Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
3142 (talk | contribs)
330 edits
Line 527: Line 527:
*'''Oppose''', agree with Masem, we shouldn't start the precedent of posting business news on the main page, especially given the non-profit and volunteer-based status of the project. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#947E00">Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:30deg;color:indigo">Enby</span></span>]]([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 20:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', agree with Masem, we shouldn't start the precedent of posting business news on the main page, especially given the non-profit and volunteer-based status of the project. [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#947E00">Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:30deg;color:indigo">Enby</span></span>]]([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 20:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
*:There's no consensus ''against'' it. We're only going to tie our hands in serving as a useful news section. What if [[Apple Inc.|Apple]] went bankrupt tomorrow? [[User:Bremps|'''<span style="background:#000000; color:white; padding:2px;">Bremps</span>''']][[User talk:Bremps|'''<span style="color:grey;">...</span>''']] 23:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
*:There's no consensus ''against'' it. We're only going to tie our hands in serving as a useful news section. What if [[Apple Inc.|Apple]] went bankrupt tomorrow? [[User:Bremps|'''<span style="background:#000000; color:white; padding:2px;">Bremps</span>''']][[User talk:Bremps|'''<span style="color:grey;">...</span>''']] 23:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
*:There is plenty of evidence of consensus ''for'' it: back when minority topics where a thing and given preferential treatment business ''was'' one. Do not confuse genuine business coverage with PR and marketing coverage. [[User:3142|3142]] ([[User talk:3142|talk]]) 15:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
*'''Theoretically support, but it needs more of an update''' Sometimes business news is important enough for ITN. Given Evergrande’s role in the [[Chinese property sector crisis (2020–present)|Chinese property sector crisis]], the size of the bankruptcy & the fact that developments in 2021 & 2023 weren’t posted, I think it’s appropriate to post this now. However, the article needs more of an update. [[User:Blaylockjam10|Blaylockjam10]] ([[User talk:Blaylockjam10|talk]]) 22:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
*'''Theoretically support, but it needs more of an update''' Sometimes business news is important enough for ITN. Given Evergrande’s role in the [[Chinese property sector crisis (2020–present)|Chinese property sector crisis]], the size of the bankruptcy & the fact that developments in 2021 & 2023 weren’t posted, I think it’s appropriate to post this now. However, the article needs more of an update. [[User:Blaylockjam10|Blaylockjam10]] ([[User talk:Blaylockjam10|talk]]) 22:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
*'''Weak Oppose''' The business' collapse was big news, but this seems a bit like posting the burial of a man who was hanged 2 years ago. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 23:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
*'''Weak Oppose''' The business' collapse was big news, but this seems a bit like posting the burial of a man who was hanged 2 years ago. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 23:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:26, 1 February 2024

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

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

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

Azerbaijan Airlines aircraft
Azerbaijan Airlines aircraft

view — page history — related changes — edit

Glossary

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

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

Nomination steps

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

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

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

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

Voicing an opinion on an item

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

Please do...

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

Please do not...

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

Suggesting updates

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

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

Archives

February 1

February 1, 2024 (2024-02-01) (Thursday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

January 31

January 31, 2024 (2024-01-31) (Wednesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Politics and elections

Change of head of state of Malaysia

Proposed image
Article: Ibrahim Iskandar of Johor (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Ibrahim Iskandar of Johor is sworn in as the 17th Yang di-Pertuan Agong of Malaysia. (Post)
News source(s): AP
Credits:

Change of head of state of Malaysia. Seems to be a ceremonial role, so unclear notability. Natg 19 (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support, provisional oppose on quality; several unsourced statements throughout his article, but similar to European monarchies, it is indeed an alteration of the head of state. — Knightoftheswords 23:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose He was elected as king in October & this was a swearing in ceremony that happened. Additionally, I don’t think a change in a ceremonial role is notable unless something that’s out of the ordinary happens (such as the 1st abdication of a Danish monarch since 1146). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Head of State change, and the Malaysian monarchy is unique, even if this would've been better posted in October.
River10000 (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obelisk (life form)

Article: Obelisk (life form) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A new form of life, "obelisks", is discovered. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A new form of non-cellular life, "obelisks", is discovered.
Alternative blurb II: ​ A putative new form of non-cellular life, "obelisks", is announced.
News source(s): https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00266-7
Credits:

Article needs updating
  • Oppose on the basis of short article. I also wonder about the notability in case this is one of many life forms that are regularly discovered. The article does not mention how rare this sort of discovery is.
CollationoftheWilling (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a whole new category of non-cellular life. There's like a handful of them in total (virus, viroid, satellite, prion, plasmid, obelisk, defective interfering particle and viriform), all stranding the line between life and non-life. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 16:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we wait too long, it might get so stale that it dies.... and then we can argue under WP:ITNRD if was really living or not? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait per Fram. Leaning oppose on quality of article. Needs major expansion. Natg 19 (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs work The "new form of life" hook seems over-hyped. The Nature article says that "obelisks have the same shape as many viroids" and viroids were discovered in the 1970s. So, these things seem to be a new strain rather than something completely new. The claim seems to rest on some novelty in the sequencing but my impression is that down at that level, you get a wild variety of mutation and permutations and so it's just a matter of looking. So, to be significant, I reckon we need more on the implications for their role in human physiology and the gut biome.
On the other hand, waiting on formal peer review is silly because that's just a sanity check by a particular reviewer which proves little and that might take ages. We may already have some similar opinions in the sources such as

The study is “a milestone” because it presents the best available evidence that such elements are widespread in the bacterial world, and not just in more complex organisms, says molecular biologist Joan Marquez-Molins at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences in Uppsala, who was not involved in the work. “It’s not really something sporadic or isolated in the population — it’s really affecting a considerable amount of the sample,” he says.

But Joan Marquez-Molins just seems to be a new post-doc. Is there a wider consensus out there?
Andrew🐉(talk) 18:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obelisks aren't just a new strain of viroids, and that's where the novelty is. They're structurally more complex, with RNA folding in a different shape including the namesake rod-like structures (in comparison, viroids are a single naked strand of circular RNA). Indeed, researchers never call them "viroid" but only "viroid-like". Also, while mutations do change the genome, they can still be established to be genetically related (even humans and bacteria!), while obelisks are genetically completely unrelated to any lifeform known previously. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 18:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the paper, it appears that the study looked for patterns in sequencing databases. The finding seems to have the same circular RNA as viroids. The protein encoding and rod-like structure seems to be a prediction based upon a folding model rather than the result of a direct observation. So, this structural prediction seems to need some confirmation. The overall approach is interesting in that it seems mostly software-based rather than doing the dirty work of collecting stool samples. I'm wary of this approach because, if you look for patterns in a large mass of data, then you will find them but you have to consider artifacts and alternative explanations. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saravan killings

Article: 2024 Saravan killings (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Nine Pakistani laborers are killed by unidentified gunmen in the city of Saravan, Iran. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In Iran, nine Pakistani labourers are killed in a mass shooting in Saravan.
News source(s): CNN, France24, VOA, Reuters, Al Jazeera
Credits:

Ainty Painty (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose terrorist attacks are by no means rare in this region, and the vast majority are not even put into the Current Events portal, let alone nominated for ITN. I don't think that this one is so exceptional as to meet or surpass the standards for significance. Given that there hasn't been a new blurb in a long time now, maybe standards for significance should be lowered, but I don't think that this meets even a lower standard. JM (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CollationoftheWilling (talk) 10:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The insurgency in Balochistan is at the core of the current Iran-Pakistan tensions, given that both states have accused each other of harboring Baloch rebels, and used them as a justification for their respective strikes. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 11:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 30

January 30, 2024 (2024-01-30) (Tuesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

RD: Jean Carnahan

Article: Jean Carnahan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [1]
Credits:

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

– Muboshgu (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Melinda Ledbetter

Article: Melinda Ledbetter (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): USA Today
Credits:

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

Looks good. Natg 19 (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Chita Rivera

Article: Chita Rivera (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): New York Times
Credits:

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

Article needs some work, especially citing her acting roles ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 19:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Article meets requirements. Einsof (talk) 12:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bruxton (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Citations still needed, including filmography and awards. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Khan jailed for 10 and 14 years

Proposed image
Article: Imran Khan (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former Prime Minister of Pakistan Imran Khan (pictured in 2023) is sentenced to 10 years in prison for leaking state secrets. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Former Prime Minister of Pakistan Imran Khan (pictured in 2023) is sentenced to 10 years in prison for leaking state secrets, and to 14 years for corruption.
News source(s): BBC News, BBC News
Credits:

Article updated

A one-sentence update, should perhaps be given its own section with aftermath/reactions, but I think the imprisonment of a recent PM (2018-2022) of a country with almost 250 million people is significant enough for ITN. JM (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suport upon major updates - major effects from one of the largest ostensible democracies on Earth. — Knightoftheswords 16:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added four more sentences and made it a separate paragraph. JM (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, notability is obvious. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 16:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A sham trial, if it can be called one. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I often tend to think that topics related to Pakistan are over-published on Wikipedia, but he seems to be a controversial leader of a country who has numerous and volatile geopolitical disputes.
Arind8 (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment another editor has added the Lettergate article and bolded it in both blurbs, unfortunately it's also orange-tagged. JM (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI Pakistan is not in the Middle East and this situation is unrelated to Middle East or Iranian ongoing situations JM (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pakistan is variously described as being in the Middle East. Several maps including by respectable outlets such as ABC have put Pakistan in the Middle East. The "situation" in the Middle East refers to turmoil/conflict/controversy that surrounds the Middle East currently. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's like if a Canadian prime minister was jailed and someone said "Support because of the ongoing situation in North America". ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 18:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two issues here.
Pakistan can be variously described as being in the Middle East, just how Turkey is described as being in the Middle East. In many perspectives of South Asian culture it's impossible to consider them South Asian, but I'll leave this topic considering it's non-negotiable that they are variously considered to be Middle Eastern, and I will concede that they are also variously considered to be South Asian.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/how-ten-middle-east-conflicts-are-converging-into-one-big-war
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/20/seemingly-disparate-middle-east-conflicts-show-collective-erosion-of-self-restraint
The second point is that what seems to be numerous unrelated conflicts are being perceived to merge into one big conflict. I am one of those perceivers. You're focusing on the Eagle Pass situation as a stand alone conflict, where I am also using the wider US election and asylum crisis in Canada - US border to consider the crisis to be "North American". (though the comparison is silly because the Middle East is very unique geopolitics and comparisons probably won't be found). CollationoftheWilling (talk) 05:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any definition of South Asia that doesn't include Pakistan? I've never encountered one. But it doesn't matter for this nomination anyway. The point is that regardless of where Pakistan is located, the significance of Imran Khan being jailed does not come from "ongoing situations" involving Iran, Israel and Palestine, Yemen, or Syria. JM (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore there are citaions that can be used for the writing that Pakistan is part of the Middle East conflict:
"Violence has erupted across the Mideast, with Iran striking targets in Iraq, Pakistan and Syria, and the U.S. carrying out airstrikes targeting Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi rebels over their attacks on shipping in the Red Sea. Some observers fear a new round of strikes targeting Iran could tip the region into a wider war."
https://apnews.com/article/yemen-houthi-us-navy-mideast-tensions-israel-hamas-red-sea-6d5662d09aad8aed0875025b75928ef5 CollationoftheWilling (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "Middle East" is a confusing term anyways; some say it's just the Arabian Peninsula, others have it as far reaching as Morocco and India. Personally I use the 'Islamic World' PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support POV tags gone, major news. Bremps... 01:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alternative blurb the arrest of a recent head of state is major news
Setarip (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ECOWAS

Proposed image
Article: ECOWAS (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger announce that they are leaving the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Amidst the Nigerien crisis, Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger announce their withdrawal from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).
Alternative blurb II: ​ Amidst the Nigerien crisis, Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger announce their intention to withdraw from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).
News source(s): Al Jazeera
Credits:

Article updated

There's some uncertainty about the timing as ECOWAS requires time for an orderly withdrawal but those exiting say that it's immediate Andrew🐉(talk) 08:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, major development in the context of a regional cold war (cf. Nigerien crisis (2023–present) and Alliance of Sahel States) ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 10:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support article updated, major international event with future consequences for Africa. JM (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(What an odd map.) JM (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Guinea hasn't officially withdrawn from ECOWAS, it was only suspended like the other states a few months back for supporting Niger. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the assortment of European and Asian countries scattered in the north. JM (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah that too lol. Northern Europe has sunk into the ocean, RIP PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the old versions were cropped around Africa, but someone in 2021 uploaded an uncropped version and here we are. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 21:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CMD changed it back, looks much better now. It's strange how it ever looked like that, with the uncropped version having the full maps of the countries partially visible in the cropped version while missing entire countries that would then also be visible. I wonder if it has something to do with the way these maps are made, which is totally unknown to me. Anyway, the current version is much better. JM (talk) 07:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - This really is not significant. These states had already de facto left ECOWAS a loong time ago. This is really just a formality, it has no real effect on anything. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The coups and resulting suspension of these members was notable and we blurbed it, this is irrelevant. I also doubt the ECOWAS members will accept this as they still only recognise the previous government as the legal representative of Niger. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is bewildering that you consider this international event - one that actually affects the political status of several major African nations - insignificant compared to the Texas standoff. But then again, I suppose there always have been concerns about systemic bias on ITN/C. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Texas standoff is a serious constitutional crisis in the most powerful democracy in the world that has garnered major global attention. This is nothing more than an irrelevant change in status that had already de facto been enacted months before (and we also blurbed it already). How does this actually affect the political status of West Africa, apart from only confirming legally something that had already been true in the real-world for ages? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support due to restarting the nigerien crisis Lukt64 (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed PrecariousWorlds (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability but the map definitely needs to be improved --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If one country left the EU we would post that; three countries leaving ECOWAS should also warrant posting. BilledMammal (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability, this is a major event. The opposition above relating to the AU is incorrect, the AU is built upon these regional pillars rather than the other way around. ECOWAS is as noted above an organization that actually does things, one of the more effective regional organizations on the continent (in the world?). That said, the blurb should be clear it is reporting on the announcement, rather than implying it has actually happened. Such things are often complicated by politics and time (see Pacific Islands Forum#Micronesian withdrawal for an example), so we should be precise. Not commenting on quality, but I am going to fix that map. CMD (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes but it has already de facto happened. These countries have had nothing to do with ECOWAS for months. This changes literally nothing PrecariousWorlds (talk) 07:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability, oppose on quality This is notable enough for ITN, but the article’s quality needs a bit of improvement. A better map would also be nice. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think there is a regional notability in terms of Africa, the Middle East (the Arab world), and the link with France and the EU through linguistic, economic and political ties. It's not really a major topic in the Anglosphere however.
CollationoftheWilling (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle but oppose language of original blurb & alt1. In effect, what these countries did is announce their intention to withdraw, but they did not leave, despite claiming to be "withdrawing without delay." The equivalent would be if the UK announced in 2016 after the Brexit vote that they are "leaving the EU without delay" – it isn't exactly that simple, and ECOWAS gave a response clarifying that they are still members at this time. Provided an alt2.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ECOWAS had previously suspended the membership of these countries and can't have it both ways. Also, it doesn't recognise the governments of those countries and so has another bind unless it sponsors governments-in-exile or attempts to occupy the countries. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't accurate. Acknowledging the legal difference between suspended membership and non-membership is not the same as trying to have it both ways. To give another analogy, let's imagine that the EU suspended Hungary and Orbán proceeded to declare "We are withdrawing effective immediately." It just doesn't work like that. If the EU were to respond with a statement that acknowledges they continue to be a member, this wouldn't be them "trying to have it both ways." The original blurb is simply factually incorrect and contradicts what reliable sources say. From the BBC: "According to the [ECOWAS] treaty, member states wishing to withdraw must give written notice a year in advance, and continue to abide by its provisions during that year."  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Regardless of these semantics, I still haven't found any good argument as to what makes all of this legal jargon notable. What use does this story have? There's been absolutely no real-world effect of this, as these states have not been participating in the organisation for months. We have also blurbed the initial suspension of these members already. What's the point? How is a minor change in legal status that has no relevance to anything notable? PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There are significant ramifications, as explained by Reuters. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Notable excerpt from said article: But, if carried through, it is set to disrupt the region's trade and services flows, worth nearly $150 billion a year. ... It also raises questions over millions of nationals from the three poor and landlocked nations who settled in neighbouring states as the bloc allows visa-free travel and right to work. I see this as likely to spiral into a economic (and thus humanitarian) crisis with long-lasting ramifications. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 29

January 29, 2024 (2024-01-29) (Monday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Brian Griffin

Article: Brian Griffin (photographer) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Rolling Stone UK
Credits:

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

Well sourced. Natg 19 (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: N. Scott Momaday

Article: N. Scott Momaday (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post
Credits:

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

Death announced today. Thriley (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Kamila Valieva ruling

Consensus will not develop to post. Stephen 00:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Kamila Valieva (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Court of Arbitration for Sport rules that Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva violated anti-doping rules, banning her from competition until December 2025 and disqualifying her from competitions since December 2021, including at the 2022 Winter Olympics. (Post)
News source(s): NPR
Credits:
Big international news in the world of figure skating. Probably means that the USA wins the team competition now. Natg 19 (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Jimy Williams

Article: Jimy Williams (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.foxsports.com/stories/mlb/former-blue-jays-red-sox-and-astros-manager-jimy-williams-dies-at-age-80
Credits:

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

Former Major League Baseball manager. Will work on this within the next few days. Flibirigit (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will help too. RIP. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Arne Hegerfors

Article: Arne Hegerfors (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [2], [3]
Credits:

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

15:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Icon of the Seas

(NON-ADMIN CLOSURE)
Consensus is against posting. Natg 19 (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: Icon of the Seas (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The world's largest cruise ship, Icon of the Seas (pictured), starts its maiden voyage. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, CNN, DW, NYT
Credits:

Article updated
It's getting coverage because of its size and its use of LNG as fuel. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - Per @Maplestrip. Interesting encyclopedic entry. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose indistinguishable from advertising. 217.180.228.138 (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I'm not in favor of giant cruise ships either but I do think it's interesting news and it does have some innovative technology. News doesn't have to be good to still be news. Because of this ship we're finally starting to get some debate on the merits of having these monstrosities roaming the oceans. I didn't know, for example, that Venice, Amsterdam, and Barcelona are closing cruise terminals and starting to restrict how many visitors can debark at a time. Others have argued that bigger ships seem to arrive every couple of years. It seems that way because the recent expansion of the Panama Canal made these bigger ships possible. Now that Icon of the Seas has gone into service they can't get much bigger, so we will see the pace of these new arrivals start to slow down. It's possible that Icon will be the biggest cruise ship for a while. GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose per Masem. Only the largest cruise ship as of 2024. Reading List of largest cruise ships it looks like every couple of years Royal Caribbean International debuts a bigger and bigger ship. Before Icon of the Seas, the #1 largest was Wonder of the Seas, also a Royal Caribbean ship, which unveiled in 2022. Before Wonder of the Seas, the #1 largest was Symphony of the Seas, also a Royal Caribbean ship, which unveiled in 2018. And before Symphony of the Seas, the #1 largest was Harmony of the Seas, also a Royal Caribbean ship, which unveiled in 2016. Not to say that posting something every few years is too frequent, just that this particular record doesn't seem to be too notable. Always having another "brand new largest cruise ship in the world" seems to be the gimmick of one particular company.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 15:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Prior to the Icon of the Seas the preceding five largest cruise ships were Oasis-class cruise ships which debuted in 2009 with the Oasis of the Seas. Icon of the Seas is the first Icon-class cruise ship. Next Icon class ship Star of the Seas is coming in 2025 and the third (as yet unnamed) in 2026. Probably the last Oasis class ship Utopia of the Seas debuts later this year. When looking at from the new largest cruise ship class point of view, it has been 15 years between Oasis and Icon classes and that is the reason for excitement and news coverage. IlkkaP (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This added context is appreciated, but the knowledge that this record will be beaten very soon by another ship that's already under construction from the same company (as Chaotic Enby outlines below and you reiterated here) has brought me from a "Weak oppose" to simply an "Oppose" as this puts to bed the idea that this ship's record might last a while as one editor speculated in the !vote above mine.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Tower 22 drone strike

Consensus to post is unlikely to develop.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Tower 22 drone attack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ An Iranian-backed militia group launched a drone strike on a U.S. military outpost in Jordan, killing three U.S. soldiers and injuring more than 30 others. (Post)
News source(s): https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/28/politics/us-troops-drone-attack-jordan/index.html
Credits:
Red sea crisis is happening under the involvement of Houthis, also the site were the attack occurred is far from red sea, also the perpetrators aren't houthis, it's a part of attacks on U.S. in the region rather then red sea crisis or israeli-hamas conflicit. Also it's worth noting that 3 Americans are dead, which is a rare thing in these kind of attacks, last time Americans died in these attacks resulted in assassination of Qasem Solomani, which gives me a sign that this attack is in another level. 3000MAX (talk) 06:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Covered in Ongoing.
Setarip (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Evergrande Group

Article: Evergrande Group (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Evergrande Group, formerly China's largest real estate firm, has been ordered to liquidate. (Post)
News source(s): https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/28/business/china-evergrande.html
Credits:
  • Oppose Group has been basically out of cash since 2021, this was (as the article notes) just signing off on its death. --Masem (t) 13:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article says the group went bankrupt in August 2023, and had collapsed financially by 2021. Being liquidated with those details in mind doesn't seem to be that significant. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on principle, weak oppose on update We didn't post this story in 2021 or in August 2023, so I think it's still eligible to be posted. Appears to be the largest non-bank bankruptcy ever. Article quality is fairly good, with one CN tag on a line that doesn't need to be in the article and could easily be deleted by the posting admin. All that's missing is a prose update. This also allows underrepresented business news to be posted to ITN. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ITN generally doesn't post business news in the first place. Masem (t) 19:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support per NorthernFalcon, especially if we didn't previously post this. The Kip 18:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, agree with Masem, we shouldn't start the precedent of posting business news on the main page, especially given the non-profit and volunteer-based status of the project. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 20:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no consensus against it. We're only going to tie our hands in serving as a useful news section. What if Apple went bankrupt tomorrow? Bremps... 23:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is plenty of evidence of consensus for it: back when minority topics where a thing and given preferential treatment business was one. Do not confuse genuine business coverage with PR and marketing coverage. 3142 (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Theoretically support, but it needs more of an update Sometimes business news is important enough for ITN. Given Evergrande’s role in the Chinese property sector crisis, the size of the bankruptcy & the fact that developments in 2021 & 2023 weren’t posted, I think it’s appropriate to post this now. However, the article needs more of an update. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose The business' collapse was big news, but this seems a bit like posting the burial of a man who was hanged 2 years ago. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as the saga of Evergrande's downfall goes, this is less of an important piece of the puzzle then it's collapse in 2021 or bankruptcy last year. Nothing against "financial news", but this isn't big enough at this stage of things, so oppose. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per NorthernFalcon. I don't see why we can't post business news as long as it meets the ITN standards. JM (talk) 10:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I disagree with Masem's insinuation that ITN doesn't post business news. We have posted business news items in the past, and even if we do not, that does not mean we should not. This might be a formality but I doubt anybody had even heard of the Evergrande Group or understood its significance when it ran out of money in 2021, and merely it running out of money would never have been posted as a news item back then. But there is significance to be found in the liquidation of a major real estate group in China. It would be as if Berkshire Hathaway went into receivership. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Evergrande Group's financial problems in 2020 caused a major real estate crisis with falling prices, decreased sales and reduced construction works. I think the story of the Chinese real estate crisis should be considered for posting at some point (we're probably already beyond that point), but it really doesn't seem that this news will severely aggravate the current situation.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 28

January 28, 2024 (2024-01-28) (Sunday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Sports

Australian Open

Article: 2024 Australian Open (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In tennis, Aryna Sabalenka wins the Women's Singles and Jannik Sinner wins the Men's Singles at the Australian Open. (Post)
News source(s): BBC - Men's singles, BBC - Women's singles
Credits:

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: The Australian Open is ITN/R, but it looks like the article needs some work done before it can be posted. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • That article is a good example of the sort of quality we should be expecting for ITN to post this. A few sentences summarising the tournaments, with a paragraph or two on the main events (men's and women's singles) would be fine for this to get posted. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing: War in Sudan

No consensus to re-add to ongoing. Stephen 01:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: War in Sudan (2023–present) (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:
RSF offensive into West Kordofan started
  • Oppose - ITN isn't an armed conflict ticker. Just because a new offensive happens in a war doesn't mean we put it up, unless it gets a significant amount of attention (which this isn't). For this reason, I also think we should take down the Myanmar Civil War PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support Although there was consensus to remove Sudan from the ITN Ongoing 10 days ago, it was removed on the basis that there was an insufficient quantity of updates. To quote JM from the discussion I linked, "Sudan was removed once already, but then put back up when the conflict picked back up again. No reason that we can't do that again." --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 10:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A two sentence update that covered an event from 3 days ago doesn't cut it for ongoing. We also have limited space on the ongoing line, and the conflicts listed have far more worldwide consequences at this point. --Masem (t) 12:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait There have only been two consecutive days in which actual updates about the fighting have been posted. Regardless of whether those updates are notable enough for ongoing, this is simply not enough days in a row to make it an ongoing item. If there are daily fighting updates for multiple more days, I might reconsider, but for now, there are simply not enough updates to make this ongoing. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per PrecariousWorlds. TwistedAxe [contact] 15:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The readership stats indicate that this is not as interesting to our readers as other wars such as the Myanmar civil war and neither of them are in the same league as Ukraine or Gaza. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Will you stop, please? You’ve been told an innumerable amount of times how readership stats don’t matter and yet you either don’t understand or have intentionally ignored it. I’m tired of assuming good faith toward you when you continuously ignore your fellow editors. The Kip 23:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a fellow editor, I think it's good to get input from all angles, not just the ones some of us care about. Andrew may be the most prevalent stats reporter around here, but website traffic analysis is far from some nonsense he invented.
    As a fellow badger who's also felt tired of learning about things I don't want to know, I understand you, but (professionally) advise you to "drop the stick". Just "send the pain below", nice and offscreen-like. Disruption is simply not productive. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Readership stats are inherently influenced by the contents of ITN. This is a circular argument: the presence of the Myanmar civil war article in Ongoing makes readers more likely to click it, which means that it will have higher readership stats. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per PrecariousWorlds and Masem. The Kip 23:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

January 27

January 27, 2024 (2024-01-27) (Saturday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Malcolm Gregson

Article: Malcolm Gregson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The PGA
Credits:

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

English Ryder Cup golfer. Death announced on this day. Nigej (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support the articles looks fine and fairly cited Harvici (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) UNWRA October 7 controversy

Consensus to post will not develop. Stephen 21:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

WARNING: CONTENTIOUS TOPICS PROCEDURES APPLY TO DISCUSSION
Article: UNRWA October 7 controversy (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The UK, US, and 7 other Western countries halt aid to UNRWA over claims that staff members were involved in the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel. (Post)
News source(s): CBS, BBC
Credits:
I'm not sure whether or not this should be considered to be already covered by Ongoing, but I'll nominate it anyway so the community can decide what to do with it. It is related to the Israel-Hamas war in that it is related to October 7, but it's also a significant change in Western support toward a major UN agency whereby these 9 countries are not going to give anything to it anymore. Blurb taken and altered from Current Events entry above. Currently the top story on BBC's homepage. JM (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as this is already covered by Ongoing. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 08:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

January 26

January 26, 2024 (2024-01-26) (Friday)

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Sukhbir Singh Gill

Article: Sukhbir Singh Gill (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Indian Express
Credits:

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

Indian field-hockey midfielder. Article is a reasonable start-class biography. Ktin (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Texas border dispute

Closing w/o prejudice to renominating if something more serious develops. There is a fairly strong consensus that this is premature. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Standoff at Eagle Pass (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A standoff begins between Texas and the US Government after federal agents attempt to remove razor wire along the border with Mexico. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A standoff begins between Texas (joined by 25 other states) and the US Government after federal agents attempt to remove razor wire along the border with Mexico.
News source(s): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68101927
Credits:
Another exciting episode of the new season of American Politics. I do think this one is particularily notable, getting significant amount of attention and causing a constituional crisis. It's front page on every media outlet you can think of, and the standoff is only intensifying. The blurb is poorly worded, but the complexity of this story makes it hard to fit into one line. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
an article should be specified Lukt64 (talk) 14:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Standoff at Eagle Pass? BilledMammal (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support once the article is out of stub class Lukt64 (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as it is just US politics amplified by members of the GOP. There is a potential that this may devolve into a constitutional crisis but until there's actually action on this, this is not the type of news we post. We don't simply post because a news topic floods the headlines. — Masem (t) 14:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A section called In The News shouldn't post things that are....In The News PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should be posting things that are in the news with actual impact on the world, not just because crazy insane partisan games being played by a handful of people get coverage. Again, there is potential of a impactful result here but right now, its lot of hot air. — Masem (t) 14:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not us to judge what is partisan games or not. I think if something is getting significant attention In The News, then the most useful thing for the general reader is to put it up on a section called In The News PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will also add that the suggested article is far too narrow in scope. This all started back when the razor wire was installed (at least as early as 2022 , if not earlier), and needs to discuss the lower court cases. — Masem (t) 14:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - the deadline for Texas issued by the Fed government is today, so if anything happens today, maybe post. I personally believe Biden is not going to do anything, but either way, I think this may have effects ringing down for years; it will send a message to a lot of other states regarding how much power they really have in the American federal system. — Knightoftheswords 15:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note as someone from Texas, this looks like it may have the impact of starting a large secession movement again. Yet again, I dont know much about it. Lukt64 (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - if this becomes something other than bluster then certainly, but until then nah. nableezy - 21:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention)‎‎

WARNING: CONTENTIOUS TOPICS PROCEDURES APPLY TO DISCUSSION
Proposed image
Article: South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention)‎‎ (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The ICJ orders Israel to prevent genocidal acts in Gaza (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The ICJ orders Israel to refrain from acts under the Genocide Convention, but declines to order a ceasefire.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The ICJ orders Israel to refrain from acts under the Genocide Convention and calls for the immediate release of hostages held in the Gaza Strip, but declines to order a ceasefire.
News source(s): The New York Times, The BBC
Credits:

Article updated

I added something before this, should I not? Selfstudier (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The ruling is preliminary and sets the stages for years more of court hearings to prove that Israel committed genocide. --Masem (t) 13:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a preliminary ruling, it is a ruling granting preliminary measures (while the case proceeds). Selfstudier (talk) 13:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the difference between "preliminary ruling" and "ruling granting preliminary measures"? JM (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All this is is that South Africa has demonstrated enough evidence that the court will consider the full case, and has made (unenforceable) cautions to Israel. — Masem (t) 14:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a big difference, actually. The court has not made any ruling, preliminary or otherwise, on the question whether Israel has committed a genocide. What it has done is to grant interim relief and has accepted prima facie that there is a case to answer, so the case will continue. Selfstudier (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But you just said it was a ruling in your previous reply. If it's not even a ruling at all, then this isn't significant. "Court does not make ruling" is not significant. JM (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a ruling. It is a ruling on South Africa's request for emergency measures, not the final determination of whether Israel is comitting genocide, which will take years. The ICJ granted some measures, but not others, ordering Israel to do a series of things. Endwise (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It has made a ruling. It hasn't made a ruling on the specific topic of "did Israel commit genocide", but it still made a ruling for preliminary measures (i.e. telling Israel to stop the way they're conducting the war). ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 15:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a ruling on provisional measures DMH43 (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now had 3 people in a row reply to me saying that it's a ruling. 1 person saying it will suffice. JM (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose It was expected that the ICJ would find South Africa's case plausible and go forward with provisional measures (the bar is very low). Maybe it would be quite newsworthy if they did actually order the ceasefire. But essentially ordering Israel to try and make sure it doesn't commit genocide means a whole lot of not-much, I think. Endwise (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not "a whole lot of not-much" because the ruling is that Israel is plausibly committing or failing to prevent genocide. That's basically the most the court can do on a time scale like this. It is certainly newsworthy DMH43 (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but the bar for plausibility is very low, so it means a lot less than it may seem. I think that's part of why this hasn't been getting as many headlines as you might expect. nableezy is correct to point out that this is informed a lot by my personal opinion -- so weight that accordingly -- but that's ITN for you I guess. Endwise (talk) 08:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, a court telling Israel "please do not commit genocide" without even implying Israel is committing genocide, and without demanding a ceasefire, is not significant enough for ITN by my standards; there is no significant change occuring here. JM (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In no case would they have implied that Israel is committing genocide--it's a court, they will investigate based on this plausibility finding. DMH43 (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I also agree with FortunateSons. This is a one-sided blurb with no inclusion of the demand for the unconditional release of Israeli people taken hostage by Hamas, thereby violating NPOV; I also agree with the Kip that it's covered by Ongoing anyway. JM (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Please don't commit genocide" is what they always say. This is also what happened for Myanmar and Bosnia. JDiala (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...and? JM (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per @Edge3 PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle This is seriously significant news of a tremendous gravity and will change international relations for years to come, even if the final ruling is different. This has the potential to impact the current war. I’m not sure on the current two blurbs, maybe another could be written, but I believe this is blurbable. -TenorTwelve (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Color me skeptical that an international court is dramatically going to change how other countries deal with this conflict. I can guarantee you every country in the world has their own posture towards the war already. If some sort of discipline isn't being levied on someone then, quite honestly, I'd go as far as to say this is a nothing story. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have a look at Top Experts’ Views of Int’l Court of Justice Ruling on Israel Gaza Operations (South Africa v Israel, Genocide Convention Case) to see why that is something of an oversimplification. Selfstudier (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting reading. Still, I only saw one perspective that seemed of the belief that there was a decent chance for change. A lot more of the commentary was about how this affected the actions of Israel and what this means for the case going forward. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - leading headline around the world, out of the ordinary for ongoing, the opposers seem to be using personal opinion for significance, rather than deferring to what the sources consider significant, and it is very clear they consider this significant. nableezy - 18:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    the opposers seem to be using personal opinion for significance, rather than deferring to what the sources consider significant
    With all due respect, personal opinion is effectively what dictates ITN blurbs; there's plenty of news items that RSes consider significant that we don't post (whether it be celebrity news, covered under of one of our Ongoing events, lower-level sports news, or otherwise). The Kip 19:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As with all things Wikipedia, sources >> personal opinions. nableezy - 19:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a valid sentiment, but if enforced in a hardline manner, opens up ITN to a considerable variety of events editors have previously deemed non-notable, and also furthers questions of bias due to the bulk of RS coverage concerning the western world. The Kip 19:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like youre describing Wikipedia as a whole though. This probably can be continued on a talk page though, user or otherwise, as the philosophical discussion is not really relevant to the nomination. nableezy - 19:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BIAS is how we as Wikipedians evaluate the type of coverage, ignoring how much coverage there is to how significant coverage is. We also need to write towards the long view of a topic, which is why WP:NOTNEWS exists - we try to avoid being influenced by news of the minute in favor of views of the long-term (without engaging in speculation.) — Masem (t) 20:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Previously youve said ITN's primary function is to showcase quality articles on encyclopedic topics that are in the news, no matter how wide the coverage of that news is. Well here you have an excellent article on an obviously encyclopedic topic that is the top story around the world (ie, in the news). So what gives? nableezy - 21:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because 1) this is nowhere close to a final ruling (If the court dismissed the genocide charges completely, ending the case, that might have been reason to post. And in any case, whether Israel abides by this request is yet to be seen - there's nothing actionable yet set by the court) and 2) this is otherwise covered by the ongoing. I would also add this is not a quality article as nearly half of it is analysis and reaction kudzu, which is getting too much into the weeds in the light of NOTNEWS and the 10year view. Masem (t) 21:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose due to limited significance of the ruling and the fact that it is preliminary (see arguments made by others above. Additionally, both blurbs lack neutrality and are missing the demand for the unconditional release of hostages. FortunateSons (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No idea what all the opposes are about, major news event. Israel needs to "report back" in a month so we will see what happens then. About the same time as the hearings into Israel's occupation will take place, also at the ICJ. Selfstudier (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose is a preliminary pronouncement, which is more declaratory than effective, and is also covered in Ongoing. More interesting will be the judgment. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Extensive news coverage. Given the nature of the accusation and the magnitude of the allegation (genocide), this absolutely warrants coverage. JDiala (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Major world news covered live by most news services of note. Landmark ruling on the world's most acute humanitarian crisis now accounting for 80% of the world's population at risk of starvation. The ICJ, the highest court in the UN and therefore the world, has imposed provisional measures, a.k.a. emergency orders, to prevent genocide where the court has determined that there is a clear risk of prejudice to the rights protected by the the genocide convention. It's not preliminary to the main proceedings, but provisional and separate to them. The court has determined A) jurisdiction, and B) the need for emergency measures given the risk of prejudice. The merits of the case will be determined in the case proper. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be noted that there is no real enforcement given in the decision: the court ordered Israel to keep its operations within certain bounds to avoid genocide, and to report back to the court. That's for all purposes a slap on the wrist. — Masem (t) 20:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • International law isn't really enforced much in practice. Ask Putin. This is the nature of the anarchic world order. The symbolic significance is precisely the point. JDiala (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alternative blurb - it’s more comprehensive than the first blurb and is consistent with headlines that I have seen.
Oppose first blurb - seems poorly worded “prevent genocidal acts” seems vague while the alternative blurb has wikilinks Wafflefrites (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Major world news and the article is of pretty good quality. But I don't think the New York Times article linked in the ITN candidate sources= above should be used, as it is a rolling news article that keeps changing, it is a poor cite as using it for verification is difficult - find another stable source to use. Rwendland (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • but Oppose Alternative blurb 1 & 2 as they include a claim not factually accurate in strict terms: "declines to order a ceasefire" is incorrect because South Africa did not ask for a 2 party "ceasefire", so ICJ cannot be said to decline something not asked for. As the ICJ Order record on page 3, SA asked for "The State of Israel shall immediately suspend its military operations in and against Gaza" (page 3). SA actually asked for a one-side "suspension", not a "ceasefire". (As Palestine (or Hamas) is not a State Party to the Convention, I doubt that ICJ can actually order either of them to do things like cease fire, hence SA did not ask for that.) Rwendland (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I fail to see how the ruling has any significance. TheInevitables (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per JM. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The current article states that the court order only says Israel should "take more measures to protect Palestinians". This does not seem to be any sort of ruling on previous actions, but an order to do something going forward. I could see how ordering Israel to completely stop all military operations might be considered a real ruling, but this not so much. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support All oppose editors have suggested lack of real world significance, but without providing sources. They are wrong. See for example: Kelly, Laura (2024-01-26). "ICJ ruling puts Israel on the clock; raises heat on Biden". The Hill. "The U.S. will find it hard to accept noncompliance by Israel, because the U.S. judge [on the ICJ panel] joined what was essentially a consensus decision and because the U.S. has strongly supported the Court's provisional orders in Ukraine, Myanmar, and Syria," Stephen Rapp, who served as U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues during the Obama administration, wrote in an email to The Hill. "Israel has taken this case very seriously because the Court's orders do have real impact. All of the other major allies of the U.S. will expect Israel to comply, so that if it defies the orders, the Israeli government may find itself treated as a pariah." Onceinawhile (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're the nominator, your support is already counted by your act of nomination. JM (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I found a source saying that the decision had little "practical consequences". [4]https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/26/world/middleeast/icj-genocide-ruling-israel-gaza.html The article specifically says that the ruling "lacked immediate practical consequences". 2G0o2De0l (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You should read the whole of that New York Times article. The point you raised is explained within the article (and you have incorrectly conflated "little" with "practical consequences"). What it actually says is: "But it lacked immediate practical consequences" and "To Gazans, the intervention will bring little immediate relief." So that part is talking about having no ceasefire. You then missed this from later in your same article: "Still, the court’s instructions might give momentum and political cover to Israeli officials who have been pushing internally to temper the military’s actions in Gaza and alleviate the humanitarian disaster in the territory, according to Janina Dill, an expert on international law at Oxford University. “Any dissenting voices in the Israeli government and Israeli military who disagree with how the war has been conducted so far have now been given a really powerful strategic argument to ask for a change in course,” Professor Dill said. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I acknowledge my misuse of "little" with "immediate", and should have read more of the article to find your quoted section. The quote: "Any dissenting voices in the Israeli government and Israeli military who disagree with how the war has been conducted so far have now been given a really powerful strategic argument to ask for a change in course," does seem to support the argument that this does have important impact. However, I think the quote: "But it lacked immediate practical consequences" still supports the argument that its immediate impact is minimal. So maybe this is not a conclusive source. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is this comment bright green? [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 22:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a quote, formatted with {{xt}} ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 23:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it's {{tq}} (is there any functional difference?) JM (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there's an actual difference and I always confuse them, my bad ({{tq}} is for quotes and is teal-ish green while {{xt}} is for example text and a more vivid green) ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 00:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, logging out and I can see the quote formatted in green text but there's also a giant green shaded box covering this reply chain that only seems to show up when logged in and in dark mode but I digress. [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 02:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt blurb 1 or alt blurb 2 This decision isn’t the final decision, but it seems important enough for ITN. I think the alt blurbs seem better than the original blurb. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Storng support: Per Chaotıċ. I don't think the perception of how "important" the ruling itself is what matters here. It's a major case with wide coverage, and this is the most significant update for the foreseeable feature, as the final ruling will take years forward --Abbad (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
(fyi: it's "Chaotic" with the tittle moved in a chaotic way) ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 00:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Israel is not bound by this decision, and it doesn't seem like it's actually ordering Israel to do anything different anyway. --RockstoneSend me a message! 00:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is legally bound by it as a signatory to the convention. Whether Israel ignores its obligations under international law, per its usual form, is a different question. And asking it to not kill or harm people would at this point requires it to do something very different indeed - possibly beyond its abilities. Only media with very entrenched bias are trying to spin this as being the same as existing obligations and therefore not an order to do anything different. Obviously, however, the context is that Israel is failing to abide by international humanitarian law and therefore it needs instructing, under pain of international ostracism, to abide by its international legal duties. Iskandar323 (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Chaotic Enby. Adding that waiting for a final verdict is not a reasonable request; we are still waiting on one in the Rohingya genocide case to this day. I believe we were right to post the ICC arrest warrant for Putin in spite of the fact that no one believes there is a high likelihood of such an arrest ever happening. Of course, this is not a perfect apples-to-apples comparison, nothing ever is when it comes to messy geopolitics. But I believe it helps to demonstrate that there is precedent for posting international developments that are very much in the news and notable in their own right, regardless of the perceived likelihood of a practical consequence in the near future.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support per above, overwhelming amount of coverage across worldwide media. Ornithoptera (talk) 02:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Widely covered in international media that justifies posting even if it is preliminary ruling that the genocide claims are plausible and to be investigated. Waiting for a final result isn't practicable (e.g. the Yugoslav genocide cases were field in the 1990s and resolved in the 2010s), and the news here is that the case was not thrown out, but instead resulted in multiple impositions on Israel during an active conflict. Also as a note, this decision literally could not have made a finding of genocide because of its preliminary nature. That decision will come later. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability Article quality is generally good. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per JM; also covered in Ongoing. SpencerT•C 10:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Obviously this is a very notable case, but I have concerns about blurbing a preliminary action, so I think that, for now, the Ongoing entry should suffice. DecafPotato (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest Close A quick glance at the wall of comments above shows the supports and opposes to be almost evenly split. I'm all for letting things play out as long as there is some chance of a consensus forming. But even considering NOTAVOTE, there is no realistic likelihood of that, either for or against. It's time to admit as much and lower the curtain. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is still getting active participation, and given such a close would result in your preferred outcome I dont think that is an appropriate suggestion for you to make. nableezy - 22:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure about this, there are still people voting, and it looks like more recent votes have more supports than opposes compared to older ones, so it's not impossible for consensus to shift. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 22:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per JM. BilledMammal (talk) 11:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I just don't see it as a significant-enough event. Israel is not to commit genocide, which they deny anyway. Hamas is to release their hostages, which they haven't done, and the court decides not to mention anything about Israel suspending military operations, that South Africa has requested. Nigej (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – This is notable development worthy of including in a blurb. Widely covered by sources. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Does anybody really think that this major court ruling is less "in the news" than "protests in Bashkortostan"? The contrast here between the expressly "in the news" event and the incredibly marginal one is quite jarring. I know that "in the news" has always been a bit a popularity contest, but seriously, come on people. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I wouldn't include either. Perhaps one reason this didn't had more support was the one-sided wording of the original blurb. Nigej (talk) 11:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because an event isn't receiving heavy coverage from major Western publications doesn't make it "marginal," and we try to selectively post stories from outside that sphere to avoid giving in to our own media-intake bias.
    i The Kip 18:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: There appear to be zero indications that this order is going to have any enforcement behind it. This seems to be just politicians bloviating and making grand gestures, per usual. If anything substantiative comes out of this, then I'm sure that will make the news. Also covered in ongoing. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Wow, this is a very impressive and detailed article! Like many others here, I am doubtful this result has any impact on the ongoing situation whatsoever, but it would be a shame not to feature such a well-written and well-cited article that's in the news. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt1. Important ruling in international law, major news worldwide, and the article is excellent - detailed and very well referenced. I prefer the altblurb. Modest Genius talk 12:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt2 on notability, though I think "ICJ" might warrant being written in full. I expect the next time this will be posted will be a final judgment or if anything spectacular happens. Kingsif (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Jesse Jane

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

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

Sourcing work needed. Mooonswimmer 09:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now The tables in the "Awards" & "Filmography" sections need references. References can probably be found in the prose. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Actioned) Ongoing: Red Sea crisis

Article: Red Sea crisis (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:

Not exactly a nomination; I am aware that this article is already listed in Ongoing as (Houthi involvement), but given the page move, I propose un-bracketing it and having it stand as its own entry with its actual title. There was some discussion on the talk page about this that led to this pseudo-nomination. JM (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, the matter has escalated and is worthy of ITN. Harvici (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I think you could display it either way to be honest. It is fundamentally linked to the Israel conflict, but I could see it standing on its own. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Red Sea crisis, although related to the current Israel-Hamas war, is thousands of kilometres away. If it were to be considered part of the same war, I'd say it's a different theatre, and still deserves its own entry. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support this indeed ongoing in the sense that it should be in a separate entry in the ongoing tab. Despite the yappings of the Houthis, this is largely separate; they aren’t just targeting Israeli ships and are fighting against different people. List as Red Sea Crisis. — Knightoftheswords 13:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as it has become seperate from the israel-hamas war. Setarip (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Admins willing to post ITN:  : Item's got wide consensus and is marked as ready. The Kip 19:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 25

January 25, 2024 (2024-01-25) (Thursday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Sanath Nishantha

Article: Sanath Nishantha (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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

Sri Lankan Politican, former State Minister of Water Supply. Titanciwikitalk/contrib 04:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Re-nominated; attention needed) First use of nitrogen hypoxia as capital punishment

Articles: Inert gas asphyxiation (talk · history · tag) and Execution of Kenneth Eugene Smith (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Kenneth Smith is the first person executed by nitrogen hypoxia. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Inert gas asphyxiation is used as a means of capital punishment for the first time, in an execution in Alabama, United States.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Inert gas asphyxiation is used as a means of capital punishment for the first time in the execution of Kenneth Smith in Alabama, United States.
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

American murderer, executed by the state of Alabama. First execution in history via nitrogen hypoxia. TarkusABtalk/contrib 03:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - it pains me to oppose this, especially since I oppose the death penalty and think it's important that people be aware of the fact that it's still happening.... but he doesn't have a standalone Wikipedia article, as the article is about his execution. This means he doesn't qualify for RD. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 04:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NelsonLee20042020: For your awareness. I think your move was improper. TarkusABtalk/contrib 04:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did the move is because, the article is about the crime Smith is convicted and executed for, and many details are covering his trial and execution, and there was no background information about Smith before the case, so the title: execution of __(name)___ is appropriate NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths) - see this guideline for more information NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it needs to be reverted by an admin; anyone can do it... I'll do it if you want. One issue though is that the article is only 25 days old. Is that long enough to be appropriate for RD? --RockstoneSend me a message! 05:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've read, this wasn't kind or gentle at all.... --RockstoneSend me a message! 11:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disqualified, close this nomination has the same problem as the one below: it's not a biographical article, so it's disqualified from RD. JM (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boldly re-opened Though morbid, I think the introduction of a new form of capital punishment (at a time when almost everywhere in the world is not engaging with any form) is potentially ITN-worthy, and I think this discussion was closed prematurely. I have also changed the focus of the nom in line with this: I think the Inert gas asphyxiation article should be the target, where there is an update of good size and quality for the news. Hopefully, by not trying to put the information into an RD skin, discussion will be on the merits of posting the story. As an unrelated note, I also see no issue with the newness of Smith's article or its crime-focused content. As a career criminal who was sentenced to execution before Wikipedia existed, it seems logical for that to be the case and for it to still pass GNG as a bio, so I would suggest moving it back to being a bio. Kingsif (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bat-Sheva Dagan

Article: Bat-Sheva Dagan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Gal Gefen
Credits:

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

Polish-born Holocaust survivour and educator. Her article looks great. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Ingenuity end of mission

Article: Ingenuity (helicopter) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ NASA ends the Ingenuity Mars helicopter mission after nearly three years following damage to its rotors. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ NASA ends the Ingenuity Mars helicopter mission after nearly three years and 72 flights, following damage to its rotors.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Following damage to its rotors NASA ends the Ingenuity Mars helicopter mission after nearly three years and 72 flights, having far exceeded its planned thirty day mission, .
News source(s): NY Times
Credits:

needs an update on the body for this though the lede mentions it Masem (t) 23:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, added a short paragraph in the body describing the ending and remaining work. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 23:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: significant as mission end of the first extraterrestrial aircraft. Only 2 CN tags, so not a disqualifying issue. 5 [clarification needed] tags though, I don't know if that's a big issue or not. JM (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
support, long live ingenuity and perserverance 111.92.81.250 (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - rest in peace, Ingenuity. May you keep flying in the heavens above PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Preference for Alt II as per @JM2023 PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I question the notability of the event. If something positive such as a discovery happened then I think it should be posted, but the ending of a mission is not notable IMO. You can end many space programs without having achieved anything. Arind8 (talk) 10:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Is this really that notable to be posted? This is just the end of one of many space missions. Like Arind8 said, perhaps if there were any groundbreaking discoveries this would be notable. Fightmeaboutit (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm late but I agree with Arind8 too. The launch was historic, but the end of the space mission after three years is less impactful. Wqwt (talk) 06:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Rafiuddin Hashmi

Article: Rafiuddin Hashmi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Express
Credits:

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

Ainty Painty (talk) 14:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=1201879040"