to quit. Also has a completely different form and function to go with the vastly dissimilar size. If you want to compare apples and apples, you want the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It indeed is not tied to the ongoing war entry, it is adjacent to it, in a similar way to the helicopter crash. Curbon7 (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose – Only a ~two-sentence update this year. Doesn't feel like an appropriate content update to feature on the front page. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - it's in the news, the article quality is good enough (I don't consider a few tags to be a problem), and ITN is stale right now. Levivich (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose because (a) the group doesn't seem to be that significant on its own as InedibleHulk pointed out, and (b) the article has not been updated enough to merit a blurb IMO. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 10:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support – Historical moment. ArionEstar (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 24[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


2023 Afghanistan cold wave[edit]

Article: 2023 Afghanistan cold snap (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​At least 124 people are killed in a cold wave in Afghanistan. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In Afghanistan, at least 124 people are killed in a cold snap
Alternative blurb II: ​A cold wave causes at least 124 deaths in Afghanistan
Alternative blurb III: ​A cold snap causes at least 124 deaths in Afghanistan, during an ongoing humanitarian crisis.
News source(s): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-64386145
Credits:

Nominator's comments: This is gaining significant coverage In The News. More people have died than in the North American storm last year, which was blurbed. I think we could even make an argument this qualifies for ongoing. I do think an article is urgently needed if this is to be posted, but the subject is definitely notable and we should get this up as soon as possible. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support Reading up on some news reports, this is a lot more severe than the winter storm that happened a little while ago in the US, which was blurbed. Though, the article... yeah, that needs a ton of work, but it's early days in the nomination, there's still plenty of time for someone to go in and solve that issue. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Target is a stub, would support when expanded. nableezy - 19:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Also would support when it's not a stub. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Same. Levivich (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Now Support as it's been expanded. 1500 characters is good enough for DYK, I'm fine with posting a 1400 character article to ITN. It's all cited, and I'd rather have a short timely article at ITN than have weeks-old news as we do now. Levivich (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose This does not belong on the mainpage in this state. Support in principle if expanded.
NoahTalk 21:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on Quality per above. Article is in need of serious expansion. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on quality, support on notability. Will change vote when article's cleaned up/expanded. The Kip (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Browsing the news, it appears that heavy snow is currently disrupting a long list of countries including Austria, Italy, Japan, South Korea and more. This appears to be wintry weather typical of January and it's quite cold here in the UK too. If deaths are what really matters then 124 is not a large number for an entire country. In China, they are running out of coffins as the death toll from their COVID wave bites. The numbers there are over 100 times greater. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So why did we blurb the December 2022 North American winter storm then? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We shouldn't of, but unfortunately, ITNC is often swayed by popularity votes or claims "it's all over the news" ([11]). Average death tolls in nearly annual events like winter storms or flooding (which kills thousands each year in China and India as another example) should be taken as routine stories, just like the NA winter storm. I don't know if this specific storm in the Middle East is typical or unusual, but if its typical, we probably shouldn't be blurbing it. Masem (t) 13:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Almost every weather event occurs annually or multiple times a year and does not have an unusual death toll. If this is the case, we shouldn't be blurbing ANY of them as their death tolls are typical and expected. NoahTalk 15:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, I don't agree with Masem here. I think there was a solid consensus to post the North American winter storm, and I also believe that particular storm needs to be the barometer by which we measure other storms in terms of death toll and significance, regardless of which region they occur in. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The problem is that using the NA storm feeds on more systematic bias. Because it affected the US, it got *lots* of coverage, while its still apparent here that this storm in the Middle East - far away from the US and UK, is getting next to no coverage. From an encyclopedic topic aspect, the storms should be treated equally, but we let too much of the media's bias affect how we cover weather topics in ITN. Masem (t) 13:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think that's kind of unavoidable, don't you? WP:ITN's stated purpose is to showcase quality content on current events/items that are in the news. More often than not, quality correlates with reliable source coverage. I'd rather it be otherwise, but I don't think denying both stories is the answer to that. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We should strive to still cover (both in general and at ITN) news events that may only get a few stories in major papers, with stories that get wide coverage. We need some coverage to be notable, and that is a systematic bias already, but once past that, the number of RSes covering a topic shouldn't matter or come into play, beyond the ability to write a quality article. Hence why we need a review and consensus of topics that try to fight against systematic bias. Masem (t) 17:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't know but most of the country is at least as high as the South Appalachians (their mountain passes even go high enough to cause low antigravity in bin Laden-killing helicopters and hypoxia in healthy young drivers, Earth's first mention of altitude sickness is from the ancient Silk Road from China to Afghanistan or nearby and points west) and about that latitude and they get lots of snow without the benefit of Afghanistan's possible Caspian Sea effect snow (don't know if it's still after crossing Turkmenistan) and total mountain protection from air lower latitude than them. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    By that logic shouldn't we refrain from blurbing most extreme weather events because they are somewhat routine (i.e. the Atlantic and Pacific seeing a few major hurricanes/typhoons a year)? DarkSide830 (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - The article will never get posted if it remains in this state, and unfortunately, I'm not sure what can be done to resolve that. Storms that occur in the United States have the benefit of being in an area with excellent English-RS coverage, with reporters that can go door-to-door to assess storm impacts. There's no benefit of that in Afghanistan. Indeed, this is why systemic bias is such a problem on ITN. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Winter draws on I browsed a physical newspaper on the tube just now and the weather headlines there were about the local weather here in the UK (where the south is unusually colder than the north). And more impressive was that in China's most northerly city, they have a record low temperature of -53°C (-63°F). CNN explains that From China to Japan, extreme cold is gripping East Asia. So, Afghanistan doesn't seem so special as it's not in this especially cold zone. Its problems are more to do with the Taliban and the withdrawal of international aid. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Still, the deaths of so many people, and the resulting humanitarian crisis, should definitely be posted. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose The blurb and article seem mistaken. The sources say these dead accumulated over the last fortnight, across the country, due to cold and generator poisonings. No mention of a storm, especially an ongoing one that started on January 17. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note I've corrected the article, making this no longer a storm, but a cold snap. I didn't change the nom stuff because the replies would have stopped making sense and someone else might prefer the term "cold wave" soon. But it's worth reconsidering (I still oppose). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think Cold Wave sounds better personally PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A likely story! I won't mind if you move the article there (lowercase, of course). But always remember, trees and water tend to sound snappy in the cold while air and animals appear wavier in the heat. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    OK, now I've changed the nom stuff, replies still make sense enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on quality. Article is still marked as a stub. Support once expanded though. Vida0007 (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose It's worthy of ITN but three days in, it's still a stub. Schwede66 07:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose, Needs expansion. Alex-h (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong oppose until expanded The article quality is disgusting. Should be at least the quality of November 2022 Great Lakes winter storm to even consider posting. 108.58.9.194 (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Titewhai Harawira[edit]

Article: Titewhai Harawira (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New Zealand Herald
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Not missing too many citations, but the sources needed to be checked Mooonswimmer 17:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment Too many direct quotations to the point it negatively affects to the surrounding prose (WP:OVERQUOTE). Curbon7 (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. Needs work, currently has neutrality issues and isn't hugely readable. I've made a start and welcome anyone else who wants to assist. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Okay, been working on this one and think/hope it is now ready for ITN. It's been a tricky one given how controversial a figure she is, but I've endeavoured to be as neutral as possible. @Curbon7: in case you have capacity to take another look (no worries if not). Chocmilk03 (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Great work by Chocmilk03. I've gone through the article and tweaked a few things plus added a classic line delivered on behalf of Jacinda Ardern that demonstrates just how much influence Harawira had on the prime minister of the day. It's now ready for posting AFAIC. Schwede66 07:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, Article is good for RD. Alex-h (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Victor Navasky[edit]

Article: Victor Navasky (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Article requires some work Mooonswimmer 17:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose for now As stated by the nom, there is a fundamental lack of sourcing for chunks of the article. Curbon7 (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Closed) Dark chocolate[edit]

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


Proposed image
Article: Health effects of chocolate (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Dark chocolate (pictured) may contain high levels of cadmium and lead (Post)
News source(s): Reuters; BBC
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: This gave me a shock when I read about it just now as I have a deadly brick of 85% right here. There's work to do, of course, but that's what we're here for, right? Andrew🐉(talk) 16:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Meh. This is the type of high-engagement, low-impact stuff you find in the "health and science" sections of newspapers. Can't really see any evidence this is major news; it certainly isn't a top-flight story on any of the major services. --Jayron32 16:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Health and science being of minor significance compared to the important stuff like shootings and sport, right? Andrew🐉(talk) 16:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This makes it sound like this is a WP:POINT nomination. I was actually just looking for science articles to post today to try and create some balance among news topics, but I decided that little things like this aren't sufficient. It would need to be something like a new element being discovered, the extinction of a well-known animal, a cure for a major disease, etc. Some sort of major breakthrough or discovery. I wonder if a new major iceberg is significant enough, but it currently doesn't have its own article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is much bigger news than any sports event AFAIC and there are so few nominations of any sort that it seemed better than than nothing. See the talk page for discussions of the general state of ITN and what might be done about. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The news that a food "may" have lead is certainly not a bigger news story than sport event. This story is barely even in news outlets let alone notable for a blurb. Jbvann05 17:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • According to Consumer Reports, there's no may about it as they tested 28 brands and found cadmium and lead in all of them. Of course, you then get into the weeds about the exact levels. But this reminds me of lead in petrol which was quite scandalous before the vested interests were faced down. There was an ITN nomination about the last country to use leaded gas/petrol -- Algeria iirc. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment The only mention of this in the article seems to have been there for some time, and is linked to a 2014 paper - there are no edits for months, other than a bot. Did you link the correct article? Nfitz (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose this is not "breaking news" it's not a big scientific discovery, we've known that chocolate has had lead in it for a long time. TomMasterRealTALK 16:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose sorry? _-_Alsor (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose respectfully. This is ITN. Significant current news coverage is generally required for nominations. Also note the article has not been substantially updated in quite some time. This might be better suited for DYK if there is enough for a major update. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - one of the sources is from Dec 30, the other is nowhere on the front page of Reuters, it is not even in the top ten stories in its section of Retail News. That is not something many people are likely to have read in the news and to be looking for more information here. nableezy - 17:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. "may" DarkSide830 (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Potatoes may contain Uranium. Actually, they most certainly do. But do they contain hazardous amounts? No. Same thing here. —Wasell(T) 🌻🇺🇦 17:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.

Comet C/2022 E3[edit]

Proposed image
Article: C/2022 E3 (ZTF) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​A green comet (pictured) makes its closest approach to the Earth (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Comet C/2022 E3 (ZTF) makes its closest approach to Earth
Alternative blurb II: ​Comet C/2022 E3 (ZTF) will make its closest approach to Earth on February 1.
News source(s): The Guardian; NYT; BBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is borderline ITN/R which is fuzzy about naked-eye comets. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support - Interesting news, ITN/R PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
and Support Altblurb PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait – The closest approach will be on February 1. It seems like a good plan to post it on that day and not too much earlier. I hope in the meantime, the article will see some more expanding. It feels alright for blurbing, but a bit short. (I have to say that it being nearly 0.3 AU away from us is quite far. Will this be visible without a telescope?) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You know closest approach isn't always best time to see something right? Best night for most of our North Hemisphere readers (comet is above the Arctic) might be Jan 26-27. Assuming you can't see later than midnight (when it's still rising or fucked up by moonlight which starts happening all evening even before half moon this time of year) and taking into account moonlight, when the model says it'd be brightest from Earth if Earth didn't have an atmosphere and how much atmosphere you have to look through. You'd be surprised how far you good see Comet Hale-Bopp but this is no Hale-Bopp. Some people can see it with just their eyes but most first worlders live under nighttime light pollution, the same scattering that makes the sky blue except light bulbs instead of sunlight. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'll accept that we should probably post it now if we do post it. Now I'm just not entirely sure about the quality of the article and of whether it's visible enough for a listing. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait - The article says Feb 1 is when this happens, so we shouldn't be in a rush. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 12:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Unbelievable, it'll be fucked up by moonlight by then. When this happens is actually like Jan 26, assuming you can't wait for it to stop rising before trying to find it which happens after midnight till like the 31st. As 0.28 AU is not close by near-Earth comet standards. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - yes - worthwhile news to me as well - if interested, my related Comments re this "Green Comet" (aka "C/2022 E3 (ZTF)") were published earlier in the "NYT" (1/21/2023)[1] at the following => " https://www.nytimes.com/article/green-comet-watch.html#permid=122707240 " - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Your "related comment" is compliment to the NYT writer and a link back to Wikipedia? Not particularly relevant for our discussion here. Moreover, a comment on an online newspaper article is not usually considered "being published in" that newspaper. Glad you're excited though :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Maplestrip: Thank You for your reply - yes - *entirely* agree - not relevant to the current ITN issue - although related to the "ITN subject" - also yes - the comment may not be published in the "NYT" newspaper - although such comments are published (or perhaps, alternatively, posted?) on the "NYT" internet website - at least, afaik atm - iac - Thanks again for your reply - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Bogdan, Dennis (20 January 2023). "Comment - How to Watch the 'Green Comet' in Night Skies". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 24 January 2023. Retrieved 21 January 2023.
  • Wait until February 1, the actual date of the closest approach. -- Azpineapple (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Changing to support as per Andrew's comment. Proposing altblurb2 01:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Wait until Feb 1 as suggested above. That would make this ITNC more useful then to remind readers that have the ability to see it to take the opportunity. The "Outbound" section has one unsourced statement but otherwise the article seems to be at quality for that point. 13:38, 2023 January 24‎ User:Masem
    • I don't see a problem with posting it a day or two earlier where there is no chance of falling off the ITN blurbs, but posting now risks that removal. Jan 29 or Jan 30 would make more sense. --Masem (t) 01:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      No because the last possible day to see it before midnight without moonlight is about Jan 27 and this is dim enough to need binoculars in moonlight. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait per above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Don't look up" The people advising everyone to wait don't seem to have read the sources which indicate that the time to view this has already started. The NYT, for example, recommended viewing last weekend as there was a new moon, which makes for darker skies. Viewing windows, in any case, are tricky because cloud cover often gets in the way. So, it's best to give people plenty of notice, which is what the MSM is doing. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This ^ - I'm an amateur astronomer, and you can never really be certain when seeing conditions will allow observation of objects like these. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose The comet "might get brighter than magnitude 6". It's not visible to the naked eye, except maybe under the most perfect conditions. —Wasell(T) 🌻🇺🇦 17:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Magnitude six objects aren't that hard to see. Sure, you won't see any in light polluted skies, but even moderately dark conditions can allow you to observe them. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Also, it is expected to be brighter than magnitude 6, I believe PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is already brighter than magnitude 6 and visible from dark skies with naked eye. C messier (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait for reasons just stated. The date of the approach is the 1st of February, let this wait a bit. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I only just read Andrew's comment about everyone who is saying to wait on it, so changing to Support. If it is currently viewable, then it should be on ITN. Sorry about that. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support alt blurb. It is currently visible from earth! And currently in the news! APOD posted a picture of Comet ZTF three days ago. Today APOD linked to an entire gallery of ZTF pictures. Why wait for the actual day of peak visibility? It won't come around again for 50k years, which I'm assuming is longer than most Wikipedia users' lifespans. My only complaint is some awkward phrasing in the top section of the page, but that's a quick fix. e.b. (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Useful for people who want to see a green comet before it's gone forever. TomMasterRealTALK 00:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support -- if it is visible to the naked eye, which it is at the moment, it should be posted. --RockstoneSend me a message! 04:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support posting alt2 now and not waiting until Feb 1 because it's viewable now. Seems kinda mean to our readers to wait until later to post this. "Once in a lifetime comet was viewable yesterday..." :-D Levivich (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Original blurb or changing alt2 to say "green comet" is good with me too. Levivich (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support posting alt2 now and not waiting until Feb 1 per Levivich. Jusdafax (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Sex and sadism"! Come to TFA for the good stuff...
  • "It's not easy being green" Most of the news headlines that I see about this use the word "green" and so this is an especially notable feature of the comet. And the article does a reasonable job of explaining the science of this. The ALT2 blurb seems deficient in this regard and its emphasis on the exact code string for the comet doesn't seem so interesting. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree that the original blurb is optimal. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We're reporting topics in the news, we are not looking for grabbing readers' attention with headlines (eg being clickbait). DYK is perhaps where we have the most "clickbait-y" information and that's why those blurbs are carefully worded to avoid that most of the time. Masem (t) 13:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Calling it the green comet is just following the sources which all refer to it as such. See WP:COMMONNAME. For clickbait, see TFA which today features a lurid picture of a naked woman being sacrificed to blood-drinkers! (right). ITN is no contest as it is running the same picture of Chris Hipkins as it has for 6 days straight now. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The problem with green comet is that it is ambiguous and "ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." (WP:COMMONNAME). For example see how many comets are refered as green comets by reliable sources: Comet Machholz, 45P/Honda-Mrkos-Pajdusakova[12][13][14][15], 46P/Wirtanen[16], C/2007 E2, C/2014 Q2[17], 103P, C/2009 R1, comet Lulin, comet Holmes etc. C messier (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A green coma is unusual but not rare. 'Green comet' certainly isn't the WP:COMMONNAME. See also WP:NCASTRO#Comets. Modest Genius talk 15:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not ITNR. This has not been widely referred to as the 'Great Comet of 2023', nor is it 'clearly visible by naked eye even to those who weren't specifically looking for it', which are the requirements listed on ITNR. At present it's about mag 5.5 - just about visible to the naked eye from a very dark site (no light pollution), but only if you know where to look. The article is correct when it says "most viewers will need binoculars". I've removed the ITNR flag from the nomination template. That doesn't mean we can't post this anyway, but there needs to be something remarkable about the comet to justify doing so. Lots of comets have green emission, so that isn't a distinguishing feature, and nor does it come particularly close to Earth or the Sun. I know this is a slow news period, but I don't see anything exciting here. Readers who are amateur astronomers will already know about this, and those that aren't won't be able to see it. The article is adequate, nothing more. So I won't oppose, but I can't support either. Modest Genius talk 14:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You appear to have been reverted. It would be useful to for me know if this is actually ITN/R or not before deciding whether to support. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Verb tense comment For alt2 with "will make", WP:ITNBLURB says: Blurbs should describe events...in the present tense.Bagumba (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support posting the original blurb now This seems notable enough to post, it seems like now would be the best time to post this & the original blurb seems like the best blurb. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not ITNR I don't see why this is marked as such, per Modest Genius, so I am switching the flag. I am ambivalent on posting it as well. It is a minor astronomical event, but it is an astronomical event that anyone around the globe can go look for. Banedon (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: B. V. Doshi[edit]

Article: B. V. Doshi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New Indian Express
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Indian architect. News just coming-in. Article requires some work before it can be ready for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 07:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 23[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology


RD: Lloyd Morrisett[edit]

Article: Lloyd Morrisett (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety, tweet from Sesame Workshop
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Co-creator of Sesame Street. Article looks mostly passable. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 20:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose for now Major issues with this one. Tons of unsourced claims in the prose (the Honors and awards section is also mostly unsourced), excessive quotations (WP:OVERQUOTE), and usage of curly quotation marks in a number of spots (MOS:CURLY; this one can also be implicitly dealt with by cutting the number of quotes). Curbon7 (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Álvaro Colom[edit]

Article: Álvaro Colom (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Former president of Guatemala. Working on his article. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Closed) 2023 Half Moon Bay shootings[edit]

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


Article: 2023 Half Moon Bay shootings (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Seven people are killed in a mass shooting in Half Moon Bay, California. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In the U.S. state of California, 18 people are killed in separate mass shootings in Half Moon Bay and Monterey Park.
Alternative blurb II: ​In the U.S. 27 people are killed in three mass shootings since January 4.
News source(s): BBC, The Guardian
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Second mass shooting in California in three days. Front page on multiple news agencies worldwide.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 05:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose this, as unlike the Monterey Park shootings, this does not appear to have any racial or hate angle too it (the shooter appears to have been a worker at the site, making it a domestic crime). Also, just because a news story appears on multiple front pages of newspapers does not make it suitable for posting at ITN. Masem (t) 05:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What racial/hate side is there to the Monterey shooting? I thought that went away when it turned out the shooter wasn't white. Nfitz (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Being a member of a group doesn't automatically rule it out as a hate crime. And it's not limited to whites either. But I agree, it's been ruled out for the Monterey Park one (last I checked).—Bagumba (talk) 06:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had not seen (at the time I posted the above) that the MPark one was dismissed as a hate crime (just being non-white doesn't mean it couldn't be a hate crime). As such I would also consider the MPark shooting a domestic violence case that shouldn't be posted either. Masem (t) 13:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wasn't saying it could only have been white. I was commenting that the claims it was a hate crime vanished at that time. I was subtly and ironically critiquing those who keep jumping to "hate crime". In both cases though, the shooters were closely associated with the places they attacked. In neither case was it terrorism, hate, random, ... Nfitz (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Interpersonal crimes are typically not significant or even notable. Would need to see evidence that there could be sustained national or regional effect. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - like the Monterey Park it isn't notable - both are interpersonal crimes, with a relatively low death toll. Nfitz (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support combined blurb "Eighteen people are killed in two mass shootings three days apart in Monterey Park and Half Moon Bay, California" or something like that. Levivich (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Only if reliable sources are doing the math and reporting on the overall situation as such. —Bagumba (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The Guardian links it with a recent mass-shooting in Goshen too, "The shooting followed the killing of 11 people over the weekend at a ballroom dance hall in the southern California city of Monterey Park, near Los Angeles. It also comes on the heels of a shooting in California’s Central Valley last week, where six people, including an infant, were killed in the small town of Goshen." There's then some commentary about the frequency of such events, "Other public figures spoke out in shock at the killings, which also mark the nation’s sixth mass shooting just 23 days into the new year. ..." Andrew🐉(talk) 09:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Not as notable as it's aforementioned predecessor, which in and of itself is borderline at best notability-wise. DarkSide830 (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Changing my vote to Oppose Combined Blurb. We should not be posting combined blurbs for events without a specific relationship. This follows for something like "killing of x causes y protests" or "x resigns and is replaced by y". This is not such a situation. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Page is too stubby at this point. In the meantime, notability for ITN seems premature to determine.—Bagumba (talk) 07:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support a combined blurb -- exactly like we did in 2019 with the 2019 Dayton shooting and the 2019 El Paso shooting. (see archive) --RockstoneSend me a message! 08:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It was first a standalone blub for El Paso; Dayton was piggybacked later. —Bagumba (talk) 09:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You're right, but there's no reason we can't do the same thing here. Well, other than the fact that a bunch of people are going to complain about it. --RockstoneSend me a message! 09:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No problem with combining. Just saying I think it's usually done only after one was already posted first. —Bagumba (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose This demonstrates that, if we start posting such shootings, we'll have a steady stream of them. ITN deals with such general and routine news by having a link to Portal:Current events. But this is obscured by hiding it under the title for the Ongoing line. It should be made clearer to the reader so that they see where to go for more current news stories. The ITN section used to have three such links at the end of the section "Wikinews – Recent deaths – More current events..." That was much clearer in showing that the blurbs were just the tip of the iceberg. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose yet another mass shooting in America. Going to hit 50 before the end of January. Not newsworthy, not surprising, should really just be a single line in the List of mass shootings in the United States in 2023 article. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support combined blurb alright, it’s more unusual now I suppose. Propose wording the hook in a way to make it easier to edit it once a 3rd one pops up in a couple days, though. Juxlos (talk) 09:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would be interested in such a combined blurb if our two articles describe the relationship between the two shootings. The Moterey Park article currently doesn't mention this new shooting at all, or vice versa. Oppose blurbing Half Moon Bay shooting at all due to quality. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There's no causality between the events. It's just humans grouping them by time and place at this point. —Bagumba (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose solo blurb. Does not have any particulars that would justify posting compared to larger mass shootings that we do post (e.g. ideology, location, target, etc.). Possible support for a combined blurb since they are in the same state and reliable sources do seem to make the connection, but that would require waiting for the articles to develop in that respect. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 11:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose, Personal hostility, not notable. Alex-h (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose solo blub, support combined blurb (alt), changing my !vote on the story below accordingly. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 12:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - At best, it's a copycat crime. At worst, it's an attempt by humans to try to look for patterns in order to explain bizarre or unusual occurrences.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose no, really not. This is getting out of control. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support combined blurb this is an interesting turn of events - Azpineapple (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - workplace violence, this actually is relatively common. That it extended to a second crime scene is less common, but not so much that it makes ITN. nableezy - 15:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support combined blurb Evidence is clear that major news sources are treating this as a major story. The articles are in OK shape (the Monterey Park on is better, but both contain enough extra information beyond the blurb to be worth linking to). Many of the "oppose" votes don't cite any evidence or discuss article quality, they all amount to "I wish that major news sources didn't treat US mass shootings like they were a major story"; and yet, the news sources do treat them as such, people ARE hearing this story across the news sources, so directing people to the Wikipedia articles on the topic seems like a good idea. Remember, we don't make the story go away by not linking to it, but we do provide readers with a less useful front page. --Jayron32 16:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note that between the time of nomination and this message, two more mass shootings happened in the US, killing another 4 people. Juxlos (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 1) Those news items are not nominated, so they are not relevant to this discussion. 2) There is no number 2. Bringing up irrelevant information distracts from the current discussion. --Jayron32 18:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support combined blurb Both shootings are getting news extensive coverage. Same state within an unusual brief time period. I also wouldn't oppose including the even more recent shooting in Yakima, Washington in the total death count. All very tragic. Estar8806 (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support combined blurb (Alternative blurb I) Both shootings were committed by elderly Asian men, which is extremely rare. It is definitely a connected shooting, because the latter was inspired by the prior. I think this blurb should replace the Antiguan general election blurb, because that country is relatively unknown and it has been up for a couple days now. Alexysun (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We don't choose what rolls off the list when. What rolls off is the oldest blurb, which is the Benin one. Curbon7 (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for letting me know. I change my opinion to oppose having it in any format in the news section at all. Alexysun (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support combined blurb This makes the most logical sense, as it includes both tragedies which took place in the same state just days apart and affecting the Asian community. Curbon7 (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose combined blurb for the avoidance of doubt. There's no causal link between these events other than the frequency with which these events occur. Linking the two events is in no way encyclopedic, quite the opposite in fact. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That is true, I now change my opinion to oppose having it in any format in the news section at all. Alexysun (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose combined blurb Neither event is connected, with the exception of both having gunmen that were old Asian men, and were both committed in the state of California. Unless it comes out that the Half Moon Bay shooter was connected to the Monterey Park shooter, either in some kind of ideology, personally, or Half Moon Bay shooter was inspired by the Monterey shooter, then we can consider it. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose combined blurb. Nothing to do with each other. You might as well connect the sacking of Frank Lampard and the delivery of Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine because both sort of begin with L. Ericoides (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • comment: the onion has republished its 'No Way To Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens article, suggesting that this may not be a run-of-the-mill event. dying (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That demonstrates the exact opposite. Modest Genius talk 14:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Some sources talking on multiple California killings: "California reels from back-to-back shootings that killed 18" (Reuters), "A leader in gun control efforts, California confronts its limits" (The Washington Post), "‘Only in America’: California Grapples With a Mounting Toll of Gun Violence" (The New York Times), "California reeling from back-to-back shootings that killed 24: ‘Too much bloodshed’" (Los Angeles Times), "California tops deadliest month of mass shootings in at least a decade" (The Mercury News)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagumba (talkcontribs) 11:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support combined blurb per above and this here unsigned comment. DecafPotato (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ugh, now signed.—Bagumba (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Unfortunately, mass shootings are a common occurrence in the US. List of mass shootings in the United States in 2023 shows 11 events that involved 3 or more fatalities just this month. The equivalent list for 2022 shows approximately 2 mass shootings and 2 fatalities per day. That the country has proven incapable of addressing this epidemic of gun violence is deplorable and an important issue. However there's no sign that this particular shooting will do anything to change that. If/when the US brings in gun control laws, that might be suitable for ITN. Modest Genius talk 14:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Ok this has been reopened twice now. I would respectfully point out that there are quite a few !votes running at roughly 2:1 against posting. In order to gain consensus, you are going to need an avalanche of new comments with all, or nearly all, supporting. Based on many years of experience, there is no reasonable likelihood of that happening. I would encourage an uninvolved admin to Reclose the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Although I personally support a combined blurb, I have to agree that this probably isn't going anywhere. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 16:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.

January 22[edit]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


(Posted) RD: Taufikurrahman Saleh[edit]

Article: Taufikurrahman Saleh (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Jawa Post
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Former MP. Date is burial date. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 05:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: Lin Brehmer[edit]

Article: Lin Brehmer (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/wxrt-to-pay-tribute-to-lin-brehmer-with-celebration-of-life-broadcast-monday/3051632/
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Long-time Chicago radio personality KConWiki (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Agustí Villaronga[edit]

Article: Agustí Villaronga (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): La Vanguardia, El País
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Spanish film director, known for Black Bread. He was also a screenwriter, actor and documentary director. Article needs some work. Alexcalamaro (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Wait. Some of the paragraphs in the article are unsourced and others are only partially sourced. I think these issues should be fixed first. Silent-Rains (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose for now Significant number of cn tags. Curbon7 (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No updates yet, sadly. Curbon7 (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Closed) 2023 Monterey Park shooting[edit]

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


Article: 2023 Monterey Park shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In a mass shooting at a Chinese New Year celebration, a gunman kills eleven people in Monterey Park, California. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In a mass shooting at a Lunar New Year celebration, a gunman kills eleven people in Monterey Park, California.
Alternative blurb II: ​Eleven people are killed in a mass shooting at a Lunar New Year celebration in Monterey Park, California.
News source(s): CNN, LA Times, BBC, NY Times, CBS News
Credits:
 – Muboshgu (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]