Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m →COP 28: formatting
Line 76: Line 76:


:'''Support''' Overwhelming significance, many updates, and honestly it's great to have something else than wars in Ongoing. The event spans several days and several points can be in the news even before the final decisions, that's exactly what Ongoing is for. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#947E00">Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:30deg;color:indigo">Enby</span></span>]]<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|c]])</span> 20:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
:'''Support''' Overwhelming significance, many updates, and honestly it's great to have something else than wars in Ongoing. The event spans several days and several points can be in the news even before the final decisions, that's exactly what Ongoing is for. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#947E00">Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:30deg;color:indigo">Enby</span></span>]]<span style="font-size:85%">([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|c]])</span> 20:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
'''Oppose'''. It's a two-week conference which will be over in a week. That's not what Ongoing is for. If some actually significant decisions are made there, and not just blowing hot air, then post a blurb. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 00:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. It's a two-week conference which will be over in a week. That's not what Ongoing is for. If some actually significant decisions are made there, and not just blowing hot air, then post a blurb. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 00:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


==== Venezuelan Referendum ====
==== Venezuelan Referendum ====

Revision as of 00:36, 5 December 2023

Click here to nominate an item for In the news. In the news toolbox
Shortcut

This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.

Gukesh Dommaraju in January 2024
Gukesh Dommaraju

view — page history — related changes — edit

Glossary

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

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

Nomination steps

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

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

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

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

Voicing an opinion on an item

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

Please do...

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

Please do not...

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

Suggesting updates

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

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

Archives

December 5

December 5, 2023 (2023-12-05) (Tuesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

  • The DAX achieves a new record high, increasing by 0.78%, surpassing the previous record from July. (Reuters)

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

December 4

December 4, 2023 (2023-12-04) (Monday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

RD: Juanita Castro

Article: Juanita Castro (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Univision
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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 eruption of Mount Marapi

Proposed image
Article: 2023 eruption of Mount Marapi (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A volcanic eruption in Sumatra, Indonesia results in the deaths of 11 hikers. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, BBC
Credits:

Very major natural disaster, the first volcano eruption in 2023 with a death toll. Article is pretty short at the moment, though it will be expanded as more information is reported. LynxesDesmond 🐈 13:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

COP 28

Proposed image
Article: 2023 United Nations Climate Change Conference (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): Cop28 president says there is ‘no science’, US lays out plan, Smog obscures skyline, Nigeria's 1,411-man delegation
Credits:

Article updated

There's a variety of possible blurbs and the president, Sultan Al Jaber, seems to be making waves. Perhaps Ongoing is best to cover all the angles. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support seems to be updated frequently, and is receiving ongoing coverage. Quality is also there. JM (talk) 11:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The quality of the article is not great, but it's acceptable, and has been updated. The significance is overwhelming, given the climate emergency. This is ongoing for another week, and media coverage is not going to decrease, especially after al-Jaber's opposition to fossil fuel phase out (and mansplaining: I accepted to come to this meeting to have a sober and mature conversation) and the revelation that there are 70,000 participants ... Boud (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This has been a worldwide scandal, with some significant coverage in multiple periodicals. The COP28 article is messy, but not particularly problematic. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per precedent. We waited last year for the conclusion of the event and any major decisions that came out of it. No need to post right now, and honestly, the controversies in question have me seriously doubting the actual value of COP at all. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per precedent. If something important comes out of this, we can post it, but given that the president is being accused of climate change denial, that is highly unlikely. —M3ATH (Moazfargal · Talk) 16:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb - Put up the event and controversy surrounding PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Overwhelming significance, many updates, and honestly it's great to have something else than wars in Ongoing. The event spans several days and several points can be in the news even before the final decisions, that's exactly what Ongoing is for. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 20:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's a two-week conference which will be over in a week. That's not what Ongoing is for. If some actually significant decisions are made there, and not just blowing hot air, then post a blurb. Nsk92 (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuelan Referendum

Proposed image
Articles: 2023 Venezuelan referendum (talk · history · tag) and 2023 Guayana Esequiba crisis (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In South America, amidst an ongoing diplomatic crisis between the two countries, Venezuelans vote to annex the disputed Guayana Esequiba (shown in green) region in Guyana. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Amidst a diplomatic crisis between the two countries, Venezuelans vote to annex the disputed Guayana Esequiba region of Guyana.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Amidst a diplomatic crisis between the two countries, Venezuelans vote to support their government's position that the disputed Guayana Esequiba region in Guyana (shown in green) is Venezuelan territory.
Alternative blurb III: ​ Amidst a diplomatic crisis with Guyana, Venezuelans vote to support their government's claim on the disputed Guayana Esequiba region (shown in green).
News source(s): CNN - Reuters - AP
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Major news in South America that will further a diplomatic crisis and may even escalate into a war. It's an intriguing story that isn't getting enough news coverage, so will definately be worth a view to our readers. — Knightoftheswords 04:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Oppose significant because it is an international incident and territorial dispute featuring a military buildup alongside this referendum, but the article needs to be updated; the results tables have no information. done after taking a second look it's clear those sources do not back up those numbers, which are inaccurate. this article cannot be blurbed until there are accurate numbers. JM (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support quality has improved, the significance I outlined in my original review still stands. JM (talk) 07:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality per JM. Those results were not accurate. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I really don't think many realise how bad this situation is getting, and the massive impact it will have on everything. This needs to be put up on the front page. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 06:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also it might be good to say that the people """"""voted"""""" to annex, supposedly by a 95% majority (shocking result I know) PrecariousWorlds (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The referendum did not explicitly ask voters to approve the annexation of the Essequibo region, but rather supported the establishment of a state in the disputed area (among other provisions). The referendum is a step towards a potential annexation, but it wasn't asking for it directly. Ornithoptera (talk) 06:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It could be argued that it is a de facto annexation, fully incorporating a neighbouring territory as a part of your state. It's the same thing that the Russians did, Donetsk and Luhansk becoming full fledged republics of the federation. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 07:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if it could be argued that it is a "de facto annexation", it still is not (the referendum is consultative and therefore voting to approve simply doesn't codify anything other than to send a message of approval), and there is not a significant body of work that directly states the referendum is asking to directly do so (however, there are many other things that are adjacent to a potential annexation or significant action being taken that are at hand in relation to the referendum) and the assertion of such would be a violation of WP:NOR. Ornithoptera (talk) 09:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The big difference is that Venezuela doesn't have de facto possession of the territory. As I understand it, it's controlled by Guyana and they are backed up by Brazil's powerful military. Venezuela is sabre-rattling for domestic consumption as the country is otherwise a shambles. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've made some improvements on the article, but more is needed on the veracity of the referendum. I highly doubt it was free and fair PrecariousWorlds (talk) 07:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support of clear significance and both bolded articles appear in good shape. I agree that annex is probably not the right word to use as that usually implies some degree of control over the territory. Not quite sure how best to word this - maybe "vote to a establish a state in the disputed region". ITBF (talk) 08:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is an ongoing dispute which is still before the ICJ. Venezuela's referendum does not seem significant as what will matter is physical control on the ground and international recognition. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Blurb is a bit long, and two bolded articles might be too much. Also no need to add "shown in green" if the map is already labeled. Support the shorter and more concise altblurb. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 09:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support and I have proposed alt2 to address concerns that the referendum wasn't technically for annexation. —M3ATH (Moazfargal · Talk) 09:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative blurb II in principle, Oppose main and alternative blurb: The referendum consisted in five questions, only of which the last one asked to begin steps to incorporate the territory, so the issue is more nuanced than voters asking to annex the territory, as others have mentioned.
Likewise, also commented above already, there's the initial results: while polls estimated a 20% turnout (around 4 million voters) and those figures were even coonsidered an overestimation, the Venezuelan government now says that over 10 million people voted (over 50% turnout). I think there weren't independent observers, but allowing this around 12 hours or so should allow to learn the position of experts and the opposition.
I know that electoral results usually aren't questioned in the ITN, but this should also be considered in the blurb (see (Posted) 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine). If everything else fails, I would support the inclusion of the Guayana Esequiba crisis article in the Ongoing section. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding referendum questions, as shown in the article, all of them are related to Guayana Esequiba which is explicitly mentioned in each of them, not just the last one. The 3rd one is perhaps particularly provocative, about "Venezuela's historical position of not recognizing the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice to resolve the territorial controversy over Guayana Esequiba". Also, altblurb II looks too verbose and conniving. Brandmeistertalk 11:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is an important move by Venezuela, but i understand why some are apprehensive to add it. But it IS a vote to annex a part of another sovereign nation, and should be brought to light.
Manumaker08 (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2023 attack on the USS Carney

(NON-ADMIN CLOSURE)
Closing good faith nom as consensus to post will likely not develop & WP:SNOW close. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 04:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: 2023 attack on the USS Carney (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A U.S Navy warship and a British military warship reported a explosion in Yemen. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the Red Sea, the USS Carney and several commercial vessels are attacked by the Houthi movement.
News source(s): https://apnews.com/article/red-sea-houthi-yemen-ships-attack-israel-hamas-war-gaza-strip-716770f0a780160e9abed98d3c48fbde
Credits:
A U.S Navy warship and a few commercial ships was struck by ballistic missiles fired from Yemen, and a few U.S Navy warships also shot down a few drones in self-defense. NewPedia24 (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Peta Murphy

Article: Peta Murphy (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.9news.com.au/national/peta-murphy-federal-labor-mp-dies-from-cancer/c771ddc2-991e-44b5-8f5d-82003cf9d733
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.

December 3

December 3, 2023 (2023-12-03) (Sunday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and incidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Yacouba Sawadogo

Article: Yacouba Sawadogo (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): RFI
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.

“The man who stopped the desert” Jmanlucas (talk) 06:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: three unsourced sentences, two of which is a summary of sourced sentences. I haven’t verified yet Aaron Liu (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed up any sentences I believe need citing. Feel free to add any CN tags to areas you still think should be cited. I don't believe every sentence necessarily needs a citation if a group of sentences use the same source. Jmanlucas (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie O'Sullivan wins UK Championship

Proposed image
Ronnie O'Sullivan
Article: 2023 UK Championship (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In snooker, Ronnie O'Sullivan wins a record-extending eighth UK Championship title. (Post)
News source(s): https://www.bbc.com/sport/snooker/67607991
Credits:

Ronnie O'Sullivan defeats China's Ding Junhui 10–7 to win a record-extending eighth UK Championship title. The UK Championship is one of the three prestigious Triple Crown events in snooker, which O'Sullivan has won a record 22 times. AmethystZhou (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Myles Goodwyn

Article: Myles Goodwyn (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [1]
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.

Canadian musician. Article needs a bit of work. Citations are slowly coming along. Flibirigit (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Glenys Kinnock

Article: Glenys Kinnock (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
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.

Needs a few citations before it's passable. - SchroCat (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - will need a looot of work before it's good to go. See that the bulk of her article is badly written and sourceless. I've tagged the article for everything needing a ref. At the moment, the problems are quite extensive. Sad news though. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC) [reply]

 Working - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added. - SchroCat (talk) 09:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2

December 2, 2023 (2023-12-02) (Saturday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Faustin Twagiramungu

Article: Faustin Twagiramungu (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News, RFI
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Former Prime Minister of Rwanda who took power in the wake of the Rwanda Genocide Jmanlucas (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not a critera for RD, all that matters is that the subject has an article, which all valid RD nominations have by definition JM (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Maria Martin

Article: Maria Martin (journalist) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NPR
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: American journalist, known for her contributions to Latino and Latin American affairs. ForsythiaJo (talk) 00:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 1

December 1, 2023 (2023-12-01) (Friday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Bob Albright

Article: Bob Albright (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): AL.com
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Former Alabama state legislator. Died November 27, reported in media on December 1. Kafoxe (talk) 06:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I was not aware of this resource, as I'd been relying on ones that were publicly available online, outside of the database. I've also corrected his time of tenure, as AL.com appears to have been mistaken. Kafoxe (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Brigit Forsyth

Article: Brigit Forsyth (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC Guardian
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.

(Posted) RD: John Byrne

Article: John Byrne (playwright) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Guardian
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.

Noted Scottish artist and playwright, could do with a few citations. yorkshiresky (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Badar uz Zaman

Article: Badar uz Zaman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Radio Pk
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.

 Fahads1982 (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) George Santos expelled from US Congress

No consensus to post and no need to extend the discussion any further.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: George Santos (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ George Santos is expelled from the United States House of Representatives. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
Only the sixth time in history someone has been kicked out of the House(and three of those were due to the Civil War) and the first since 2002. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC) We also have a great article to post. 331dot (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very rare evert QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Sixth time..." already indicates this is not exceptional, and given the weak consensus for the outing of McCarthy from House Speaker, I don't think getting this far into US politics is a good idea. --Masem (t) 16:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not six times this week, it's six times since 1787, and three of those were on one occasion(the Civil War) so really it's only four times. 331dot (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy to support expulsions from other national legislative bodies, too. 331dot (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned, it's the sixth time in history, across a span of years that exceeds the duration of pretty much every legislature on the planet besides the UK's Parliament. It's only the third time in the past 160 years. If we wanted to go with a Eurocentric view comparison here, this would be equivalent to something that'd just not been done since WW2 happening again. - Nottheking (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a different version of ITN, this would be a great nom. We should be posting articles that have substantial or interesting updates due to recent events, and this one has that in spades. This guy has been in office for less than a year and has a longer article than Nancy Pelosi (probably). GreatCaesarsGhost 16:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose so what? Nor does it seem to affect legislative normalcy or party domains. I suppose it is highly advisable that we look at the parliamentary activity (and its history) of other countries. Open the vision. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "So what?" could be applied to most news stories we blurb. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - it's not the US's fault that all the breaking news is happening here this week. Rare event, great article, etc. Have we ever posted the expulsion of a member of any legislature? --RockstoneSend me a message! 16:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Expulsion of members of legislatures is not as rare as you might think. If it has not been posted, it is because the editors have made the previous exercise of thinking that it is not significant. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you list some other expulsions? It's rare in the US. 331dot (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The senate has expelled 15 members. However, 14 were during the Civil War and 1 was in 1797 for treason/conspiracy. Noah, AATalk 17:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, but I was wondering about expulsions in other legislative bodies(to respond to the assertion that this isn't a rare thing) 331dot (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness, we kind of have to exclude those expelled during the Civil War. That was both some 160 years ago, and during a very different environment. This would be analogous to saying something happening in a European country is unusual just because it happened a number of times during World War 2. We're talking about an entirely different period of history. - Nottheking (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In Spain: Laura Borràs, Alberto Rodríguez Rodríguez, Oriol Junqueras and others Catalan independence leaders.
    In Argentina: Angel Luque, Varela Cid and Ancari de Godoy.
    In Ukraine: Serhiy Vlasenko.
    In Russia: Gennady Gudkov.
    In the UK: Horatio Bottomley, Peter Baker, Garry Allighan.
    To give a few examples. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue that Have we ever posted the expulsion of a member of any legislature? actually works against inclusion on ITN. I don't think we have before, and I don't think we should (rationale below in my Oppose vote). Bremps... 17:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Certainly an exceptional event, but one that I feel doesn't have too much of an impact. Kevin McCarthy being ousted as Speaker just barely made ITN, and that was an even more unprecedented event. PolarManne (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Domestic political scandals below the level of a head of state/government are not ITN material. I can't remember the last time (if ever) we posted anything like this. Crooked pols exist all over the world. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Criminal expelled from congress... little impact on its functioning and not really that important of an event. This wouldn't be considered for any other country.
Noah, AATalk 16:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would. And this does have an impact on functioning, reducing the already narrow GOP majority by one. 331dot (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time that someone has been expelled who has not been yet convicted of a crime. He can't even be legally called a criminal yet.
FictiousLibrarian (talk). 20:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FictiousLibrarian: He accepted a plea deal in Brazil for check fraud.

Noah, AATalk 21:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - this is not really that noteworthy in my opinion, basically just political trivia. - Indefensible (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, agreeing with 331dot. -- Tavix (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - We are confusing the issue by suggesting that this has earth-shattering political significance on the basis that the last such expulsion came during the Civil War. Rather, this was someone who was federally indicted for fraud and refused to resign as most other politicians would normally do in this scenario. Nixon's impeachment would have been significant whether or not he resigned or stayed until the bitter end, just because of how massive the fundamentals of the case were. Contrariwise, we would not be talking about this if Santos had simply resigned. Indefensible is right in that this is trivia. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per 331dot. This is historic and making global headlines, and as others have mentioned, we have a great article on this topic and this is the best moment to feature it. Davey2116 (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is the second Congressional expulsion of the 21st century. Not to mention one of 3 representatives who have been expelled on anything else than insurrection during the civil war. On top of the fact that the media is clearly covering this story extensively, this expulsion will set a new precedent in the operation of the United States House of Representatives. How this event will impact the house in the long term remains to be seen, regardless we are witnessing history unfold before our eyes. I strongly support this article's nomination FictiousLibrarian (talk). 20:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    FictiousLibrarian, Traficant was expelled in 2002. Curbon7 (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What would be the wider significance of this event? He is not a national leader. Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House was debatable, as he held a major position and because it was the first time it ever happened. Santos, on the other hand, is one representative out of more than 400 and is not the first congressperson to be expelled. Bremps... 17:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - Notability is a bit iffy but I could get behind putting it up due to how rare this event is and how much coverage it has generated. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I knew this was going to get nominated. A member of a legislative body getting expelled does not mean its life changing. It did not have a huge impact in the House, and isn't considerate for other countries outside of the U.S.
TomMasterRealTALK 19:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support This is a highly unprecedented move. This marks a very unusual threshold (as I've seen others mention) as this is the first time ever (out of thousands upon thousands of people to serve in Congress) person to be expelled for any reason other than "they directly participated in a rebellion against the Union" or "they were convicted of a felony but refused to resign." This will certainly have serious implications for the USA as a whole (which is sufficient reason for ITN: almost all news posted in ITN only directly impacts a single country, and isn't inherently an international event) but as of yet this total effect is unclear. It's understandable to note that this doesn't hold up to the standard for level of impact of, say, the prior posting of Henry Kissinger, as Kissinger was a truly international figure that had a greater impact on multiple countries than any of their respective heads of government they've had since.
At the minimum, this clearly will appear in the past as an "OTD" item, but I can see there being legitimate arguments that it doesn't meet the threshold for ITN. (mostly centered around how the greater impact outside of the GOP is unclear, and that such claims to notability might be construed as speculation) Unfortunately, whenever a news primarily focused on US national politics shows up, the !votes are cluttered with a number that directly ignore the rules for voting, but do seem to routinely get counted all the same. - Nottheking (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is has not been convicted of a crime in the United States. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 22:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above and no offence, but "global news" is not a synonym for "news in the Western world." —M3ATH (Moazfargal · Talk) 17:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moazfargal We can only consider what is nominated. Very happy to consider non-Western nominations. That's not a reason to exclude nominations. 331dot (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: I think I was misunderstood. I was referring to some comments that described this as global news, so I said that being in the news in the West doesn't make something global news. —M3ATH (Moazfargal · Talk) 18:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has made global news though. The ascension of Somalia to the EAC or the India tunnel collapse were region-specific too, but they got in PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is far harder to expel someone from either house of the U.S. Congress due to the required two-thirds supermajority than it is from the UK or Canadian House of Commons (in the latter, from what I've read, only a majority is necessary). Santos is the first member since the Civil War to be expelled in the absence of a criminal conviction, breaking a long custom that only members who refused to resign after being convicted should be expelled. This event marks a crossing of the Godzilla Threshold; it is more of a black swan than people here are giving it credit for.

    And as for it being U.S.-centric, the story has gotten a lot of traction in Brazil (for obvious reasons), and I've seen in my news feed plenty of British coverage as well. Daniel Case (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    We have a chronic allergy to anything to do with Domestic US Affairs. But next week we'll happily post the Ecuadorian Netball Tournament or whatever PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not us.wiki, this is en.wiki. We look to a global aspects, not just what may be important users from one country. Masem (t) 18:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They're as "domestic" as any other country's affairs. Since you're taking Ecuador as an example, would you post the removal of a congressperson from Ecuador? (which happened two years ago) ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 19:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If it had wide impacts, yes. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 19:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case it doesn't really have wide impact, as the Republicans still have a majority. It's just very talked about, but ITN standards and journalistic standards don't fully overlap. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 19:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, we are not posting stuff about individual congresspeople. The removal of McCarthy from speaker could've been ITN-worthy, the removal of a single congressperson certainly isn't. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 18:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; this is not particularly consequential even in the US outside of his district, as it does not materially change the balance of power, and rarity in and of itself is not newsworthy. For the record, I would oppose posting the expulsion of a member of any national legislature unless there were other circumstances making it exceptionally newsworthy. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't think we posted Johnson's election as Speaker, which is more significant as a news story. This doesn't change a whole lot even within the U.S. as others have said. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Under the long-running precedent, selection of a Speaker (or even that of a Prime Minister in Westminster Systems) isn't considered a landmark, notable event, mostly because their formal selection is usually tied to a prior event (e.g, the general election) and thus their eventually ascension to premiership is seen as inevitable; that, for instance, the UK has a new PM or the USA has a new Speaker upon reconvening after an election isn't major news; it was expected.
    In the case of Johnson, this was somewhat unique because it'd taken multiple ballots (and candidates) for one to emerge, but the outcome itself was ultimately predictable: "Republican majority elects Republican speaker on party-line basis." Had something particularly unusual happened (e.g, the House elected a Speaker that wasn't a sitting GOP member) that would've warranted its own event. But as it was, it was the closure of a story already posted to ITN: the ouster of McCarthy & "interregnum" that followed. - Nottheking (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; per presidentman. The election of a Speaker is more significant than the expulsion of a regular representative. Maj. Warden (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - definitely a rare event, but not unprecedented. The impact is pretty narrow, even though his seat will probably flip and narrow the already narrow republican majority.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose - Rare event? Yes. Internal U.S. politics, yes. CoatCheck (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest Close We are deep into WP:SNOW territory here. No need for the pile-on to continue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - rare but not all that important. One of 435 districts in the US does not have a representative in one of two legislative chambers. nableezy - 20:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what the story's about. After all, no one has been proposing blurbs for the deaths or resignation of unknown incumbent... Those are very common. However, to expel one is an extremely strong move that is strictly political; it's the equivalent to impeachment & removal from office. That is the actual topic being discussed; to direct the argument against something else would be something other than a move in good faith. - Nottheking (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and that is rare, but it remains not that important, with the sum total of effect being one of 435 districts in the US does not have a representative in one of two legislative chambers. nableezy - 22:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but suggest closure as it's clear that consensus will not develop This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with suggest close I already voted further above, but my count put it at something like 9 support vs. 12 oppose, (once excluding zero/invalid rationale votes, such as "only affects the USA") which is far short of a "consensus." - Nottheking (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTAVOTE. Curbon7 (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted RD): Sandra Day O'Connor

Consensus will not develop to post. (non-admin closure) -- RockstoneSend me a message! 09:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: Sandra Day O'Connor (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Former U.S. Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor (pictured) dies at the age of 93. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ First female U.S. Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor (pictured) dies at the age of 93.
News source(s): CNBC
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.
Ad Orientem (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. Incredible woman, RIP. GuardianH (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First woman appointed to the US Supreme Court. This news is just breaking so updating is needed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying My nomination is for RD. I oppose a blurb. She was an important person, but not that important. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb Beat me to it. Perhaps some things need updating but is still a lengthy and well-sourced article. Jmanlucas (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so. We shouldn't be blurbing every SCOTUS member death, and while we did blurb RBG, she had far more influence (as well as was still sitting). While O'Connor is notable for being the first women on the court and having her hand in a few key decisions, her influence wasn't as strong as RBG. Masem (t) 15:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's true, as she was at the ideological center of the Court and would be the one seeking compromise, whereas RBG being firmly on the left was frequently in the minority. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm looking beyond just their role as a Justice (as one can argue for any Justice that they would be important in their role on the Court, either way, but again, we should not be trying to blurb all Justices). RGB was far more influential outside of the Court. Masem (t) 16:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think O'Connor was important both as a Justice and as a major figure in U.S. women's rights. Her decision striking down single-sex admissions in Mississippi University for Women v Hogan was a critical step in Equal Protection law. (And it was the basis for RBG's more famous, but not actually legally groundbreaking, opinion striking down single-sex admissions at VMI, United States v Virginia.) O'Connor was on TIME Magazine's list of the 25 most powerful women of the 20th Century. She was not just a Supreme Court justice, she was also an icon. RBG (to her personal surprise) became a celebrity in her last few years because some law students called her the Notorious RBG, but pre-internet female law students turned out in droves to hear O'Connor. ALKinNYC (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While the circumstances of RBG's death were more notable, I’d say that O'Connor was more notable as a justice since she was the 1st woman on the Supreme Court & the swing vote in important cases. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no signficant article update to prompt such a feature. No section on her funeral or anything like that, nothing for us to show off. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's typical to enter an RD as a blurb prior to the funeral. That being said, there are heavy edits being made and it could possibly make sense to wait a few hours for this one. I also believe she was immensely influential, paving the way for justices such as Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor, Barrett, and Jackson. Jmanlucas (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality Not a lot but a handful of CNs and uncited statements at ends of paras. Also would be nice to see the proseline-type writing style fixed in the latter part of the article but that shouldn't stop posting RD. --Masem (t) 15:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article has been updated with news on her death.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • RD only. I agree with Masem that she was not quite as influential as RBG. 331dot (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quilty issues, but Support RD only. Once fixed, she is a perfect candidate for an RD. I'd needed convinced for blurb, other than be just the first woman on Supreme Court. TheCorriynial (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Let's not propose blurbs to American personalities for the simple fact of being American. There are almost 200 supreme courts in the world with their respective first female members. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    👍 Like -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    no one brought up this person's nationality as justification for a blurb. please try to contribute to the consensus with NPOV Belugsump (talk) 08:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD The remaining uncited statements are minimal (given the article length) and non-controversial. I oppose the blurb; while I typically endorse some US bias in blurbs due to the influence of American culture and politics worldwide, there is little evidence of that here. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD As much as my inner Arizonan wants a blurb, I have to concede that being the first woman on SCOTUS doesn't warrant one. We don't need two blurbs in a row being American politicians dying of old age. PolarManne (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb - if you look at her impact compared to Kissinger's, they are probably in the same ballpark, or she might even be ahead. Simply raising the bar higher prevents contradictory outcomes. - Indefensible (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think they are comparable. She was a run of the mill Supreme Court justice whose principle claim to fame was being the first woman on the court. Kissinger fundamentally changed the course of world history (for good and ill). He was the most consequential Sec. of State in US history and one of the most important foreign ministers in world history. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you underrate O'Connor and overrate Kissinger. O'Connor was the pivotal vote on a number of issues and was in office for over 2 decades while Kissinger was only SoS for 4 years. - Indefensible (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Those four years had a lot of impact that we are still feeling to this day, especially in the Middle East and in particular Israel. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 20:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't really just compare the offices held. Kissinger wasn't your average Secretary of State, just like RBG wasn't your average Justice. For O'Connor, while being the first woman on the court was an achievement, I don't think she rises to the same level. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 19:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, she was important but not enough for a blurb. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, weak oppose blurb The article has 2 CN tags, which should be rectified first, but it's in pretty good shape otherwise. We didn't blurb Dianne Feinstein, and I think O'Connor's impact is similar to hers. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 19:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD Article looks good enough. Weak support blurb Since she was the first female Supreme Court justice in the country's history. I'd support a blurb for a first female justice on any supreme court/high court of any nation. Her tenure also oversaw some landmark decisions as well. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support RD and blurb O'Connor opened the highest court in the United States to women, a truly enormous event in one of the most influential nations in the world, at a time when women's roles were extremely limited, both in the U.S. and globally. It was a huge deal. If you question whether this is worthy of international coverage, note that her death is currently on the front pages of El Pais, The Guardian, Le Monde, etc. That her death comes near another high-profile civil servant should be irrelevant. Girona7 (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, Oppose blurb I don't think this rises to the level of a blurb. Johndavies837 (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb - First of all, article looks good to go. The fact that O'Connor was the first woman on the Supreme Court and had several notable opinions during her tenure (namely Planned Parenthood v. Casey, among others) would lead me to believe she had enough long-term significance to warrant a blurb.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support and blurb – First woman on the highest court in the USA. I second what User:Girona7 wrote above. Missvain (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb - Article is good to go, and I think that her being the first women on the Supreme Court makes it very noteworthy, like what User:Girona7 wrote. Maj. Warden (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb - This does not rise to the level of importance we should expect to see for a blurb. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 20:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose blurb, support rd - not so widely covered as a death to merit a blurb imo. think the article fine at this point too. nableezy - 21:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, Oppose Blurb - Reviewed article, and it looks to be in great shape. While she was a significant figure, she wasn't very transformative in her field (a threshold that "first woman" falls short of) which is generally the requirement for a an ITN blurb for a death after leaving said office. (dying in office is unusual, and much more likely can merit a blurb, as the death itself has serious ramifications, as was the case for Justice Ginsberg in 2020) As it stands, definitely doesn't merit a blurb, but does seem ready to speedily post to RD: a good job to everyone who worked to ensure the high quality of the article! - Nottheking (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, Oppose Blurb, per above. Ornithoptera (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removing ready tag There's still at least one CN, one unsourced paragraph, and the list of the notable decisions she was involved needs sourcing as well. --Masem (t) 22:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, oppose blurb per all above. The Kip 22:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb, support RD per above consensus and my general policy of opposing all RDB This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, Oppose Blurb, article meets standards, old woman dies. JM (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, neutral on blurb but I've added an altblurb that highlights her significance in case this somehow makes the blurb, although this would definitely make a weak DYK when/if it becomes a GA. @Admins willing to post ITN: snowball's chance in hell of failing RD, could we post that rn? Aaron Liu (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I for one don't like posting bios where the date of birth is uncited. Schwede66 00:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Schwede66 I have cited the DoB. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I was beaten to posting this. Schwede66 00:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • She's fabulous, her story was very inspirational personally for me and other young women, but "first woman on SCOTUS" probably doesn't raise her to the level of global significance needed for a blurb. Of course support RD once any quality issues are addressed, that should go without saying. Valereee (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted RD It looks good enough for RD, though it could use improvement with a few more citations and rewriting "Activities and memberships" to be less PROSELINE. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If it needs "a few more citations" it wasn't ready to be posted. As I pointed out, the section about the major decisions she was involved in is mostly unsourced, and that really should be sourced. Masem (t) 01:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, neutral on blurb—The thing that makes the passing of Sandra Day O'Connor different from that of Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the fact that RBG died while she was still a sitting justice, at a time when her absence from SCOTUS would effectively ensure a conservative supermajority. SDOC died of old age 18 years after she retired from the bench; it is far less consequential. On the other hand, there is something to be said for being the first woman to ever serve on the most powerful court in the most powerful country. For this reason, I can't outright oppose a blurb. Kurtis (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb I can't imagine we would ever blurb the death of a judge from any other country in the world (except in situations where 'death is the story'). I don't see the need to blurb this person just because they are an American judge. Chrisclear (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb Ruth Bader Ginsburg got a blurb. I don't see why O'Connor shouldn't have one either. 159.118.77.237 (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb The first woman on the US Supreme Court, yes, involved in some important decisions as such, yes. But beyond this (and the major siginificance being attributed to the "first" aspect) I am not seeing anything convincing enough to blurb especially when this position was held more than a decade and a half ago. Gotitbro (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

November 30

November 30, 2023 (2023-11-30) (Thursday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and incidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Closed) Botticelli's recovered painting

(NON-ADMIN CLOSURE)
Consensus to post unlikely to develop. The Kip 22:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: Madonna delle Grazie (Botticelli) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The missing painting Madonna delle Grazie by Sandro Botticelli is recovered in Italy. (Post)
News source(s): CNN, Guardian, etc
Credits:

Article updated
While lost paintings do occasionally pop up, this, being Botticelli's, looks particularly noteworthy. Brandmeistertalk 15:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oppose - per above PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LGBT rights in Russia

Article: LGBT rights in Russia (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In a setback for LGBT rights in Russia, the country's Supreme Court bans the "LGBT movement" as "extremist". (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In a setback for LGBT rights in Russia, the country's Supreme Court bans the "LGBT movement".
Alternative blurb II: ​ Russia's Supreme Court is condemned by LGBT rights supporters for banning the "LGBT movement".
Alternative blurb III: ​ In Russia, the country's Supreme Court bans the "LGBT movement".
Alternative blurb IV: ​ The Russian Supreme Court outlaws the "international LGBT movement" as "extremist".
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

Blurb is a bit convoluted in order to fit the primary article, open to rephrasing. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 01:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Objectively, I think this news story meets the customary criteria for a blurb. However, Wikipedia, and ITN more specifically are not here to right great wrongs. And article quality is frankly nowhere near acceptable for posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose solely on quality as target article is orange-tagged. Definitely notable enough, though - it’s not just the banning of a single organization, but the entire movement. Rather disturbing news, honestly. The Kip 03:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Emperor Putin has already effectively banned the LGBT movement for years. He classified the flag and references as pornographic material and has had people arrested. He also banned same sex marriage via the constitutional amendment he pushed through. Hard to see how this is any different.
Noah, AATalk 03:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality - besides the CN, the summary table should have sources (which ought to reuse what's already present) --Masem (t) 03:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability, not ready on quality per Ad Orientem. Best case scenario is they've outlawed all public expression supportive of LGBT rights, worst case scenario is they've effectively outlawed being LGBT in public, and either of those are notable. All we know as a matter of fact is that the Supreme Court outlawed "the international LGBT movement". why does that terminology sound so familiar?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding that my preference is for Altblurb IV - my !vote was originally going to have paragraphs of ramblings about how I don't like using the term "the LGBT movement" in Wikivoice and how that does not adequately tell the reader what actually got banned for a number of fairly obvious reasons, "the LGBT movement" is not an entity or organization that can be dissolved by a legal ruling, it is a category of person and those who are supportive of said people, hence why even the target article LGBT movement is actually named LGBT movements plural. But I got into edit conflict after edit conflict and lost the original ramblings, and at the time no other users had expressed issue with the language so I was worried I'd just look like a crazy nitpicker anyways. Thankfully, multiple other editors have said what I wanted to say (in much fewer words than I was going to use) and someone even offered up a satisfactory altblurb.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 13:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No you're right that the language wasn't adequate, wasn't sure how to phrase it but having the claim in quotes is much better indeed. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 19:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the basis of notability, but I think the blurbs currently proposed are unclear. I propose the following alternate blurb: Russian Supreme Court outlaws the "international LGBT movement" as "extremist". --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 06:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added this proposal as Alt 4. JM (talk) 07:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality, way too many CN tags, and as far as I can tell there's only one line of update for this event, let alone having its own section. However if this ends up getting posted, if there ends up being a consensus to post, i would support Alt 4 because the first 2 blurbs are not NPOV, the 2nd altblurb is not the main story, and Alt3 definitely has the wrong bolded words (should be "bans" that is bolded, not "LGBT movement"). JM (talk) 07:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any blurb which uncritically refers to "the LGBT movement". To the extent the phrase means anything (our wikilink redirects to the crucially more accurate LGBT movements), it is an unquestioning repeating of the conspiracist rhetoric used by the justice department, which Reuters translates as "the international LGBT social movement". Far better to reflect the term "activist" which Reuters uses when not referring to government statements, eg. "In Russia, the country's Supreme Court bans the LGBT activism." (Edit conflicted here, ALT4 is an alternative that presents the statement as a quote, which is another option resolving this issue.) CMD (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, wasn't feeling too well about it but didn't know how to word it better. Thanks for the better wordings that make it clear that "LGBT movement" is not a real, specific thing, but at the same time that it will have an impact on actual LGBT people. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 17:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose So, what? The LGBT movement is banned in much of Africa, Central Asia and Western Asia. There are even countries in which LGBT people get death penalties (e.g. Iran) or get tortured before death (e.g. Saudi Arabia). In addition, the LGBT community in Russia didn't have many rights prior to this decision so that this can be considered a major setback (note that death is regularly enforced in Chechnya). I think decrimanlisation in Iran or Saudi Arabia would be a much greater news than this decision that changes very little in practice.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Chechnya is an autonomous republic, and not representative of the laws in Russia at large. This is a much bigger and much more worrying change. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 17:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The blurbs are absolutely woeful, but the difference is that rather than saying "you can't be gay" and hurting those who still are, Russia has now apparently labelled any form of belief that LGBT+ people can exist as extremist ideology and basically treachery (comments from Milonov on 'extremist aims to destabilise Russia'). So not just LGBT+ people will face prison, but anyone who acknowledges homosexuality/bisexuality/etc is real. And it seems by calling it extremism (instead of just criminalising), Russia extends their powers in how harshly suspects can be treated, too. Kingsif (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So not just LGBT+ people will face prison, but anyone who acknowledges homosexuality/bisexuality/etc is real this is hyperbole, the authorities themselves must acknowledge that homosexuality is real in order to persecute these people. It's fully possible to describe the significance of such a ruling and its consequences without exaggeration. JM (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Milonov said they would try to clamp down on any information about LGBT+, period: it's not hyperbole. And how would the authorities have to acknowledge homosexuality is real to clamp down? They follow the party line that it's something made up to destroy families. (ed: Which seems to be the whole point of this new ruling, actually. Formalising for prosecution purposes that Russia says LGBT+ isn't real but a dangerous ideology the West has created to harm the state.) I know that a 'lesser' version of this ruling would be severe and significant, but they've really started with full censorship/invisibility tactics here. Kingsif (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the issue here is that we are using two different meanings of "real". Your "real" is "something that exists and is natural", my "real" is "something that exists whether invented or natural". It doesn't really matter, the result in Russia is the same, and so the significance for blurbing is the same. JM (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the issue might be a little more in your interpretation of the legislation, because that's not how I meant "real". But yes, it's moot. Kingsif (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per @Kiril Simeonovski PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose solely on quality The news are definitely notable, but as others above have stated, there are far too many CN tags within the article. --Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk) 11:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Elliott Erwitt

Article: Elliott Erwitt (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, 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.

French-born American photographer, notable for documenting personalities such as Richard Nixon and Marilyn Monroe, as well as events such as the 2009 inauguration of Barack Obama and John F. Kennedy's state funeral. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Alistair Darling

Article: Alistair Darling (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sky News, BBC News
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.

Former Labour Party Chancellor of the Exchequer and Member of Parliament (MP). BlakeIsHereStudios (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: needs work on the citations. - SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above - far too much unreferenced material. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are still some area's not sourced, but I don't know how strict to be for a yes or not on RD. Govvy (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1 or 2 CN tags is considered fine, any more than that is usually not. JM (talk) 07:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when? It most certainly wasn't considered fine 12 months ago. Polyamorph (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITNQUALITY one or two "citation needed" tags may not hold up an article JM (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that means one or two cns should not hold up the posting but rather that it's possible one or two wouldn't be seen by some/many people as a problem, especially if the content that is tagged isn't controversial. I don't think it's making a definite statement that one or two is fine, even if they're on contentious material and/or editors are objecting. Valereee (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That also states Biographies of living persons are held to higher standards of referencing because of their sensitive nature, and these rules also apply to those recently deceased. As such I don't think the 'one or two' cn tags flexibility applies for RD. Personally I don't think it's acceptable on any article, but it certainly hasn't been acceptable to have cn tags on previous RD discussions. Polyamorph (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There was just an argument about this in Kissinger's RD/blurb discussion, where Vanilla Wizard said the following: WP:BLP does not apply to the recently deceased when their death is confirmed by reliable sources. Any extension to BLP on such an article only apply to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime. JM (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That argument does not represent the consensus here, as stated in WP:ITNQUALITY that you referenced. If you want this change in how things are done at ITN for RD then a more extensive discussion is needed, at this project's talk page and update the criteria notes accordingly. Polyamorph (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Take it up with Vanilla Wizard, I'm just quoting them from below, where it seemed to be 4v1 in favour of BLP not applying to confirmed deaths (Vanilla Wizard, Ed, BilledMammal, and F4U vs Masem), so they seem to disagree that it goes against policy. Additionally, Queen of Hearts had no problem agreeing that ITNQUALITY was not an issue for a few CNs. Oh and also as far as I can tell BLP doesn't say we can't have any CN tags, just that contentious material must be sourced to RS. JM (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Take it up with Vanilla Wizard they're not the one discussing here. This is not the place to decide consensus. Your 5v1 count is not consensus. Historically, here at ITN, RDs have required cn tags be addressed before posting. If you want to change that, a discussion is needed at the talk page, not here. Polyamorph (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC) note: the comment this is response to has been edited Polyamorph (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, the only consensus I see is that of the Kissinger discussion, where the consensus of people involved in the ITNQUALITY/BLP arguement was that a few CNs was fine. That's the only consensus on that area that I can recall (I haven't been here long) and it contradicts what you're saying. So where is this consensus you are talking about? If I could see it then I could judge for myself. JM (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC) note: my comment was corrected within 2 minutes of your comment, before I saw you had commented, in order to clarify that Queen of Hearts agreed with the ITNQUALITY part, not specifically the BLP part. JM (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've opened a thread on the talk page, as this is not the correct place for this discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Shane MacGowan

Article: Shane MacGowan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Guardian
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.

Lead singer of the Pogues (Fairytale of New York) The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 12:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 29

November 29, 2023 (2023-11-29) (Wednesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology

Sports

RD: Michèle Rivasi

Proposed image
Article: Michèle Rivasi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): France Bleu
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.

French MEP since 2009, arrested for breaking into the Kleine Brogel Air Base out of protest with three other MEPs. Jmanlucas (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Reposted) RD/blurb: Henry Kissinger

Quality issues addressed, reposted. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 07:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


Proposed image
Article: Henry Kissinger (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  American statesman Henry Kissinger dies at age 100. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Former U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger dies at the age of 100.
News source(s): WaPo
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.

Been waiting for this day. Davey2116 (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

now now, this is still Wikipedia let’s not turn ITN/C in to a place where we celebrate somebody’s death. We can do that in the privacy of our own homes. nableezy - 01:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. He was 100! His death is no surprise at all!! HiLo48 (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What evidence do you have that he was "one of the most powerful and effective figures in geopolitics"? Chrisclear (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I defer to the biographical article proposed for a blurb. The lede contains multiple sentences noting that Kissinger held a very prominent role in the foreign policy of the United States during his tenure and as such became regarded as a highly effective and influential secretary of state, with some even regarding him as the most effective in the last half-century. I can think of few other geopoliticians whose decisions had so much sway over a nation's foreign policy, and whose ideas continued to influence future leaders even after his time in government came to an end. I'll even go as far as to say this isn't necessarily an Ameri-centric blurb — how many nations' histories have been touched by his decisions?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alt blurb. Maybe American-centric, but hugely notable and controversial. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 02:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb - obviously one of the most influential and well-known figures of the late 20th century; definitely a leader in his field until today. — Knightoftheswords 02:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb as per what others have said above. Alt blurb is a bit more descriptive and neutral than OG blurb. For five more minutes...it's just a single vice 02:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support- His legacy was important in US geopolitics during the Cold War. In addition, his death was recent so it would make sense to be in the news. Rager7 (talk) 02:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, obviously. BilledMammal (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb or alt blurb. Hate him or love him, he was immensely important on a world scale. Valereee (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt blurb, per those above. BD2412 T 02:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality Support !votes without addressing quality need to be ignored before even considering a blurb. --Masem (t) 02:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the article I don't see any quality issues so significant that they would prevent the posting of this blurb; while quality is important, it doesn't need to be perfect, and the more significant the topic the further it can be from perfect to still be appropriate to post. BilledMammal (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      There are "citation needed" and at least one unsourced paragraphs. Those are dead stops if we are considering a blurb. We do not sacrifice quality to rush something like this to post. Masem (t) 02:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Given the length of the article, the number of "citation needed" tags appears to be appropriate per WP:ITNQUALITY, and I'm not seeing any entire sections that lack sources or red/orange tags. BilledMammal (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      WRONG. Its a BLP, its held to a higher standard. Zero CNs and zero unsourced paragraphs are the target. Masem (t) 04:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      He's not alive. Have you not read the blurb? ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 04:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      BLP applies to the recently deceased (for at least a period of 6 months). Masem (t) 04:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Not sure where you're pulling this out of, but it does not (not without editorial consensus which is clearly unlikely to exist). WP:BDP is the link to the relevant section. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 04:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I too was going to reply to this to bring up WP:BDP. WP:BLP does not apply to the recently deceased when their death is confirmed by reliable sources. Any extension to BLP on such an article only apply to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime. Unless any contentious material in the article could plausibly have implications for living relatives of Kissinger, BLP does not apply to this article.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      There was some change in that policy in 2021 [2] which did not seem to have any RFC, and was a result of one editor taking an initiative based on an ANI thread, which did not seem to have consensus. The prior version of BDP was clear that it wasn't just contentious material that was important to consider for recently deceased. I am going to open a discussion on WT:BLP related to this.
      That said, quality is still a core requirement for any posting, and if we've been looking for CN-free articles for other RDs, we absolutely can expect the same here, and it wasn't like it was days away from being fixed - it was a handful that within hours has gotten fixed. Too many editors here blinding !voting support without workign on improving the article or considering the quality is epidemic of well-known figures. Masem (t) 05:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      ITNQUALITY does not align with the opinion expressed in your first sentence. Ed [talk] [OMT] 06:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt blurb one of the most influential persons of the 20th century. --TheDutchViewer (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No blurb A major person. That's why he has a lovely big article. But his significant actions were all many decades ago. Nothing new to be said. And we must obviously ignore every comment that effectively says he obviously deserves a blurb. That's NOT an argument! HiLo48 (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, Nelson Mandela and Margaret Thatcher would not have been blurbed. starship.paint (RUN) 03:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kissinger was never a leader of a country. HiLo48 (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pelé was never a leader of a country either, we blurbed him. starship .paint (RUN) 03:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And shouldn't have. Your point? HiLo48 (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My logic is that they shouldn't have been. JM (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb. One of the most influential political figures of the last hundred years. I agree with the concern that statesman sounds too favourable. I'd *personally* go with "war criminal" but in the interest of compromise would accept the alternative blurb. Would also accept no blurb, but I think it would be odd to not have his death noted on the main page at all.
Patitsel (talk) 04:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which war crimes was Kissinger convicted of? ITN is not a place for polemic. We can't say "war criminal" if he wasn't convicted. JM (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People really shouldn't live this long after their career ends. Valereee (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need to bring that up to God. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 03:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
God's got a lot of explaining to do, in my book. Valereee (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTFORUM if you have opinions on things other than significance or article quality you should go to Twitter or something. JM (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb per above on notibilty. Being a more high-profile member of the U.S. Government and arguably one of the most powerful members to never be president, his death merits a blurb. Although I understand the reasons behind those who !oppose, I stand by my vote. On quality: Yes, there are some CN tags still in article, but the number has been reduced to 2. Ideally, those should be rectified as well, but for an article of this length, it can sort of get away with 2 tags. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 04:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting Support - Considering just how influential in global affairs he continued to be even up to the age of 100. Whatever you think of him, damn, what a life PrecariousWorlds (talk) 07:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Sticky Vicky

Article: Sticky Vicky (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): LadBible Joe
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.

NAEGABYEONHAE (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 28

November 28, 2023 (2023-11-28) (Tuesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

(Posted) RD: Agyemang Diawusie

Article: Agyemang Diawusie (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Bundesliga Jahn Regensberg Kicker
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.

German association football player. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 17:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: James Douglas-Hamilton, Baron Selkirk of Douglas

Article: James Douglas-Hamilton, Baron Selkirk of Douglas (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Herald
Credits:

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

Scottish politician. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support a few unsourced claims, not enough to be a significant issue JM (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mali (elephant)

Article: Mali (elephant) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Rappler
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.

KTerPalmers (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Charlie Munger

Article: Charlie Munger (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNBC
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.

Thriley (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above JM (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) India tunnel collapse rescue

Proposed image
Article: 2023 Uttarakhand tunnel rescue (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ All 41 workers who were trapped in the under construction Silkyara-Barkot tunnel are rescued after 17 days. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ After 17 days trapped in a collapsed tunnel in Uttarkashi, all 41 workers are rescued.
News source(s): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/28/indian-rescuers-reach-41-men-trapped-in-tunnel
Credits:

Article updated
Support - Wow! Absolutely incredible story, definitely deserves to go up! Change of pace from the usual depressing news stream PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=1188373290"