Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates: Difference between revisions
→Bucha massacre: last change there, i forgot a rather vital word in the sentence and it made no sense without it. sorry for the many edits. i should probably proof read a little better. and i am sure there still are typos... there always are... |
|||
Line 184: | Line 184: | ||
*'''Support'''I was about to write something pretty much along the lines of what Joseph above wrote. It is only about what RS claim here, and they have a pretty universal view on the matter. There are dead civilians. And a lot of them. So, is this notable? I sure think so. [[Special:Contributions/91.96.25.17|91.96.25.17]] ([[User talk:91.96.25.17|talk]]) 10:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC) |
*'''Support'''I was about to write something pretty much along the lines of what Joseph above wrote. It is only about what RS claim here, and they have a pretty universal view on the matter. There are dead civilians. And a lot of them. So, is this notable? I sure think so. [[Special:Contributions/91.96.25.17|91.96.25.17]] ([[User talk:91.96.25.17|talk]]) 10:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC) |
||
:*I also think alt1 seems better. No allegations, just facts(according to RS anyway). There was a russian occupation of the area, the area was liberated and many dead civilians were found. [[Special:Contributions/91.96.25.17|91.96.25.17]] ([[User talk:91.96.25.17|talk]]) 10:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC) |
:*I also think alt1 seems better. No allegations, just facts(according to RS anyway). There was a russian occupation of the area, the area was liberated and many dead civilians were found. [[Special:Contributions/91.96.25.17|91.96.25.17]] ([[User talk:91.96.25.17|talk]]) 10:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC) |
||
*'''Support''' - This is Wikipedia:InTheNews, and this is in the news supported by reliable sources. Definitely a significant story, article seems okay. [[Special:Contributions/82.15.196.46|82.15.196.46]] ([[User talk:82.15.196.46|talk]]) 10:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
==== RD: Delfina Entrecanales ==== |
==== RD: Delfina Entrecanales ==== |
Revision as of 10:59, 4 April 2022
Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here. |
In the news toolbox |
---|
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.
view — page history — related changes — edit |
Glossary
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
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
Voicing an opinion on an itemFormat 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...
Please do not...
Suggesting updatesThere are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:
|
Archives
April 4
April 3
April 3, 2022
(Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports |
Grammy Awards
Blurb: We Are by Jon Batiste wins Album of the Year and "Leave the Door Open" by Silk Sonic wins Record of the Year at the Grammy Awards. (Post)
News source(s): CNN, Associated Press
Credits:
- Nominated by Sunshineisles2 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Ceremony has just concluded. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 03:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Note that we have had problems with the Grammy ceremony getting updated to quality expected for posting in the past several years, compared to something like the most recent Oscars one. This one is currently also in a similar state that will need a lot more info on the ceremony itself. --Masem (t) 03:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- The 2021 and 2020 nominations seemed to have been posted in decent time.—Bagumba (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Just listings of results That complaint is used a lot on pages for elections and sporting events. After some review, I don't see how this or past Grammy pages are any different. At a minimum, shouldn't there be a few sentences of prose on the merits of the winners, at least for Best Record and Best Album?—Bagumba (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with this, we reject lots of articles for just listing results (e.g. 2022 Australian Open tennis tournament was never improved with prose and so wasn't posted). No prose = no posting. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
2022 Costa Rican general election
Blurb: Rodrigo Chaves Robles (pictured) is elected President of Costa Rica. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Rodrigo Chaves Robles (pictured) is elected President of Costa Rica, defeating José María Figueres.
News source(s): Reuters, DW, France24, APNews
Credits:
- Nominated by BastianMAT (talk · give credit)
Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Has been declared winner, political outsider. BastianMAT (talk) 06:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Weak oppose missing second round abroad votes. Apart from that, looks okay. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Will be added, should be good after that. BastianMAT (talk) 08:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
2022 Serbian general election
Blurb: In the Serbian general election, Aleksandar Vučić (pictured) is re-elected as President of Serbia and the Serbian Progressive Party wins the most seats. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Aleksandar Vučić (pictured) is re-elected and the Serbian Progressive Party led by Vučić wins the most seats.
News source(s): BalkanInsight, DW, France24
Credits:
- Nominated by BastianMAT (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Vacant0 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Has been declared winner. BastianMAT (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Wait Great article, except I see no winner, no results tables... Kingsif (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose results needs listing, and lots of "who" and "which" tags need fixing in aftermath section. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, the aftermath needs clarification, otherwise the article looks fine. Tone 09:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) 2022 Hungarian parliamentary election
Blurb: In the Hungarian parliamentary election, Fidesz, led by Viktor Orbán (pictured), wins the most seats. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Fidesz, led by Viktor Orbán (pictured), wins a fourth consecutive term in the Hungarian parliamentary election.
News source(s): Reuters, Financial Times, CNBC, DW, AP
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by BastianMAT (talk · give credit)
Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Big big win for Orban, Reuters describing it as ”crushing”, as it is even more than opinion polls predicted, Orban has claimed victory, opposition has conceded and RS has declared it too. BastianMAT (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose needs some refs on opposition primary, results tables need some kind of updating, and I can't remember if we wait for 100% vote check or accept the concessions. Either way, some updating still needed. Why do I never hear anything positive about Orbán? Kingsif (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Strong support Important headline that has already been confirmed by multiple global media outlets as a resounding victory in favour of Orban, so I think it would be appropriate to say he won the win as big. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support article quality looks good enough. Of the 3 elections held yesterday and nominated here, this is the one that is getting the most coverage (albeit all 3 might get posted, as they're all ITNR). Joseph2302 (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Posting. I moved the reference in the opposition primary, it covers the entire section now, so it's ok. --Tone 08:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
RD: Lygia Fagundes Telles
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Globo.com, Folha de S. Paulo, Estado de Minas
Credits:
- Nominated by Kacamata (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: Brazilian writer --Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 20:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support article seems well sourced and ready to go. Hamza Ali Shah 01:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Bucha massacre
Blurb: Russian troops are accused of killing hundreds of civilians in the Ukrainian city of Bucha. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Hundreds of Ukrainian civilians were found dead after Russia's occupation of the city of Bucha.
News source(s): Reuters, BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Sandstein (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Although the invasion is and should remain in ongoing, this apparent massacre is currently the main story on all major media outlets. Sandstein 20:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Strong support - similar to Fântâna Albă massacre - EugεnS¡m¡on 20:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose We don't post mere accusations, even for something as dire as this. --Masem (t) 20:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose so far it is an accusation but not proven (although it probably is true) so posting it right now would be WP:CRYSTAL. If the accusations are proven then it can be posted. Hamza Ali Shah 21:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Even if who perpetrated this isn't proven, the dead bodies are real. It is a significant development regardless of who killed them. Maybe the blurb could be adjusted a bit to reflect this? 4iamking (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support also going to the security council (per request of Russia), so whether just an accusation or the truth, it is in the news. 2A02:8109:9C80:7024:40:F683:9071:E9FD (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- The article is still in need of some adjustment, mainly some expnsion and addressing of tags, but in principle I support the nomination as this marks a major turning point in the conflict and its narrative. Yakikaki (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment May I also suggest the blurb is rephrased in order to avoid an indeterminate discussion as to when the accusations have been satisfyingly proven? Something along the lines of "Hundreds of dead civilians are discoverd as Ukrainian troops enter the town of Bucha after Russians troops pull back" or something along those lines? Just a thought. Yakikaki (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support with a blurb along the lines of what Yakikaki suggested, to avoid any premature accusations.4iamking (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL. We cannot go around ITN with pure accusations. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Significant development in the ongoing war that at this point has generated significant coverage in mainstream media. The ITN blurb should note that it is a developing situation/alleged, but at this point I'm comfortable regarding this as factual. ThirdDolphin (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Highly significant development. I've added an alternative blurb, phrased in a passive voice to focus on what is factually confirmed at this time. — Newslinger talk 03:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose As per everyone else who opposed, it is merely an accusation at this point and frankly, the sources just aren't there with the narrative in the article: The Human Rights Watch link doesn't actually offer any supporting evidence of a massacre in the text, aside from witness testimony which cannot be considered authoritative considering the nature of the war and all and thus I think an inline quote is necessary, while another source is some regional Indian newspaper that is basing its reportage off Twitter links. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Strongest possible support Russia is demanding a security council meeting, making this in the news. These are not accusations with no evidence -- the bodies are real, people were killed, and Russia is responsible. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 04:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
"Russia is responsible"? You have information that we all don't? This doesn't give me the greatest faith that you're entering this discussion with a neutral, impartial point of view on this topic. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 04:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV doesn't mean we deny reality. We state the facts as they are, it's why we say Donald Trump attempted to overturn the U.S. election (because he did), instead of trying to strike up a "balanced view"; and why we state that evolution is fact (because it is). Same here. Russia is responsible for slaughtering hundreds of people in Bucha; and it's quite obvious when you consider the fact that they were the last ones there. Unless you have another explanation? -- RockstoneSend me a message! 04:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- What more evidence are you expecting? Written confessions? Civilians tie their own hands together and then shoot themselves in the head? Or do you support the narrative by Putin and Peskov that it's all just made up "fake news" and that the Ukrainians are doing this to their own people? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree with everything you said in the first clause, except that I differ on the interpretation of this 'reality' and that is the source of all contention and why we even have these sort of discussions on Wikipedia in the first place. Regardless, my opinion is not on the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, but the article itself, and frankly I just don't see how the sources hold up. Can you find me where in any of the aforementioned sources that prima facie evidence is given of the claims being made in the text of the article? Because I cannot. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 05:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Strong support Yes, we don't usually post accusations. But gathering evidence for prosecution will take years and simply ignoring these sickening revelations invites the conclusion that we are tacitly accepting Putin's narrative that this is all "fake". Martinevans123 (talk) 07:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL. I wonder who'd salvage Wikipedia's reputation if there's no evidence at the end. This is an excellent example of a speculation that we never post.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- BBC have already broadcast some of the evidence. Or maybe you think Iryna Kostenko, who had to bury her own son in the garden, was just making it all up? 09:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- BBC report that the UN Secretary General has called for an independent investigation. Let's wait for the results from the investigation and then we can post it if the accusation is proved.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Let's all look forward to the Russian veto at the UN. We'll be waiting a long time for those results. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- The blurb is careful to avoid any speculation, mentioning that these are allegations...so it's an excellent example of a factual blurb. 2A02:8109:9C80:7024:E4F1:549E:3B29:248 (talk) 10:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- We post facts, not allegations.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Facts like there being many, many dead civilians? As reported by reliable sources, the only thing that should matter really. Not up to you decide the veracity of those claims made by reliable sources. Or are you claiming the reliable sources are lying here? 91.96.25.17 (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't deny the fact that hundreds of civilians were killed; the problem is that the proposed blurb uses an accusation, not a mere fact that someone committed the crime, and there are no reliable sources which report it as a fact.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- So why do you not support the blurb that is supported by RS then? That there are many dead civilians after the russian occupation? It at most implies that russia is responsible, as is done in RS. They don't outright say that Russia is responsible and neither does alt 1. Russian occupation, liberation of area, deaths of civilians. That surely will be in the vast majority of RS about this. What is your problem with alt 1, which is widely supported by RS?91.96.25.17 (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Strong support the swathes of dead bodies with tied hands/holes directly through the head are corroborated and in the news, and encyclopedic. We can omit responsibility if there is not enough consensus for that for the time being Bumbubookworm (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support this is in the news now, and sources are blaming Russia for this. Yes, there hasn't been a formal investigation yet, but the article and blurbs are supported by reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, we report what RSes report. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- And I think ALT1 is better, as we shouldn't post accusations (regardless of how true they are likely to be). ALT1 states facts, so is better. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- SupportI was about to write something pretty much along the lines of what Joseph above wrote. It is only about what RS claim here, and they have a pretty universal view on the matter. There are dead civilians. And a lot of them. So, is this notable? I sure think so. 91.96.25.17 (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I also think alt1 seems better. No allegations, just facts(according to RS anyway). There was a russian occupation of the area, the area was liberated and many dead civilians were found. 91.96.25.17 (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support - This is Wikipedia:InTheNews, and this is in the news supported by reliable sources. Definitely a significant story, article seems okay. 82.15.196.46 (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
RD: Delfina Entrecanales
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Art Newspaper
Credits:
- Nominated by Martinevans123 (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: Sourcing looks good Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) The Boat Race 2022
Blurb: In rowing, Oxford win the men's event and Cambridge win the women's event The Boat Race. (Finish of the men's event pictured) (Post)
News source(s): [1]
Credits:
- Nominated by Joseph2302 (talk · give credit)
- Created by The Rambling Man (talk · give credit)
- Updated by The Rambling Man (talk · give credit)
Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: ITNR, but needs some race summaries. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Not ReadyArticle has not been adequately updated.-Ad Orientem (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Good to go now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Seriously? --WaltCip-(talk) 17:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- It is missing anything about the actual races section. I assume TRM is working on this and will be adding it within the day. --Masem (t) 17:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oh okay, my mistake. I misinterpreted "Trials" at first glance as being the race. WaltCip-(talk) 17:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Will be trying to fix this up in the next few hours. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- It is missing anything about the actual races section. I assume TRM is working on this and will be adding it within the day. --Masem (t) 17:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Seriously? --WaltCip-(talk) 17:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Image added, caption could probably be better. Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Happy to support as soon as the race details are added. TRM has a long history with this event, so I have complete faith it'll be added soon. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment now hopefully sufficiently updated and in a reasonable condition for our main page. Pinging Ad Orientem, WaltCip, Masem, Lee Vilenski, all of whom commented above. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed, happy for this one to go up. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- The matching of the umpires to the men's and women's races in the infobox doesn't match the lead text. LukeSurl t c 22:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- that's been resolved now. LukeSurl t c 22:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 23:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sure I didn't and/or won't make any difference here, but I'm still having a hard time fathoming this race. A regional football cup between countries isn't significant for Wikipedia standards, yet a boat race between two white men elite aristocrat universities do. Hmm. 182.2.132.202 (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- If it's like Harvard the race breakdown is similar to the country it's in, half the students have been female for decades and they don't care much about your social or economic status anymore (descendants of students slightly overrepresented) and I've heard that no
- non-academic critehas ven laffect on admissions ess tin the United Statesrica. Also these might still be the two best universities on the planTop league unis for almost a thousand years, though the oldest existing university in the Western world is slightly older from 11th century Italy. et. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
No-confidence motion against Imran Khan
Blurb:
Alternative blurb: In Pakistan, a no-confidence motion moved by Pakistan Democratic Movement against Prime Minister Imran Khan fails.
Alternative blurb II: In Pakistan, President Arif Alvi dissolves the National Assembly on Prime Minister Imran Khan's advice, after a no-confidence motion by the Pakistan Democratic Movement against Khan is dismissed.
News source(s): Dawn Dawn
Credits:
- Nominated by MasterOfMetaverse (talk · give credit)
- Created by Ainty Painty (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Elminster Aumar (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: The National Assembly will be in session shortly and the article will be updated as it concludes. MasterOfMetaverse (talk) 06:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC) Checkuser note: MasterOfMetaverse is a sockpuppet of Depressed Desi, who commented below: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Depressed Desi. Mz7 (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Wait for Successor, like usual (alternatively, Oppose Failure). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Update: the motion has apparently failed, Pakistan will have elections in 3 months. Tube·of·Light 09:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Blurb 1 is incorrect information, the motion has been rejected by the speaker as it has been declared unconstitutional. As for Alt 1, I don’t think the fact that it was unsuccessful is notable enough to post. Hamza Ali Shah 09:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Per the previous time this was nominated, only a successful vote/change of govt would have raised this to ITN. Gotitbro (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Comment, I have updated the altblurb2. This is turning into a Constitutional crisis. MasterOfMetaverse (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Wait for Outcome, Alex-h (talk) 11:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)- Oppose: Assembly is dissolved, let's wait for a successor, once the successor is chose, it can be nominated for ITN once again. Elmisnter! (talk) 12:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Alternate blurb II is the outcome since National Assembly stands dissolved as of now. USaamo (t@lk) 12:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose and wait for the election. Just like last time this was proposed. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Oppose solely on article quality. Multiple gaps in referencing.Support Alt Blurb II on significance. This looks to be the beginning of a constitutional crisis. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)- All CN tags are dealt with. MasterOfMetaverse (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Support altblurb2, it's illogical to wait for 90 days before fresh elections are held and then post this. It's In the News right now and must be posted as is. If this were to happen in some Western country, this would already have been posted hours ago. I remember seeing Trump & Brexit-related blurbs every other week. Depressed Desi (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Checkuser note: MasterOfMetaverse, the nominator of this ITN, is a sockpuppet of this account: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Depressed Desi. Mz7 (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)- That was not the case at all for Trump or Brexit. We carefully kept those a minimum. --Masem (t) 17:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- I can't speak for all parliamentary democracies, but I know in Canada, a government dissolving Parliament to avoid a particular vote including a non-confidence motion (particularly in minority governments) is not unheard of. See 2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute. Now, I'm struggling to find the right words to generate the relevant precedent nominations - but I'd suspect that your point might prove not to be the case. Anecdotally, it is certainly receiving a lot of international attention, at least - but dissolving Parliament in itself is a regular occurrence in a parliamentary democracy. Canadianerk (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think the non-confidence motion itself is the main topic here. Surely 2022 Pakistani constitutional crisis about the dissolution is the key article - which needs a lot of development. Though presumably it will lead to the Next Pakistani general election. Unless the courts intervene, or the election isn't forthcoming, this all seems to be pretty routine in a minority government. Nfitz (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I don’t think the dissolution of the assembly is notable enough to post. The no-confidence motion would only have been posted if successful. Once elections are held, we can post the results but right now we should wait for any further developments. Hamza Ali Shah 20:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, User:Hamza Ali Shah about the dissolution of the assembly not being notable. But what's the difference in the outcome between an early dissolution and a non-confidence vote? In most parliamentary systems, it's two different ways to trigger the same process. Perhaps there's a regional nuance I'm missing? Nfitz (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- That was my thought as well, but the wikipedia article (I admittedly glanced through) seems to imply the same - a dissolution of parliament seems able to be requested by the PM and accepted by the President, at any time, just like in Canada/others - and a non-confidence motion resulting in dissolution, the same result with different steps... at least, that's my ignorant read of it. Canadianerk (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- User:Nfitz, the no-confidence motion would not have dissolved parliament but it would have only changed the government. The opposition doesn’t want the parliament to be dissolved (as there’s quite a big chance Khan will regain his majority in parliament if there is an election) so I don’t think it would have been dissolved had Khan’s government been ousted. In other words, an early dissolution leads to election (which the opposition opposes) and the no-confidence vote would have lead to a government lead by the opposition until 2023. Hamza Ali Shah 01:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks User:Hamza Ali Shah - ah yes, I see that would be notable then, with the change of government. I forgot that even here, a non-confidence vote can lead to a change in government too - but it's rare. Convention here is that a non-confidence vote leads to new election (and such events are frequent), unless there just was an election with the last few months - maybe a year. Nfitz (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, User:Hamza Ali Shah about the dissolution of the assembly not being notable. But what's the difference in the outcome between an early dissolution and a non-confidence vote? In most parliamentary systems, it's two different ways to trigger the same process. Perhaps there's a regional nuance I'm missing? Nfitz (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Let's hold off until a successor is announced (if there is a change). Jehochman Talk 00:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment We need to reassess here. Non-confidence motions and dissolutions of parliament aren't unique in parliamentary democracies, I think we can agree. What is fundamentally different is that the Pakistani government is alleging foreign interference, and the deputy speaker blocked the motion even coming to a vote, then the PM dissolved parliament anyway. The crux of the nomination, in my opinion, is now whether the act of blocking a non-confidence motion, the allegations of foreign interference, or a combination of, is blurb worthy. Source (taken from article) Canadianerk (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
2022 Women's Cricket World Cup Final
Blurb: In cricket, Australia defeat England in the final (player of the match Alyssa Healy pictured) to win the Women's World Cup. (Post)
Alternative blurb:
Alternative blurb II: In cricket, Australia defeat England in the final to win the Women's World Cup (player of the series Alyssa Healy pictured).
News source(s): ESPNcricinfo
Credits:
- Nominated by MasterOfMetaverse (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
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: As of right now, the match is still ongoing thus the article will be updated with a match summary once it finishes. MasterOfMetaverse (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment The main final article needs a LOT of work as of typing this (it's essentially a stub), while as the main tournament article has been updated fully by myself. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality "Route to the Final" section is a mess to read, and should be converted to text. And needs a background section, as well as some match summary. See 2017 Women's Cricket World Cup Final for idea on how much content there should be. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Updated blurb. Healy is also player of the series. Joofjoof (talk) 09:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I am only seeing tables in the article. 09:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Article about the tournament (2022 Women's Cricket World Cup) appears fine but we have only hooked (AFAIK) finals in the blurbs. Gotitbro (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I have added a blurb which has the world cup as the bolded article. Hamza Ali Shah 10:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support alt 2. Hamza Ali Shah 07:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- The main 2022 Women's Cricket World Cup article doesn't have any prose summarising the tournament or the final either. So isn't ITN-worthy either IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
April 2
April 2, 2022
(Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
|
RD: Estelle Harris
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Deadline Hollywood
Credits:
- Nominated by Masem (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: Needs a bit more sourcing work before it can be posted Masem (t) 03:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Is that including or excluding the filmography? Or is the obit doing enough lifting for it? CreecregofLife (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Full filmography including TV appearances will need sourcing per standard. --Masem (t) 13:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Clarification may be needed on her exact date of birth: the article says she was born on April 4, 1928, but the linked Deadline obit says she was born on April 22, 1928. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 05:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
RD: Vance Amory
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.thestkittsnevisobserver.com/former-premier-of-nevis-has-passed/
Credits:
- Updated by Normantas Bataitis (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: Two-term Premier of Nevis. Could use more coverage on both his cricket and his premiership, not to mention details on his passing. --PFHLai (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) 2022 Sri Lankan protests
Blurb: Sri Lanka has declared a state of emergency in the wake of violent street protests against the economic crisis. (Post)
Alternative blurb: In Sri Lanka, hundreds of student protestors are dispersed by police using tear gas.
News source(s): Al Jazeera, The News, BBC, AP, Guardian, Reuters
Credits:
- Nominated by Ainty Painty (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Theasiancowboy (talk · give credit) and UtoD (talk · give credit)
Ainty Painty (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Wait to see what comes out of this, whether the government will listen, or if the protesters will be squashed. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Or quashed, as the case may be. Sca (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- *will, as the case will be. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Or quashed, as the case may be. Sca (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Looks fine, similar to the posting of 2022 Kazakh unrest. Gotitbro (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support article looks good to go and this seems significant enough to post. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support ... in principle on significance. Widely covered. However, the situation may still be developing. Cleaned up POV lead; probably could use a total copy-edit. – Sca (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Why is the system still dating posts April 3? In most of the world it's April 4. – Sca (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Oops. Doh.- We go off UTC 0:00 time, (aka London/Greenwich) for timestamps. --Masem (t) 15:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, it's not London time, as London has put its clocks forwards, so is in UTC+1. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- We go off UTC 0:00 time, (aka London/Greenwich) for timestamps. --Masem (t) 15:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment – At 1,600 words, of which 240 compose a fairly restrained 'reaction' section, it's looking pretty comprehensive. No tags so far. – Sca (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Posted adapted version of the main proposed blurb. SpencerT•C 02:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
April 1
April 1, 2022
(Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Neil Stevens
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Canadian Press
Credits:
- Updated by Nanerz (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: Hall of Fame Canadian sportswriter --PFHLai (talk) 12:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
RD: C. W. McCall
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Best Classic Bands
Credits:
- Nominated by Fakescientist8000 (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: Singer/songwriter: real name Bill Fries. Activist/politician who served as mayor of Ouray, Colorado for six years. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- 10-4 good buddy Andrew🐉(talk) 12:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: Discography needs references. Additionally, intro states that he is an "activist", but that isn't used elsewhere in the article (doesn't seem like it's described further in the article body). SpencerT•C 02:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
(Closed) Pope Francis apologizes for the Canadian Indian residential school system
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.
Blurb: Pope Francis apologizes for the Catholic Church's role in the Canadian Indian residential school system. (Post)
News source(s): CBC, WaPo, Guardian, NY Times
Credits:
- Nominated by NorthernFalcon (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Support This is pretty big news regarding this subject. The article is in very good shape. Nothing to complain about. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 15:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose An apology is nice and all but that doesn't seem to be anything actionable here or the type of resolve we'd expect on something like this (eg something like a conviction or the like). --Masem (t) 16:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Nobody in their right mind went into this expecting to convict the pope of genocide. The goal was to convince the pope of genocide, and many were surprised to hear him actually plead guilty on behalf of those he understood as evil and contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ. I wouldn't call the spiritual leader of 1.3 billion people asking the Creator themself for forgiveness and shamefully asking the victims' pardon "nice and all", unless I was trying to be a sarcastic dick or ignorant atheist about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- It is still an empty gesture for all purposes, particularly when the articles covering this talk of other things that could be done. --Masem (t) 13:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not all purposes, but yes, no material reclamation yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- It is still an empty gesture for all purposes, particularly when the articles covering this talk of other things that could be done. --Masem (t) 13:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Nobody in their right mind went into this expecting to convict the pope of genocide. The goal was to convince the pope of genocide, and many were surprised to hear him actually plead guilty on behalf of those he understood as evil and contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ. I wouldn't call the spiritual leader of 1.3 billion people asking the Creator themself for forgiveness and shamefully asking the victims' pardon "nice and all", unless I was trying to be a sarcastic dick or ignorant atheist about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose not in the article, also the article says that the Canadian Church apologised in September 2021, so it just seems like an extension of this? Either way, if it's not in the article, we cannot post it, and if it's added to the article, then I'm sceptical as there isn't that much coverage of this. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Note: Both rationales for opposing above seem to have been ameliorated. The article is updated with April 1 news, and I've added more sources regarding coverage. There are also many more independent and reliable sources from many different countries covering this as well. --Jayron32 16:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- No it doesn't, at least for mine. Nothing actionable has happened here; its (hypothetically) if the Russian Catholic church apologized to Ukraine for Putin's invasion - Nothing has changed about the invasion. At least from the CBC there are potentially actionable steps the church could do such as rolling back past policies that would retrify matters. An apology is not really actionable. --Masem (t) 16:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- I wasn't responding to your rationale, I was responding to the two rationales that Joseph used. Regardless, you don't need to defend yourself to me. Everybody around here already knows how much of a problem I am to the ITN process. You can go back to ignoring me like everyone should. --Jayron32 16:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)It hadn't been updated when I posted. Just because the regular news articles publish it, that doesn't make it ITN worthy. It isn't a front page news story on e.g. BBC News, whereas most ITN-worthy news does usually feature on front pages of most big news websites. This is a valid policy-based oppose, so stop trying to claim otherwise. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't say it wasn't policy based. I said that they had since been ameliorated, which is to say, fixed after the fact. You can vote however you want. It's no skin off my teeth. You don't need to defend yourself to me. Remember, I am the problem around here. Never forget that. --Jayron32 16:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- There is no ITN policy for significance that says anything like what you are saying. The guidelines state that the item must be covered on newsworthy sources (which this is) and that there is a consensus to post. See WP:ITNCRIT. WaltCip-(talk) 18:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- No it doesn't, at least for mine. Nothing actionable has happened here; its (hypothetically) if the Russian Catholic church apologized to Ukraine for Putin's invasion - Nothing has changed about the invasion. At least from the CBC there are potentially actionable steps the church could do such as rolling back past policies that would retrify matters. An apology is not really actionable. --Masem (t) 16:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Note: Both rationales for opposing above seem to have been ameliorated. The article is updated with April 1 news, and I've added more sources regarding coverage. There are also many more independent and reliable sources from many different countries covering this as well. --Jayron32 16:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support This is big news. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 16:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Article is very good quality, article has been updated, topic is in major news sources. Checks all of the boxes for me! --Jayron32 16:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose – Per Masem, Joseph2302. These retroactive apologies for historical misdeeds offered by current heads of historically offending institutions may be mollifying for present-day members of the groups wronged, but beyond that have little effect and IMO lack wider significance. – Sca (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- PS: I find the pope's thinly veiled rebuke today of "potentate" Putin over Ukraine much more consequential. – Sca (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Nice quality article, significant update from new news, covered by every major news outlet, opposition votes (mentions of the Canadian Church, not being front page on BBC News, and lack of something "actionable") are nitpicky IMHO and far less important to consider than the feelings of the affected:
First Nations’ Chief Gerald Antoine echoed the sentiment, saying Francis recognized the cultural “genocide” that had been inflicted on Indigenous. “Today is a day that we’ve been waiting for. And certainly one that will be uplifted in our history,” he said. “It’s a historical first step, however, only a first step.”[2]
– Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)- And the "action" at least seems to be that Pope Francis will travel to Canada to apologize in person soon. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- I feel like that would be the more appropriate time to post it personally. Would what happened today be considered the "formal apology"? Floydian τ ¢ 19:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- This delegation traveled the same distance, with the same purpose, in greater number. I'd consider it the first apology. The second, if it happens, will be more personal (for the survivors, relatives and peripheral victims who didn't make this trip) but still as formal as any papal visit. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- I feel like that would be the more appropriate time to post it personally. Would what happened today be considered the "formal apology"? Floydian τ ¢ 19:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- And the "action" at least seems to be that Pope Francis will travel to Canada to apologize in person soon. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per Masem and Sca. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support - A contextually enormous response from the Catholic Church. We should be in the business of posting high quality articles that are in the news, and that's what this is. --WaltCip-(talk) 18:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment As a Canadian raised part Catholic and part Ojibwe (though mostly secular), I personally feel the goodness and bigness of this apology. I accept it as genuine, historic and alright. But I'm not about to contribute to this schism over whether the general Wikipedian audience needs to know. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support per above. Seems notable, one of the biggest headlines right now below Ukraine. Article in good shape. Davey2116 (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: The target article is lengthy and difficult to navigate. If this is posted, it may be necessary to make the update into a separate section in the target article and then link directly to that section in the blurb, instead of making the reader try to locate the update. Alternatively, it might be useful to have an update in the lead of the article.
- Oppose Much as we don't post the 12 country to legalize gay marriage, we shouldn't be post the guy who apologies decades after his peers. As others have stated, this comes with no substantive action (how about dipping into those coffers for reparations?), so posting only serves to praise him for taking an action he stubbornly refused to for a decade. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- The pope's only peers are previous popes, in Roman Catholicism, none of which ever apologized. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Uh, no. The pope's peers are fellow church heads and heads of state. But I do think you are hinting at the issue here: an archaic view of the pope's sway as the titular leader of 1/6 of the world who is seen as infallible. Modern Catholics feel comfortable rejecting anything he says that contradicts their priors. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- More about his papal supremacy than his papal infallibility. Not belittling the Archbishop of Canterbury, either, but Anglicans did have objectively much less to do with this dark chapter in Canadian government. I hear you on his waning influence; per a prophecy I also take somewhat seriously, Francis is the last real pope. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Uh, no. The pope's peers are fellow church heads and heads of state. But I do think you are hinting at the issue here: an archaic view of the pope's sway as the titular leader of 1/6 of the world who is seen as infallible. Modern Catholics feel comfortable rejecting anything he says that contradicts their priors. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- The pope's only peers are previous popes, in Roman Catholicism, none of which ever apologized. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Significance appears to be limited as evidenced by the fact that news item does not rate its own article. Nice gesture though. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support This is historic. It's the recognition of a history involving genocide and is major news for the Roman Catholic Church. -TenorTwelve (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose the pope only apologised for the conduct of some members of the RCC, not for the church as a whole. Stephen 06:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Well, yeah, not all of us tortured generations of people in the hopes of eradicating their way of life. Most Catholics are better than that. The worst I've done is adultery. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Only nine to go then. Stephen 07:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Five left, actually; I said adultery was the worst. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Only nine to go then. Stephen 07:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Significant acknowledgement of the evils done by the Catholic Church. The article is comprehensive and well sourced.Melmann 07:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose The lead of the article says nothing about the Catholic church whose role in this seems to have been similar to numerous other Canadian institutions. As a previous pope already expressed his regrets over 10 years ago, this seems to be just more of the same. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose not significant enough for posting. The announcement is an attempt at rehabilitating the Church’s reputation without action to settle the victims’ claims. Jehochman Talk 13:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Hard no to posting an "apology". Actions speak louder than words, and to anyone who is not a Catholic this means very little or not at all. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- I imagine it means quite a bit to the 1-2/3 million aboriginals in Canada, although perhaps still with a similar sentiment (re: actions vs. words). - Floydian τ ¢ 14:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't disagree. There are decent number of combined First Nation individuals and Catholics combined that it would matter too, but I think the lack of progression from words to actions hurts this nom. As also noted above this feels like a face-saving maneuver more than anything. Perhaps not even enough of a "gesture" to call it an "empty gesture". DarkSide830 (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly. I obstained on voting because I feel as though the pope coming to the First Nations and apologising is really the epitome of singular events in this ongoing story. This was just an obligated response really. Floydian τ ¢ 17:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't disagree. There are decent number of combined First Nation individuals and Catholics combined that it would matter too, but I think the lack of progression from words to actions hurts this nom. As also noted above this feels like a face-saving maneuver more than anything. Perhaps not even enough of a "gesture" to call it an "empty gesture". DarkSide830 (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- I imagine it means quite a bit to the 1-2/3 million aboriginals in Canada, although perhaps still with a similar sentiment (re: actions vs. words). - Floydian τ ¢ 14:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with the above comments that there must be a very strong presumption against posting official apologies which, by definition, are symbolic actions with limited significance. As mentioned above, this also appears to be only one in a range of apologies for this particular issue too. The only point that gave me pause for thought was the quality of the FA target article but on reflection I am not convinced that this status is actually justified on the basis of the article's current state - hugely long and with more space given to the apologies than to the actual subject itself. I think we should pass. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose this is a press release, not a news story. Brazilian man in Italy apologizes for other peoples' actions in Canada. I'm not sure this justifies updating any article, much less front-page coverage. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- He's Argentinian, but whatever. BSMRD (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- He's argentinian, but go off. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- He's also in the Vatican City, not Italy, but apart from that... Thryduulf (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
March 31
March 31, 2022
(Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
(Posted) RD: Nancy Milford
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times; The Washington Post
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 (March 31). —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Length at 500+ words Deployment of footnotes (Though there is a deadlink). Formatting . This wikibio looks READY for RD to me. --PFHLai (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 02:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Shirley Burkovich
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): MLB.com
Credits:
- Nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)
- Updated by MondayMonday1966 (talk · give credit) and 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) 19:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Article is fine. Not amazing, nor terrible. Could use some work, but this article is ready for RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Posted --PFHLai (talk) 03:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Human genome sequencing
Blurb: Scientists perform complete sequencing of human genome. (Post)
News source(s): CNN, Science
Credits:
- Nominated by Brandmeister (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: The paper was published in Science, so meets our bar in that regard. Looks like this milestone endeavor is finally completed. Brandmeistertalk 10:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment The human genome article needs a few cites on some of the later sections. Also would want to see more summarizing the complete sequencing (eg how many encoding there are/etc.). But implicit support on the reported accomplishment. --Masem (t) 12:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- I second that. It's a great science story, and a huge milestone. Tone 13:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose We've posted human genome sequencing stories before, e.g. Ancient Native American genome sequenced in 2014. The achievement this time seems to be that the sequence is gapless but this was done in 2020 and announced in 2021, nine months ago. This seems to be rather a technicality so any blurb should make the incremental nature of the achievement clear, rather than it being some wholly new thing. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Regardless of the 2021 announcement, this is the publishing of the peer-reviewed paper that confirms the results. That's the bare minimum we want for posting any science-bases story. --Masem (t) 15:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Peer review doesn't confirm results; it just sanity checks them (supposedly). Confirmation is done by repeating the experiment but science has been having a lot of trouble with this – see the replication crisis. See also: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter for us. We want "new" science stories to be the result of publication from a peer-review journal, and not because of a press release from a university or news report months prior to that publication. Baring exceptional cases, we do not doubt the reliability of what is published in top-tier peer-reviewed journals like Science in this case. --Masem (t) 16:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- No, WP:MEDRS advises that "Primary sources should NOT normally be used as a basis for biomedical content. This is because primary biomedical literature is exploratory and often not reliable..." And publication in a top-tier journal is no guarantee of correctness. Quite the contrary, as "Prestigious Science Journals Struggle to Reach Even Average Reliability". Andrew🐉(talk) 14:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter for us. We want "new" science stories to be the result of publication from a peer-review journal, and not because of a press release from a university or news report months prior to that publication. Baring exceptional cases, we do not doubt the reliability of what is published in top-tier peer-reviewed journals like Science in this case. --Masem (t) 16:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Peer review doesn't confirm results; it just sanity checks them (supposedly). Confirmation is done by repeating the experiment but science has been having a lot of trouble with this – see the replication crisis. See also: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Regardless of the 2021 announcement, this is the publishing of the peer-reviewed paper that confirms the results. That's the bare minimum we want for posting any science-bases story. --Masem (t) 15:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- ?Support? I was curious and tried to read through the wiki articles but things seem confusing: the Science article publishes a full genome missing chromosome Y, and CNN article says "the scientists were unable to sequence the Y chromosome originally. According to lead author, the team has managed to sequence the Y chromosome using a different set of cells", but that is NOT in the Science article. Seems to be only in a linked database. Just for context, the Science article says it reduced the number of issues by 80% and still seems to have 24 different "contig" which I am unsure if it refers to the number of chromosomes (which should be 23?) versus the 949 that existed before (i.e. now we have 24 chromosomes instead of 23 but previously the picture had 949 chromosomes?). Perhaps someone can tweak the linked article for better clarity. 188.27.42.181 (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose the blurb is too vague. It is both confusing and inaccurate as written. And I think the problem is "there isn't much news here", not "we need to re-write the blurb". User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Moana Jackson
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New Zealand Herald Radio New Zealand The Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Chocmilk03 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Stuartyeates (talk · give credit), Paora (talk · give credit) and Schwede66 (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 New Zealander. Article has been tidied up by myself and others, happy to make any further improvements if needed. Chocmilk03 (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment In the past it was required for a bibliography section or in this case the Selected publications section to either have the ISBN numbers next to the listed works or references. If that's still the case, then this article needs that section sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- @TDKR Chicago 101: Thanks! I'm not really sure myself what the requirements are, but I've added URLs for the journal/conference articles and an ISBN for the book chapter. The listings also include the information that would be included in a full reference anyway (date, volume, page etc). Hope this addresses the point. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Nice work on the article including the above referencing done by Chocmilk03 as requested by TDKR. Article is good to go. RIP. Ktin (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment The quoting is a bit much relative to the article's length. Try restricting the quotes to key phrases, instead of full sentences. Joofjoof (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Joofjoof: Thanks, fair comment! I'm reluctant to remove the block quote from Jacinda Ardern, so I've paraphrased some of the other quotes and also endeavoured to balance the blockquote out a bit by adding more details about his death/memorial service. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 01:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: John T. Richardson
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBS
Credits:
- Nominated by TDKR Chicago 101 (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: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support All sources live. Sourced and no stub. Grimes2 (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support agree that it looks fine to me, have marked as ready. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support I have added a description to this article. Fully cited. This article is ready for RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Posted Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 14:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
(Closed) Censorship of Wikipedia
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.
Blurb: Russian media censorship agency Roskomnadzor threatens to fine Wikipedia up to 4 million rubles (about $49,000) if it does not delete information that goes against the Kremlin's official narrative on the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. (Post)
News source(s): (Forbes)
Credits:
- Nominated by Desertambition (talk · give credit)
- Oppose Technically covered by the ongoing, and we should avoid Wikipedia centric stories as ITN. --Masem (t) 21:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per Masem. Also "threatens to..." is 0.00% ITN-worthy. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose A demand to remove unspecified biased material, under penalty of financial hardship, is a common Edit Request here; warn Roskomnadzor twice, then block or topic ban it. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Russia has done this sort of thing before. Don't this instance rises to ITN levels. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, but Russia has not done this sort of thing before. How far back are we looking, exactly? I'd agree that it's track record is not good. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose good faith nom. Nothing has actually happened beyond a threat. This has all of one sentence of coverage in the target article. The event obviously does not merit its own article which is generally a showstopper for ITN nominations. And then we can go into significance, naval gazing and so on. Suggest Close as there is no chance of consensus developing to post this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you for all the input, I did not realize these threats were so common. Makes me wonder why they haven't blocked it yet. It sounds like if they were to block it, that would probably be notable enough. Desertambition (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Beyond Jimbo's comfort zone, perhaps. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- A bunch of pages already are blocked, mostly to do with drugs, suicide and autoerotic you-know-what InedibleHulk (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
March 30
March 30, 2022
(Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Health and environment
International relations
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sports
|
(Posted) RD: Margaret M. McGowan
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times; The Times
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Feanor0 (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 (March 30); died on March 16. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Referenced, appropriate depth of coverage. If her doctoral dissertation has a title, it would be worth including that in the prose. SpencerT•C 22:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) Turing Award
Blurb: In computing, Jack Dongarra (pictured) wins the Turing Award for his contributions towards supercomputing. (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
Credits:
- Nominated by Masem (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.
Masem (t) 00:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality Reads too much like faculty profile. Explains why it looks like a copyvio; I dont really think it is one, it's just the same bland style of listing of achievements.—Bagumba (talk) 04:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality as Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, so it should be written as an article not a CV/resume. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support We have complaints about celebrity gossip but then they don't want a dry list of achievements either. There's no pleasing some people. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support (in principle): Cn tags need to be fixed, is barely passable for the main page but would like see expansion. Gotitbro (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality In concurrence with Gotit here on the CNs. I'm not as worried about the content though. It does read a bit resume-like, but I think there is good reason for this. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Added sources for all the remaining uncited rewards. The citations are largely press releases or list of recipients from the award-granting organizations; I tried to find third-party articles but couldn't find any, so hopefully these are fine. Please let me know if I did any of the citations wrong, as I'm fairly new to this.Morganfshirley (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Article quality is now acceptable. Jehochman Talk 18:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Posting. Changing to high-performance computing, since supercomputing is not linked in the article. --Tone 07:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) Farthest known star discovered
Blurb: WHL0137-LS, the farthest known star, is discovered 12.9 billion light-years away from Earth. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Earendel, the farthest known star, is discovered 12.9 billion light-years away from Earth.
News source(s): Nature, NASA, The New York Times+comment, The Washington Post, BBC,
- Support I guess this is rather interesting and not at all usual, so I tentatively support it (though I still have qualms since this is just the farthest star, not the farthest object, but oh well). The article looks like its in a decent shape though. --5.44.170.26 (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I love the science involved in this stuff, but I don't see what makes this discovery newsworthy. "Furthest known" simply means the next one we find that's a little further away will replace this one. HiLo48 (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- There's a maximum distance however. When we look into the sky we're seeing the past (because light takes time to travel to us), which means there's a maximum limit set by the Big Bang. There are a lot more subtle details, e.g. the universe wasn't transparent till so-called recombination so we will never see right to the Big Bang, the universe is expanding and there's another limit set by how fast the universe expands (see observable universe), etc. Hence the idea that "we'll find something a little further away" is contentious - there might not be another star further away. Banedon (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Support. An important discovery. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support This discovery is uncommon. It's nice to have a change of pace in the ITN right now. (PenangLion (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC))
- Strong Support science is important and this is notable Bumbubookworm (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- 'Strong support' = support. – Sca (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support This is major news. Thriley (talk) 04:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- The article is a 4-sentence stub. Stephen 06:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. The story is good, just the article needs to be expanded to at least three time this length. Tone 06:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality the article is 4 sentences long, which is way too short to be on the front page. If that is everything that is known about it, that's not enough for ITN, and if more is known, it should be added. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Question How often do we find a new farthest object? HiLo48 (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- This one was said to likely be the farthest we may ever discover, because of a very particular alignment with gravitational lensing. So, quite exceptional. Tone 08:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Wait Identifying this as a single star seems premature and the suggested image isn't clear. All they have is a faint smear of light with a high red shift. They have been studying it for years but can't yet resolve it to determine whether it's a single star, a binary or more complex. The James Webb telescope is expected to tell us more. BTW, that instrument is starting to produce interesting images to test the alignment of its mirrors. (right). At some point soon, we should publish the nominal "first". That instrument will then produce lots more interesting images and we'll be spoilt for choice. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Strong Support - As OA of the WHL0137-LS article, I also consider the discovery of star WHL0137-LS major news - my own related published comments in The New York Times is here if interested - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 10:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's a stub, so needs to be expanded before being listed on ITN. Right now it doesn't meet article quality requirements. No matter how many people post support here, it won't be posted unless significantly expanded. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Joseph2302: and others - Yes - *entirely* agree - article has now been a bit more expanded with further text - further expansion is ongoing currently - additional help in expanding the article from other editors welcome of course - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 12:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Article is not lengthy enough; also, at this point in time, 'furthest known' essentially means 'until we find another further one', which doesn't really feel "in the news". Cheers! Fakescientist8000 12:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
OpposeWait – A 220-word stub, of which 60 are devoted to its name and "astrophysical implications." Scant RS coverage. – Sca (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)- Strong Support, major news and coverage. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- 'Strong support' = support. – Sca (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Banedon (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Not a stub anymore. Reliable sources (as one would expect for a scientific subject). Grimes2 (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think the lenght now is passable. I'll wait for @Drbogdan: to remove the "working" tag first, though. Ping me when ready. --Tone 14:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Article now weighs in at 248 words, of which 60 go to name and "astrophysical implications," leaving 180 words of description. Still stub territory. Also note that NASA says further details "are forthcoming." – Sca (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support - Length looks good now. Article is referenced as well Sherenk1 (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Done - @Tone: and others - rm {{under construction}} template - WHL0137-LS article now seems ok afaik - at least for starters - more later of course - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Posting. I think all key findings are now in the article, without getting too technical. I'll go with the name, not the designation, because it just looks prettier. --Tone 15:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Still looks like a rush job. Currently the blurb and lead say that it's an "individual star" while the body says that this remains to be determined by the James Webb telescope. It's the usual process of hype in which a discovery is given the interpretation most likely to garner headlines. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Pull per Andrew - After going through the article - it looks more like a RD standard than an ITN standard. Many support !votes are also not standard (e.g. "major news and coverage", "this is major news", or straight up nothing at all.) I would suggest Pulling and continuing consensus. As far as I am aware, WP !votes are not meant to be a numbers game - it is a general consensus amongst editors. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Pull as summed up by two posts above. The blurb is questionable and the article is barely more than a stub still. We are allowed to wait more than 12 hours before posting something... Joseph2302 (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- In fact Tone you said you wanted to posted, there was a clear objection to that comment from Sca who raised the continued article quality issue, yet you posted it anyway? That doesn't seem sensible to me... Joseph2302 (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- As I said, the article was brief but it was expanded since the previous time I checked so I felt it met the minimum. I let the others to decide how to continue with this. Tone 17:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's barely a start class article, a clear violation of article quality guidelines. I hope anither admin will pull this if you won't, as we shouldn't be surrendering article quality for haste. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- As I said, the article was brief but it was expanded since the previous time I checked so I felt it met the minimum. I let the others to decide how to continue with this. Tone 17:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- In fact Tone you said you wanted to posted, there was a clear objection to that comment from Sca who raised the continued article quality issue, yet you posted it anyway? That doesn't seem sensible to me... Joseph2302 (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Post-posting Support - per the nine other supports. No, I'm not vote counting. The discovery is of global interest and though still brief, is growing. I commend the posting admin for adding the blurb. Cheers! Jusdafax (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Post-posting Support - What a nice change of pace from our regularly scheduled disasters, human suffering and politicians winning elections. The discovery was published in Nature, and of course there are a bunch of uncertainty, but such is the nature of astronomy. If the nominator waited for JWST to look at it, I'm sure it would have been called stale. The article is brief, but in line with what is known. Melmann 17:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Post-posting comment – Still quite thin for ITN promotion – abut 250 words. To this user seems rather pro-science undue. (Consensus questionable.) But not in favor of pulling – that would be lame Pushmi-Pullya editing. (And BTW, we're not an online feature magazine and don't need a "change of pace" to sweeten the product.) – Sca (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- PS: "The farthest known star" seems ungrammatical. It has to be the farthest from something, e.g. the star known to be farthest from Earth (or something similar). – Sca (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Farthest presumes the speaker or interlocutors, unless indicating otherwise. "From here" is implied, and the use of "farthest" without a referent is common and not ungrammatical. Given that it is the farthest from every person who will be reading it, it doesn't need more specificity. --Jayron32 18:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- How very presumptuous of a mere adjective. – Sca (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Farthest presumes the speaker or interlocutors, unless indicating otherwise. "From here" is implied, and the use of "farthest" without a referent is common and not ungrammatical. Given that it is the farthest from every person who will be reading it, it doesn't need more specificity. --Jayron32 18:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- PS: "The farthest known star" seems ungrammatical. It has to be the farthest from something, e.g. the star known to be farthest from Earth (or something similar). – Sca (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Post-posting support Article is short, but sufficiently covers what is known about the star and its discovery, without getting excessive technical. --Jayron32 18:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support While the article is short, it is comprehensive relative to what is currently known. Jehochman Talk 18:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Post-Posting Exclamation Cool! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Post-Posting Exclamation sufficiently covers the star and its discovery. Alex-h (talk) 08:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Post-Posting Exclamation Love to see science on ITN! Davey2116 (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Ernie Carroll
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sydney Morning Herald, News.com.au
Credits:
- Nominated by Fakescientist8000 (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: Puppeteer, actor, and entertainer. Best known as the puppeteer for Ossie Ostrich on 'Hey Hey It's Saturday' Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Big news. Article is in good shape. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Article looks good. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Tom Parker
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Fabulousbargains (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.
— User:Fabulousbargains 17:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Sourced. Quality sufficient. Grimes2 (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Posted Short but well sourced. Black Kite (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
(Closed) MONUSCO helicopter crash
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.
Blurb: A Puma Helicopter, part of MONUSCO belonging to Pakistan Army's aviation division crashed, killing all eight peacekeepers on board in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (Post)
Alternative blurb: Eight UN Peacekeepers die in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo after their plane crashed during a reconnaissance mission.
Alternative blurb II: UN Mission's helicopter crashes in a conflict zone in North Kivu, DRC, killing all eight peacekeepers onboard.
News source(s): CNN Deutsche Welle Al Jazeera The News Reuters France 24
Credits:
- Nominated by Elminster Aumar (talk · give credit)
- Oppose we general do not post military crashes with those killed in the line of duty. --Masem (t) 14:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose because it isn't important enough for ITN. Even if proven to be a shootdown, its death toll is in single figures & all those killed were military personnel on duty, doing an inherently dangerous job. Jim Michael (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose on Quality Beyond notability concerns, which could be arguable, the article is VERY light at the moment and includes mostly empty sections. The article will need to be improved before we can even debate notability and impact. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose – Per previous posts. Article narrative text is a 145-word stub, plus 90 words of background & reax. – Sca (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per above Oppose !votes. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
March 29
March 29, 2022
(Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
|
(Posted) RD: Joyce Fairbairn
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Calgary Herald
Credits:
- Updated by Michael Drew (talk · give credit) and Connormah (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: The first woman to serve as the leader of the Government in the Senate. This wikibio could use more elaboration here and there to make it look less like a prosefied CV. --PFHLai (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 05:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Sara Suleri Goodyear
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT obit
Credits:
- Nominated by GhostRiver (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: Subject died on March 20, New York Times obit posted yesterday. — GhostRiver 17:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Stale – death on March 20 was actually announced two days later by Yale University and The Times of India (both being reliable sources). Move to close the nom as stale. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- If we are going with March 22 as the reported date then that's still within the 7 day window, at least for a few hours? The article looks fine, quality wise. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 01:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
March 28
March 28, 2022
(Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
(Posted) RD: Serhiy Kot
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): istpravda.com.ua
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: Influential Ukrainian historian who cared about the restitution of cultural treasures. I'm also the creator but hope for someone knowing the languages better for expansion, it's a bit of a puzzle so far. Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment One cn tag added. Grimes2 (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- I found a ref for it, and five other facts on the way, because I can't really search in a language with different character set. There are about ten more facts in the same ref, - still hoping for a native speaker. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support No issues, minimum requirements. Grimes2 (talk) 10:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support per Grimes2. Nothing big, but good enough. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 11:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 02:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Jeff Carson
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:
- Nominated by Not Bigfoot (talk · give credit)
- Updated by TenPoundHammer (talk · give credit) and 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: CNN obit published yesterday. Not Bigfoot (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Not readySeveral cn. Can't find ref for I Fly Proud. Recommend delete. Discography needs some sources. Grimes2 (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Mostly Done Grimes2 (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- 30+ edits already on the refs, Grimes2? I'm listing you as an updater for this nom. Thank you for your hard work. --PFHLai (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Mostly Done Grimes2 (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Opposearticle contains blatant copyvio: the image is not freely licenced at all. We shouldn't post articles with any copyvios in them, which includes copyvio images. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed Image removed by Stephen and biography section is cleaned now. Grimes2 (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Article is cited and the copyvio image has been removed. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support looks fine now, marked as ready. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support All issues with the article have now been fixed. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 03:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Eugene Melnyk
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): TSN, Ottawa Senators
Credits:
- Nominated by The Kip (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: Owner of the NHL's Ottawa Senators, businessman and philanthropist. The Kip (talk) 02:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support. RoyalObserver (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- @RoyalObserver: Do you mind explaining? I apologize for nitpicking, but ITN really tries to avoid unexplained !votes (such as yours). Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Not readyRemoved dead refs and added 2 cn, otherwise refs ok. Size ok. Grimes2 (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support cn's Fixed. ok. Grimes2 (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Still has cn tags. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Seems all have been fixed. The Kip (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Alex-h (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: One more CN tag, then this should be good to go. cc: The Kip SpencerT•C 01:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Fixed remaining CN tags, should be ready to go now. Article could be more comprehensive, but it should meet RD standards. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Posted Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 08:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
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: