Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

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.

Samantha Harvey Samantha Harvey (pictured) wins the Booker Prize for her novel Orbital. Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby announces his resignation as a result of the John Smyth abuse scandal in the Church of England. In Zhuhai, China, 35 people are killed in a vehicle-ramming attack. Alliance for Change, led by Navin Ramgoolam, wins the Mauritian general election. Ongoing: Israel–Hamas war Israeli invasion of Lebanon Russian invasion of Ukraine timeline Sudanese civil war timeline Recent deaths: Dorothy Allison Trevor Sorbie Daim Zainuddin Jürgen Becker Christine Görner Timothy West 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. 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... Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten. Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page. Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible. Please do not... Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself. Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive. Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest. Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s). Oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. Discuss them here. 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.

September 5

Portal:Current events/2022 September 5

September 5, 2022 (2022-09-05) (Monday) Armed conflicts and attacks Islamist insurgency in the Sahel Jihadist insurgency in Burkina Faso Thirty-five civilians are killed and 37 others injured as a convoy of vehicles carrying supplies strike a roadside bomb along the road from Bourzanga to Djibo, Soum Province, Burkina Faso. (Al Jazeera) Afghanistan conflict Islamic State–Taliban conflict Bombing of the Russian embassy in Kabul Eight people are killed when an Islamic State suicide bomber detonates his explosives near the entrance of the Russian embassy in Kabul. Two of the victims were Russian staff members. (Al Jazeera) Five Pakistani soldiers and four Pakistani Taliban militants are killed during a gunfight in North Waziristan. (Al Jazeera) Business and economy 2022 Russia–European Union gas dispute Russia's Gazprom announces that gas flows through the Nord Stream 1 natural gas pipeline to Europe will not resume until sanctions against Russia are lifted. (Financial Times) Disasters and accidents 2022 Luding earthquake A magnitude 6.8 earthquake strikes Luding County, Sichuan, China, killing at least 66 people and injuring at least 250 others. (Reuters) September 2022 Afghanistan earthquake Ten people are killed and nine more injured during an earthquake in eastern Afghanistan. (Pajhwok Afghan News) 2022 Pacific hurricane season Three people are killed after Tropical Storm Kay strengthens into a hurricane in Mexico. (Reuters) A vehicle and train collision in Kunfehértó, Hungary, kills seven people and injures the train's driver. (Times Union) One person is killed and nine others are missing after a floatplane crashes in the Puget Sound near Seattle, Washington, United States. (AP) Six people are killed after a building collapses in Lagos, Nigeria. (AP) Law and crime 2022 Saskatchewan stabbings One of the suspects in yesterday's mass stabbing that killed ten people in Saskatchewan is found dead. The other suspect remains at large. (AP) Ivan Safronov, a former Russian journalist, is sentenced to 22 years in prison on treason charges after being found guilty of disclosing "state secrets", which he alleged were open source. Safronov had been under detention since July 2020. (Reuters) Politics and elections 2022 Conservative Party leadership election Liz Truss is elected Leader of the Conservative Party and will succeed Boris Johnson as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom on 6 September. (BBC News) 2022 Kenyan general election The Supreme Court of Kenya rules that William Ruto is the winner of the presidential election after facing court challenges over the results. (Leadership)

---

UK conservative party election / new PM

Article: 2022 Conservative Party leadership election (UK) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Liz Truss (pictured) succeeds Boris Johnson as leader of the Conservative Party and becomes Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. (Post)
Credits:

• Nominated by Amakuru (talk · give credit)

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Result was announced today, although handover is tomorrow, so perhaps we wait until then. It looks like WP:ITN/R otherwise though, as a change in head of government.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment - Better wait...until everything's done and ready, as usual for such events. PenangLion (talk) 11:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment Agree with nominator's comments; best to wait until Truss is sworn in tomorrow (Sept 6). Compusolus (talk) 11:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. We don't usually wait for the formal assumption of office, we post when the winner is determined(i.e. we posted Biden winning when RS determined him to be the winner, not when he took office). Should be posted when ready. 331dot (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

2022 Luding earthquake

Article: 2022 Luding earthquake (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A magnitude 6.6 earthquake strikes China's Sichuan province leaves at least 21 dead (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press
Credits:

• Nominated by Dora the Axe-plorer (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Quake1234 (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Some sources mention magnitude 6.8, this is due to the different authoritative agencies reporting the magnitude (USGS & CENC). Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 12:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

September 4

Portal:Current events/2022 September 4

September 4, 2022 (2022-09-04) (Sunday) Armed conflicts and attacks Russo-Ukrainian War 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine 2022 Ukrainian southern counteroffensive Ukrainian forces recapture the town of Vysokopillia in Kherson Oblast, which has been under Russian occupation since March, and raise the Ukrainian flag over the town's hospital. (Newsweek) Israeli–Palestinian conflict Six Israeli soldiers and a civilian driver are injured when three gunmen open fire on a bus in Nablus, in the occupied West Bank. Two of the attackers are later arrested. (Times of Israel) Disasters and accidents A Syrian Air Force helicopter crashes in Hama, Syria, killing all of the people on board. (Reuters) A private Cessna 551 crashes into the Baltic Sea, off the coast of Latvia. (BBC News) Law and crime 2022 Saskatchewan stabbings Ten people are killed and fifteen others injured in a mass stabbing at the James Smith Cree Nation and the nearby village of Weldon in Saskatchewan, Canada. The two suspects remain at large. (CBC News) Hamas authorities execute five Palestinians in the first executions in Palestinian territories since 2017. Two of those executed were accused of espionage. (Reuters) Politics and elections 2022 Chilean national plebiscite By a margin of 62% to 38%, Chileans vote to reject the new proposed constitution drafted by the Constitutional Convention. (The Guardian)

---

RD:Coroebus (horse)

Article: Coroebus (horse) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Bloodhorse/Racing Post
Credits:

• Nominated by Dumelow (talk · give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Irish/British race horse, have added a short paragraph on his death - Dumelow (talk) 06:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support – Tragic young death. Article is looking good; I do think the first paragraph of Background still requires a citation. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Good spot, I've cited this - Dumelow (talk) 07:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

2022 Chilean national plebiscite

Article: 2022 Chilean national plebiscite (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Voters in Chile overwhelmingly reject a new Constitution put forward by the Constitutional Convention. (Post)
News source(s): BiobioChile
Credits:

• Nominated by BastianMAT (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Historical vote. Final projections are showing a landslide win for rejection. BastianMAT (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose on article quality. Article needs updating, expanded text and improved referencing with an emphasis on some of the tables. Sorry but this is not currently up to scratch for ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support once the issues mentioned by Ad Orientem are solved. The protests that were partly cause for the constitutional project were posted back in 2019.--NoonIcarus (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment My only concern is that I think "overwhelmingly" should be striken from the blurb. Nowadays 61,86% is a large margin, but the word can be misleading and is not neutral. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support now and putting the inevitable Chilean migrant crisis into Ongoing when they join the millions of others migrating north fleeing the failed socialist experiments of Latin America --LaserLegs (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  Neolibs caused the crisis in the first place, but whatever you say bud. The Kip (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm unsure you got things right, LaserLegs. Chile rejected the left-leaning proposed Constitution; but that doesn't mean that bill was going to convert Chile into a socialist country. --Bedivere (talk) 02:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  Hooray! In that case Oppose nothing happened. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  Please try to avoid factoring opinions about the topic (or even about other topics) into this discussion. Base your replies on the article's current quality and the ITN inclusion criteria. Cambalachero (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  Sure! --Bedivere (talk) 03:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  ITN is not any place for offhanded political commentary, that was part of the civility problem we discussed. Masem (t) 04:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  @LaserLegs: Please don't share your political beliefs here in ITN. No one cares, and it weakens your argument. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 06:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support as per above. Have taken the drafted Constitution content into its own article. --Bedivere (talk) 02:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think completely removing the description of the proposed constitution leaves a hole in the article. I don't suppose you can put a summary back? Rockphed (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• Conditional support once prose is added in the Results section. That is notorious, despite what Operation Condor fans say a few lines above. _-_Alsor (talk) 06:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "Operation Condor fans" is highly offensive and uncalled for. This is not the place for political squabbling... and that goes for both the left, the right, and anything in between. Cambalachero (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support notability but oppose quality changing a fundamental foundation of a state or a country-wide rare referendum is worthy of notability. However the article has lots of statistics and charts (which is great) but almost no prose, and as someone not versed the subject I'm still none the wiser. Why was it allegedly "left-leaning"? Who proposed it and why? What was hoped to be achieved? Why now? What happens now that it was rejected? Implications for those who supported and opposed? Basic questions are left unanswered. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose on quality, Support on notability. I can't think of a similar event being posted, but I also cannot think of a similar event happening. I think we would have posted if Brexit had failed at the voting booth. I'm sure someone can find any previous times similar things got nominated. On article quality, while the article is probably technically long enough, it has sections that are just tables. We don't post ITN/R sports events when they have those types of sections, we shouldn't post elections (however notable) in this condition. Rockphed (talk) 12:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Saskatchewan stabbings

Article: 2022 Saskatchewan stabbings (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least ten people are killed and fifteen injured after multiple stabbings across Saskatchewan. (Post)
News source(s): Independent, AP, BBC, Guardian, Reuters
Credits:

• Nominated by The Rambling Man (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Multiple deaths and injuries at multiple locations. Crime appears to be ongoing, so clearly more work on the article is needed, but I think this already rises to the level of notability required, at least ten deaths through stabbing in Canada. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support in principle but article is currently a stub. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Article is now adequately expanded. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support on principle once article is expanded. The Kip (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support ... pending article development. Widely covered. – Sca (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Big news. Definitely atypical for the area. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 23:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Truly bizarre. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• Wait until we know why. Shootings, stabbings, vehicle attacks - when the cause is just "someone went crazy" - are tragic but not really notable. If they were targeting Cree for specific reasons we can revisit. Also meh article. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support, but reluctantly. I have a hard time thinking about this, given mass shootings and stabbings are pretty common worldwide, but rarely gets into ITN especially once it comes to Anglophone countries. Even my country's media has covered this just once as of now. But this is atypical for a mass stabbing and definitely a big news. RIP to the victims, and I hope this ends soon. MarioJump83 (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

A blatant troll attempt.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose everyday occurence in the united states, i remember hearing a statistic that more people die in chicago every night than during any of the recent mass shootings. not to mention that in this particular stabbing spree the stabbings didn't all occur at the same spot/at the same time Daikido (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC) Ok but you do realize that Canada is a sovereign nation north of the United States right? --LaserLegs (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC) …did you even read the headline? The Kip (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC) What does the US have to do this? Canada is a different country, in case you didn't know. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 01:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC) Trout delivered. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support—Definitely not normal up here in Canada. Multiple emergency alerts have gone off over the past few hours. (Full disclosure: I live in Alberta.) Kurtis ^(talk) 23:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Kurtis, Canadian here, this meets the criterion in addition to being covered internationally. Ornithoptera (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 01:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 02:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

RD: Cyrus Mistry

Article: Cyrus Mistry (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC World
Credits:

• Nominated by Sherenk1 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by AgarwalYuvraj (talk · give credit) and Rejoy2003 (talk · give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Billionaire former Tata chairman Sherenk1 (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• blurb Former head of a Major global MNC that owned Jag/landrover and corus Steel. (totally a false flag, but thats besides the Point).37.252.81.124 (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• Needs a bit of ref improvement still. - Indefensible (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Blurb mediocre article, I'd expect better for someone "significant enough" for a blurb. Died at 54 in a car accident though. Really depends if his death becomes a story or not. If it's just "Oh, Cyrus died" then RD is fine --LaserLegs (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  Cyrus and Jehangir. And not just died. Killed by a speeding gynecologist (allegedly) who married the latter's brother. It has legs, Legs. But I'll need to see a decent proposal first. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb, oppose RD till article quality is improved article subject doesn't have a transformative impact on the corporate world or the Indian economy. Tube·of·Light 05:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

September 3

Portal:Current events/2022 September 3

September 3, 2022 (2022-09-03) (Saturday) Armed conflicts and attacks Somali Civil War Twenty people are killed in a mass shooting by al-Shabaab insurgents against vehicles transporting food supplies from Beledweyne to Mahas in the Hiran region. (AP) Arts and culture Twenty-seven ancient artifacts housed in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, United States, are seized by federal investigators under the suspicion that they were looted. The artifacts will be repatriated to Italy and Egypt next week. (CNN via MSN) Disasters and accidents Illegal immigration to the United States U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents and Mexican police find nine migrants dead in the Rio Grande after dozens of migrants attempt to cross into Eagle Pass, Texas, United States. At least 70 other migrants are rescued. (AP) International relations Aegean dispute President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdoğan accuses Greece of "arming" and "occupying" the demilitarized Aegean islands, with Minister of Foreign Affairs Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu threatening to revoke recognition of Greek sovereignty over the islands if the alleged militarization is not halted. (Reuters) Politics and elections Death and funeral of Mikhail Gorbachev The funeral of former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev is held in Moscow. (The Guardian) 2021–present global energy crisis An estimated 70,000 people march in the Czech Republic's capital city Prague demanding that the government do more to control soaring energy prices in the country and voicing opposition to the country's involvement in the Russo-Ukrainian War. The demonstration was organized by political groups including the Communist Party. (Reuters) Science and technology NASA suspends the inaugural launch of the Artemis 1 rocket for a second time, after a fuel leak causes a delay of more than two hours. (MSN)

---

RD: Jeff German

Article: Jeff German (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Las Vegas Review-Journal
Credits:

• Nominated by Dumelow (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Omega@dnet.net (talk · give credit), MurrayGreshler (talk · give credit) and Rauisuchian (talk · give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: American investigative reporter, stabbed to death outside his home. Article is new and quite short but developing - Dumelow (talk) 08:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

RD: Herbert Kohler Jr.

Article: Herbert Kohler Jr. (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Fox6 News
Credits:

• Nominated by Dumelow (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Edwardx (talk · give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: American billionaire. I've added some content and removed a citation needed tag. Edwardx has also been bringing it up to scratch. Still some work to do - Dumelow (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

No more time to work on this at the moment but citations needed only for the first paragraph of "Business career" - Dumelow (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment a couple cites needed. Beyond that this reads like a PR release. Not so grossly promotional that it's obvious. But the general tone is what I would expect from a flack. Not sure it's enough to justify an oppose. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I've now cited this section (and the first paragraph on golf courses), stripping out some PR-sounding material in each - Dumelow (talk) 08:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sterling Lord

Article: Sterling Lord (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times; Associated Press
Credits:

• Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Sunshineisles2 (talk · give credit)

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support Honestly, when Bloom6132 is the nom, I don't know why I even bother checking. Their nominations are always squared away. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support Marking ready. Did some additional copyediting; short but meets minimum standards, referenced. Spencer^T•C 00:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Posted - Dumelow (talk) 08:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Serena Williams retires

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: Serena Williams (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Tennis legend Serena Williams retires (Post)
News source(s): [1] [2]
Credits:

• Nominated by Banedon (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Jgtrevor (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Can't guarantee she'll permanently stay retired, but since it's currently in the news and we posted such retirements in the past, nominating this to see what people think. Banedon (talk) 08:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Retirement of a very prominent top athlete. Sports related retirements of top athletes and teams have also been posted before (eg. Alex Ferguson). Carter00000 (talk) 08:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I've never supported a nomination that addresses the retirement of an athlete, no matter how famed. It's simply another stage in Serena Williams' career. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - don't get me wrong, Serena is a huge star and role model for many, and watching her over the years has been an amazing experience. But like Alsor, I just think we shouldn't blurb any sporting retirement, it just opens the floodgates for numerous similar "retirement of GOAT" claims in the future. Note the debate about Tom Brady, also a clear GOAT, whom we also didn't post.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Posting Sachin Tendulkar and Alex Ferguson were mistakes not to be repeated --LaserLegs (talk) 09:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose As the situation with Tom Brady showed us, nope, since this can be reversed at any time. --Masem (t) 10:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose She hasn't even explicitly said that was her last match. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose – Of interest mainly to a niche audience, though quite a large one. – Sca (talk) 12:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

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.

September 2

Portal:Current events/2022 September 2

September 2, 2022 (2022-09-02) (Friday) Armed conflicts and attacks Afghanistan conflict Islamic State–Taliban conflict 2022 Herat mosque bombing Eighteen people are killed and 23 others are injured by a suicide bombing at a Sunni mosque in Herat, Afghanistan. The mosque's pro-Taliban imam, who is suspected to be the target of the attack, is among the dead. (Reuters) Colombian conflict 2022 Huila attack Seven policemen are killed and one is injured during an ambush in Huila Department, Colombia. Their vehicle hit a roadside bomb before being shot dead by gunmen. (BBC News) Israeli–Palestinian conflict A Palestinian man stabs and injures an Israeli soldier near Kiryat Arba in the West Bank. The attacker is shot dead by security forces. (AP) The Iranian Navy captures and later releases two American sea drones in the Red Sea. (MSN) Business and economy 2021–present global energy crisis The G7 group of nations announce plans for a price cap on Russian oil. Russia vows to halt sales to countries imposing it. (Reuters) 2022 Russia–European Union gas dispute Following the G7's announcement, Russia's Gazprom announces that flows through the Nord Stream 1 natural gas pipeline to Europe will not resume tomorrow because of a reported "oil leak" in a turbine. It did not give a new time frame. (Reuters) (BBC News) Disasters and accidents 2022 Atlantic hurricane season Hurricane Danielle becomes the first hurricane of the Atlantic season. (CNN) Law and crime Deposed leader of Myanmar Aung San Suu Kyi is sentenced to three years in prison after being found guilty of election fraud. She will now serve an overall sentence of 20 years in prison for different charges. (Al Jazeera) Politics and elections Exile of Gotabaya Rajapaksa Former president Gotabaya Rajapaksa returns to Colombo, Sri Lanka, after seven weeks of exile. (AP) Sports FINA permits the use of special swim caps specifically designed for dreadlocks, hair weaves or extensions, and voluminous hair, branded as the Soul Cap, in all water sports competitions. It had been banned at the 2020 Summer Olympics. (CNN)

---

RD: Drummie Zeb

Article: Drummie Zeb (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian; The Times; Deadline Hollywood
Credits:

• Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: First reported today (September 2); exact date of death not known. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

RD: Peter Eckersley (computer scientist)

Article: Peter Eckersley (computer scientist) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Naked Security
Credits:

• Nominated by Thriley (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Johndanielbeatty (talk · give credit), Indrora (talk · give credit) and GorillaWarfare (talk · give credit)

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

 Thriley (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support Looks good. --Vacant0 (talk) 10:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support, Article is good. Alex-h (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Article looks good. Skynxnex (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: 2 CN tags, then good to go. Spencer^T•C 00:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Zenno Rob Roy

Article: Zenno Rob Roy (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Thoroughbred Daily News
Credits:

• Nominated by Dumelow (talk · give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Japanese race horse, will look to address minor missing references - Dumelow (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support. It looks good to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdrianHObradors (talk • contribs) 22:26, 2022 September 2 (UTC)
• Support no issues. Good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Posted. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 12:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Frank Drake

Article: Frank Drake (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Ars Technica
Credits:

• Nominated by Count Iblis (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Thriley (talk · give credit) and Polyamorph (talk · give credit)

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

 Count Iblis (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• Not ready. Unfortunately there's a lot of unreferenced material and an orange-tagged section. Modest Genius ^talk 19:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• Probably worth considering for full blurb. 2A02:2F0E:DD0C:DD00:FDBD:9A81:31F4:D922 (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  A well known scientist, but nowhere near blurb level IMO. Modest Genius ^talk 21:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support RD as very prominent astronomer, but not blurb-worthy. Review of the old orange tags justified their removal, which I did. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support RD in principle once the missing citations are added. Polyamorph (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• There are currently 10+ {cn} tags in this wikibio. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Ready I've expanded his early life and career sections and added references. I'm certain he has more honours/awards than those listed so that section can probably be expanded. But regardless, the article is now ready to post. Polyamorph (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• Posting. --Tone 14:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Tone: Can you please give everyone DYK credits? Thank you, Thriley (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

September 1

Portal:Current events/2022 September 1

September 1, 2022 (2022-09-01) (Thursday) Armed conflicts and attacks Syrian civil war Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war Israeli Air Force jets fire four missiles at Aleppo International Airport, hitting the runway and several warehouses allegedly containing Iranian rockets, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. No casualties have been reported. (ABC News) Iraqi political crisis 2022 Baghdad clashes Four people are killed during clashes between rival Shia Muslim fighters in Basra, Iraq, three days after 30 supporters of Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr were killed during clashes in Baghdad. (Al Jazeera) Israeli–Palestinian conflict Two Palestinian men are killed in clashes with Israeli soldiers in the occupied West Bank. One of the men was killed by Palestinian gunfire, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry. (Haaretz) Cross-Strait relations Taiwanese forces shoot down an unidentified civilian drone which entered its airspace near the Shi Islet in the Taiwan Strait. Taiwan's Ministry of National Defense says that the drone ignored several warning shots before being shot down. (Reuters) Tigray War The Tigray People's Liberation Front claims that Eritrea and Ethiopia have launched a joint offensive in the Tigray Region. (Reuters) Business and economy 2019–present Sri Lankan economic crisis The International Monetary Fund provisionally approves a US$2.9 billion bailout for Sri Lanka. (Reuters) Health and environment COVID-19 pandemic COVID-19 pandemic in Australia Victoria removes its directive to work remotely where possible. (The Guardian) A third person dies from an unidentified virus in Tucumán Province, Argentina. Authorities have ruled out COVID-19, influenza, and hantavirus, but continue to investigate the cluster of infections. The European Centre for Disease Control and the World Health Organization have also been notified. (The Daily Telegraph) A temperature of 127 °F (53 °C) is recorded in Furnace Creek, California, United States, breaking the record for the highest September temperature ever recorded in the world. (CBS News) Law and crime Attempted assassination of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner A Brazilian man, identified as 35-year-old Fernando Montiel, is arrested by the Argentine Federal Police shortly after attempting to shoot Vice President Cristina Kirchner. Montiel pointed a loaded pistol at Kirchner's head and apparently pulled the trigger, but the weapon did not fire. (Washington Examiner) Four people are killed and several others are injured after a mass shooting at a soccer field in Yecapixtla, Morelos, Mexico. (AP) The High Court of Malaysia finds Rosmah Mansor, wife of former Prime Minister Najib Razak, guilty of corruption. (The Straits Times) (CNN)

---

RD: Yang Yongsong

Article: Yang Yongsong (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Thepaper.cn
Credits:

• Nominated by Dumelow (talk · give credit)
• Created by Huangdan2060 (talk · give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: 103-year-old Chinese major-general. Article is updated but needs incoming links to remove the orphan tag - Dumelow (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• I've added links from other articles, so the article is no longer an orphan. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• This wikibio currently has 305 words of prose and (barely) long enough to qualify. (Any more things to write about him?) Footnotes can be found in expected spots (AGF'ing all non-English sources). Formatting looks fine. Earwig found no problems. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 10:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Limited depth of coverage, essentially a CV in prose format. Spencer^T•C 00:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Attempted assassination of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner

Article: Attempted assassination of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A Brazilian man attempts to shoot former President and current Vice President of Argentina Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (pictured). (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

• Nominated by ArionEstar (talk · give credit)

 ArionEstar (talk) 00:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about this one. I feel like an attempted assassination should meet a certain threshold in order to be approved for the main page—specifically, that it results in actual injury for the targeted individual. I'm not sure that there is anything significant enough about this particular attack that merits a full blurb, seeing as the shooter didn't even manage to fire a single bullet. Kurtis ^(talk) 01:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• I think I remember we posted the Caracas drone attack despite no injury to the supposed target and not even being sure if it was an assassination attempt or not. Kingsif (talk) 05:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Incorrect. (Also—and I mean this in the nicest way possible—you were the story's nominator and you don't remember how it closed? 🤨) I'm still undecided as to whether or not I support putting this on the main page. Obviously, an attempted assassination of a former world leader (and actually the current Argentine VP) is newsworthy, but I just don't know that it's ITN blurb-worthy. Kurtis ^(talk) 06:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Eh... alright, support. The subsequent supporters have swayed me, and the only reason I was hesitant to begin with is the fact that the assassination was unsuccessful. If failed attempts can still be blurb-worthy, why should I stand against this one? Kurtis ^(talk) 11:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Kurtis: which unsuccessful ones have been posted? Generally we don't post if it's unsuccessful, per the Maduro example cited below. The given list List of heads of state and government who survived assassination attempts, has numerous recent examples, almost none of which were posted.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Amakuru: I will confess, here and now, that I don't feel strongly about this one either way. My support is mostly "if everyone else thinks failed assassination attempts are blurb-worthy, I won't stand in their way." I personally feel like an attempted assassination of a current or former world leader should at least result in an injury before it is given its own blurb (barring exceptional circumstances), but because it seemed more and more like a minority opinion and it's not something I feel particularly strongly about, I decided to support. I was deferring to what seemed like community consensus the last time I checked in. Kurtis ^(talk) 01:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support Previous assassination attempts on politicians in high positions have been posted in ITN, even when they are unsuccessful (eg. Mohamed Nasheed) Carter00000 (talk) 07:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually Carter00000, a discussion back in November 2021 said the exact opposite. The attempted assassination of the Iraqi Prime Minister was not posted to ITN and part of the reasoning was because attempted assassinations were not posted at ITN. Elijahandskip (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support We are talking about an attempt to kill the vice-president and former president of a big country, and also an idol of the masses for what she represents for Kirchnerism and Peronism. She is undoubtedly one of the most relevant politicians of the country, whose incident has shaken the Argentinean society. In fact, the president treated it as the most serious incident since the restoration of democracy. I’m sure, and although I don’t like comparisons, that if it were a lower level politician from an Anglo-Saxon country, there would have been almost an automatic blurb. And if it were Kamala Harris, for example, I would support him without hesitation. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  It's only necessary that the Aftermath section has more sources and the article will be ready. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support, does not happen often and it'll be really stupid if we only post successful assassinations. Banedon (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment List of heads of state and government who survived assassination attempts --LaserLegs (talk) 09:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Maduro not posted --LaserLegs (talk) 09:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  There was questions if the attack against Maduro was staged or not. There does not appear to be that question here. Masem (t) 11:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support - concerns with Maduro's attempted assassination were that it was an unverifiable false flag attack. This is not the case here. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 10:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment if this were staged, are we sure the truth would emerge? This is always a question with "attempts" as they tend to be politically helpful. That said, this newly created article is very good and that should weigh heavily. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment—Should we mention the fact that the would-be assassin is a Brazilian national in the blurb? I hope doing so doesn't give the impression that the government of Brazil was in any way involved. Kurtis ^(talk) 12:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. EditMaker Me (talk) 12:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  Strong oppose blurb Strongly disagree with this. The perpetrator is Brazilian-born but with an Argentine mother, and has lived in Argentina since he came to the country as a child in 1993. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose – An event that didn't happen. – Sca (talk) 12:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sca. Doesn't seem like a big story, of course there are people who want to assassinate politicians, but it's only really newsworthy if they're successful.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support - assailant pulled a gun at point blank range and the gun jammed. This isn't a routine case where intelligence authorities detected a conspiracy beforehand and arrested the plotters, the subject is only alive due to luck Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  Millions of people worldwide weren't killed on Sept. 3. -- Sca (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  The vast people are not notable at all, certainly not nation-leading politicians, and nobody has tried to kill them. This is a ridiculous argument Bumbubookworm (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  Millions of notable people worldwide, including leading politicians, weren't killed on Sept. 3. -- Sca (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  Ronald Reagan was not assassinated in 1981. Would we not have posted the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan? Obviously Wikipedia didn't exist back then, but let's pretend it did for the sake of argument. TompaDompa (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  Ms. Fernández de Kirchner isn't president of the U.S. Justifiable or not, that's the distinction in terms of significance. -- Sca (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  That's a completely different argument than "lots of people weren't killed", though. If your point is "this attempted assassination is less significant than other attempted assassinations that might be reasonable to post", make that argument rather than some completely unrelated one. TompaDompa (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  That is my argument. -- Sca (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  The attempted assassination of Gerald Ford in Sacramento seems like a better comparison to this attempted assassination than the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support Worldwide news with significant impact. Furthermore posting only successful assassinations would set a poor precedent, as well as the fact the only reason this attempt was unsuccessful seems to be pure luck (that the gun happened to malfunction upon the trigger being pulled).Abcmaxx (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sca. We don't customarily post non-events. Long term significance is highly doubtful. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  She does have an interesting signature, though. -- Sca (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support, although a better blurb might help - "Vice-President of Argentina Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner survives an assassination attempt", perhaps. Sca's comparison with Ronald Reagan largely betrays the persistent US-centricity of this site. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  Because the president of a global superpower isn't the same as the vice president of a regional non-power? Seems reasonable to draw such comparisons. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment agree with the above that calling a guy born in Brazil to an Argentine woman, who moved to Argentina at age 6 and lived there for the last 30 years a "Brazilian man" is technically accurate but a bit disingenuous and should be dropped from the blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  Also WP:UNDUE as well, most RS have not make any relevant connection between the man's nationality and origins and his motive to assassinate the Argentinian vicepresident -Gouleg🛋️ ^harass/_hound 20:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  I agree. That’s exactly what was done on Portuguese Wikipedia. He has lived in Argentina for almost 30 years now, and he is 35 years-old. RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think I initially people thought the man may be linked to Bolsonaro given his admiration and comments regarding armed coups. Also complex history of Argentina–Brazil relations may have played a part. It was only later that it transpired the man's link to Brazil were overstated; more important would be his political beliefs and potential links to neo-nazi groups. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose as nothing actually happened. According to the article there's even doubt as to whether he pulled the trigger. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  You can hear the sound of the trigger being pulled. RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support If this happened to a U.S. VP or former president this would've been posted, no debate. The fact that an attempted assassination, shot or not, of not only the incumbent VP of Argentine but a former president is extremely rare. Plus this event is gaining worldwide coverage, the article is in good shape and like I said, rare event. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment the comparisons with the US are bizzare to say the least. By that level we would only ever post about the US, India, or China. We are not talking about a micro-nation either, Argentina is the eighth-largest country in the world, with a 50m population and clearly a regional power. Either way its a sovereign nation and attempt to assasinate anyone in power is notable, especially as we live in globally connected world. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose — An attempted assassination of the vice president of Argentina is hardly notable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• I think you missed that she is a former president. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Added “former President” in the blurb. ArionEstar (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support per User:TompaDompa. Curious to know whether this is a copycat of Shinzo Abe's assassination or for what other reason(s). - Indefensible (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as it was a clear non-event. She was not killed, right, but she was not injured either, nobody else was killed or injured by collateral damage. There are no consequences in the larger political world either, beyond the criticisms that were to be expected. The government blames the "hate speech" (AKA criticism) from the press and the other political parties, but that's what they have been doing since 2019. They may try to make bills to silence the "hate speech" (AKA criticism), but they won't get them approved because they lack the numbers in both houses of the Congress... as it has been since 2019. And so far, those seem to be the actions of just a lone guy, not an organization (new or old) starting a spree of terrorist attacks. Cambalachero (talk) 23:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - There's no there there.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 23:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose: In the past, it was determined attempted assassinations are NEVER posted. Only assassinations (meaning they were killed) are posted. This discussion occurred back in November 2021 with the attempted assassination of the Iraqi Prime Minister from a drone strike.[3] Elijahandskip (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

"attempted assassinations are NEVER posted" couldn't be further from the truth - if you look at the past few months alone Salman Rushdie was posted despite only being hospitalised in critical condition and Shinzo Abe was posted on the notability of the event alone, before he was confirmed to have not survived. I'll admit there is a difference that these two examples actually sustained injuries, but it's just plain misleading to say attempted assassinations are not posted. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 06:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Very interesting. So now we have what appears to be two different discussions that per se, set a the precedent in the opposite way. One saying they are never posted and one showing they have been posted. Maybe a RfC talk page discussion should be used to sort that out because it seemed fairly clear back in November 2021 that attempted assassinations aren’t ITN worthy. Elijahandskip (talk) 06:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I think some commonsense needs to be applied here. There have been comparisons made to the attack on President Reagan in 1981. In that incident, four people were shot, two critically, one of those being Mr. Reagan. If Ms. de Kirchner and/or others had been seriously injured, I'd probably have supported. But this really is a bit of a non-event. A close call to be sure. But in the end, nobody was hurt, and the long-term impact seems unlikely to be significant. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  “the long-term impact seems unlikely to be significant”. That’s just a speculation. RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, it is. But I believe it is a reasonable speculation based on what we know at the moment. And since we are not discussing the notability of the event at AfD, but rather whether or not to promote the article at ITN, it is a perfectly permissible criteria to look at. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Strong support. Argentina is not a strong democracy. This may have further consequences to the country as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RodRabelo7 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose She wasn’t killed or seriously injured. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support Assassination attempt on former president and current VP of a G20 country. If this is not worth posting, I don't know what is. For those saying it's a non-event: the crowds gathering on Plaza de Mayo surely disagreed. Article is in good shape. Khuft (talk) 08:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  "If this is not worth posting, I don't know what is" - lots of stories are worth posting, but as evidenced above, we've established that attempted assassinations (especially where no injuries sustained) are not in general worth posting. They are simply too commonplace, and it's silly to make value judgements about which are more important than others, without a WP:CRYSTALBALL.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  Well, making judgments of which events are more notable than others is the bread and butter of ITN, isn't it? I would argue as follows: notability springs from the fact that we're talking about a former leader and current major political figure of a G20 country, not any country. (Yes, G20 is arbitrary, but is at least broader than the very Western-focused G7, while not too broad). It has made top headlines in major publications around the world (an assassination attempt in a minor country would likely not generate such amount of coverage). It has lead to protests in the nation's capital city. Yes, thankfully Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner was not injured - though I'm not sure how this really matters in this instance (nor to what extent it has been "established" than an injury was needed for an assassination attempt to be posted - I would rather have argued that the resonance it gets in the press makes it notable or not, not whether Ms Kirchner's little toe was hurt during the assassination attempt). Anyway, my two cents on the matter. Khuft (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  That’s exactly the point. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose because she wasn't injured & there's no indication of a conspiracy or the suspect being part of a terrorist group or having acted on the orders of any government or political party. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose it's actually a good thing there is nothing to post here. Polyamorph (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support As other users pointed out, we posted the assassination attempt on Salman Rushdie and Shinzo Abe's assassination when it initially looked like he was just in critical condition. As there is now precedent to posting assassination attempt on public figures, I don't see why not. Mount Patagonia (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Not one drop of blood (nor enough fear to effect a resignation). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support – A gun in her face, trigger pulled, that must've been extremely traumatic. But more important for our purposes, the article is looking very good! Would be a great article to feature with a blurb. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Barbara Ehrenreich

Article: Barbara Ehrenreich (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

• Nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)

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

 – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support - well-known scholar and author in certain academic fields. Article seems to be in okay shape. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support what the tree said. Levivich 18:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support - A prolific academic, also noted as the author of at least two books with considerable mainstream success. Article appears in good shape. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Article is a C-class biography in good shape. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• Does the bibliography need to be referenced? DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 08:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. Either by sources or by IBN. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment bibliography should have sources. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support. No opposition for article quality has been made, so no treshold. More waiting RD=lowering quality of this ITN fact. -DePiep (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support - per above supports. Jusdafax (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Too many bullet-points with no footnotes. Please add more REFs. Or prune off the unverified. --PFHLai (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

What is "IBN" Alsoriano97 mentions? WP:IBN? How is an author's biography supposed to be sourced" (WP:BIOGRAPHY), ISBN only? Critical acclaim? Self-published website OK [4]? -DePiep (talk) 08:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Just a little something to help verify the info in each bullet-point, at least that the book exists and the title is correct. {{ISBN}} works. Footnotes with a link to a book review work, too. --PFHLai (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• • @PFHLai:, I've added isbns for all the books and linked all of the essays except for one that I cannot find. It's real, other sources do cite it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

    Thanks for the new sources, @Muboshgu. -- PFHLai (talk) 10:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Posted. Sam Walton (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

RD: Esther Cooper Jackson

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

• Nominated by Thriley (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Praxidicae (talk · give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: American civil rights activist. Death announced 1 September. Thriley (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• Needs a bit of ref improvement. - Indefensible (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

RD: Ravil Maganov

Article: Ravil Maganov (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Reuters, DW
Credits:

• Updated and nominated by Scaramouche33 (talk · give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Another Russian oligarch who fell from a window. Nothing to see here, folks. Article could use some expansion. Scaramouche33 (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment – Fairly widely covered, but significance seems uncertain. – Sca (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: Per the template above, Recent deaths of any person... with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC). There's a community consensus that these sorts of things are significant enough to be recent deaths; this is not the proper place to litigate disagreements with well-established community consensus. The only question we should be considering here is quality and whether it is up-to-date; I would like to see the article updated before supporting it. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I've expanded the article a little bit.Scaramouche33 (talk) 11:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment the article is quite stub-like. The largest section is about his death, the cause of death does seem to be the main story here. Without additional biographical information it's not really suitable for RD at this time.Polyamorph (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

P.S. the Russian language article (Маганов, Равиль Ульфатович) has more biographical information which could help with expansion. Polyamorph (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I think I added everything I could find in English-language newspapers. Hopefully, somebody who speaks better Russian than me can add something from Russian sources. Scaramouche33 (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support The article is a bit slim, but is not obviously stub-like any more. Notable as a businessman as well as a likely murder victim. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mary Roy

Article: Mary Roy (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Indian Express
Credits:

• Updated and nominated by Ktin (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Pachu Kannan (talk · give credit) and Susmuffin (talk · give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Indian educator and women's rights activist. Edits done. Article looks good for homepage / RD. C-class biography. Appreciate a pair of eyes (or more). Ktin (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support, Article has enough information. Alex-h (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bill Turnbull

Article: Bill Turnbull (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

• Updated and nominated by Lodjdjdd (talk · give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Broadcaster who died of cancer aged 66 Lodjdjdd (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support Terrible news to hear, RIP XxLuckyCxX (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support High quality long and cited article Abcmaxx (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support Article meets the standard. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted,Closed) UN report on Uyghur genocide

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: Uyghur genocide (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United Nations releases a report stating that China may have committed crimes against humanity in the Xinjiang region, including violence against the Uyghur people. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The United Nations releases a report asserting China of crimes against humanity in the Xinjiang region, including violence against the Uyghur people.
Alternative blurb II: ​ A report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights concludes that the actions of the Chinese government in the Xinjiang region may amount to crimes against humanity against the Uyghur people.
Alternative blurb III: ​ A report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights alleges that certain counter-terrorism operations of the Chinese government in the Xinjiang region may amount to human rights violations.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ A report by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights alleges that certain actions of the Chinese government in the Xinjiang region may amount to human rights violations.
Alternative blurb V: ​ A UN report concludes that China may have committed crimes against humanity in Xinjiang, including violence against the Uyghur people.
News source(s): BBC, NYTimes, Guardian
Credits:

• Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: First-time UN has recognized the situation in Xinjiang as crimes against humanity Masem (t) 04:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- In the news and important. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 04:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support Very notable Bumbubookworm (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I have created a brief stub for the report: OHCHR Assessment of human rights concerns in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, People’s Republic of China. This is a major report that should have a standalone article. The name is a bit of a mouthful, perhaps it should be shortened? Thriley (talk) 05:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe simply "OHCHR Assessment of the status of human rights in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region"? Still a mouthful... --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 06:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe something as "2022 OHCHR Assessment on the Uyghur in China"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.29.136.173 (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose in relation to notability and timeframe.The conclusion of the report explicitly states that the cited actions are in relation to the application of counter-terrorism and counter-extremism strategies, within the timeframe of "2017 to 2019". Given that events should be "current, and not stale relative to other events", such a timeframe would preclude it's inclusion in ITN.

In terms of general notability, the report itself also does not present any new information which has not been previously alleged by other entities.

The scope and tone of the report is also mild, with OCHR only raising the possibility of continued issues outside of counterterrorism operations, with no firm allegations outside of this scope ("available information at this stage does not allow OHCHR to draw firm conclusions regarding the exact extent...").

Carter00000 (talk) 06:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• The event here is the publication of their report, not necessarily the actions covered by the report. The Kip (talk) 06:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support The UN doesn’t exactly outright accuse nation-states of genocide very often, let alone a Security Council member. The Kip (talk) 06:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  The UN hasn't accused anyone of "genocide". The word "genocide" does not appear anywhere in the report and the allegations don't come close to that either. The UN has only alleged that human rights violations may have been committed during counterterrorism operations, and have been careful to only suggest the possibility, not outright allegations. It should be noted that human rights violations seem to be common when it comes to counterterrorism operations by nation states (Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, CIA Black Sites) Carter00000 (talk) 12:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  The full quote is "Serious human rights violations have been committed in [Xinjiang] in the context of the government’s application of counter-terrorism and counter-‘extremism’ strategies" [5]. Modest Genius ^talk 13:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The bolded target article has only a short section on this and the newly created article is a stub.Chaosquo (talk) 08:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment The relevance of the bolded article is also in question, given the scope of the report and the fact that the report makes no mention of "genocide".Carter00000 (talk) 08:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

    the editors have opted to use the common language of the event has been referred to by RSes, but because I did not see genocide in relation to the UN report, I did not use that term in the blurb. Masem (t) 09:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

    I think that the link to the article is already questionable, given that the reports scope is on counter-terrorism strategies, while "Uyghur genocide" implies much more serious actions. Carter00000 (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

    i mean, i agree that we should not really be calling it genocide yet because no international court has accused them of it, but that is what editors on that page have gone with citing a predominance of that language in RSes. Our blurb and its visible text (hiding the linked page title) stays clear of the language, which avoid the problem. Masem (t) 13:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Conditional support pending expansion of OHCHR Assessment of human rights concerns in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, People's Republic of China, although the document uses the wording "may constitute" rather than accusing unambiguously. Brandmeister^talk 09:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• I am not convinced that the update to the article is substantial enough to merit blurbing, which might also indicate that this report doesn't have that much baring on our understanding of the genocide (or people's views on it). The stub is definitely not ready for posting. As it is now, I wouldn't support it yet. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  There is a paragraph of new details added under the Reactions section. That is comparable to other expected updates for other articles, though obviously could be expanded further. this is not a simple one sentence addition. Masem (t) 10:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that a paragraph is a lot better than what we usually see for ITN submissions like this! It's a very solid edit! I may be too demanding for ITN, but I am also not actively opposing the nomination. The status of the stub remains a bit of an open question here either way. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment where is the update? The UN straight up accusing China of COH seems a relevant thing to post. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  Support Section 7.1. Satisfactory to me. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Oppose – An allegation, however likely it may seem, usually isn't definite enough for a blurb. Also, needs more sources. – Sca (talk) 12:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  I have added more sources. But technically the ITRN source line only requires one source as to validate the item reported. It us not meant to show that the news item is widely reported (something a Google can do). Masem (t) 13:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support. The UN accusing a nation state of conducting crimes against humanity on a massive scale is rare, exceptional, and utterly newsworthy. The article is well-sourced and high quality. The update is in the page, so I think we are good to go. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 12:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support. The report is not a court, so cannot definitively find that crimes against humanity have been committed - 'may amount to' is the strongest finding they could have made. Unless a trial ever happens (looks unlikely) this is the closest we're ever going to get to official confirmation that China has committed crimes against humanity. It would be good to have a more substantial update at Uyghur_genocide#Reactions_at_the_United_Nations, but what's there does meet our minimum requirements already (and is better than the stub mentioned above). The rest of the article is detailed and very well referenced. I've added an altblurb. Modest Genius ^talk 13:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Weak Support I'm not one for blurbing reports as a whole, but this is a fairly under-reported crisis and one of great concern. DarkSide830 (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  Qualifying my previous comment now to say I support Altblurb I. Other blurbs suggest a more wishy-washy tone to the report with "may have" or "may constitute". Alt I explains the situation best. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Strong support per The Kip and Modest Genius. Highly significant event. EditMaker Me (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support for altblurb 2. A rare report for the UN; also, this blurb places the content in more clear terms. 142.116.194.246 (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Propose alt blurb III. Given that the scope of the report focuses exclusively on counter-terrorism related operations of the government, and makes no references to genocide, or the include word "genocide" at all, I propose that we update and link to the article Terrorism_in_China#Xinjiang (not yet updated, will update if there is consensus to use the article), which would seem to be a more accurate fit for the scope of the report, without exaggerating or sensationalizing the subject, and avoiding WP: SYNTH.

I have used the phrase "human rights violations" which appears frequently in the report, omitting the phrase "crimes against humanity", as the phrase only appears a single time in relation to the subject in the report, so inclusion of the phrase would be WP:UNDUE and WP:SENSATIONALISM. It should also be noted that the usage of the phrase is presented as a possibility, rather than a direct allegation. Carter00000 (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, "crimes against humanity" only appears once, but as the conclusion, arguably the most important part of the report. It certainly doesn't constitute sensationalism, and if anything, a blurb downplaying both that and the targeting of the Uyghur people as outlined in the report is fundamentally lacking. The Kip (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually, for the record it appears twice, in the introduction as well. The Kip (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the phrase "crimes against humanity" appears twice in the report, but only once "in relation to the subject in the report" as I mentioned in my original comment. In the introduction, it only appears as part of a description for a criteria used for assessment, and is not directly applied to the subject in question. Carter00000 (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

As has been the case since its inception, the Uyghur genocide article is the article that describes the human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang. The article title reflects consensus that has been re-affirmed in multiple requested move discussions. If the objection at ITN is simply about the article title, it is extremely misguided. Any appropriate blurb will link to the article that describes the extremely well-documented human rights abuses in the region.

Altblurb 3 takes the affirmative stance that all of the abuses mentioned in the report are actually just counter-terrorism operations, which would be risible if it weren't so morose. Moreover, altblurb 3 doesn't appear to link to any article that actually meets this report. And that the U.N. has come out and said something for which there exists broad scholarly consensus is in no way sensationalist nor undue weight. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Please be aware that the report explicitly states its findings are "in the context of the Government’s application of counter-terrorism and counter-extremism strategies" (Pg.45, Paragraph 143). Furthermore, I would like to reiterate that the report makes no references to genocide, or the include word "genocide" at all. Hence, my intention with my previous proposal was to suggest a blurbed article which more accurately reflects this scope, rather then link to a article which may of potentially less relevance. Carter00000 (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Two things:

1. There is a difference between counter-extremism and counter-terrorism, especially when having a large family is considered to be "religious extremism".
2. At the risk of repeating myself, the article titled Uyghur genocide is about—and has always been about—the series of ongoing human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang; there is no article that is possibly more relevant to an ITN blurb relating to the wanton abuses taken against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, broadly construed. If you look back at the earliest versions of the page after I moved it to the mainspace, this is painfully evident. What you are fundamentally objecting to is the title of that article, but that title has been repeatedly affirmed by the community across several move discussions and is the current community consensus.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, my concern is with the scope of the report matching the article within the blurb. I have not mentioned or stated any views on the title of the original article. Carter00000 (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

our article likely extends well past the bounds of the report, but not by much...while the report is entirely bounded by the article. the UN report is clearly using careful language but it is absolutely focused on the same accusations made by others documented at the genocide article. Masem (t) 16:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, your comment summarizes my concerns. If you look at the article which I suggested (Terrorism_in_China#Xinjiang), the scope of it extends less from the bounds of the report, and does not allege wrongdoing not mentioned in the report (genocide). I understand that the UN is using careful language, but the principles of WP is to reflect a source as accurately and precisely as possible. Carter00000 (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

but that article is far too broad... the report only is for events from 2014 to 2017, which every other RS pretty much refers to as the Uyghur genocide. We know the UN is goodies on contentious language but as others have said here, it would be wrong to soften what the topic is about. Masem (t) 16:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, please only have one bolded !vote at once; it's confusing to read when there are multiple. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Strong support Very significant. X-Editor (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support unprecedented move really and theres bound to be consequences for the entire globe further to this. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose and just like that, when it's busy attacking America's enemies, the UN is all of a sudden "credible"...--2A00:23C4:3E08:4001:59D9:E24F:ADF:41E8 (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment – Some posts above smack of a "Righting Great Wrongs" campaign. Leaning toward changing my 'comment' above back to my original vote of oppose. – Sca (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  What is this? For the benefit of the few remaining editors that aren't already aware that your participation here is strictly pointy, you felt the need to make a formal announcement? GreatCaesarsGhost 20:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support blurb 1 as it is the closest to what the report says (page 3; PDF page 5). A former UN official going to Xinjiang a few months ago and, minutes before her term ended yesterday, published a paper recognizing the genocide the organization has rarely spoken about (potentially outright ignoring it) is big news. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 20:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Genocides deserve attention. -TenorTwelve (talk) 03:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• Tenatively support Alt1, Oppose Alt3 Definitely a notable story, especially given China's position on the UNSC. However, "UN Human Rights Office Assessment of human rights concerns in Xinjiang" needs to be expanded before it can be posted since it should share the "main article" designation with Uyghur genocide. As for the blurbs, Alt1 is the best for being the most concise, actually links to the report in question, and, as other users pointed out, it closely aligns with what the report says. I oppose Alt3 because, while the poster meant well, I feel it downplays the assertions way too much to the point of being unnecessarily politically correct (and I'm one of those people that almost never complains about that sort of thing). Mount Patagonia (talk) 05:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support ALT2 Certainly a newsworthy story, and ALT2 is definitely the best of the bunch, as it is the most straightforward. Curbon7 (talk) 05:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  ALT1 also works well in this regard, so I suppose this is a joint endorsement. Curbon7 (talk) 05:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• Posted. There is consensus to post, although not yet consensus for a specific blurb. I've posted the following as a hopefully acceptable synthesis of the various proposed blurbs: "The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights reports that China may have committed crimes against humanity in Xinjiang, including violence against the Uyghur people." Discussion about optimizing the blurb may continue here. Sandstein 06:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  Current blurb is fine with me, thanks. Modest Genius ^talk 10:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• Post-posting support, the new UN Human Rights Office Assessment of human rights concerns in Xinjiang article is looking great and is a great example of something to feature on the front page! Shouldn't that be the bolded article here? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• Request Pull as the posting is premature, and has not received the required consensus on content and procedure. As per posting editor Sandstein's own comment accompanying the post, no consensus has been reached on the content of the blurb. Sandstein has synthesized and posted a blurb unilaterally, which is contrary to normal ITN policy. Carter00000 (talk) 07:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• @Sandstein: The current blurb is a problem. Xinjiang and most Uyghur people are part of China; it makes little sense to say that "China" may have committed crimes against them. The word "China" in the blurb should be replaced by "the Chinese government". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 08:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I think its a fair inference that China here means the PRC govt, and not the country itself, given that this a UN report. Masem (t) 08:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

    Yes, in the interest of conciseness, I think it can be assumed to be understood that the Chinese state is meant. Sandstein 08:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Carter00000: The only person opposing this is you. Seems like consensus to me. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 08:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• @Rockstone35 I see a number of "oppose" entries in the comments above. Furthermore, both the posting editor and other editors participating in the conversation seem to agree that the blurb content has not reached the necessary level of consensus. Indeed, I see concerns being raised in the previous comment to this one. Carter00000 (talk) 08:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  the only other oppose was an ip using it as a political statement which cant be acted on. and we dont require unanimous agreement, just a consensus which there is clear support for. Masem (t) 10:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• The majority of supports do not specify a blurb preference, which I believe should be taken to assume a preference for the original blurb. I don't know when alt blurbs 2/3 emerged, but this changes the blurb subject from the UN to the OHCHR. This is a softening of the statement that was not necessarily endorsed. GreatCaesarsGhost 10:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• Can we improve the blurb? x ... may have ... y ?? Seems awfully weasel-ly; I can't see us putting up a blurb about anyone else being "accused" of something? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  Please note that this is the language used by the UN and we are required to accurately reflect the source. The UN has only alleged that human rights violations may have been committed, and have been careful to only suggest the possibility, not outright allegations. Carter00000 (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  This is very true...and to stress that even this wishy washy statement by the UN is the first time the body in some official capacity spoke as to the possibility of human rights violations in this situation, making it newsworthy...many govt and NGOs have said it was a crime, but the UN is different and something that could possibly be acted on. Masem (t) 14:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• I want to make it clear, even as I have re-opened this, that there does not exist a consensus to pull this item from ITN, and there likely will not be one. I'm reopening solely because there is a discussion about tweaking the blurb for accuracy/neutrality.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• Post posting support also, support wording of current blurb as written. Story is well covered by the media, article is of sufficient quality, and blurb accurately reflects the story at hand. --Jayron32 14:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• Propose alt blurb IV as per the discussion at ITN:ERRORS. Pinging @Sca, Kiril Simeonovski, Chaosquo, Pawnkingthree, and Masem:.

As per my comment at ITN:ERRORS, the scope defined in the report focuses exclusively on counter-terrorism & extremism related operations of the government, making no references to genocide, or include the word "genocide" at all. The most serious action presented in the report is "crimes against humanity", which only appears a single time in relation to the subject in the report. The action is carefully presented as a possibility by the UN, rather than a direct allegation. Given the above, it seem to be a significant exaggeration of the facts for the link featured in the blurb to be "Uyghur genocide".Carter00000 (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Alt blurb IV is not really suitable, as Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights is very clearly not the article which conveys this news - indeed, as far as I can tell it doesn't mention this story at all. It seems to me that the article relating to the actual story we're reporting is clearly UN Human Rights Office Assessment of human rights concerns in Xinjiang. It seems like quality issues with that which existed earlier have been addressed, so at a bare minimum I suggest we switch the bolded article away from Uyghur genocide and instead have that one bold.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  There does not appear to be any quality issues with the Uyghur genocide article. I find no banners, no cn tags, the sourcing looks good, the article is comprehensive, and relevant to the story at hand. --Jayron32 15:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  That's a general article about the genocide itself, covering all events over several years. ITN typically links an article dedicated specifically about the news item which is being reported, if there is one, rather than a more general article for that story. For example, if someone is elected president we link the election article, not the individual who's been elected. If there's a major sporting final, such as UEFA Euro 2020 Final then we bold that, which covers the immediate thing we're reporting, we don't bold the UEFA Euro 2020 tournament article. In this case, the report seems to be the individual article about the newsworthy event as far as I can tell.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  Note that the article UN_Human_Rights_Office_Assessment_of_human_rights_concerns_in_Xinjiang#Background has a background section on the existing issues. Inserting an additional background article/line in the blurb makes the blurb quite long compared to the other blurbs on ITN. Carter00000 (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that the report should be the bolded article - at the moment it's hidden away in a SEAOFBLUE blurb. I don't think we need to link the OHCHR article at all; just "a United Nations report" should be enough.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I realise there are a lot of blurbs in play already, but I've added ALT5, which isn't too much of a change from what's up there now, but changes the bolded article and includes the concision implied by PK3 above...  — Amakuru (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  Noted that you have made the post more concise, which is good. Given that background information already exists in the report article as previously noted, suggest to remove the link to the now redundant Uyghur genocide article, as per my previous concerns on the accurate reflection and the fact that genocide is not alleged or mentioned in the report. Carter00000 (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support alt5: Less wording and WP:SEAOFBLUE, bolded link should be the UN report instead of the Xinjiang genocide -Gouleg🛋️ ^harass/_hound 16:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support alt5 per above.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support ALT5 per above. Coming here from the main page because the current blurb has SEAOFBLUE problems and bolds the wrong article (it should be report that's bolded). Levivich 17:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• Post-posting support, with preference for ALT5. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• Blurb switched to ALT5. There has been a rough consensus amongst five participants above since I proposed ALT5, and it seems to satisfy some of the concerns already raised with the blurb, while also preserving the main thrust of what was already there, so I've WP:BOLDly switched to it. Obviously I am WP:INVOLVED, but I think there's a consensus to switch. If anyone really objects to this then let me know, and I can self-revert and await an independent admin re-assessment.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  Agree that Alt5 states the situation better than any previous blurb proposal did. -- Sca (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't love any of them, but of them think alt5 is the best. I'm not loving that we are supporting the concept of "may have done something" type reports (ala an indictment vs a conviction), but understand from above that this is an extraordinary type of finding from the UN. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support per Xaosflux. I'm also dubious about posting "may have" findings, but this type of report from the UN about one of its five permanent Security Council members is a pretty big deal. Kurtis ^(talk) 01:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Propose blurb change per Mx. Granger. The metonymical 'China' should be replaced with the 'Chinese government' - some might argue this is inferred, but it doesn't hurt to be specific and avoid accusing 1.4 billion Chinese for the heinous crimes of their government. JMonkey2006 (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  Support "Chinese government" instead of "China" per the report itself, which uses "Government of China" or "Government". For example, Section VIII. "Overall assessment and recommendations", on page 43 of the report: "Serious human rights violations have been committed in XUAR in the context of the Government’s application of counter-terrorism and counter-“extremism” strategies ... the Government’s stated drive against terrorism and “extremism” in XUAR ... raises concerns from the perspective of international criminal law ... The Government holds the primary duty to ensure that all laws and policies are brought into compliance with international human rights law ..." and the Recommendations section on the next page begins, "OHCHR recommends to the Government of China that it: (i) Takes prompt steps to release all individuals arbitrarily deprived of their liberty in XUAR ...". I think WP:NPOV means we use "government" as well; a subtle but meaningful distinction. Levivich 03:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  In case it's not obvious from my comment above, I support this too. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm no longer concerned about length given how much the length blurb has been cut down, so I support changing "China" to "Chinese government" for reasons of precision. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Propose blurb change. Given that background information exists in the bolded article, the link to the Uyghur genocide article is now redundant. Per my previous concerns on accurate reflection of the report contents, and the fact that no genocide is alleged or mentioned in the report, the link to the article makes the blurb WP:SYNTH, as it combines material in a way which is not reflected by the report. Furthermore the blurb is WP:SENSATIONALISM, as it effectively presents allgations of potential actions as a genocide, which is a very large escalation in magnitude. Given that its already quite unusual to post a blurb on simply allegations (as noted above by Sca, Xaosflux & Kurtis), this seems to be even more of an escalation. Based on this, propose that the link to the article be removed. Carter00000 (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Enough already. This is approaching WP:HORSEMEAT territory. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay, then. – Sca (talk)

• This seems encyclopedic but a conclusion of "may have committed" or "may constitute" is not very definitive and seems a bit weak for posting a blurb; the main subject is Uyghur genocide which should probably be treated similarly to the climate crisis and listed as a disaster on Portal:Current events. When something more impactful from climate change (e.g. the European heatwaves this summer) or a similar report comes out though, it tends not to get blurbed. This appears to be a troubling inconsistency. - Indefensible (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  I mentioned thus above, in that while the UN statement is not a strong one, it is the first official statement critical of China's actions re Uyghur, after most other countries have derided China already for that. That is the news, not the conclusions of the report. And we have definitely posted major climate change reports before, as well as when the heatwaves first hit Europe. Masem (t) 12:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  If the notability is based simply on being the 1st UN report on the subject and not its conclusions as you wrote, the blurb should be quite different and something along the lines of simply "The UN released its 1st report on Uyghur genocide in Xinjiang, China" or something like that. And it probably would not meet notability for posting then in my opinion, because I bet there are tons of 1st reports issued by the UN which pass by without notice. - Indefensible (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Request further discussion, given the concerns that have been raised during throughout this ITN nomination. In addition to being discussed at ITN, the nomination was also discussed at ITN:ERRORS, with the target article also being discussed at the same time at DYK.

Similar to the previous comment by Indefensible, a number of editors have raised concerns on the validity of posting this blurb and whether it meets the standards for notability for posting at ITN. In general, concerns has been raised (with some remaining unresolved) on (1) The fact that language used in the report only represents allegations and not firm facts (Brandmeister, Sca, xaosflux, Martindo), (2) That the intent behind the posting may constitute WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or bias (Sca, Kiril Simeonovski, Brandmeister) and (3) The labeling of "China' vs "Chinese Government" (Kiril Simeonovski, Mx. Granger, Chaosquo, Red-tailed hawk, Andrew).

On procedural matters, it should be noted that Sandstein who posted the blurb suggested that consensus had not been reached on the content of the blurb, but were posting the blurb anyway in spite of the incomplete consensus, which seems to clearly be against standard ITN procedure. Usually, consensus on the content of the blurb is required to be posted, not being first and amended after. Given that there are time limits associated the "staleness" of a blurb, this abnormally expedited posting and disregarding of common practice is especially concerning.

Furthermore, Waltcip's closure of the nomination after the blurb posting, while discussion on the blurb content was still ongoing is also of concern, especially since it was something suggested to continue by Sandstein. The closure caused the discussion to become fragmented, having to continue at ITN:ERRORS. The close was later reversed by Waltcip after objections from multiple editors (Sca, Kiril Simeonovski, Chaosquo, Pawnkingthree), further validating that the nomination should not have been closed.

Given the amount of objections to the exact content and the procedural flaws, I feel further discussion on the issues would be of benefit. Carter00000 (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

If you continue to bludgeon this discussion, I will go see what an independent admin has to say about your conduct. This is becoming disruptive. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Jim Michael 2, InvadingInvader, 4me689, Red-tailed hawk & JeffUK to request their comment as they are concurrently discussing the report on an ITN related page. Carter00000 (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

read above... you've well explained your position, consensus is against it, further arguing at this leave is beating a dead horse, particular as the blurb had been up for a few days. Masem (t) 12:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Support inclusion; I think it's necessary to include. The media and organizations in support of the Uyghurs do say that this report had months of unexpected delays and this was widely anticipated. (see WashPost, Amnesty International, Reuters, the Canadian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, BBC News, an article from CNN about the report before its release, and ABC News.

I'm generally indifferent on how the blurb is written, but I can understand arguments that say the term "Chinese Government" should be used instead of "China" as it could pose that anyone of Chinese descent would be viable. Other than that, any of the six blurbs would work, so I'll say Support whichever blurb is most commonly agreed on. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Massacre Posting a controversial blurb while simultaneously saying that there's no consensus for it seems a remarkably rogue action but so it goes. What I notice is that not many people are reading the article in question. That's because ITN doesn't actually drive much traffic. Compare with the Nanjing Massacre, for example – the readership yesterday was 13K and 173K respectively. The latter seems to have gotten over ten times the readership because it was featured on TikTok recently. TikTok is run by a Chinese company and it's effective in drawing viewers. ITN not so much... Andrew🐉(talk) 15:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  The Uyghun genocide article saw a bump from 1k to 20k due to that report, so yes likely ITN is working. what's popular on Tik Tok is not what is in the news, and we don't use popularity as a metric. Masem (t) 15:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  The Nanjing Massacre story is in the news too – see China Daily; Rolling Stone; Newsweek. And it's drawing more attention on Wikipedia, let alone TikTok. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  Even if we focus on the photos, that becomes a question of their legitimacy, which would require an academic source as with any other scientific story. That type of reporting is stuff WP should not be including anywhere as it is sensationalist. Masem (t) 16:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Noting that a [AE request] has been opened by Red-tailed hawk on my conduct in relation to this nomination. Carter00000 (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  As there should be considering you’ve adamantly refused to let this go, in spite of both consensus and everyone else moving on. Get over it. The Kip (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

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

August 31

Portal:Current events/2022 August 31

August 31, 2022 (2022-08-31) (Wednesday) Armed conflicts and attacks Tigray War The Government of Ethiopia says that the Tigray People's Liberation Front has begun an offensive into the Wag and Welkait regions and is also pushing forward towards the Sudanese border. Tigrayan authorities say that three airstrikes have hit the Tigrayan capital of Mekelle, nearly striking a hospital. (Reuters) (Voice of America) Allied Democratic Forces insurgency Fourteen people are killed and several others are kidnapped as Allied Democratic Forces militants attack a village in Ituri Province, Democratic Republic of the Congo. Five attackers are also killed. (Reuters) Business and economy 2022 Russia–European Union gas dispute Russia's Gazprom announces the complete shutdown of the Nord Stream 1 natural gas pipeline for three days for unscheduled maintenance. (BBC News) Disasters and accidents Ten people are killed and several others are injured after a semi truck crashes near a school in Bekasi, West Java, Indonesia. (Reuters) One person is killed and 50 others are injured by a hailstorm in Catalonia, Spain. This is the first direct hail-related death in Europe since 1997. (BBC News) The Suez Canal was temporarily blocked after a ship ran aground on Wednesday evening. Tug boats were used to unblock the canal. (Reuters) One person is killed and six others are injured after a building collapse in Kano, Kano State, Nigeria. (AP) Health and environment COVID-19 pandemic COVID-19 pandemic in Australia The National Cabinet agrees to lower the mandatory isolation period for people infected with COVID-19 to 5 days if an individual is asymptomatic at that time. However workers in high-risk settings are still required to isolate for 7 days. (ABC News) Sweden reports its first case of H5N1 bird flu in a porpoise. (Phys) Life expectancy in the United States decreases for the second consecutive year, falling by nearly a year from 2020 values. (AP) International relations International sanctions during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine Russia–European Union relations European Union foreign ministers agree to suspend a visa facilitation agreement with Russia, making it more difficult and more expensive for Russian tourists to enter the EU. (Al Arabiya)

---

(Posted) RD: Ruth Lapide

Article: Ruth Lapide (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): FAZ + many others
Credits:

• Updated and nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: German theologian who studied in Israel and returned to Germany to promote understanding of Jews and Christians, first with her more prominent husband, after his death with her son. Book, lectures, television. Many high awards. The article was slim and underreferenced. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Long enough with 600+ words of prose. Formatting looks fine. Deployment of footnotes seems adequate. (I have to AGF all non-English sources.) This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 09:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mary Noel Menezes

Article: Mary Noel Menezes (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

• Nominated by Dumelow (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Artegia (talk · give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Guyanese nun and historian - Dumelow (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Support. The article looks up-to-par. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

RD: Luke Bell

Article: Luke Bell (musician) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:

• Updated and nominated by Andise1 (talk · give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Country musician who died after disappearing for over a week. Andise1 (talk) 23:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Please be reminded that the Discography should be fully sourced and there should be some well-developed prose -- 171 words would be too stubby. Please expand this wikipage and add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 02:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Length now ok at 361 words of prose, the Discography section still needs more sources, please. --PFHLai (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Steep fall in US life expectancy

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.

---

Life expectancy at birth, by sex: United States, 2000–2021

Article: United States (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Life expectancy in the United States declines sharply, falling by about three years in the last three years. (Post)
News source(s): NYT; FT; BBC; NPR
Credits:

• Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: This seems a big story but I'm not yet finding updates in any of the various pages we have which touch on this. Note that the decline is just not due to COVID but also other factors like drug overdoses. The decline is being presented as a historic turnaround. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support, but I think that this probably won't get consensus. It is a major story nonetheless, although the life expectancy being what it was in 1996 provides a sense of perspective. I was too young to have any memories from that year, but I am willing to bet that most people didn't consider life expectancy to be low then. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose and snow close oh no, the end of the world! Come on, life expectancy has dropped worldwide as a result of the pandemic. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Not really earth shattering news Masem (t) 21:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I can kinda see an argument for it, but it doesn't really seem like significant news, especially when it's already been falling. The Kip (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed story only covers one country. As mentioned by Alsoriano97, it's likely Covid reduced life expectancy in many/most countries around the world. Therefore there doesn't seem to be any good reason why Wikipedia should publish an ITN item about one particular country's fall in life expectancy but ignore the other 99% of countries on the planet. Chrisclear (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• It's a much steeper decline in the US than most other developed countries. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• given that the US had one of the higher covid infection rates, this result on steeper life expectancy is not a surprise. Masem (t) 21:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• To see some comparisons with other countries see BMJ. The US suffered badly with countries like Bulgaria and Russia while in some countries such as Norway and New Zealand, life expectancy went up. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Those countries are not a good comparison though. Bulgaria, Norway and New Zealand have small populations, Russia is a different kettle of fish altogether with very specific reasons for their long ongoing decline in life expectancy. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Given that data about countries other than the US is readily available, why did you propose a blurb about life expectancy in the US and exclude every other country? Chrisclear (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe because this was data released from the CDC in the US and news organizations have reported on it? There is nothing wrong with proposing an ITN item relating to a single country. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• I agree in a more general sense that there is nothing wrong with proposing an ITN item relating to a single country. However in this situation, its a phenomenon that clearly relates to more than just the one country nominated. This nomination is just as nonsensical as a hypothetical nomination about the decline in life expectancy in Bulgaria only. Chrisclear (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I follow. It's notable that a developed country like the United States has had such a steep fall in life expectancy that other developed liberal democracies have not experienced. If the UK had experienced a steep drop and the United States did not, I would propose posting this here, too. Either way, this isn't going to be posted, so someone should just close the discussion. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Life expectancy will start falling everywhere because many countries will have or be close to peaking as to how long a human can live in general.Abcmaxx (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose – A factoid in the global picture, and it may be an ephemeral one. – Sca (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Where is the updated material? The proposed blurb links to United States#Health, but there is no relevant updating the past two days. This is not a valid ITN nom. Please propose a blurb with a link to an updated wikiarticle. Maybe Demographics of the United States???? Not sure.... maybe too US-centric a topic for ITN. --PFHLai (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose a statistical anomaly that will even out over time, no real target to consider --LaserLegs (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

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: Lee Thomas

Article: Lee Thomas (baseball) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): MLB, AP
Credits:

• Updated and nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)

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

 – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support Appropriate depth of coverage, referenced. Spencer^T•C 03:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

August 30

Portal:Current events/2022 August 30

August 30, 2022 (2022-08-30) (Tuesday) Armed conflicts and attacks Iraqi political crisis 2022 Baghdad clashes The death toll from the clashes in Baghdad between Iraqi Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's supporters and security forces increases to 23, with all of those killed being supporters of Sadr. 380 others are injured. (BBC News) Iran captures an American unmanned ship before releasing it. (The Washington Post) Allied Democratic Forces insurgency Allied Democratic Forces militants kill at least 40 people in a series of raids on several villages in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of the Congo. At least 76 others are kidnapped by the group. (Reuters) Cross-Strait relations The Taiwanese military fire warning shots at a Chinese drone flying over islands in the Kinmen region. (Taiwan News) Moro conflict A police chief is killed by suspected members of the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters in Maguindanao, the Philippines. (AP) Disasters and accidents Sixteen people are killed and eight others are injured in a traffic collision between a truck and a minibus in Khuzestan province, Iran. (Xinhua News Agency) A South African Police Service plane crashes at Rand Airport in Johannesburg, killing all five passengers and critically injuring the pilot. (Independent Online) (SABC News) Health and environment COVID-19 pandemic COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China China announces new lockdowns in several cities following a series of COVID-19 outbreaks across the country. (CBS News) International relations Solomon Islands–United States relations The United States Embassy in Canberra says that the government of Solomon Islands will place a moratorium on US Navy ships entering its ports amid deteriorating relations between the two countries. (Reuters) Law and crime Papua conflict Six Indonesian soldiers are arrested for killing four indigenous Papuan people and mutilating their bodies in Timika eight days ago. (BBC News) Politics and elections Portugal's health minister Marta Temido resigns after emergency services closures. (Reuters)

---

(Posted) RD: Don L. Lind

Article: Don L. Lind (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CollectSPACE.com, KSL, Deseret
Credits:

• Updated by Dumelow (talk · give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Payload Commander of STS-51-B. This wikibio could use some refreshing. A sentence on the subject's death is not there yet. PFHLai (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Was just nominating this. I have added a couple of sentences on his death, will look to see if there are more sources - Dumelow (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Support, looks like there is no more detail than that I have already added - Dumelow (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support unequivocally. Polyamorph (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support article is in good shape and is interesting. Skynxnex (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 00:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Steve White

Article: Steve White (American football) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Tampa Bay Times
Credits:

• Updated and nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)

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

 – Muboshgu (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: On the borderline of what I'd consider "too brief" (3 well-formed paragraphs is typically the minimum standard). Can anything else be said about his career, specifically the regular season in 1999 when he was a regular starter? With another sentence or two, weak support (with possible upgrade to full support depending on amount of info added). Spencer^T•C 04:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  Spencer, never before have I heard "three well-formed paragraphs". This is short but not a stub. I'll try to add a little more, but I am also taking a weekend trip for Labor Day weekend and will have limited time the next couple days. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  I should have clarified that that is my minimum standard based on my reading of WP:ITN. Per that, "In the case of a new, event-specific article, the traditional cut-off for what is enough has been around three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs." Specifically for RDs, since the "event" is the whole person's life, I take that to be the minimum length for any article posted to ITN. Other minds may disagree with the application to RDs, but I've found it a good rule of thumb for depth for a whole article, and I cannot recall us posting an article to RD that was not at this length at minimum. On re-assessment of the article, including your recent additions, seems to meet that minimum standard, so support. Spencer^T•C 21:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

RD: Fauziyya Hassan

Article: Fauziyya Hassan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Onmanorama news Raajje
Credits:

• Updated and nominated by Dumelow (talk · give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Maldivian actress, article appears to be well referenced (unusual for an article of its type!). Couple of missing refs in the credits section, not my area of interest but will see if I can fill those in. Article needs updating Dumelow (talk) 06:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support No Reason to oppose Prodrummer619 (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment There are a few unsourced titles in the "Television" and "Short film" sections, although besides that the article looks good. It also needs to be updated. --Vacant0 (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• There is an orange {{Lead too short}} tag. Can the intro be beefed up, please? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted Blurb) RD/Blurb: Mikhail Gorbachev

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: Mikhail Gorbachev (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Former President of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev (pictured) dies at the age of 91. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The last President of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev dies at the age of 91.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The last President of the Soviet Union and Nobel Peace Prize Mikhail Gorbachev (pictured) dies at the age of 91.
Alternative blurb III: ​ Former General Secretary of the Communist Party and President of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev dies at the age of 91.
News source(s): CNN, Reuters (CNN gives age at death as 92)
Credits:

• Nominated by PCN02WPS (talk · give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Last leader of the Soviet Union, from 1985 to 1991. Article has been GA since January 2020. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support blurb The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support blurb Arguably one of the most important figures of the 20th century XxLuckyCxX (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support blurb Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• If the article is up-to-date, then I'd Support blurb on this. -- AxG / ✉  20:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support blurb Huge figure with a good article. Humbledaisy (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support blurb This is a clear-cut case. No further discussion needed.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support blurb Fills in the Mandela/Thatcher argument. No discussion or debate IMO. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support blurb I don't think we even need to try arguing over the merits of a blurb on this one.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support blurb: fits all the boxes.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 20:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support alt1 BilledMammal (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Strong support The man bridged the gap between the antiquity of the Cold War and the decades to come afterward—and there is no question to his influence. 2600:1700:7869:9DDE:C90E:3439:478B:ED1C (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support blurb no debate. One of the most important political figures of the last century. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  but let's not forget that the quality of the article is still not optimal. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Hatting the most ridiculous !vote in the world per WP:DENY.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose blurb Never heard of him. Can we please stop adding every president from god know's where just because they reached old age. Aroots (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC) I usually don’t make these type of replies, but I have to. This was one of the world’s most influencial and important leaders in the 20st century. Please tell me you are joking. BastianMAT (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC) Pretty sure this was a pointy !vote - Floydian τ ¢ 20:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC) Trolling. Dennis Dartman (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC) User had only a handful of edits including a few prods, and knows how to add inline formatted refs, hmmm [eye roll] Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC) Please read -> [6] TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC) He's a very important figure. He was the last leader of the USSR, and helped with perestroika. Dennis Dartman (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC) Don't make me tap the sign... Do not add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. XxLuckyCxX (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support blurb per above, and suggest quick WP:SNOW action. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support blurb per above. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support blurb For obvious reasons. --Vacant0 (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Posted blurb. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Post-posting support blurb Recommend photo replace that of Ruto. The Kip (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Support as above XxLuckyCxX (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Its a bit late, but no one commented on article quality. Howver, aside from one CN and the works lisy, this is all fine and clearly fine to post. But please remember to comment on quality if you have taken a look. Masem (t) 21:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Post-posting support, agree with proposal to change the photo, also agree that we should continue to monitor and improve the article. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Post-posting support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Post-posting support per above. A very influential figure in world history and politics. Vida0007 (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Post-posting support—if there was ever anything so obvious, and it's nice to see that this was blurbed already, so quickly. Imzadi 1979 → 22:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Post-posting support per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NightWolf1223 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support blurb—Enormously influential world leader. "Did somebody say 'birth marks'?" Kurtis ^(talk) 22:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Post-posting support In his time I'm certain that his influence is huge through the world. MarioJump83 (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• PP Support pile on vote. Obviously one of the three or four most influential figures of the late 20th century. Article quality is solid. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Suggest close Support blurb, as indeed is the unanimous and ongoing view. It's unlikely that when Russia wakes up there will be objections, so before this non-controversial proposal gets overly long - why so many post-posting supports? - I think it's safe to close this. Kingsif (talk) 23:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

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.

(Removed) Ongoing Removal: COVID-19 pandemic

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: COVID-19 pandemic (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

Nominator's comments: Per discussion and closed debate below, I'm reopening this to allow fresh discussion unsullied by the back-and-forth over the pulling and reinstatement saga. To restate my rationale here, I have been reticent to remove covid from ongoing in the past, but LaserLegs's nomination statement below is sound, and in most parts of the world the ongoing newsworthiness and daily updates are not there. We can always put it back if the pandemic flares up again, and we are not obliged to wait for the WHO. Please allow this nom to run for at least a day or two before assessing consensus, to avoid the drama seen below.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Support - We can't just wait up for China indefinitely. Monkeypox seems to have become the more dominant health story in the news (at least if Portal:Current events is anything to go by). -- 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• • It's difficult to say now, but monkeypox will probably not spread in such extent as Covid, it is not a new, unresearches disease. "given that MPV spreads primarily through close contact, it is less efficient at spreading between humans." [7]. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

    And that may be true, but the fact is that monkeypox has been dominating the headlines. Whether or not it's due to media hysteria induced by the impact of prior pandemics is up for debate, of course. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support per the requirement that The Ongoing line is for regularly updated articles which cover events that remain in the news over a longer period of time. The article is not regularly updated and there are other crises now which appear much more frequently in the news than covid. Polyamorph (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support - I think removal would be the right thing to do. Keeping this up is like if we kept Climate change up because it is ongoing forever. There has to be a point in time where the event is not receiving regular updates and I believe we have reached that point. Interstellarity (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I think removal is wrong thing to do. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support It's time. The disease has effectively become endemic and the main article is not receiving the level of updates expected for an ongoing. Any major developments in this story can be addressed on a case-by-case basis through routine nomination and discussion process. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • But it wasn't declared endemic by WHO. Once it is declared, then we can pull it from ongoing. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - there are Covid waves still, in some countries it is influential. Let's look at TheGuardian home page. [8]. What are the main sectons above? World, UK, Coronavirus. If one of the most reliable sources thinks it still important, we shouldn't remove it. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  There are eight more main sections, so I feel you just stopped there for effect. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  But Coronavirus is specifically the third most important topic listed there, more important than football (in UK website, yeah). We follow reliable source in terms of coverage when we consider news for blurb, then we need to look at whether the setion is in constant focus on RS. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  I had a look at that so-called "Coronavirus" section while I was arbitrarily stopped. What percentage of its current news stories do you think are primarily filed under a more topically appropriate section's name and just happen to also mention The Big C for background? That's right, 72.727%! Chinese heat wave, French Disneyrail outage, 1982 Australian murder...think about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Is your number representative? How many news items did you check? On the contrary, it gives many new items, as well as one of the most important topics now - vaccinations. [9] [10] For vaccinations alone the topic shouldn't be removed from ongoing. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  I sampled all eleven, sir; three were positive. Of the two you show me now, one (already checked) is primarily Global development (that ongoing North-South divide). The other one (from August 20) looks legit, a Coronavirus topic, four of twelve. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  So, the news items that are onfront page are not a proper sample - it is more deductive to see news for a longer period. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  I didn't test the front page, just the COVID section. But yeah, I suppose a larger study is a better study. Not sure how I feel about pushing nasal vaccines, though, I'll sleep on that. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support Restrictions have been coming down across most of the world, and Covid isn't mentioned as much as it was. Still happening isn't an excuse for an article to stay on Ongoing. It's interesting people use the surge in China as an excuse to oppose removal when even those child articles aren't receiving regular, substantial updates. Given the lack of substantial updates at the target article, which is what we look at for the requirement, this clearly doesn't qualify for ongoing any longer. It's still happening, yes, but fails the criteria for ITN Ongoing. Noah^Talk 16:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support for all the reasons in the previous nom where there was obvious consensus to remove and a rogue admin disregarded the same. Opposes which disregard Wikipedia:In_the_news#Ongoing_section guidelines are rightly ignored for the purpose of evaluating consensus. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • " Opposes which disregard Wikipedia:In_the_news#Ongoing_section guidelines are rightly ignored for the purpose of evaluating consensus." There are plenty of opposes in the section below. I think that they have enough motivation and that arguments are convincing. Which opposes disregard guidelines? Kirill C1 (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support It has receded from the news, it cannot stay up indefinitely, and it is not receiving a sufficient level of updates. I am not convinced by arguments that sub-articles are being updated.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support - it's no longer resulting in daily blurb-worthy news as it once was. Levivich 16:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support The practical reality stands that besides China, which is attempting the likely-untenable goal of zero-COVID, the world has moved on. Cases, deaths, and restrictions are a small fraction of what once was, and restrictions have for the most part been rolled back. It’s an acceptable time for removal. If we were to keep it in purely because the WHO still defines it as a pandemic, we’d have the AIDS pandemic listed; if we kept it wholly because it’s still happening, we’d have climate change listed, and that was literally shot down yesterday. The Kip (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Wait - multiple things can be true at the same time. a) much of the world has moved on, at least surfacially b) the article itself, as a few folks have noted, is not seeing many edits c) not many of our readers are clicking that link on the homepage, btw. 60k across a month is arguably a small number d) but, COVID is still an epidemic and has not been downgraded to endemic as a few editors have noted e) scratch the surface and you will note that across the globe we really have not returned to the normal (perhaps we never will, who knows) f) there are still many evolving guidelines and actions that are happening across the globe even if not in some of the countries that we are in. With all of this, I recommend either wait until September 15/16 when the next clickstream data comes in and/or update the link to timeline of COVID events -- something like this [11] (or perhaps something better) which might be more pertinent than our current link perhaps? Good luck and be kind. Ktin (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support per Polyamorph. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support per usual et al. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support per InedibleHulk. GoldenRing (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support, this is long overdue. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose is still a pandemic, however much it may behave like an endemic virus. We should have waited for a WHO statement confirming this and put an end to the pandemic declaration. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  WHO rightfully isn't concerned about whether or not a topic is in the news or whether it receives regular updates. But that does mean that by the time WHO sees fit to declare COVID-19 endemic, the news will have long stopped covering it, and a section labeled "In The News" on Wikipedia would look particularly archaic in having waited so long to make a decision. Similar lack of coverage was present on ITN when Ebola and Zika were declared to no longer be PHEICs. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  When WHO sees it fit to be declared, the news will cover WHO decision, of course, with some retrospective in-depth articles. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - Shenzhen apparently just went into lockdown per Reuters, I think it's too early for this to be removed. There should be no rush for an encyclopedia to make this change when the pandemic is still ongoing, there will come a day when that is no longer the case but not yet. Covid is still in an acute phase, it has not yet become merely chronic like the HIV example. - Indefensible (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - it's still a thing that affects a lot of people, with daily infection rates above half a million. Many news articles are still being produced about it, so it's in the news. Aren't those the only two criteria? —VersaceSpace 🌃 18:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  See Wikipedia:In the news#Ongoing section, which details the criteria. Noah^Talk 18:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. It is still a pandemic and it is still in the news. Davey2116 (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support - this is long, long overdue. Covid is no longer news, it's an endemic disease world-wide, and will remain so. This is akin to keeping a link to Malaria as Ongoing in ITN, which kills millions of people every year. --Soman (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • There aren't lockdowns because of Malaria or debates at national level about whether to do restrictions in the autumn because of it. Unlike with Covid. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

    Still happening isn't part of the criteria. Articles are NOT posted because the event is still happening. It's required to have regular, substantial updates contained new, pertinent information. Noah^Talk 19:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

    I pointed out that it is noremotely similar to malaria. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  two years of pandemic for you to say this? Not the same. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support The WHO is unlikely to declare it endemic, but COVID isn’t in the news anymore. 58-59% of Americans don’t view COVID as a threat. It just isn’t discussed anymore, and In The News doesn’t mean Broadcasting COVID-19. 47.19.209.230 (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• support removal It is sadly clear that most governments and the majority of people don't give a stuff anymore (this coming from a person who voluntarily wears masks everywhere still), and the reinstatement was just the personal preference of a higher authority driving by to put us plebs in place again. Consensus was clear then and it is in this reset Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support I checked my country's national news sources and (to my genuine surprise) there isn't actually any updates about COVID on the front page anymore. YD407OTZ (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Although I know the goal was to keep this up for a while, worth noting there's a pretty clear consensus in favor of removal at the moment. The Kip (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the consensus that you claim to see. I see a lot of people overly eager to get rid of this from ongoing for no good reason. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The fact remains all these oppose votes not addressing the criteria will be ignored. Still happening is not a criteria. Regular, substantial updates which add new, pertinent information is a criteria and one that has not been met as of late. Noah^Talk 21:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose removal - The pandemic is still ongoing, and it is still in the news. If the BBC and the Guardian can both find enough material to maintain entire news website sections about it, it's still very much in the news. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose removal' -- COVID-19 is still in the news, and thousands are still dying daily. Not time to remove it yet, there's no reason to remove it just because a small segment of the Wikipedia community wants to pretend COVID-19 doesn't exist anymore. It does, and it's not endemic. Also, articles linking to COVID-19 are still being regularly updated. See here -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  No one is pretending it doesn't exist. I actually have covid right now. It simply isn't in the news the way it was. In terms of deaths, road accidents are killing more people daily than covid. But we don't have road collisions in ongoing. Polyamorph (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure where you got that statistic, but it's not true. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 09:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Say's who. 3500 road deaths per day. Currently 7-day average covid deaths are 2,115 (from the google case tracker). Polyamorph (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) "It's not true". I'm going to do a piece of talk-space original research WP:SYNTH here: The number of worldwide deaths from Covid in the week to 24 August was 14,000.[12] If we extrapolate that over a whole year (52 weeks) then that gives 728,000 Covid deaths annually. Now according to our article List of countries by traffic-related death rate, the global road death total in 2016 was 1,350,000. It's unlikely that's particuarly different right now, so it does seem quite likely that the road death toll is indeed higher right now than the Covid toll. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
      • Ah, you're referring to worldwide, which does not include many COVID-19 deaths in less-developed countries. Nonetheless, the average number of deaths per day on the road in the US was 102 per day in 2016, while the number of deaths per day in the US for COVID-19 is currently 387, more than 3 times more. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 09:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
        • You explicitly said thousands are dying daily, which is global stat. The global statistics reveal this is lower than road fatalities. Polyamorph (talk) 10:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  We would need to hold a discussion to determine if the criteria covers child articles as well. As written and generally interpreted currently, it does not. I might as well start a RfC on the talk page now. Noah^Talk 21:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support removal - I suggested this some time ago but was over-ruled. No longer headline news. — Voice of Clam 21:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support removal the message now is we just "live with it". Certainly if we get a shitty new mutation which evades vaccinations and causes massive mortality, we can re-visit this (if anyone's left alive to deal with it), but in the meantime, it's just background deaths, like gun-crime in the US. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose removal, as per my comments yesterday in my request to reinstate it. The pandemic is still the subject of ongoing news and COVID-19 has not yet been declared endemic. Pandemics are not inherently open-ended; someday it will be over. But the expectation that the pandemic is almost over has been around almost as long as the pandemic has, and every prediction so far has been premature. I don't think the pandemic should stay on here forever, but I don't think this is the time to remove it. Tisnec (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Again, “it’s still going on” is not a criteria on WP:ITNR. The Kip (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

It's still receiving news coverage, though, which satisfies WP:ITNCRIT - "the event is appearing currently in news sources". It's definitely less news than before, and I think we're close to a notability tipping point, but I've seen several stories just today. The only other necessary criterion is consensus, which is what we're debating here. Tisnec (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Wait I don't oppose the removal but I want to reiterate that there are waves of COVID in Asia, in particular Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong (tied to the rise of COVID in Shenzhen), Vietnam, Taiwan and Singapore. MarioJump83 (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support removal—Basically endemic at this point; no longer a constant news story like it used to be. Kurtis ^(talk) 22:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Leaning support for removal at this point. BD2412 T 23:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Might I suggest a compromise? Why not point to the timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic for each month? That is receiving daily updates, and so fits the criteria. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  That article is a reference implementation of WP:PROSELINE it's a daily ticker with nothing really new or pertinent in it. It's excellent evidence for why this story is no longer suitable for ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• The entire purpose of WP:ONGOING is so that the same basic story doesn't continuously take up a line in T:ITN at the expense of other blurbs. The oldest blurb there is from August 14, more than two weeks old; and as I said in the previous discussion, not only hasn't there been a COVID-related story we would have been reasonably likely to blurb since then, there hasn't been one since July 6. The normal process can handle a COVID item every two months or so just fine; what ongoing is for is when there's blurbs we'd post every week or more. Remove. —Cryptic 01:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose removal per previous rationale. Also the article in the nomination is incorrect; that article isn't actually in ITN, but rather a related article on the pandemic. Banedon (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose removal, though I won't lose sleep if it happens. As I said yesterday, the pandemic is still active, I'm still seeing stuff in the news, and I feel adverse to calling this endemic before the WHO does. Certainly, World War II managed to stay in the news for a good 6 years; what's 2.5 years to COVID? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support removal. Removing doesn't mean it's over, just that it has passed below the threshold where it is generating continuous high-profile news stories. I think it has gone past that point, and we can always re-nominate it if circumstances change. 2A02:C7F:2CE3:4700:E4BB:94FE:3CFC:3F99 (talk) 03:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - The event is current and globally significant. As long as the article remains updated, the ongoing status applies. STSC (talk) 03:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Problem is the article hasn’t remained updated. The Kip (talk) 06:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment The article in question should be COVID-19 pandemic, not COVID-19 as per nom and which people here are presumably referring to. Redthreadhx (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support removal Article not being regularly updated, with relevant sub-articles (Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in August 2022 I presume?) not meeting ITN suitability criteria (bulleted single sentences with a lot of CN tags. Whether the topic is still "in the news" or "still notable enough for ongoing" are immaterial without appropriate and sufficient article updates. I would additionally like to apologize to all for premature reading of consensus in the previous discussion; it was poor judgment on my part and muddied the discussion regarding the nomination. Spencer^T•C 07:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• @Spencer: I think I can speak for all of us when we say that we accept your apology! --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 07:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  “All of us,” he says, as consensus runs about 2:1 in favor of removal. The Kip (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

What does that have to do with accepting his apology? --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 17:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

No need. It was a good pull, consensus remained strong even after the pull until a rogue admin yeeted it back into the box. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Yikes, LaserLegs, NO this was not a good pull. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 09:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree there is no need to apologise, but the fact that you have demonstrates how good an admin you are. Polyamorph (talk) 09:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I feel you have nothing to apologize for. Consensus was just as clear then as it is now. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

No, it's the 'glamour' commanding officers from the wild west era of 15+ years ago who often try to pull faits accompli on everyone that is the problem, especially when they don't participate on a routine basis but carpetbag in to impose their choice on the 'glamour' topics. Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support removal, in terms of news coverage this is nothing compared to what it was before / during the vaccine rollout. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support removal as I have done previously, per Wikipedia:ONGOING. The article linked has not received significant updates - Dumelow (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Another comment - this request for comment should probably be brought to the wider community. I notice a lot of people commenting for and against in the previous removal discussion who have not yet commented here. No matter the outcome of this, someone is sure to want to bring this to WP:DRV or something. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 09:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  No, this is the ITN discussion page for items in the box. We don't need to WP:CANVAS more "oppose" !votes from people who don't bother to read the guidelines we have enough already. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not opposed to adding this to WP:CENT. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support removal - COVID has turned into a background story at best, and unless a new wave begins to spike up it will stay that way. Regardless, as per WP:ONGOING "In general, articles are NOT posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening. In order to be posted to ongoing, the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information." Updates to the article have become irregular at best. Prism55 (talk) 10:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose removal: This is still a major issue in the world, especially in SE Asia. Its economic and political effects are still very much being felt. And are likely to again in Europe/America this winter. Plenty of coverage of new vaccines etc. 2A02:A03F:61B7:5B00:84C5:B0F7:9195:2BFD (talk) 10:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support removal per above. EditMaker Me (talk) 11:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment – Some 3,600 words later, posts running over 2:1 in favor of removal. Consensus? – Sca (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • There is no rush whatsoever to remove this from ongoing. It's worth it to let everyone have a chance to participate even if their participation is unlikely to change the result. Have patience. Let the world turn at least once. 24hrs, even 48, is not that long. Levivich 13:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

    I can certainly understand that the first pull was rushed, but we’re at a full day of discussion with a pretty overwhelming consensus. I don’t see much of a point in dragging things out longer than they need to be. The Kip (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

    We're at a full day now when you posted your reply; we weren't at a full day yet two hours ago when I posted the comment you're replying to. In those two hours, three new people participated (two supports, one oppose), who would not have had the opportunity to do so had this been closed two hours ago. That's valuable in and of itself; can't you see that? I can show you innumerable examples of bad things that happened when threads were closed too soon. Can you show me any examples of bad things that happened when threads were closed too late? What is so hard about the concept of allowing (at least) 24hrs so that everyone in the world has a chance to participate? And what is with this obsession by some with commenting about when it's time to close? Do we think that, unless someone says "this should be closed now", the closers won't know when to close? All these comments do (mine here included) is needlessly add to the text on the page, to the watchlist, to the edit history. There is no need to rush. Levivich 16:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose the pandemic is still ongoing and there are still developments. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support removal - having just now read WP:ITNCRIT, I'm not seeing how the level of continual background activity rises to that point. For all effective purposes, this has moved into recurrent rotation now. Hog Farm _Talk 13:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support removal: What a coincidence, someone on the TV News was discussing yesterday exactly this, that COVID is mostly over by now and there are hardly any more news to it. And, as pointed, the article should be having frequent news-related updates, and this one is not. The opposes that say "it's still going on at Foo" should check the criteria in WP:ONGOING. Cambalachero (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  With 712,000 new cases yesterday, "mostly over" sounds optimistic. However, since they're mainly the Omnicron variant that's less debilitating, it does seem the global crisis is ebbing at present. -- Sca (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support unless there's some noteworthy global development that makes sense to add again.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose removal. The pandemic is still ongoing, it is killing thousands per week, and several countries (most notably China) still have lockdowns in place. Much of the world population is still unvaccinated. Updates are occurring in the sub-articles and it's still receiving mainstream media coverage, even in places where legal restrictions have been lifted (e.g. there were two articles about Covid on the the front page of the Guardian website this morning). The Covid pandemic isn't over, no matter how much people (or some governments) like to pretend it is. Modest Genius ^talk 14:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm more worried about CC than the pandemic. 104/40 due where I live today. -- Sca (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Cool, so where does WP:ONGOING mention "sub-articles" and can you highlight a recent update for "new, pertinent information"? --LaserLegs (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support Removal I would challenge anyone to cite a COVID-related event/occurrence/fact that has happened in the last six months that is of interest to anyone. We know that people continue to get it, we know that people continue to die. Simply updating the metrics is not a reason to retain this forever. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • The update vaccines being available is a fact that is of interest to many, right? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 19:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support. While certainly things related to COVID will continue to be newsworthy, those can be handled as individual ITN items rather than a permanent placement. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment it's 24 hours in. By a straight !vote count it's 32 support and 15 opposed (very high participation for ITN). The Oppose (or keep) camp points out mainly that the pandemic is still happening. The Support (or remove) camp agrees but points out that the story is stale, getting only statistic updates for a long time now. WP:ONGOING applies. Time to call it --LaserLegs (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • What is the rush? You seem to be afraid that others will come by and oppose removal. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 17:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

    24 hours is the frequently proposed but never officially adopted "minimum wait" and there is a clear consensus. Time to act --LaserLegs (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

    • I don't see overwhelming consensus worthy of pulling this now. What is the harm of waiting a few more days? --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 17:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
      • You are in opposition to removal. You have posted on this thread 11 times. You are not a neutral arbiter here. The consensus is what it is, and there has been plenty of time allotted for opinion in this nom and the prior. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
        • First of all, I hardly call 66% support to be "consensus" on something like this. But even if it is, you haven't answered my question. The consensus is not overwhelming, so WP:SNOW doesn't apply, and there's no harm in waiting this out a few more days. Patience, please. Why does it matter if this stays on for a while longer? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 19:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
          • If 2/3 of all participants does not reflect "consensus" then nothing would ever get done here. There is no question of harm, there is a question of reasonable and ordinary practice. A nomination that is open for 24 hours, has 66% support and extremely high participation is absolutely a mandate for closure and acceptance. Keeping the nomination open, with the hope that canvassing may drop the majority a bit actually would be harmful. I'm readding the "Needs attention" header for admin consideration. Please allow an ADMIN to make the decision on whether to act. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • If there are not many updates now, the editors can update the articles. There are new lockdowns and discussions on impact of possible measures. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

    This article has been discussed for removal from Ongoing several times over the past months and the updates you are suggesting have not since happened. For all those who continue to insist it should not be removed, why have very few of said editors updated the article to meet the Ongoing standards? That someone may eventually make an update is simply not good enough. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Another comment For what it is worth, the headline story on the New York Times is the updated vaccine being approved, while the second story involves the US's steep decline in life expectancy (lowest since 1996) due mostly to COVID-19. Not that this changes the ITN criteria, but to say it is not "in the news" still is simply not true. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 17:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Weak support for removal, or updating to a current timeline article per Ktin's suggestion above. COVID-19 is still a big part of what's happening in the news, but a developing-story enthusiast (or whoever actually clicks ITN links) is not going to find what they're looking for in the linked article. -- Visviva (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Procedural comment: Regarding the suggestion that we should ignore contributors who "disregard Wikipedia:In_the_news#Ongoing_section guidelines" for purposes of evaluating consensus, I would just like to point out that (a) ITN does not appear to be a guideline, (b) even if it was, guidelines derive their authority, if any, from consensus and therefore agreement with them cannot be used as a precondition to determining consensus, and (c) in general, excluding voices from the discussion is harmful to the project and the community and should be done only when strictly necessary (e.g. when there is evidence of actual manipulation, or some other reason to believe that a particular sample of Wikipedians is unrepresentative). The power of consensus comes precisely from the pressure it creates to find better and more nuanced solutions (or, as some poli sci folks would say, "increase the dimensionality of the policy space"); relieving that pressure by excluding inconvenient voices does no one any favors. I am but a humble rando, and this is but a minor issue in this case, but those are my thoughts on the matter. -- Visviva (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

"In general, articles are NOT posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening. In order to be posted to ongoing, the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information." is a direct quote. Not sure what else to tell you. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Either we have guidelines and we enforce them, or we don't. The latter is anarchy. The former is constricting, but we can change consensus through open-ended discussions such as through WT:ITN. We don't do it through individual case studies. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

This isn't a court system. One case doesn't set precedent over long-established guidelines and practices. It takes broad consensus to change practices and guidelines. Consensus of that nature can't be achieved in a discussion about an item on ITN. Noah^Talk 19:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

This site is not exactly a democracy as some like to believe it is. This is why there are no precise requirements for consensus. Personally, I do not believe ~66% of votes for something is consensus at all, but the failures of the article to be updated to Ongoing standards is not a matter of opinion. If an article is not being updated enough than the debate over the event being ongoing doesn't just mean very little, quite frankly it means nothing at all. I do not believe anyone who has opposed posting has offered an opinion as to why the article is actually meeting these standards, nor have the proper actions been taken to elevate the article to said standards. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support removal - I just don't see that this topic is very in the news anymore, from the perspective of our target audience: people looking to find an encyclopedia article written in English about something they came across in the news. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Vaccine topic is pretty much in the news. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Anything worth nominating? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

      How about this about a guy paddling down the Missouri River in a giant hollowed-out pumpkin? -- Sca (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

      Fails 'MURICA, MINIMUMDEATHS. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment – So, after 28 hours, we're up to 5,700 words. Enough is never enough? – Sca (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Patience, please. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 19:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Let's give it a day to marinate on WP:CENT and see if we get any outside input. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 19:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support removal With almost all lockdowns ended, covid has become yet another everyday disease - dangerous and appearing yes, but it's certainly cannot be reasonably described as being "in the news". HIV and malaria isn't in the news. Gaioa (T C L) 19:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support removal, per all above. We can still post related news as independent items. Alexcalamaro (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Removed. I think the consensus has become clearer now after a prolonged debate. --Tone 19:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Is there a vote count? I think support had the majority but not sure it had consensus. - Indefensible (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Might want to close this before someone YOLOs it back into the box to force the same outcome a third time --LaserLegs (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose removal. -- like shouting into the wind at this point, but no. We should have waited for longer. But whatever. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 20:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Haven't you opposed 3 or 4 times already? --LaserLegs (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Whatever. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

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

August 29

Portal:Current events/2022 August 29

August 29, 2022 (2022-08-29) (Monday) Armed conflicts and attacks Russo-Ukrainian War 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine Southern Ukraine campaign 2022 Ukrainian southern counteroffensive Ukraine says it has begun a ground offensive in the Kherson Oblast. (Reuters) Russian-occupation officials say that the Ukrainian military launched a barrage of missiles at the town of Nova Kakhovka, leaving the town without water or power. (Reuters) Two people are killed and five others are injured after Russian forces shelled the city of Mykolaiv, according to regional governor Vitaliy Kim. (Reuters) Iraqi political crisis 2022 Baghdad clashes Supporters of Iraqi Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr storm the Republican Palace in Baghdad. The Iraqi Army declares a total curfew in the capital beginning at 3:30 p.m. and the Iraqi government declares a nationwide curfew beginning at 7:00 p.m.. At least twelve people are killed and 270 others are injured in clashes between protesters and Iran-backed Popular Mobilization Forces in the Green Zone. (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) (France 24) (Al Arabiya English) (The Jerusalem Post) Pro-Sadrist protesters blockade roads and government buildings in Basra. (The Washington Post) Iran closes its border with Iraq until "further notice" amid the ongoing civil unrest, while Kuwait urges its citizens to leave Iraq. (Mehr News Agency) (Reuters) Oromo conflict At least 42 ethnic Oromo civilians are killed during a massacre in Horo Guduru Welega Zone, Ethiopia. Witnesses blame members of the Amhara Fano militia of responsibility. (Reuters) Yemeni Civil War Ten soldiers are killed and many more wounded during an attack aimed at cutting off a key route to the city of Taiz. (Al Arabiya) Disasters and accidents European migrant crisis A dinghy carrying 27 Egyptians en route to Italy capsizes off the coast of Libya, killing at least two people and leaving nineteen others missing in the Mediterranean Sea. (Middle East Eye) 2022 Laos floods Recent flash floods caused by heavy rainfall in northern Laos have caused at least 5.6 billion Lao kips in damage. (Xinhua News Agency) Health and environment Genocide of indigenous peoples in Brazil The Man of the Hole, the last member of his tribe who lived in total isolation for 26 years, is found dead in the Amazon rainforest. (CBS News) (Survival International) Law and crime In Ikongo, Madagascar, 18 people are killed and 34 are wounded when police open fire on a group protesting the kidnapping of a child with albinism. (Al Jazeera)

---

(Posted) RD: Hans-Christian Ströbele

Article: Hans-Christian Ströbele (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Tagesschau (DE)
Credits:

• Nominated by SoWhy (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Grimes2 (talk · give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Influential German politician. SoWhy 09:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Added some references. Added myself to updaters. Grimes2 (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support Other Activities section could probably be turned into 2 prose sentences at the end of an existing section but otherwise article is in good shape. Spencer^T•C 04:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Fine article, great update! - I'd give it more lead if I had time, and the sentence about his successor has no ref, but I don't care about that bit. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerda Arendt (talk • contribs) 07:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charlbi Dean

Article: Charlbi Dean (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

• Nominated by Dumelow (talk · give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: South African actress. I am working on referencing the article Dumelow (talk) 07:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Think the referencing is now up to scratch - Dumelow (talk) 07:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support looks good. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

RD: Abhijit Sen

Article: Abhijit Sen (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Indian Express
Credits:

• Nominated by Ktin (talk · give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Indian economist. Article needs some work before it can be ready. I will work on it, but, if someone wants to assist, jump right in. Basic edits done. Will continue to expand, but, this is good to go to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Lede states that he was involved in the Planning Commission (India) but I see no description of this in the body of the article. Spencer^T•C 04:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ernie Zampese

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

• Nominated by BeanieFan11 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by JasonH1978 (talk · give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: American football coach. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose At a minimum the stats tables are unsourced (and possibly also WP:UNDUE/uncommon for assistant coaches).—Bagumba (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  Do you think I should source the tables or remove them? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see any issue with removing it. —Bagumba (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Bagumba: I removed the tables. Do you think the article is good enough for RD now? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  I struck my oppose.—Bagumba (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Support After some spot checks, seems adequately sourced and good to go.—Bagumba (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Therapyisgood: I have fixed the issue Bagumba opposed for. Do you support now? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support looks good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing Removal: COVID-19

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: COVID-19 (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

Nominator's comments: COVID-19 has been going on for years now and it will do so probably for all of our lifetimes (much like MERS and HIV/AIDS). It cannot be in ongoing indefinitely. Would it be suitable, for example, to put car crashes into ongoing? It's also become a very broad topic (from lockdowns, supply chain issues, human migration, political consequences, etc) spot news events (like China lockdown) related to COVID-19 do not illustrate the general topic. LaserLegs (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose; in countries still tracking Covid-19 in a reasonable way, the statistics are still high. The US reported approximately 500 daily deaths over the last week. It's also still in the news, much more so than car accidents or flu or cancer or any of our other shared ills. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  And it will likely be in the news for the next 10 years as the world calculates the social, economic and health cost of Covid and assess global/regional responses. 193.119.98.23 (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support I would challenge anyone to cite a COVID-related event/occurrence/fact that has happened in the last six months that is of interest to anyone. We know that people continue to get it, we know that people continue to die. Simply updating the metrics is not a reason to retain this forever. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment It seems like debates on these are becoming more frequent while we still don't know how long an item can be considered ongoing, so I opened up a discussion on the talk page to clarify some things if possible.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose it is still causing widespread effects in China which still having downstream effects on world markets. Masem (t) 14:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support I was on the fence last time because the world was seeing a bit of a wave from the latest subvariant but seeing how almost no major jurisdiction made any changes to their public health policy, except continue to remove covid-era restrictions, covid as it stands now is firmly in the past. Apart from news outlets reporting readily available stats, like a stock ticker, there hasn't been any notable developments in months. 193.119.98.23 (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support – In the past month, there has only been one substantial update to the article, and this update was not related to current events (such as direct impact). If the article is no longer actively seeing news-related updates, we should indeed remove it from our ITN box. This is not related to how much impact the pandemic is still having. The issue is that we are not covering the impact in the linked article. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  I will note, for example, that quite a few "as of ..." sentences are dated to 2020 or 2021. We might need to be concerned about the article being outdated. I have no idea if this is an actual issue for the article, but it doesn't feel suitable for ITN. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support. We cannot have it on ITN forever and, as mentioned above, there are no day-to-day updates to the articles as typically required for ongoing items. Yes, it made sense to have it on for way longer than any other ongoing item, but at some point we should drop it. Our readers know to use the search box if they need info. --Tone 14:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment – S-o-o-o long-term is this topic that I'm not sure Ongoing matters much. OTOH, it does provide a hot button for a topic that affects everyone. On the fence. – Sca (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support Restrictions are continuing to fall, infections have been falling, not much in terms of substantial updates at the article. Noah^Talk 15:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support - We can't just wait up for China indefinitely. Monkeypox seems to have become the more dominant health story in the news (at least if Portal:Current events is anything to go by).--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
• I don't see a single covid item at Portal:Current events/August 2022 that would have gotten a blurb had this not been in ongoing, and only one (on August 15) that wouldn't have gotten snow-opposed. We have to go all the way back to July 6 for an item that we even might have blurbed. Support. —Cryptic 16:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support – same reasons as why don't we put climate change to ongoing. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. Clickstream data for the month of August is not available as of yet, and will be available on September 15 / 16. I would recommend having a look at that data before acting one way or the other here. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Much like the Invasion of Ukraine, it's not in the news as much but that doesn't mean it's done or over with. MyriadSims (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Merely "it's still happening" isn't enough for a slot in Ongoing, and the second bullet point at the documentation at WP:ONGOING addresses this explicitly. —Cryptic 16:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support not really "in the news" much anymore is it? It is endemic now in many places. No longer the crisis it was, now others have taken over. Polyamorph (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support, I think at this point in time we can remove it from ongoing. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support It's time. If there is a really major development, we can deal with that on a case by case basis. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC) signed belatedly
• Support, endemic disease by now. --Soman (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
• Removed Consensus for removal; lack of regular updates to article as required for Ongoing items. Spencer^T•C 16:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  updates for a topic as big as COVID will be in the sub articles. this will be a similar issue for the Ukraine war. Masem (t) 16:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  I considered this. The issue is that we're not featuring these sub-articles on the front page. Such an indirect way of "featuring" the work of people editing articles like (for example) Chinese government response to COVID-19 (which of course isn't even linked in the main article) is not really reasonable in my opinion. It doesn't serve our readers or our community. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I’m here to remind you that COVID-19 will be endemic when the WHO declares it so, not when you say so. It’s still a pandemic. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  If we were to go wholly by the WHO’s definition of events, we would still have the AIDS pandemic listed. Sometimes it’s best to go by the practical reality. The Kip (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose and reinstate - The pandemic is still ongoing, and it continues to make the news. Pulling it from Ongoing with less than four hours' discussion is much too quick in any case. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support It should not stay up indefinitely, and it is no longer receiving the regular updates required for Ongoing.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support I personally think it is time to remove as other events have taken far more media coverage and it should not stay perpetually. -- FictiousLibrarian (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse removal - It is clear that restrictions are easing almost everywhere in the world. COVID will likely be with us for a while now, but not to the point that it is affecting everyday life. Interstellarity (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
• Post-Removal Support Pandemic will continue, but continuous updates have not. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
• Request to reinstate The pandemic has not ceased to drive news, nor is it an inherently open-ended event (a charge reasonably used elsewhere here to say climate change shouldn't be listed). I believe the decision to remove it from "ongoing" was premature, and that it should be reinstated. Tisnec (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  CBC News doesn't fully reflect the global journalistic scene, of course, but insofar as it does, the pandemic really has ceased to drive. The top health story (currently top overall) is about how much weekly drinking scientists say is too much this week. The only COVID-related homepage headline is about normality's inevitable comeback. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  On the other hand, the New York Times has a little covid dashboard not unakin to Wikipedia's "In the news" infobox. (I checked two other sites: The BBC has no covid-related stories on the front page just now; CNN has two). We're probably close to covid not being news anymore - provided it doesn't have any more tricks up its sleeves - but I don't think we're there yet. Tisnec (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Request to reinstate This isn't just premature. While COVID pandemic will go on as a part of our lives, there's an ongoing big wave of COVID in Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan and Vietnam (all of which are in around East/Southeast Asia), and while the monkeypox is now a bigger news than COVID, it is not growing that much in Asia as of now. I feel COVID-19 should be considered as ongoing until these waves are put under control and growth of monkeypox in Asia becomes definite. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, reinstate until better consensus is achieved The discussion ended before I could vote on the original proposal. For something like this that has been repeatedly re-litigated on this page over the past several months, I feel like we could stand to get more opinions before making such a contentious change. On substantive grounds, the pandemic is still active, I'm still seeing stuff in the news, and I feel adverse to calling this endemic before the WHO does. Certainly, World War II managed to stay in the news for a good 6 years; what's 2.5 years to COVID? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Reinstate. Four hours isn't enough time to develop a consensus; item should be reinstated until the discussion has had sufficient time to run its course. For the moment, I oppose removal, per Vanamonde93 and the fact that while the target article is not seeing regular significant updates, the child articles of the target article are, and I believe that is sufficient for the criteria for ongoing to be met. BilledMammal (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Post-removal support The practical reality stands that besides China, which is attempting the likely-untenable goal of zero-COVID, the world has moved on. Cases, deaths, and restrictions are a small fraction of what once was, and restrictions have for the most part been rolled back. It’s an acceptable time for removal. The Kip (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment/lean reinstate Only 20.9% of people in low-income countries have received at least one dose of a Covid vaccine.[13] (See ref for more stats) In many parts of the world, we're not out of the woods. -TenorTwelve (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support After two years of reminding people about it, yes, the pandemic and its articles still exist and everyone knows where to find them. That was the point, awareness. We thoroughly and completely helped raise it. We did not put an end to death, disease and socioeconomic turmoil. We were never supposed to. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support removal, as I did last time. The article has received precisely zero meaningful content updates in the last month - Dumelow (talk) 07:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support Who knows when the pandemic ends, it has been in "current events" for so long. Nythar^T.C 07:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Post-removal support (since apparently some are calling for reinstatement). It's long overdue, the article is no longer receiving substantial update to warrant keeping it in Ongoing. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Reinstate. As stated above, four hours is simply not enough time to build a reasonable consensus. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  And as restated immediately above, this new resolution and realization is long overdue, following months of trial proposals, similar discussion and (nonbinding) alternative results. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Reinstate we can remove this when Covid-19 becomes endemic, which it hasn't, yet. In the meantime, one would be hard-pressed to find any news outlets without daily Covid-related news. Banedon (talk) 08:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  You'd also really have to look for one that doesn't treat it as another bottomless mundane category of news, beside Politics/Government, Weather/Climate and Indigenous/Sports. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Many countries are already treating it as endemic in any case. Polyamorph (talk) 09:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  They're treating the literal virality as endemic. I'd like to think we're focusing on how they're treating the transmission of COVID news. This isn't In The Public Health Sector/C, after all. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Quite. Although I was responding to the OP who I think was referring to the virus. Polyamorph (talk) 10:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  We must remain vigilant, referring to misindentation. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Soz. Yes, Stay alert! Polyamorph (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Reinstate. This was a woefully brief discussion which should not have been closed so quickly. The pandemic is still ongoing, it is killing thousands per week, and several countries (most notably China) still have lockdowns in place. Much of the world population is still unvaccinated. Updates are occurring in the sub-articles and it's still receiving mainstream media coverage even in places where legal restrictions have been lifted. The Covid pandemic isn't over, no matter how much people like to pretend it is. Modest Genius ^talk 11:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - Those calling on ITN to wait until the virus is declared endemic are forgetting that this section is called "in the news". The criteria for remaining an ongoing item is the determination that there are still regular updates to the target article, and the item has to be pervasively in the news. Those are the only criteria, nothing to do with what the WHO says the virus is or isn't. At this time, these criteria are not being met. The discussion should be closed without reinstatement. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 11:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• REINSTATED - The removal was done very soon after the request was posted, which is very unusual for ITN, given it was not close to SNOW support. Many voices have asked for it to be reinstated, so it should revert back to its default state while further discussion happens. - Fuzheado | Talk 12:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Fuzheado strikes again! 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Or rather, a decision made in poor faith less than 4 hours after a proposal was posted has been reset so that a clearer and more fair consensus can be determined. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Can you point to the guidelines which stipulate a minimum wait for taking action or what compelling "keep" justification (other than 'too fast') necessitated a re-post? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  This has a wiki lawyering vibe. Anyone who has been active on ITN knows that if you take action on an item within four hours that is not clearly WP:SNOW worthy, then procedurally its legitimacy is going to be highly controversial. The requests to reinstate have been raised by experienced users and reflect this. I don't have a preference on the matter either way. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  It's a fairly straightforward question. What guidelines stipulate a minimum wait, and what compelling "keep" justification (other than 'too fast') necessitated a re-post? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  It's another unwritten rule, just like the notorious WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. Noah^Talk 13:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think WP:CONLEVEL does; just four hours of discussion results in the decision being made among a limited group of editors. BilledMammal (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  That certainly seems relevant in this case. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  You are asking for policy proof for something that was never asserted. I never said anything was "stipulated" or "policy," only that it was unusual how quickly it was acted on and that many voices objected to this procedural issue. It is the custom of this community that decisions for the ITN box are given enough time so that the consensus is properly determined. The COVID item was removed after a sampling period of less than four hours, resulting in users who noted the short consultation period:

  • "Pulling it from Ongoing with less than four hours' discussion is much too quick in any case,"
  • "The discussion ended before I could vote on the original proposal"
  • "Four hours isn't enough time to develop a consensus"
  • "four hours is simply not enough time to build a reasonable consensus"
  • "woefully brief discussion"

  The legitimacy of this forum is lessened when procedures and customs are not followed in the best of faith. A reversion to the prior state/status quo while discussion continues is the most fair and equitable thing to do. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  While it's true that four hours might not be an ideal length of time to judge consensus, at the time you reinstated the item, over 20 hours of discussion had elapsed, and at that point consensus was clearly heavily in favor of removing the item from ongoing. This is where I believe you made your error in judgment. You were weighing consensus based on temporal conditions that existed at the time of removal, and in doing so, imposed a supervote at a time when consensus had become more fleshed out and definitively in favor of removal. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  I agree entirely with WaltCip here. A good admin would recognise they've made a mistake assessing the consensus and revert it. Polyamorph (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'm quite comfortable in restoring the status quo in the name of fairness so that consensus can be properly evaluated. What concerns me is the number of folks who would dispense with good faith community norms in order to fast-track a decision they prefer. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Since when is calling another admin action a "decision made in poor faith" (your words) consistent with "good faith community norms". Do you consider your own admin actions to be unaccountable? Polyamorph (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  I don't believe I have said anything of the sort. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  You certainly did. The full quote: Or rather, a decision made in poor faith less than 4 hours after a proposal was posted has been reset so that a clearer and more fair consensus can be determined. The comment is at the top of this thread. Polyamorph (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Of course I said the things in bold type. I meant in response to, "Do you consider your own admin actions to be unaccountable?" I never said my actions are "unaccountable" and I don't understand why you would attribute that sentiment to me. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  If you look at the reactions between the removal and the reinstatement, they are 50/50 in their split on their opinions on the matter. The fact is, it is so FUBAR at this point a close and re-request is likely the only way to properly come to a community decision. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but this is not the first time that you've made a decision on ITN that in my view appears to go against a clear consensus. It's difficult not to have a knee-jerk reaction. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Fuzheado: Whoa, hold on. "poor faith"?! You can't possibly mean that. At the risk of sounding self-important, could everyone just chill a little bit? No one is acting in poor faith, no one is "misusing" the admin bit, we're just (as usual) kind of stumbling towards a solution because the wikipedia way is inherently messy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Who are you quoting with "misusing?" Apologies if it was me, but I don't recall saying that. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Someone down below said "abuse of admin privelege" regarding your action. I'm saying Spencer didn't do anything in bad faith, you didn't misuse your bit. But frankly, I was kind of hoping your very first response would be to say "oh my god, I didn't mean 'poor faith', I meant 'good faith (but incorrect)'". Floquenbeam (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  I stand by my comment. I could add "unintentional" abuse, but nevertheless it was a mistake. Polyamorph (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  To be clear, I am not charging gross misuse or abuse of power, merely that Fuzheado misread and acted against consensus - in good faith. But I still believe this needs to be corrected and the ongoing item should be removed. Even if the discussion is closed with no consensus, it's nearly inevitable that it will be renominated for removal in a month barring some extraordinary development in the virus's progression. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose reinstatement, pull - Just for the record, although I did note that I supported removing this from ongoing earlier. I think Fuzheado acted against consensus, even if the previous removal was technically a bit early.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  As noted by @BilledMammal above, consensus evaluated "technically a bit early" means it's not a proper consensus, as per WP:CONLEVEL. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Pull It is sadly clear that most governments and the majority of people don't give a stuff anymore (this coming from a person who voluntarily wears masks everywhere still), and the reinstatement was basically just another the personal preference of a higher authority driving by to put us plebs in place again Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose reinstatement, pull. Per WaltCip. Yes, the original pull was a little hasty, but we're a day in now and consensus for pulling seems fairly clear in the discussion above so I'm unsure why it was reinstated. I have been reticent to remove covid from ongoing in the past, but the nominator rationale above is sound, and in most parts of the world the ongoing newsworthiness and daily updates are not there. We can always put it back if the pandemic flares up again, and we are not obliged to wait for the WHO. @Fuzheado: please reconsider, because it will be difficult for any other admin to reverse your decision now. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think reinstatement makes it harder to reverse. It makes it hard to reverse right away, but if the discussion is open a while longer and there's clear consensus for removal, then by definition it isn't wheel warring to reinstate a contested admin action that has broad consensus. It's been on the main page for years, we can afford to let the discussion run a little longer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Pull reinstating was an abuse of admin priviledge, there was clear consensus against doing so. Polyamorph (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  No, reverting a hasty bold move that did not have consensus is not abuse. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Reverting another admin action, against clear consensus, that had further developed, is very poor judgement for an admin. So I disagree. It may be well intentioned, but it is still wrong and you should revert it. Polyamorph (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'm afraid your definition of "clear consensus," is not universally or widely held. And with this much uncertainty and doubt around the removal, a reversion to the status quo is the least controversial and most equitable move one could make while more discussion happens. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Why are you afraid? The least controversial move would have been to leave it alone. Are you completely unaware of how much opposition your action has generated? Polyamorph (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  You're definitely aware this discussion is recurrent, since last October, not four hours. You even participated. There's nothing hasty about this time, it's just the first time the result wasn't Close. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC

• Oppose reinstatement, pull Restrictions have been coming down across most of the world, and Covid isn't mentioned as much as it was. Still happening isn't an excuse for an article to stay on Ongoing. It's interesting people use the surge in China as an excuse to oppose removal when even those child articles aren't receiving regular, substantial updates. Given the lack of substantial updates at the target article, which is what we look at for the requirement, this clearly doesn't qualify for ongoing any longer. It's still happening but fails the criteria for ITN Ongoing. Noah^Talk 13:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - (1) Four hours isn't sufficient time to get a true reading of ongoing coverage around the world. (2) The lack of "reinstate" votes following the removal should not be taken as agreement with the removal, as I'm sure most people have found that it is almost always pointless to discuss decisions that have already been made. (3) The accusations of impropriety have also derailed this discussion to the point that it isn't about keeping/removing at this point, so pointing to a "consensus" in a derailed and disjointed discussion means next to nothing. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  I agree; I think at this point the best option is to procedurally close this discussion and open an RfC. BilledMammal (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, let's just go ahead and close it as no consensus. What a mess. And it was one that didn't need to happen. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I opened a discussion on WT:ITN regarding minimum length of time for discussions. I didn't call it an RfC because I don't think my wording is neutral enough to declare it one, but if someone wants to suggest how I can polish it up, I don't mind declaring it an RfC.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

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) Ongoing: Climate Change

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

---

Article: Climate change (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): Floods in Pakistan, Heatwave in China
Credits:

• Nominated by Cashewnøtt (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Climate change is affecting people all over the globe now, it's an ongoing issue with even greater consequences than COVID-19 and the invasion of Ukraine. Cashewnøtt (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The Western US drought is a major threat to global food security as well. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Climate change has been affecting people for years now and it will do so probably for all of our lifetimes. There is no point in adding something to ITN as ongoing if we already know it will never be removed because that's not what ITN is for. Regards SoWhy 09:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose This is like the third time an ongoing for CC has been suggested, but it fails as it would be ongoing indefinitely. --Masem (t) 10:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - I know this year new things have happened as climate change becomes more severe, but climate change has been ongoing for years and will probably continue into the future. Would it be suitable, for example, to put car crashes on ITN/Ongoing? EditMaker Me (talk) 11:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose – Per Masem. Too broad a topic. Spot news events related to CC would not illustrate the general topic. – Sca (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

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.

(Cancelled) Artemis 1

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: Artemis 1 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The uncrewed Artemis 1 (rocket shown) is launched as part of the Artemis lunar human exploration program. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Artemis 1 (rocket shown) is launched for its human exploration program.
News source(s): NASA's mega-moon rocket ready for liftoff on eve of debut Artemis mission – Reuters
Credits:

• Nominated by CactiStaccingCrane (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Obviously significant event. Launch is expected to be in a few hours. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support because, if successful, it will be the start of further moon exploration and more moon landings. Also, Artemis has a huge impact on other future space missions, such as missions containing extensive exploration of other planets, as finally completing lunar exploration and establishing bases can be a huge help in setting the first foot on Mars. But in general, it is a major event in the history of human exploration of space, since the last moon landing dates back to the early 1970s. --CDE34RFV (talk) 11:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support - Clearly notable and the article is in good shape. Wait until it's actually launched though. EditMaker Me (talk) 11:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
• Wait - Many things may happen at and during launch. Wait until it's launched and we have a status report added. Cambalachero (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
• Wait until launched. After, support. Anarchyte (talk) 12:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment – Troubleshooting of Engine 3 continued as of 12:00. About an hour remains in launch window. – Sca (talk) 12:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  Scrubbed. Oof. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Launch has been scrubbed. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 12:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

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.

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: