Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates
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
August 16
August 16, 2021
(Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
August 15
August 15, 2021
(Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
RD: Michael M. Thomas
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
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 (August 15); died on August 7 —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
RD: Ernie Sigley
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC
Credits:
- Nominated by HiLo48 (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: Highly awarded Australian TV and radio host HiLo48 (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support Story checks out. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
2020–21 Formula E World Championship
Blurb: In autosport, Nyck de Vries wins the Formula E World Championship. (Post)
Alternative blurb: In autosport, Nyck de Vries wins the Formula E World Championship, while Mercedes-EQ claim the teams' title.
News source(s): motorsport.com
Credits:
- Nominated by Unnamelessness (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Not an ITNR item but could be since it has became a world championship. Unnamelessness (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose target is weak, and doesn't really describe in detail the events of the season. It appears that the Nyck de Vries article isn't even updated, unless you consider one unreferenced sentence a suitable improvement. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Motorsport is already well represented at ITN. The argument to add more would be either that the event is very popular (such as the EPL), or distinct enough form existing codes/formats to be treated as it's own (Grey Cup). Formula E has too weak argument on both fronts at this stage. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- The physical football can start in a wider range of places in college than in NFL which makes strategy less rote and emphasizes the asymmetry and specialization between the strong side players on the strong side of the ball and the weak side players on the weak side, is that distinct enough? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Remember the hundreds of times a game when the fatties get ready for sumo then one snaps the ball? In NFL you can only do that up to 9.25 feet from the centerline, in college you can do that up to 20 feet from the centerline (the one parallel to the side of the field). The ball starting further from the center affects play. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- The physical football can start in a wider range of places in college than in NFL which makes strategy less rote and emphasizes the asymmetry and specialization between the strong side players on the strong side of the ball and the weak side players on the weak side, is that distinct enough? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose both on importance and article quality. Formula E is a poor man's Formula One (which is why it's filled with F1 rejects and youngstars hoping to make the step up to F1 in the future). Not important enough to a broad audience therefore. On article quality, it would need a summary like 2020 Formula One World Championship#Season summary. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- If we're going by the criteria above than we would never post anything that isn't F1 because every other motorsport on the planet is filled with as you put it F1 rejects and youngsters hoping to make the step up to F1 in the future, and given F1 is by far the richest motorsport formula around, again, everything else is a poor man's Formula One by that standard. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well WEC or DTM would be considered way more notable, as they're proper series in their own right (and not filled with rejects like Formula E) But Formula E isn't anywhere near as popular as any of those- the champion is a Mercedes F1 test driver. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- DTM is a terrible example, the winner René Rast is leaving to join Formula E permanently after many years of being on the FE sidelines! Let's also add that DTM famously failed to expand outside of Germany many times and even within Germany struggled to get manufacturers onboard. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well WEC or DTM would be considered way more notable, as they're proper series in their own right (and not filled with rejects like Formula E) But Formula E isn't anywhere near as popular as any of those- the champion is a Mercedes F1 test driver. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- If we're going by the criteria above than we would never post anything that isn't F1 because every other motorsport on the planet is filled with as you put it F1 rejects and youngsters hoping to make the step up to F1 in the future, and given F1 is by far the richest motorsport formula around, again, everything else is a poor man's Formula One by that standard. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Not even in the sports news. Kingsif (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose: even though it's a FIA world championship, that doesn't grant it automatic ITNR status; whether it should is a different matter. My own view is that if we were to give another FIA championship ITNR status, I'd go for the WEC over FE, because despite the FIA's efforts, it's still not seen as equal to F1, the WRC, or the WEC. Sceptre (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support I do not agree with the comments above; this championship is unique, as are the cars, format and everything else about it and does have widespread coverage, more so than most other motorsport events. We should not be looking what newspapers/media outlets post, if we did we'd never post any sports news that isn't top 5-EPL football news; the criteria is it encyclopaedic and is it important, and I would strongly argue yes to both. There's a reason all major car manufacturers and top racing drivers take part, and TV rights are hotly contested by e.g. Eurosport. Also it's truly global, unlike some of the other motorsports that get posted. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
We should not be looking what newspapers/media outlets post
- literally how else would you define "in the news". Please, tell me. Also, Eurosport is basically brand new and everyone hates it for stealing Olympic airing rights for all of Europe so national broadcasters got shafted but go off on its relevance lol Kingsif (talk) 01:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
(Posted RD) RD/Blurb: Gerd Müller
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: German footballer Gerd Müller dies at the age of 75. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Süddeutsche Zeitung
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by SoWhy (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: One of the most famous German footballers. SoWhy 11:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Oof, tricky. Legendary in the sport, obviously, but I'm unsure he rises to the level of a blurb ... that's a borderline one. Anyway, oppose for the moment due to unsourced content.Black Kite (talk) 12:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment As Müller was a legend in his sport I would support RD only (I dont see a blurb justified). With 555 league-matches and 487 league goals he is/was a unit and regarding this equal to Messi (552 league-caps and 485 league-goals). I would like to know if there are other footballer than müller and Messi who played that many league matches and have a better match-score-ratio. --LennBr (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- It's odd how I (and many Americans) find it boring that Messi can get only ~0.9 goals per game instead of like 3 or 4 but if a baseballer ever gets 0.4 home runs per game (which is 3-4 hours) again for even 1 season without doping I'd be amazed (my soccer attention span is 2 hours per matchday per World Cup) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- That's why I (and many Earthlings) would rather watch MMA, where even the low-card losers regularly rack up 24 to 28 points in 15 minutes. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- It's odd how I (and many Americans) find it boring that Messi can get only ~0.9 goals per game instead of like 3 or 4 but if a baseballer ever gets 0.4 home runs per game (which is 3-4 hours) again for even 1 season without doping I'd be amazed (my soccer attention span is 2 hours per matchday per World Cup) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb - Major international footballer. Mjroots (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb for consistency. We didn't post Cruyff so Muller doesn't get posted. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- And for such a "legendary player", pitiful coverage of his career in the article. For a quick comparison, see Johan Cruyff. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb, as a major figure in his field ( football). Jackattack1597 (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb I supported a blurb for Cruyff and would like to support one for Müller. The wrong that no blurb was posted for Cruyff's death cannot be righted by not posting this one. After all, football is a very big deal so there should be some room to post iconic and influential players other than Maradona.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Old Man Dies RD only, please. If he's famous, people will still notice and click his name. Especially his fans. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support blurb when page up to scratch: As I saw cited on Ballon d'Or, Muller was one of eight players to win the World Cup, European Cup/Champions League and Ballon d'Or. [1] That's an exclusive club. He remains 87 goals clear in the Bundesliga scoring charts 42 years after his retirement. The decision not to post Cruyff - who aside from his club, international and managerial honours was recognised as one of the true transformers of football into its modern form [2] - should not form precedent. Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb on the simple grounds that one was not posted for Cruyff.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb In addition to the facts pointed above, this article is awfully short for someone claimed to be a major player. His stats may be impressive, but let's compare to someone like Pelé or Wayne Gretzky (in terms of content) --Masem (t) 16:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb for now. We have pretty high standards for death blurbs in virtually every category except politicians (who, by virtue of their leadership of a nation probably ought to get death blurbs the most often). Is Gerd Muller one of the greatest soccer players of all time? I'd argue that he falls short of the Maradona/Pele/Messi standard, so he doesn't get a blurb. (As evidence, consider this list or this list, both of which put him all the way down at 12th all time; or this list which has him at 17th. All the lists seem to imply we were wrong to deny Cruyff a blurb, though, as they all elevate Cruyff into that Maradona/Pele/Messi echelon.) NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Also, not that it matters, but there are fourteen footballers who are listed as Level 4 vital articles, and Gerd Muller is not one of them. To me, that suggests that he's just not high enough up the list for a death blurb. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Also worth noting that the "vital articles" project is run by a tiny enclave who debate who is and who is not vital. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb per article quality, too short for that. But support RD.BabbaQ (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Posted RD --PFHLai (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) Afghan Government collapse
Blurb: Afghan president Ashraf Ghani resigns as Taliban forces enter Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan ending the twenty-year long war. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The Afghan government collapses and Kabul falls to the Taliban during its offensive.
Alternative blurb II: Afghan president Ashraf Ghani flees the country as Taliban forces enter Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, ending the twenty-year long war.
Alternative blurb III: The Afghan government collapses as the capital city of Kabul falls to the ongoing offensive by the Taliban and President Ashraf Ghani flees the country.
News source(s): Alarabiya News, AP, BBC, Guardian, Reuters, Al Jazeera, MSN
Credits:
- Nominated by 212.74.201.233 (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Obviously post it when (if) it happens, but given that Al Arabiya has a pretty good track record of generally being cautious with their sources, I doubt this doesnt come true. --212.74.201.233 (talk) 10:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Wait: We cannot posting WP:CRYSTAL predictions, it maybe cannot be happen as the event progressed. If the information is true, i will Support the blurb to be posted with alternate blurb. 180.249.244.163 (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Obviously, that's why I wrote what I wrote in my comment. But given that this is almost certainly going to happen in then next few hours, we might as well prepare the article and the blurb beforehand 212.74.201.233 (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Your nomination, with that blurb, is wholly premature. You cannot expect editors to support something which is simply not true, let alone not published by any news outlet. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Obviously, that's why I wrote what I wrote in my comment. But given that this is almost certainly going to happen in then next few hours, we might as well prepare the article and the blurb beforehand 212.74.201.233 (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Wait till the president of the new "transitional government" is announced. We can also nominate an RD for Afghan women's rights Scaramouche33 (talk) 10:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well, that's not all that bad. At least Bacha bazi's gonna be banned 212.74.201.233 (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- I see. So that makes a brutal medieval fundamentalist regime, which enslaves women, perfectly acceptable, yes? Must have been in that Taliban manifesto leaflet I binned. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- I did not say it's preferable, what you are doing is a textbook example of stramanning. With that being said, as a left0-wing atheist who is fundamentally opposed to the Taliban's ideology, if I had a choice between making my daughter wear hijab outside, and having my son get raped by some 50-year old militia commander, I'd prefer the former to the latter. Cheers. 212.74.201.233 (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- I see. So that makes a brutal medieval fundamentalist regime, which enslaves women, perfectly acceptable, yes? Must have been in that Taliban manifesto leaflet I binned. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well, that's not all that bad. At least Bacha bazi's gonna be banned 212.74.201.233 (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Wait, but post once Kabul falls.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Wait Call me crazy, but the last time the Taliban was in control as thousands of Americans arrived to liberate and protect their "Afghan people", this endless 20-year war began. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
- Wait—But I will obviously support when it happens (I wish I could also say "if" it happens). Kurtis (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support – in principle – as story develops. Widely covered (see added sources above). No-brainer. – Sca (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Wait until he actually resigns and they enter the capital. At the moment, sources are saying that he could resign, that he is planning to resign or is in negotiations over resigning, but hasn't resigned quite yet. At the moment, Kabul is still under govt control, although that could change by the end of the day. When/if these events happen,Strong Support for their inclusion, as they would be some of the biggest intl' news in recent memory. Goodposts (talk) 12:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC) P.S. Just a few hours after I posted this, Ghani left the country and the Taliban entered Kabul. There is nothing to wait for anymore. Goodposts (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)- Comment - We should be using this article Battle of Kabul (2021) Sherenk1 (talk) 12:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support (and oh, cr*p...) -
The Economic Times has confirmed here...Turns out that was confirmation that he will step down, not that he has stepped down... Anyways... Tube·of·Light 13:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC) - Support in a few hours Jerusalem Post has reported the resignation as fact. Juxlos (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Since we also don't know whether this actually ends the war (maybe there's more anti-Taliban insurgency or something), I propose an alternate blurb: Afghan president Ashraf Ghani resigns as Taliban forces enter Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, and is replaced by Ali Ahmad Jalali as interim head of government. (Jalali's text subject to him actually being appointed, of course). Juxlos (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support once Kabul falls pending quality. Thus ends the Vietnam of our times. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Some of us actually remember this. – Sca (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support. The current situation is that capitulation talks are ongoing, that's big news in its own right. Count Iblis (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support Juxlos' Alt, pending extreme cleanup on Jalali. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Al Jazeera says Ghani has left Kabul for Tajikistan. Not clear whether he's resigned. – Sca (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support BBC now reporting that Ashraf Ghani has done a runner, this is all over bar the shouting. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support Well, now Vietnam has been surpassed as a metaphor for U.S. military catastrophes.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Smile for the camera, boys. – Sca (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Proposing altblurb 2 based on the recent developments 212.74.201.233 (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support for altblurb2. Kabul has fallen, Afghanistan continued their reputation to be graveyard for empires. SunDawntalk 15:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Wait until final collapse confirmed. Papers still reporting Taliban preparing to enter Kabul. — Amakuru (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- "Fallen" not yet unequivocally reported by major RS sources, obvious though it seems. T-ban quoted saying there'll be no transitional government, they're waiting for govt. to surrender. (U.S. embassy staff being moved to Kabul airport.) – Sca (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Question: Is ending the twenty-year long war in the proposed blurbs really true? --PFHLai (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- War in Afghanistan (2001–present) says no. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Even Operation Freedom's Sentinel has 16 days left, semiofficially. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- The American invasion was a reasonably direct outgrowth of the Afghan Civil War, which in turn was an extension of the Soviet invasion, which was triggered by various uprisings in response to the Saur Revolution. Combat in Afghanistan has been reasonably constant for the past 43 years. --Carnildo (talk) 05:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- If you want to go back even more reasonably, Winston Churchill once realized, "The Pashtun tribes are always engaged in private or public war." If an unknown number of sensitive ancient documents hadn't been blown to infinity, we'd have real trouble disambiguating one War in Afghanistan from the next. Apparently excellent toward strangers, though; maybe if Hypothetical Group X only invades for a couple of weeks next time, and stays cool, relatively modern peace might finally have a goddamned chance. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support with comment It deserves to go main page but can we conclude that the 20 years war has ended? I think the last phrase should be removed.Seyyed(t-c) 15:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support Seyyed's proposal above I haven't seen sources saying that the war is over. So I don't think we should be posting that part of the hook. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support alt blurb 1 Government has collapses and Kabul was overtaken, as reported by multiple sources. The potential set up of a transitional government is a formality that doesn't change what has already happened on the ground. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Posting alt1, for which it seems we have the most consensus. Feel free to adjust as the story develops. --Tone 16:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Now let the fun begin. – Sca (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Alt added as President fleeing is a major event. ArionEstar (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Update death toll The wiki page and multiple sources revise the death toll to be over about 1 300. JMonkey2006 (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- @JMonkey2006: for the fall of Kabul? Or did you mean to post this on the Haiti thread? Juxlos (talk) 00:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes I did! Got caught in the moment haha JMonkey2006 (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Should the offensive still be ongoing? Seems like there isn’t much left for the Taliban to take over. Juxlos (talk) 00:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing up this point. The word "ongoing" is now removed from the blurb on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 02:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Strong post posting support for alt 3 or 1; major event that pretty much ends the war, though I don't think saying so would be strictly correct. Nixinova T C 04:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
August 14
August 14, 2021
(Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Politics and elections
|
RD: Gabriel Fortuné
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): AJC
Credits:
- Nominated by AllegedlyHuman (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: Former mayor of Les Cayes and Haitian senator; died in the earthquake. Article needs expansion, but has enough sources to make it happen. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Covered by (likely future) Blurb. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Does not meet minimum requirements for RD. Grimes2 (talk) 07:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- At 175 words, this wikibio is too stubby to qualify. Please expand it. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - not ready at this time. Ping me if improved.BabbaQ (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) Haiti earthquake
Blurb: A 7.2 magnitude earthquake strikes Haiti, killing at least 304 people. (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes, ABC, BBC, AP, Reuters, CNN
Credits:
- Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)
- Created by AnonymousAlias (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Dora the Axe-plorer (talk · give credit), HurricaneEdgar (talk · give credit) and Quake1234 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: While there are not yet reports of deaths yet, this has only happend a few hours ago and there is known to be people that got caught in collapsing buildings/etc. I am adding this as something to watch as it has the likelihood to be "bad" (Haiti's just recovering from the 2010 Haiti earthquake of similar magnitude, and the USGS is claiming "high casualties" per CNN above) Masem (t) 16:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment almost certainly it will be notable enough. In a few hours, I imagine there will a lot more coverage and information that can be added. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Strong support A earthquake which killed around 30 people (and maybe more) belongs in the news section. Pyramids09 (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Agree, but right now, the actual information on the earthquake in the article is sparce. Over half of the article is just explaining the tectonic plates in the region. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support Whee, another one This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality Figured we were all on the same page here, but suppose not. This article is not up to Main Page-quality currently. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- I imagine we all agree that this should be posted on the merits, but it's the current quality where opinions may diverge. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- The article in terms of covering the seisimic effect is good, but I agree that we should not post until some more expansion on the damage is there. That might take some hours to flesh out since reporting from Haiti is not like reporting from NYC or LA. --Masem (t) 19:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- I imagine we all agree that this should be posted on the merits, but it's the current quality where opinions may diverge. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support posting the article, but oppose including the death count in the blurb. The death count will likely change repeatedly throughout the next few days or weeks, and for events which have hundreds of deaths, a perfectly accurate death count is nearly impossible. Just put the earthquake itself in the blurb. Mlb96 (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- If the casualalties are not given, that might be interpreted as Wikipedia being racist. 2600:1702:2670:B530:FC7C:D44C:73F6:8E79 (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- I wouldn't go that far, but I do think not including the death toll would be an odd decision considering there are clearly a lot of casualties. WaltCip-(talk) 23:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- You can say "at least" X amount of deaths to cover the fact that there might be more. -184.56.75.144 (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- I wouldn't go that far, but I do think not including the death toll would be an odd decision considering there are clearly a lot of casualties. WaltCip-(talk) 23:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- If the casualalties are not given, that might be interpreted as Wikipedia being racist. 2600:1702:2670:B530:FC7C:D44C:73F6:8E79 (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support – in principle, pending honing of article. Around 21:30, BBC, AP, Reuters agreed on toll of 227 – which indeed may increase. – Sca (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support, article looks as complete as much older earthquake articles. Abductive (reasoning) 23:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Closer. There's now some content in the lead not referenced in the body, which needs fixing. Would also like to see a little more expansion of the section titled "earthquake". AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support as per nom HurricaneEdgar 02:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support Very notable event. There should be more updates on its impacts however. --CactusTaron (Nopen't) 03:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support Obvious choice, just piling on. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 08:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Posting. --Tone 08:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Post posting support. Also now a large after-shock. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
August 13
August 13, 2021
(Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Alia Muhammad Baker
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.iqiraq.news/society/25691--2003.html
Credits:
- Updated by موسى (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: This is The Librarian of Basra who saved thousands of books in 2003. I'm hoping for English sources to be available soon. --PFHLai (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Gino Strada
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Corriere della Sera
Credits:
- Updated by Gianluigi02 (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: Italian human rights activist and war surgeon, founder of Emergency. This wikibio can use some more clean-up, but seems close to be ready for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment The first part of the biography section needs citing, other than will support when that is fixed as it should be good to go JW 1961 Talk 21:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support as concerns now fixed JW 1961 Talk 12:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Douglas Applegate
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Times-Reporter
Credits:
- Nominated by Jon698 (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: Former member of the United States House of Representatives and 1988 presidential candidate whose death was announced on August 13. Jon698 (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support Looks good. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support – well-referenced; meets minimum ITN requirements. Although his date and place of birth are not mentioned in refs 1 and 2 (covering the "Early life and education" section), it is verified in the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress external link. Marking ready. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 05:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
(Closed) Lab leak is a "likely hypothesis"
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: Head of World Health Organization investigating origins of the COVID-19 pandemic admits for the first time that lab leak theory is a "likely hypothes" (Post)
News source(s): WaPo, WSJ, NY Post, Le Parisien, El Mundo, Telegraph, France24, AlJazeera, Independent, Fox, Taiwan
Article updated
- Oppose. This isn't a formal determination or finding, just a statement that it's a possibility and should be studied, which we already knew, and is also unlikely to yield results without Chinese cooperation. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose we don't post guesswork. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose WHO is one thing, and if most reliable media agree beyond reasonable doubt that the lab leak hypothesis is correct then we have something to discuss. Otherwise, this is a very gradually incremental "maybe?". Juxlos (talk) 08:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose hypothesis is WP:SPECULATION, which we don't post. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Strong support This is not a speculation. Nobel Prize laureate Luc Montagnier claims the same thing. No brainer here. [3] - EugεnS¡m¡on 09:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Eugen Simion 14 "Claims" is not an actual determination or finding of fact. It's what someone thinks. That one person thinks it was a leak, and the WHO says a leak is a possibility(which we already knew) are indeed speculation until there is a formal investigation and finding, which is unlikely without Chinese cooperation. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support what was once a conspiracy theory is now considered a likely hypothesis by the WHO. Stunning development. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:18C4:5EEA:1FB:420B (talk) 09:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- This was never a "conspiracy theory" and was always a possibility. The conspiracy theory is that it was artificially created in a lab, not that it merely escaped a lab. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Strong oppose the wording is very misleading, as one can read from the source. "An employee who was infected in the field by taking samples falls under one of the probable hypotheses," Ben Embarek told the interviewers. This implies Ben Embarek considers multiple different hypotheses as "probable", which is surely nonstandard usage of the word. This verges on misinformation and should absolutely not be posted. Banedon (talk) 09:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Strong oppose Pure speculation. There seems to be much confusion about what "likely hypothesis" and "probable hypothesis" actually mean. Superficially there can't be more than one "probable hypothesis", it makes no sense. Unless the phrase "probable hypothesis" simply means that it is probably a hypothesis, rather than a hypothesis with a greater than 50% chance of being correct. Nigej (talk) 09:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
August 12
August 12, 2021
(Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Haydée Coloso-Espino
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://mb.com.ph/2021/08/13/greatest-pinay-swimmer-passes-away/
Credits:
- Updated by Hariboneagle927 (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: “Asia's Swim Queen" from the 1950s/60s. Her wikibio needs more refs and maybe a little bit of work to make it ready for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Johnny Groth
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Palm Beach Daily News; United Press International
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: Only reported today (August 12); died on August 7 —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support well-sourced, no issues precluding posting. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support looks decent enough for RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Posted --PFHLai (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Kurt Biedenkopf
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Der Spiegel, Die Zeit
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Grimes2 (talk · give credit)
- Updated 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: Politician, Former Minister President of Saxony Grimes2 (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support well sourced article (apart from 1 cn tag added), definitely more than good enough for RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: I added - with 2 more refs from Spiegel and FAZ - a bit of academic and business career, and wrote a lead. Should suffice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Posted --PFHLai (talk) 12:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: John A. Rizzo
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: Only reported today (August 12); died on August 6 —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support Looks fine. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support Not as an honour, but like a public service announcement, a grim reminder of the evil lawyers can do. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Posted --PFHLai (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Plymouth shooting
Blurb: Six people, including the perpetrator, are killed in Plymouth in the UK's first fatal mass shooting since 2010 (Post)
Alternative blurb: The British government announces new firearm licensing guidelines after five people are killed in the nation's first fatal mass shooting since 2010.
News source(s): BBC, New York Times, Le Figaro, El Pais, Die Welt, La Repubblica
Credits:
- Nominated by Awkward42 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Very rare event in the UK (about 1 per decade on average) so don't judge the death toll by US standards. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 06:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose: while I am aware of the rarity of this, this appears to a purely domestic matter. (I doubt whether it is truly an thing that should be in Wikipedia, but that can wait.) It is not of a weight now for ITN. --PaulBetteridge (talk) 07:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- and by "domestic", I mean literally to do with a household --PaulBetteridge (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose yes, worst mass shooting in a decade but a domestic crime with likely no ongoing impact to the already stringent laws on firearms in the UK. Utterly tragic though. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose I suspect it will be largely a domestic UK event. Nigej (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- As were the 2010 Cumbria shootings? Not sure if that was nominated or posted. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- From that article's talk page it seems it was an "in the news" item. Personally I'd still oppose. Big story in the UK but, sadly, pretty common round the world, I suspect. Nigej (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Cumbria was the third worst mass shooting in the history of the UK so that was perfectly reasonable to post. This event is not ground-breaking at all, just tragic. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose, because it's not important enough. Being rare in the UK doesn't make it notable enough to post. The killer was a lone gunman & there's no indication of any ideological motive. Jim Michael (talk) 10:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
*Oppose Yes, incredibly rare in the UK, but the previous event (2010 Cumbria shootings) was a mass shooting as we understand it including some random members of the public being targeted, whereas this appears to be a tragic event confined to victims in one household. Black Kite (talk) 10:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Note Although it now appears this may not be case (that the victims were from one household - the Guardian quotes a witness as seeing a man "shooting randomly at people"), so waiting to see what transpires. Black Kite (talk) 10:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)- Yes, he went through the streets shooting at passers-by. Why did you think it was all one household? — Amakuru (talk) 10:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - probably opposing per above, since the death toll is relatively low. But also noting that the expansion is below 1500 bytes at present so would need some expansion if it were to be posted. — Amakuru (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. Unusual crime here in the UK, but it would open the door to a flood of shootings in other places where they are nowhere near as rare. Unless this leads to a further tightening of gun laws (which seems unlikely and can be considered at the time if that happens) I don't see how this has any long-term impact. Notable enough for an article, not significant enough for an ITN blurb. Modest Genius talk 10:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'd guess actually fairly likely, whether directly by primary legislation, or in terms of the practical application of it in terms of the checks and standards police operationally apply to issue and renew shotgun licences. ("Will you give us access to your social-media accounts?" "No!" "We'll be in touch.") But agree that's a separate issue and possible future article, other than to the extent it's already under discussion in reliable sources and successfully addressed in the nominated article. I must disagree with the slippery-slope argument. One applies one's crampons, rather than getting out the most waxed pair of skis one can find. Shootings where nowhere near as rare will generate less coverage in reliable sources, consequently fewer articles in the first place, and less likely to be of even serviceable quality in any timely manner. And even if such do arise, this can be addressed at the ITN stage simply by pointing this out. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Renomination, prompted (though not directly suggested) by the observations of Effy Midwinter on the article talkpage. This is not, as may have initially been believed given the understandably confused nature of the reporting, a single-household domestic incident, nor one without a political or ideological dimension, per almost all of the opposing !votes. Indeed it has particular significance for being not just a rare UK mass shooting, but the first I'm aware of there with apparent elements of incel movement and misogynist terrorism as either the motivation, or at the least a framing rationalisation of the violence. Initially the leading UK news story ahead of Afghanistan, and still featuring prominently. Presently appearing on the top four stories on CNN's world news page, so not without general importance, either. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Re-opening nomination due to arguments brought up by commenter above, as well as some opposition related to article quality. Article was closed 8 hours after nomination so IMO is worthwhile to open up for a little longer to let discussion play out. The article and the story has undergone considerable development since initial reports so I agree that it's worth re-opening for additional discussion. SpencerT•C 03:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- I hear what you're saying about quality concerns; the article's rather harshly marked as "Start-Class" at present hopefully a slightly lagging indicator, and it's maybe more B-adjacent at this point. The sourcing seems pretty robust, certainly. But if the first rough draft of history is still a little too rough, then so be it. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support, and would have before it had a supposedly OK motive, but it was closed when I first saw it. English mass shooting, unusual enough. Plus, the current blurbs are stale. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support. As per IP109, somewhat tragically still leading UK news story ahead of the fall of an entire country to a fundamentalist Islamist movement. And I really don't see that "Summer Olympics close (ceremony pictured)" is in the news any more, if it ever was. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support now it's clear the domestic crime was just the start of an extremely unusual (for the UK) mass shooting with wider implications (the incel movement). Article quality is fine. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support given our intent here is to encourage and reward improvements to WP, and the target is an entirely new article of some quality. There is certainly reasonable debate on both sides of the significance question, but "qualities in one area can make up for deficiencies in another" (per ITN criteria) GreatCaesarsGhost 12:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support, very unusual mass shooting .Jackattack1597 (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support now we have more information, effectively (and being quoted as) a terrorist event. Black Kite (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Weak oppose While the potential connection to incel aspects may be new, we still have the fact that this may simply be a person that was having mental health issues, and still all seems like a "lone wolf" issues and not the start of a fresh wave of potential violence from incels. --Masem (t) 15:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- There's definitely a connection to incel culture, as the article now pretty clearly establishes, which I think is highly notable in itself. That's not to say it's clear-cut between that and mental-health issues: it needn't be -- and likely isn't -- entirely one, or entirely the other. The two may have interacted -- the perpetrator himself essentially claimed that movement had worsened his own mental health -- or it might be more of a framing rationale. It's certainly lone-wolf in that this isn't an organised attack or conspiracy. But that's true of many incidents classed as terrorism, under the 'self-radicalised' category. Or more precisely, radicalised under the influence of many others, but not with the explicit purpose of this sort of violence. I don't think the 'fresh wave' idea is suggested as part of why this is especially notable or newsworthy. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. Why is this reopened? The death toll is low on a global scale, worse incidents happen all the time elsewhere. The guy was a nutter, we knew that all along. Just because people start talking about "terrorism" doesn't suddenly change what happened. And we're not a news ticker. — Amakuru (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Weak support I would more support posting if this led to some extended background check being implemented since this guy was apparently a clear danger from social media posts and family reports, but article improvements and the new information seem generally sufficient. Kingsif (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- The background checks thing is being more and loudly mooted. The Telegraph had a retired chief constable commenting on this yesterday, and according to the BBC review of The Papers, they've another story tomorrow on this being likely to actually happen -- apparently not yet on their own website, nor is it on the BBC's, so not usable in the article at least until then. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- support - Rare event in the UK. Looks ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support I don't think any kind of immediate action against gun violence is either likely or, frankly, possible in any case, so I don't see why that's the bar for so many. That will come later. In the meantime, we're left with one of Britain's worst terror attacks. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment so this is an incel shooting. It's unusual in the UK, and it's very sad indeed. We have a law that seems to suggest that incel shootings don't qualify as terrorism. It seems odd (to me) that men who find life challenging when they can't have sex with women resort to hating women and then killing them. There may well be underlying issues that are yet to be discussed/released. I still oppose posting this kind of thing, even in the UK where such things are rare as rocking-horse shit. It's sad that there's a section of "society" that feels obliged to destroy another section because of their misgivings. Wikipedia should recognise it in the context of the world, i.e. it's nothing in the big scheme, but it's hugely societally important to recognise in the UK that we maybe dropped the ball on incel culture and its terrifying effects. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose because it's not important enough. Though rare in Europe, mass shootings with higher death tolls occur many times each year in the world. Being unusual in its location doesn't make it more important, even though that's the main reason for the Western media being intensely interested in this after having almost ignored the 2021 Spin Boldak shooting, whose death toll was about 100 & which wasn't nominated here. This isn't being treated as terrorism, and even if it were it wouldn't be one of the UK's worst terrorist attacks or mass murders. Compared to the Denmark Place fire, Hungerford massacre, Lockerbie bombing, Omagh bombing, 7/7 etc., this is tiny. There's no international angle - unless you count him liking some American things. Jim Michael (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- The Spin Boldak shooting took place in Afghanistan which, as we all know now, is a warzone. Plymouth is not a warzone. Try to get some perspective that doesn't rely on hyperbolic examples. This was the third-worst mass shooting in the UK, with six dead. In Amurica that would have been a mass shooting that happened last week. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- It's not the third most deadly mass shooting in UK history: the Ballymurphy massacre, Bloody Sunday, Kingsmill massacre, Hungerford massacre, Greysteel massacre, Dunblane massacre & Cumbria shootings were all mass shootings in the UK with higher death tolls.
- Had this happened in the US, it would have been quickly closed with a fairly strong consensus against posting. Jim Michael (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well either you're being contrary or you don't understand what I'm saying, the IRA (etc) vs the Army aren't part of the thinking of the vox populi. Still, I'm not engaging here, it's a waste of my life. In the US, six dead from mass shooting happens almost every month. In the UK it happens perhaps once a decade. Next. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- You said mass shootings, you didn't limit it by perpetrator, but even if you do, how do you work out that Plymouth was only the third most deadly? In any case, being rare in its country doesn't make it important to most of our readers or to history. The international media report this prominently because of its rarity, not importance. We wouldn't post a fairly small earthquake due to it being rare in its location. Jim Michael (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Wow, you're going here for some kind of "record"? I'll defer to your infinite knowledge, and just stick with facts, it's the worst mass shooting in the UK since 2010. Of course, yesterday and tomorrow we'll see worse in the US. I don't know what you're trying to achieve here. Rarity and importance are intrinsically related. Oh dear........ The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Could call it the second-worst mass shooting recorded, all the others seem to be massacres (i.e. intention to kill a large homogenous group, not shoot and hope), if we want to get specific. Kingsif (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- On "There's no international angle", per WP:ITN/C, "Voicing an opinion on an item [...] Please do not... [...] oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." I've read a series of comments from Jim Mitchell about the lack of "importance" of this, and can't discern any operable standard that would apply here to preclude this -- while including any reasonable number of other ITN items at all -- short of ignoring reliable sources as being hopelessly biased, and ignoring what's in the news as playing any part in determining what appears as "In the News". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- You said mass shootings, you didn't limit it by perpetrator, but even if you do, how do you work out that Plymouth was only the third most deadly? In any case, being rare in its country doesn't make it important to most of our readers or to history. The international media report this prominently because of its rarity, not importance. We wouldn't post a fairly small earthquake due to it being rare in its location. Jim Michael (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well either you're being contrary or you don't understand what I'm saying, the IRA (etc) vs the Army aren't part of the thinking of the vox populi. Still, I'm not engaging here, it's a waste of my life. In the US, six dead from mass shooting happens almost every month. In the UK it happens perhaps once a decade. Next. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support. This incident was and is sufficiently important. This was the worst mass shooting in a decade in England (and indeed more broadly in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). The fact that similar shootings may take place in the USA much more often, or indeed in any other country, is irrelevant. The gun laws in England and Wales are much stronger than in almost any other jurisdiction. (NB the gun laws and their enforcement in Scotland are not identical, and in Northern Ireland a firearm including a handgun may be acquired on the grounds of personal protection). It was not a domestic incident – after killing his mother, the killer then used his shotgun in the streets outside his mother's home, to blast, kill or injure numerous others, each of them strangers, including a three-year-old girl and her father. The 22-year-old white blue-collar killer was a mentally disturbed individual who had had his shotgun licence removed after threatening two youths. After he completed an anger management course, Devon Police then returned to the killer both his shotgun licence and his shotgun. This was despite the fact that five years earlier, without provocation, the killer had assaulted a 25-year-old man and his pregnant girlfriend. According to news reports, the killer had also attacked and beaten up his father. The killer's mother had tried without success to get help for her mentally ill son from social services. The killer posted frequent tirades against women and referred to himself as an incel. Many commenters in the UK media, and UK politicians, have questioned the actions of Devon Police in returning the shotgun licence and the shotgun to a person who was mentally disturbed, and the subsequent decision by Devon Police to classify the mass murders as a single incident of domestic violence. 82.15.254.27 (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Probably oppose per TRM. But it is a tragic event. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Strong oppose shootings happen in the UK, as they do in every country, some more than others. However firearms offences aren't all that rare in the UK, this story is only different because there is no element of criminal underworld involvement or gang-warfare. Also I suggested this UK-based story a short while back which had far more long term wider implications and affected far more people both directly and indirectly and that was turned down as "local event" despite it being country-wide. This, whilst tragic, only affects no more than one neighbourhood in a fairly average city, with unlikely any long-term consequences; so lets be consistent. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- No, shootings in the UK are super-rare. Mass shootings even more so. Trying to equate a post-master story with the worst mass shooting in the UK in a decade is bizarre. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Nowhere near as rare as you claim. Yes, statistically given the population and size UK's gun violence rate is low, however there's shootings in urban areas like London, Glasgow, Manchester and Liverpool relatively regularly, nearly always gang related or organised crime related, and yes, it's usually targeted against a specific individual. But let's not pretend it doesn't happen at all. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- The claim was about the rarity of mass shootings, not of firearms deaths generally. It would clearly be fallacious to argue that if you wait a while they'll be six deaths in a particular city, so that's comparable to a mass shooting of six people, so I'm certain that's not what you're seeking to do. I can't improve on "bizarre" as a description of the comparison with that other article, and bringing up the lack of success of your own nomination is an especially poor look. Nor as 'turned down as "local event"' even accurate, that was one comment of a whole series of objections, including sustained newsworthiness even within the UK (clearly not applicable here), and specific concerns about the article. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Even then, I would guess the rate of gang shootings/single-person-target shootings/accidental shootings/basically any not-mass shooting in the UK is much lower than in even just Detroit or [insert Middle Eastern city for equity], let alone other areas of equivalent population to the country, enough to be described as rare in comparison to the world. Because guns are stupid easy to get hold of in many places, so random shootings are stupid common. Kingsif (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't have a direct comparison to offer framed in those terms for Detroit, but here's a handy sortable table at the country level. (On Middle Eastern cities, I think those are pretty variable: "actually at war" tends to have quite the effect on the stats. (Hi Iraq, Syria.)) But not far off, UK's per-cap gun-murder rate is about 1/20th of the US's (which alarmingly itself isn't even in the top dozen or so "not actually at war" countries). Not to be confused with the total murder rate, of course: there's always people willing to go that extra mile, if they really have to. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Even then, I would guess the rate of gang shootings/single-person-target shootings/accidental shootings/basically any not-mass shooting in the UK is much lower than in even just Detroit or [insert Middle Eastern city for equity], let alone other areas of equivalent population to the country, enough to be described as rare in comparison to the world. Because guns are stupid easy to get hold of in many places, so random shootings are stupid common. Kingsif (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- The claim was about the rarity of mass shootings, not of firearms deaths generally. It would clearly be fallacious to argue that if you wait a while they'll be six deaths in a particular city, so that's comparable to a mass shooting of six people, so I'm certain that's not what you're seeking to do. I can't improve on "bizarre" as a description of the comparison with that other article, and bringing up the lack of success of your own nomination is an especially poor look. Nor as 'turned down as "local event"' even accurate, that was one comment of a whole series of objections, including sustained newsworthiness even within the UK (clearly not applicable here), and specific concerns about the article. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Nowhere near as rare as you claim. Yes, statistically given the population and size UK's gun violence rate is low, however there's shootings in urban areas like London, Glasgow, Manchester and Liverpool relatively regularly, nearly always gang related or organised crime related, and yes, it's usually targeted against a specific individual. But let's not pretend it doesn't happen at all. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- No, shootings in the UK are super-rare. Mass shootings even more so. Trying to equate a post-master story with the worst mass shooting in the UK in a decade is bizarre. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Added alt now that new social media-firearm license guidance has been outlined. Kingsif (talk) 07:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose After not hearing anything about this before, and reading the article, I find that the motivation for posting is at odds with the article itself. The official response is that it's some sort of domestic issue, per the chief constable. This line is immediately followed by an WP:OR section (farmed out to Guardian and YouTube and Reddit) that ponders the societal consequences/causes of such action. Which is completely at odds with the perpetrator's choice of victims. Shortly, the stated reason for re-opening seems tangential at best to the statements of authorities and acts of the perpetrator. I'm sure I can dredge up some good conspiracies surrounding his defense-contractor employer and 5G; but it would be improper to put them in the article absent further authoritative comment.130.233.213.61 (talk) 08:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
RD: Una Stubbs
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by The Rambling Man (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Standard: career/filmography woefully under-referenced. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- At least the article is not a stub[bs]. --180.244.163.23 (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for your helpful comment. Could you give us a clue on how to improve it? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Absolute fucking A* major irony klaxon. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for reminding us all. Great to see ITN looking as vibrant as ever. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Absolute fucking A* major irony klaxon. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for your helpful comment. Could you give us a clue on how to improve it? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
August 11
August 11, 2021
(Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
(Posted) RD: David Levene
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NZ Times
Credits:
- Created by Paora (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Paora (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: This wikiarticle was created by User:Paora one day after the subject's death. --PFHLai (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support - Looks good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 02:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
August 10
August 10, 2021
(Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
(Posted) RD: Donald Kagan
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Yale University; The New York Times; Associated Press; New Haven Register
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 (August 10); died on August 6 —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- Looks READY for RD to me. --PFHLai (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 05:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Tommy Curtis
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Tallahassee Democrat, WTXML.com
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bagumba (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: College basketball player was a two-time national champion with UCLA. Per WP:RSBREAKING, death confirmed on this day after only one initial reporting on Aug 6. —Bagumba (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support Referenced, good depth of coverage. SpencerT•C 01:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 01:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Neal Conan
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times; NPR; USA Today
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by COScienceWriter07 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Bloom6132 (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Eduardo Martínez Somalo
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Vatican News
Credits:
- Nominated by Alsoriano97 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Bmclaughlin9 (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 camarlengo who led the Holy See for 17 days after the death of John Paul II and the election of Benedict XVI. The article is in good condition. Now I will finish improving some necessary retouching. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Nom. comment Article is fully sourced and ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Many of the refs appear to be WP:PRIMARY though. - Indefensible (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Even so, the Policy is still complied with. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Contributor comment. The primary sources policy says: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Though I can't be sure which citations triggered the objection above, the annual volumes of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, cited several times, are the official published record of the Holy See and require no interpretation. They allow us to cite specific dates the deceased got or changed jobs. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Weak support Wish there was a little more detail about his career than just positions and dates, but there are a few additional sentences. Meets minimum standards. SpencerT•C 15:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support meets the RD requirements JW 1961 Talk 21:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 10:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
(Closed) Lionel Messi joins PSG
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: Lionel Messi joins PSG on a two-year contract. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
- Oppose just like we opposed him leaving Barcelona a few days ago. We wouldn't post a transfer for any other sport. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Tony Esposito
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC, NHL, Chicago Tribune
Credits:
- Nominated by NorthernFalcon (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Discospinster (talk · give credit) and Teemu08 (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: Hockey Hall of Fame goaltender, one of the top 5 goaltenders of all time. Article is not good enough for the front page yet, but hopefully his passing will bring attention to the article and perhaps it will be ready in a day or so. NorthernFalcon (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment article is good to go now. NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support Good team effort, everyone. Didn't think this one would make it. Teemu08 (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support The article is worthy of such a great player now. Well done. --Jayron32 23:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
(Closed) Andrew Cuomo to resign
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: Following several allegations of sexual harassment, New York governor Andrew Cuomo (pictured) announces his resignation. (Post)
News source(s): UPI, NBC News
Credits:
- Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Support Was just about to nominate this myself. Currently featured on de.wiki as well. Question: Should the blurb mention the New York COVID-19 nursing home scandal as well as the sexual harassment scandal? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- He would never have resigned over the nursing homes alone so I think it would be misleading to include it.Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose He's a domestic politician and it's domestic affair. He leads a very populous state, but he is still a regional leader. Yes, he will resign because of a scandal that has echoed around the world, but is there anything exceptional? absolutely nothing. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- The last time any U.S. state governor resigned was over three years ago. This is pretty exceptional, and of all states, it's New Yawk, the one people have probably heard of outside the States. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Resignations are part of political normality, however shocking they may be. Also, honestly, I don't think Cuomo's is that unexpected. One question: if the mayor of Paris, Rome or Barcelona were involved, would he/she also have to be directly in the ITN because they are well-known cities? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'd support them being posted to ITN, personally. But I think it is also different when it's a sovereign state (which New York is) vs. a political subdivision under the control of a unitary Government. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 20:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Rockstone: I strongly advise you read the List of sovereign states, then hop over to check out the list of federated states because frankly you're just embarrassing yourself. Kingsif (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- I literally looked at that -- it backs up what I'm saying. Scotland is not a sovereign state, nor a member of a federation of sovereign states, so I don't know what your point is. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 21:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- I also don't know what your point is. I never said New York was a fully sovereign state, just that it is a sovereign state, which all members of any Federation are. The article is pretty clear on that. Maybe you should read it yourself. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 21:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Rockstone: I strongly advise you read the List of sovereign states, then hop over to check out the list of federated states because frankly you're just embarrassing yourself. Kingsif (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Resignations are part of political normality, however shocking they may be. Also, honestly, I don't think Cuomo's is that unexpected. One question: if the mayor of Paris, Rome or Barcelona were involved, would he/she also have to be directly in the ITN because they are well-known cities? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- The last time any U.S. state governor resigned was over three years ago. This is pretty exceptional, and of all states, it's New Yawk, the one people have probably heard of outside the States. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I never said New York was a fully sovereign state, just that it is a sovereign state
- time for bed?it backs up what I'm saying
No it really doesn't, maybe you should read them with this nom in mind. You keep throwing around that New York is a "sovereign state", and the article pretty clearly shows that no subdivisions are. I assume you're saying it's a federated state with sovereignty (you should say "autonomy" and/or specify not nation-state to prevent the confusion). And as the federation list shows, and what my point very obviously has been from the start, is that US states are no more special than hundreds if not thousands of other nations' states using the same system - and others not on that list with a non-federal system - so creating an ITN "exception" would not be an exception in the slightest and would certainly justify nominating any political mishap from, say, the island of Nevis. P.S. I don't know why you're harping on about Scotland/UK when I mentioned so many other examples but you cling to your one line of Westminster-devolution defense ;) Kingsif (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Autonomy and sovereignty are two different things. New York is both autonomous and sovereign. Scotland is autonomous, but not sovereign. Federated_state describes this concept in more detail. But I think we are also arguing semantics -- i.e. there are two different definitions of what it means to be a sovereign state; New York fits one definition, but not the other. Anyway, I'm perfectly fine with events from the Island of Nevis being in ITN. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 22:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- I just got the weirdest deja vu (of something else, not this thread), but, note about Nevis taken, let's agree that New York isn't an actual sovereign state by UN definitions, that Scotland needs to gain independence just to make this thread funnier, and that if you would support every New York-equivalent-'state' story being posted then I have nothing more to offer. I think it sets an awful standard but if you would stick by it no matter where, you do you. Kingsif (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough -- I agree. Under the UN's definition, New York isn't a fully sovereign state, and this whole thing is semantics. :-) And yes, Scotland (and Northern Ireland) should gain independence. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 22:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Local politician leaves because he was a jerk to women. Pretty much not the sort of thing ITN covers, even if it is New York.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support Describing the governor of the fourth most populous state in the US as a "local politician" rather downplays the significance of this story. It has received international coverage, as Masem notes - it's on the front page of bbc.co.uk.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Good riddance, but ultimately local/regional news, even if the locale/region is itself important. I would say the same thing about the California recall business, regardless of its outcome. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. He will be replaced by another Democrat, the state legislature hasn't changed, and there is another election in a year which he probably wouldn't have run in. The actual impact here is minimal. Resigning from Congress has more of a ripple effect, and we still don't post those. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose local politician resigns after being a dick. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per longstanding consensus that we eschew sub-national political news in all but the rarest cases. This is a run of the mill scandal that brought down a prominent state governor. Big deal. Are we going to start posting provincial scandals with regularity? If not, then I see no reason for this beyond the usual US centric bias. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Question It seems that we routinely reject state political news as being too local/parochial, and not of interest to the world as a whole. But perhaps the fact that it is featured on dewiki means that people around the world do care about what's going on in the US, and we shouldn't have a knee-jerk WP:RGW reaction whenever state news is nominated? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- I believe the answer to that (which I personally agree with to an extent) is that we are here to post stuff that's in the news and encyclopedic; that's why we'll likely post the ISS docking when it happens and not the Bezos-Branson flights even though the latter were far more in the news. Cuomo's fall might be in the news right now but is neither completely unprecedented nor will it likely have any lasting impact; furthermore, if we start doing US subnational politics we'll probably have to start doing the subnational politics of other countries like China and India, which would be a mess. Also, this isn't the first time enwiki has chosen to be more selective than our peers; we refused to post a country's censorship of Wikipedia even though frwiki(?) and a couple of other sister projects did. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:56, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. Relatively minor in the grand scheme of things. — Amakuru (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nominator Masem and Pawnkingthree. Jusdafax (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose There could be the argument than unlike other "regional politician does scummy thing" stories, Cuomo has some international prominence. But that only flies if what he is doing is equally remarkable compared to lesser peers. Unless it brings major political downfall, sexual harassment stories are nothingburgers, and I'm pretty sure even then, the downfall is the story. Resigning as NY governor isn't such a downfall IMO. Kingsif (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC) Let's put it this way: when Boris Johnson inevitably resigns due to sex scandal, I will oppose posting that. His replacement as PM will, as ITN/R, probably be posted. So I'd certainly oppose
Nicola SturgeonOmar Prieto doing it. It's basically celebrity gossip. Kingsif (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC) - Oppose. I don't think this rises to the level of prominence needed to post a subnational leader's job status. 331dot (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support in principle (despite being subnational this is an abnormally prominent news story), but recommend waiting until the guy actually resigns in two weeks. osunpokeh (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Local news, no international significance Abcmaxx (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Abcmaxx International significance is not required, if it were, very little would be posted. 331dot (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Question I'm wondering where the guidelines stipulate "international significance" and what the significance is of a Belarusian sprinter fleeing to Poland --LaserLegs (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ms. Tsimanouskaya has become an international poster child(2) for political struggle against Eastern Europe's last repressive autocratic regime. – Sca (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- There is a whole section of the criteria for "significance", which is generally held to mean international (or at least non-parochial) significance. As for the Tsimanouskaya business, it is internationally significant in that it shows the antics of the Lukashenko regime during the Olympics; although New York is (probably the City alone, definitely the State) more objectively important than the entirety of Belarus, subnational entities are held to a boatload-higher standards if their stories are to be posted at all. Allowing subnational politics on ITN opens the door to potentially thousands of gubernatorial and mayoral elections being nominated, which even if shot down would be a timesink for ITN participants, and it's almost guaranteed that there will be a US/UK bias in such nominations that would exacerbate pre-existing systemic biases. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- So I looked into that section. It lists as an argument which is not helpful "Arguments addressing how many international newspapers/news channels are or are not covering the story". We have a whole "Please do not" above stating "oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country" so in fact it seems that not only is there no "international significance" requirement but it's actively discouraged and oppose !votes based on that criteria should be ignored. In fact, evaluating consensus in that way I'm considering marking this as ready. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- This isn't even affecting the whole United States, it's affecting just a single state, and fairly strong historic precedent has been to not post subnational politics. Since none of this counts as Wikipedia policy or even guideline, !votes cannot generally be discarded and pure numbers matter quite a bit more here than at stuff like AfD; given that the opposes outnumber the supports almost 2:1, no admin in his/her/etc. right mind would post this at the moment. You can mark it if you'd like, just know that the tag will be quickly removed. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose – Parochial politix. Lacks general significance. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- PS: Sexual harassment in the workplace is nothing new. – Sca (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment -- I feel like semi-sovereign states (such as US states, or Canadian provinces) should be treated differently than unitary local Governments. Therefore, I Support this nom. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 19:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Huh? Many other countries' top-level regional divisions are
much morejust as autonomous than US states and Canadian provinces.The UK is literally four distinct countries. India, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy and to an extent France and Germany, have state-equivalents that are so different they have their own languages. Australia's are separated by a giant desert.Do you want to get noms every time Sardinia's leadership screws up? Kingsif (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- That's it... _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Huh? Many other countries' top-level regional divisions are
Semantics
|
---|
|
- Oppose local news. Banedon (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Banedon, #Please do not...
oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.
You've been told this over and over. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)- Muboshgu Why are you telling me this instead of all the other people above who are opposing because it's local news? Citing the "please do not" is also silly becaues it just encourages people to switch to the effectively-equivalent-but-not-complained-about "doesn't see enough global news coverage". Besides, "local news" does not mean it relates to a single country, because in this case it relates to a single state in a country with fifty of them. Banedon (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Banedon, #Please do not...
- Support He was the mayor of the most important city in the world. I support this and so should everyone 212.74.201.233 (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- You're referring to de Blasio; Cuomo was (is, for the next two weeks) the governor. Whether we would blurb the death of Rudy Giuliani is one thing, but subnational politics has no place on here and I'm surprised that this discussion has gone on for so long. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- In this hypothetical, how's Giuliani dying? Kingsif (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Peacefully in his sleep surrounded by family members. I was talking about the "autoblurbs" that former POTUSes and UKPMs get, whether that applies to mayors of huge cities; I don't recall whether we blurbed David Dinkins. Or you could imagine he has a glorious suicide on the 9/11 anniversary if that's what you'd prefer. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'd only blurb it if it involved flamingos somehow. Kingsif (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Peacefully in his sleep surrounded by family members. I was talking about the "autoblurbs" that former POTUSes and UKPMs get, whether that applies to mayors of huge cities; I don't recall whether we blurbed David Dinkins. Or you could imagine he has a glorious suicide on the 9/11 anniversary if that's what you'd prefer. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- In this hypothetical, how's Giuliani dying? Kingsif (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Well, he wasn't. Not that it's a good reason to post. Kingsif (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose local politics story. I wouldn't support a similar item about the resignation of the Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh, whose population is higher than that of New York, so I don't see a good reason to support this nomination. Chrisclear (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Pointed then that you would phrase it that way, as clearly you accept that New York State is substantially more significant than Chhattisgarh. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Cuomo resignation cannot be posted until his resignation takes effect. It is more like WP:CRYSTAL for me because we cannot predict the event and unexpected event can be happened. 36.69.55.6 (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Seems to lack any real significance beyond Cuomo himself. This isn't really going to weigh on the lives of New Yorkers, or change the course of government in the state. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment This should be closed now. The result is more than evident and it's dragging on too long, giving rise to unnecessary debates. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed. Marked needs attn. (And BTW, U.S. states aren't sovereign in the normal sense of the term.) – Sca (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have to say that I totally agree with you on that issue. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- You mean fun debates, right? ;) I feel like I should set up a sub-talkpage to reroute them, but could I make it semi-sovereign, you know? Kingsif (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well...it's a good idea as long as you keep an eye out for movements that demand full sovereignty and mess things up!. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Domestic event + sexual harassment in the workplace (which sadly isn't new) . --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose, as others have said political resignations are quite common, and at the sub-national level they carry very little weight. There's nothing particularly special about Cuomo's troubles anyway.
5225C (talk • contributions) 23:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Naga Thein Hlaing
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC Burmese, RFA Burmese, VOA Burmese
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Htanaungg (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.
Htanaungg (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Just a non-notable surgeon who did some non-notable stuff. Pyramids09 (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Pyramids09, per the small print in the box above, anyone with an existing article is considered notable for Recent Deaths (RD) we should only discuss if the quality of the article is sufficient for it to be posted on the main page JW 1961 Talk 21:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- He didn't have an existing article - it was created today. It's perfectly reasonable to question notability in that case (though the lack of a prior article is not itself a reason to question notability). GreatCaesarsGhost 21:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- The citing sources in the article are from BBC, VOA, RFA, The Irrawaddy, and The Myanmar Times; I have no idea why you are talking about the notability. It clearly passes GNG. Htanaungg (talk) 05:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- A non-Burmese speaker would, upon review the article and its citations, be unable to verify notability for themselves. I don't know that the citing sources are about the target or address him in a non-trivial way. Please note I'm neither opposing nor nominating the article for deletion, merely suggesting it's appropriate to have those discussions here. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- The citing sources in the article are from BBC, VOA, RFA, The Irrawaddy, and The Myanmar Times; I have no idea why you are talking about the notability. It clearly passes GNG. Htanaungg (talk) 05:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- He didn't have an existing article - it was created today. It's perfectly reasonable to question notability in that case (though the lack of a prior article is not itself a reason to question notability). GreatCaesarsGhost 21:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support Just about long enough for RD, but it has plenty of sources of which I could only check 2 (in English), AGF on the Burmese sources JW 1961 Talk 21:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- The article does not seem to indicate why this person is notable, and I'm unable to verify if the coverage cited passes WP:GNG. Perhaps the OP could advise on this? GreatCaesarsGhost 21:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- GreatCaesarsGhost I'm so pity you 😢. Taung Tan (talk) 05:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- You pity me for not speaking Burmese? Uh, okay. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support He has been regarded as the "god of Nagaland" per BBC source. A highly respected surgeon of the nation. How much do you need? Taung Tan (talk) 05:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- $500,000 and a Lamborghini would be a start. I shan't be too lavish. WaltCip-(talk) 12:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support - article seems to meet requirements assuming the refs which appear to be mostly in Burmese are reliable sources. - Indefensible (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 09:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support Article is well-cited and more than a stub. 504 words per DYK tool. That's to say, it is fine for ITN/RD. ─ The Aafī (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Posted AGFing non-English refs. --PFHLai (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
(Closed) Ongoing: Climate Change
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press, Reuters, The Guardian, The New York Times, BBC, ABC
Credits:
- Nominated by JMonkey2006 (talk · give credit)
- Oppose Covered by Blurb. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support once the blurb rolls off. Climate change certainly is ongoing, is regularly in the news, and the target article (or one of the myriad of "sub-articles") is getting regular updates. Seems to tick the boxes. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- 2021 in climate change? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Say goodbye to all standalone natural disaster blurbs, if and while you guys win, excepting possibly earthquakes. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose covered by blurb, and interest will roll off right around when the blurb will as well. Indeed, this very nomination initially struck me as ridiculous; climate change has been going on, and will continue to go on, for a century, and we don't post uber-chronic crises like the inexorably rising entropy leading to the heat death of the universe even though that is also of note. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- More like 4.6 billion years. - Floydian τ ¢ 02:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Not even counting the mystery winds that blew us together in the first place, whenever the hell they started picking up... InedibleHulk (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- More like 4.6 billion years. - Floydian τ ¢ 02:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Unlike COVID which there was clear, active worldwide participation to fight it on a daily basis, warnings about climate change have rung for years with little momentum to make them an everyday ITN topic, which is what ongoing is meant for. --Masem (t) 02:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose The blurb is already covered. 36.69.55.6 (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose this would be like adding Expansion of the universe to ongoing. It's certainly ongoing, but it's not something that makes the news every day, and any actions taken would only have delayed impact. Banedon (talk) 02:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
August 9
August 9, 2021
(Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
RD: Cameron Burrell
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Houston Chronicle
Credits:
- Nominated by FlyingAce (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American athlete. No cause of death given yet. –FlyingAce✈hello 20:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comments: Several unreferenced paragraphs. SpencerT•C 15:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comments: I've added a few refs and tagged a few sentences with {cn}. I find it a little odd that there is no mention of his long jumping. His profile at UH Track & Field has more materials to prosify and add to his wikibio, if anyone is interested in improving the coverage there. --PFHLai (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Rand Araskog
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): WSJ
Credits:
- Nominated by Ktin (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American businessperson. Article is currently a stub and will need significant work before it is ready for homepage / RD. I will get to it. In case someone wants to go for it before me, please feel free to do so. Thanks. Edits done. Article meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC) Ktin (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Close, but needs some copyediting (and perhaps some additional detail if available). Phrases like "He spent the early years building the group's telecom business and developed the System 12 a digital routing and switching solution for telecom companies" seem promotional (what exactly is a "solution for telecom companies"? The link also leads to a disambiguation page). "Dismantling the conglomerate from multiple businesses" is also a little unclear-- were various entities sold? Spun off as separate companies? "Dismantling" seems to parrot from the WSJ obit title without explaining what this actually means. SpencerT•C 13:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Fixed dismantling. Substituted it with divesting, which is it what it really was. Eg. Sheraton Hotels sold to Starwood Hotels and Resorts. Fixed the disambiguation for System 12 - a telephone exchange system. Hopefully not too promotional. If there are any additional edits that are required, I can get to it later tonight.Ktin (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support. SpencerT•C 19:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Fixed dismantling. Substituted it with divesting, which is it what it really was. Eg. Sheraton Hotels sold to Starwood Hotels and Resorts. Fixed the disambiguation for System 12 - a telephone exchange system. Hopefully not too promotional. If there are any additional edits that are required, I can get to it later tonight.Ktin (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Ktin: do you have the link to the Bloomberg ref? Seems broken on the article. - Indefensible (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Will check this evening. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Done. Replaced the Bloomberg link with a different one. For some reason it was pointing to a robots page. Thanks for the catch. Ktin (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Will check this evening. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Better refs are needed for info on his father, ITT's problems with politicians, and his various awards (French Légion d'Honneur, Order of Merit of the Italian Republic, Order of Bernardo O'Higgins, ...) Perhaps these sentences should be removed if better refs are unavailable. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hi PFHLai. Many thanks. All of the information on father and ITT international relations are from the WSJ obituary. The awards were pointing to a deadlink which I restored from archive.org Hope that's good. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- Posted. Thanks for the new footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Lester Bird
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [5]
Credits:
- Nominated by LukeSurl (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Pachu Kannan (talk · give credit) and Mohamad Darilin (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: Former Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda LukeSurl t c 12:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support Political career section could possibly use a sub-header or two but otherwise has appropriate depth of coverage and is referenced. SpencerT•C 12:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Olivia Podmore
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Stuff, NZ Herald]
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Joseph2302 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Lcmortensen (talk · give credit) and MurielMary (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 expansion Joseph2302 (talk) 10:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support per all the expansion work that has been done today. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Posted --PFHLai (talk) 10:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
RD: Bob Jenkins
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): IndyStar
Credits:
- Nominated by Rawmustard (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: IndyCar and NASCAR lap-by-lap announcer. There's several things needing citations. rawmustard (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose a huge portion of the article is uncited. Well if that is addressed.... ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- More refs are needed, please. Quite a few paragraphs are footnote-less. --PFHLai (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
(Posted) IPCC say global warming can be stopped
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: The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report says that, if greenhouse gas emissions are halved by 2030 and net zero by 2050, global warming can be stopped. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report says that if immediate action is taken to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and achieve net zero by 2050, climate change can be halted.
Alternative blurb II: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change releases the first part of their Sixth Assessment Report, arguing that greenhouse gas emissions must be halved by 2030.
Alternative blurb III: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change releases the first part of their Sixth Assessment Report, saying that quickly cutting methane emissions would help limit climate change.
Alternative blurb IV: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change releases the first part of their Sixth Assessment Report, saying that the world is at its hottest for
Alternative blurb V: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change releases the first part of their Sixth Assessment Report, saying that the world is at its hottest for
Alternative blurb VI: The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report finds that global warming can stop intensifying at x°C if net greenhouse gas emissions are halved by 2030 and reach zero by 2050.
News source(s): BBC, AP, Reuters, dpa, WaPo, LA Times, NYT
Credits:
- Nominated by Chidgk1 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Comment. Without actually opposing this, this is just a report detailing a possible outcome if certain things occur; sounds like a lot of WP:CRYSTAL to me. Lots of groups have predictions or projections related to climate change, why should this one be given more weight? 331dot (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- good question - answer is because it is a consensus and has been approved by governments Chidgk1 (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Governments do not have to approve UN reports; this is a consensus of those writing the report. There are many reports and predictions out there. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- You are right there are many reports - but for climate change the IPCC ones are by far the most important. The governments approve the summary of each report. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- 331dot now that alternative blurbs have been suggested which are not projections can you support any of them? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- You are right there are many reports - but for climate change the IPCC ones are by far the most important. The governments approve the summary of each report. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Governments do not have to approve UN reports; this is a consensus of those writing the report. There are many reports and predictions out there. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- good question - answer is because it is a consensus and has been approved by governments Chidgk1 (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose looks more like a WP:CRYSTAL prediction for me, which the event either can be happen or not happen. 36.69.55.6 (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am sure there are lots of possible blurbs - I just fancied an optimistic one - please suggest alt blurbs - thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- It's going to happen. WaltCip-(talk) 10:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Strong support - this is a major report, already top of news broadcasts in Europe (understandable, perhaps, given Wildfires in southern Turkey and Greece, recent flooding across Germany and Belgium, etc.) However, I would reformulate the proposed headline, which IMO misses the point, namely that major actions are needed in the next two years or we will not be able to stop climate change. (And it's climate change rather than global warming). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have not managed to download it yet so I am not sure it does say we can stop climate change. But everyone please suggest alternative blurbs. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality article is a stub. If it's that important to be ITN-worthy, there must be much more that can be said about it. Rather than the one line of text suggested for this blurb. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am sure a lot more will be added over the course of the week once the IPCC website manages to cope with the load of people downloading the report. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have added more so have rerated "start class" Chidgk1 (talk) 10:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Joseph2302 Now someone else has improved my version can you support one or more blurbs? If not is there another improvement I can make?Chidgk1 (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have added more so have rerated "start class" Chidgk1 (talk) 10:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am sure a lot more will be added over the course of the week once the IPCC website manages to cope with the load of people downloading the report. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'd propose an alternative blurb, somewhat like: The IPCC releases its Sixth Assessment Report, urging the nations to halve the greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. --Tone 09:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am sure any blurb you guys agree is fine by me. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that, or we'll end up with just "The IPCC releases its Sixth Assessment Report" without any details. WaltCip-(talk) 11:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I retract - I too now see the flaw in altblurb2 so do not support that one. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that, or we'll end up with just "The IPCC releases its Sixth Assessment Report" without any details. WaltCip-(talk) 11:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I am sure any blurb you guys agree is fine by me. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support Tone's blurb or something along those lines. Make no mistake that this is of incommensurable importance.--WaltCip-(talk) 10:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- And as per below, I'll get behind altblurb2 at this point. WaltCip-(talk) 12:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support
in principle, wait for article content.The article is extremely short and needs at least a couple of paragraphs on what the report actually says.The blurb should be short and neutral - I've added alt2. Modest Genius talk 11:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Now have 2 paras on report content - hope that is enough to start with - expansion continues. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Much better now, striking my length concerns. Modest Genius talk 15:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Alt2 looks good to me, better than my own one. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Now have 2 paras on report content - hope that is enough to start with - expansion continues. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment – Monday's lead story on most Eng.-lang. RS sites. – Sca (talk) 12:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support either of the first blurbs. The last one is at odds with the role of the IPCC: they don't advice on policy, just on science. They don't argue it must be halved by 2030, but that halving it is in line with internationally agreed warming targets. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Obviously she means she does not support altblurb2 as I have now added a new last one. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Given the infrequencies of the IPCCs, I would support posting something about it, but I disgree with the blurb's focus on future action since this has been a message of all prior IPCCs for the most part. I would instead focus on actual findings, such as the average global temperature rsing ~1 degC higher in the last decade. --Masem (t) 13:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Don't you find that a bit depressing, whereas actions are more likely to cheer readers? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- As others have pointed out, the current blurbs focus on CRYSTAL factors, whereas ITN tends to be grounded in what actually happened. Yes, its more depressing, but its also what is been proven true. Again, I support posting something about IPCC as each iteration has been important. Now, that said, you can work in something like both. "The 6th IPCC reports that the Earth's average global temperature rose 1 degC in the last decade, but asserts climate change can still be halted." --Masem (t) 13:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- OK have added another alt - that is probably enough from me Chidgk1 (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oh maybe passed blurb limit or I did something wrong as not showing up - anyway you can see by source editing.Chidgk1 (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- OK have added another alt - that is probably enough from me Chidgk1 (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- As others have pointed out, the current blurbs focus on CRYSTAL factors, whereas ITN tends to be grounded in what actually happened. Yes, its more depressing, but its also what is been proven true. Again, I support posting something about IPCC as each iteration has been important. Now, that said, you can work in something like both. "The 6th IPCC reports that the Earth's average global temperature rose 1 degC in the last decade, but asserts climate change can still be halted." --Masem (t) 13:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Don't you find that a bit depressing, whereas actions are more likely to cheer readers? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support the original blurb most, but support any blurb except altblurb2 Chidgk1 (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- If you're going to put it can be stopped on shouldn't it be worded to make clear that you're still stuck at whatever level it eventually stops at (somewhat above the 2050 level) and it'll take thousands of years to reverse back to normal? Unless the carbon already released is removed by something that doesn't seem to be inventable any time soon or you wait a few thousand years for it to go from air to carbonate seafloor rocks. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have probably suggested enough blurbs - feel free to suggest one yourself or support one or moreChidgk1 (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report finds that global warming can stop intensifying at 2 (1.5?)°C if net greenhouse gas emissions are halved by 2030 and reach zero by 2050.? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have probably suggested enough blurbs - feel free to suggest one yourself or support one or moreChidgk1 (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support-- I am strongly opposed to altblurb2 -- there is no argument to be had here -- its the global consensus, we should be focused on the action required. Sadads (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- What should be isn't a criterion for news value or impact. We're not crusaders here. – Sca (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support, the release of the report itself is global, headline news. The article may just about be passable now. I don't think we need analysis in the blurb: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change releases the first part of their Sixth Assessment Report would be adequate by itself. Alternatively The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change releases the first part of their Sixth Assessment Report detailing the current state of global warming and projections of its future development. --LukeSurl t c 14:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- WP:CRYSTAL cautions against making predictions of the future in articles, it does not prohibit discussing notable predictions so long as they are clearly discussed in context - which the target article here clearly does. --LukeSurl t c 14:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL; also, some (though admittedly not all) supports are RGWy, contrary to our purpose and spirit as encyclopedic. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support – On significance. Suggest Alt5: "The Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC declares that Earth is the hottest it's been in 125,000 years." – Sca (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose as WP:CRYSTAL with elements of WP:RGW. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support This report is in the news, that's not CRYSTAL. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think the disagreement is about the report's issuance itself. That's clearly in the news. Its just the focus of the blurb on what is definitely a CRYSTAL prediction, which really doesn't work as ITN items based on past nominations. Just having a blurb that issues a statement of the situation tied to the IPCC is sufficient to avoid this problem and cover the story. The article on the 6th IPCC obviously can talk to this prediction, just that it doesn't work well for ITN blurbs. --Masem (t) 14:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Masem, when top climate scientists issue a report like this, I don't interpret anything that they say as CRYSTAL. I take it as foreknowledge. Posted hook is fine by me. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I agree the hook is a good compromise, but the issue is that we still need to be careful on putting too much weight on forward-thinking steps. Someone brought up RGW and that along with the "if" nature of the statement makes any blurb that said , to an extent "if we took steps now, we can stop climate change" as a bit of scaremongering, which is a bit beyond neutral for ITN. However, a neutral assessment was found with the blurb, noting the changes and that actions to prevent further change have been proposed. --Masem (t) 16:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Masem, when top climate scientists issue a report like this, I don't interpret anything that they say as CRYSTAL. I take it as foreknowledge. Posted hook is fine by me. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think the disagreement is about the report's issuance itself. That's clearly in the news. Its just the focus of the blurb on what is definitely a CRYSTAL prediction, which really doesn't work as ITN items based on past nominations. Just having a blurb that issues a statement of the situation tied to the IPCC is sufficient to avoid this problem and cover the story. The article on the 6th IPCC obviously can talk to this prediction, just that it doesn't work well for ITN blurbs. --Masem (t) 14:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- FWIW, the data for the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) is released under a CC license, just not the figures themselves - data is located here [6]. Figure SPM.1(b) is the nice telling image of showing the effect of anthropogenic change on temperature and likely could be recreated to use as a figure/image here. --Masem (t) 14:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think a graph makes a good image, both for readability purposes as well as simply because data doesn't belong as an image on the Main page (except maybe for DYK). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Unbelievable - I can't understand the argument that this is WP:CRYSTAL. These are scientists who have made this their life's work and have come out and said, with all credentials and conviction behind them, that this is what is going to happen. What are you waiting for? Someone to take out a thermometer 10 years from now and say "yep, it got 1.5 degrees hotter"?--WaltCip-(talk) 15:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed. The report is what it is. Whether anyone here agrees with it is totally irrelevant. It's majorly in the news and should go into the box pronto. Period. – Sca (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, this is nothing to do with WP:CRYSTAL. For a start, much of the report is organising and synthesising measurements that have already been made. The modelling work is explicitly clear on the range of possible outcomes and where the uncertainties lie. This isn't speculation about the future, it's the most authoritative statement for 8 years (since the previous IPCC report) on what is currently known about climate change . Modest Genius talk 16:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment The Czechs have gone for a long one:
Mezivládní panel pro změnu klimatu vydal první část své nové hodnotící zprávy. Uvádí v ní, že lidská činnost prokazatelně způsobila nárůst teploty na Zemi a vedla k menší stabilitě celé planety.
which apparently means:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has issued the first part of its new assessment report, which states that human activity has demonstrably caused an increase in temperature on Earth and destabilised the entire planet. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support, but I find the blurb misleading. I read the news differently than what the blurb suggests. We cannot avoid global warming, it's too late for that. What is possible is to avoid truly catastrophic climate change if we are able to cut CO2 emissions as mentioned in the blurb. See here: "The new report also makes clear that the warming we've experienced to date has made changes to many of our planetary support systems that are irreversible on timescales of centuries to millennia. The oceans will continue to warm and become more acidic. Mountain and polar glaciers will continue melting for decades or centuries. "The consequences will continue to get worse for every bit of warming," said Prof Hawkins. "And for many of these consequences, there's no going back."" So, it's like the case of a patient who ignored doctor's advice to stay healthy for too long and now has to undergo quite intrusive medical procedures just to save his life. So, the best prognosis for the patient assuming successful medical treatment is that at he'll survive but in a poorer health condition. Count Iblis (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Strong support blurb, Alternative blurb or Alternative blurb II--PJ Geest (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Posted There appears to be strong consensus for posting this; all of the proposed blurbs, however, seemed rather unencyclopedic for the Main page so I decided to go with one that was more generic, neutral, and hopefully not placing any undue weight on certain sections/findings. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- @John M Wolfson: Good call. I'm happy with the posted blurb. Modest Genius talk 16:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I feel the blurb somewhat misrepresents the report, as this report has been very clear in not framing climate change as a future event but as a current event. We can simplify as "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change releases the first part of its Sixth Assessment Report, detailing the state of knowledge of climate change and describing its effects." FemkeMilene (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- @John M Wolfson: Good call. I'm happy with the posted blurb. Modest Genius talk 16:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Post-posting comment – The blurb strikes me as rather complex. Suggest we shorten and simplify, perhaps as:
- "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change releases the first part of its Sixth Assessment Report, detailing the state of climate change and describing its possible future effects."
– Sca (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support Alternative blurb IV, with a typo correction (change "for" to "in"). Alternative II implies that the IPCC is an advocacy organization. Alternative III gives undue weight to methane rather than carbon dioxide. The main blurb and Alternative I say that climate change can be stopped, which is technically correct but probably misleading for the general reader since we are definitely going to get at another approximately .4 degrees of warming. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Do you think blurb IV is better than the currently posted one about possible future effects / the proposed simplification(s). FemkeMilene (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think the current blurb is fine as is, which is why I refused to post any of the originally-propsed blurbs. Alt IV gives undue weight to a specific finding and is borderline alarmist. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I think the current blurb is mostly fine and I do understand that other blurbs may have been unduely highlighting some of the findings. This is sort of what the current blurb does too, by only highlighting possible future effect rather than current effects and known future effects. Why not simplify to 'effects'? FemkeMilene (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oh sorry, I didn't notice that something had already been posted. The current blurb looks great, better than Alt IV. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Post-posting oppose The complete lack of agreement on what blurb should be used demonstrates the reason why this shouldn't be blurbed. A semi-regular report was released. It doesn't tell us anything new, and doesn't suggest anything new that will happen in the future. For one brief glorious moment, a bunch of academics got a boost to their publication stats. Everyone else will see what they want to see for a day, and move on. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Have you noticed whether it's in the NEWS? – Sca (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- IPCC reports are rare, the top of the field on climate reports and state of the art, they have to be posted, even if no one can agree on a blurb and it has to default to "the report was released". Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment So the blurb is essentially a panel on climate change releases a report on climate change. Great work everyone. Stephen 22:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, the final result was a very milquetoast blurb. I'm not very pleased with it. We could have gone with a blurb that succinctly summarized the report and its findings, and that would have been damn well interesting for readers. But Wikipedia is allergic to such bold machinations in the fear that it may fly in the face of WP:NPOV, WP:RGW, WP:NOTADVOCACY, etc.. So we're left with something that basically leaves the average reader questioning what the heck is newsworthy about some stuffy folks in labcoats writing a report about the weather. WaltCip-(talk) 22:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- You're damn right, and especially with such a controversial/politically fraught topic I highly doubt anything else would have flown, certainly none of seven(!) originally proposed. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Only controversial in my country full of flat Earthers, Fauci haters, graphene oxide/microscopic tracking chip COVID vaccineists, moon hoaxers, 9/11 truthers, Jewish space lasers and other conspiracy theorists. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Don't forget Canadian brainwave meddling, "we" invented Global Research (the website, not the discipline or way of life). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- The existence of climate change is not (genuinely) controversial, but nor was it revealed by the report. It is policy recommendations and specific numbers that become inherently political, and thus ultimately toxic and controversial. Without any comments on the recommendations themselves, stuff like "global warming can be stopped if we cut emissions X percent by year Y" has absolutely no place on the front page of the world's greatest encyclopedia. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Only controversial in my country full of flat Earthers, Fauci haters, graphene oxide/microscopic tracking chip COVID vaccineists, moon hoaxers, 9/11 truthers, Jewish space lasers and other conspiracy theorists. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Post-posting oppose WP:CRYSTAL . Given how politically engaged climate science has become in the West, I wouldn't trust this report either. 212.74.201.233 (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Your last three !votes on ITN have all been WP:NOTFORUM violations. Stop it. WaltCip-(talk) 00:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I mean, the blurb just says the report was published, that's already happened. Your crystal ball work in reverse? On to the reason: wow, you have no idea what you're on about, do you? If this particular group of scientists can't be trusted then the moon could be made of cheese. There's skepticism and then there's choosing to push anything that goes against status quo, and you're doing the latter: look at the sources about news rather than blanket oppose because you personally don't like the subject the news deals with. Kingsif (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Post-posting support* This has continued to be widely covered in the media. There is no need to remove it. JMonkey2006 (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Any further discussion on "the matter" should go to the Ongoing proposal. - That's somewhat disingenuous considering that the Ongoing proposal has now been closed as WP:SNOW.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:53, 10 August 2021 (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: