Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TartarTorte (talk | contribs) at 20:07, 29 January 2024 (Undid revision 1200566878 by TartarTorte (talk); Remove this and revert article. Sources aren't enough to properly establish death and article per WP:BLP probably shouldn't use them either). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Tropical Storm Trami on 21 October
Tropical Storm Trami

Glossary

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

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

Nomination steps

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

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

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

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

Voicing an opinion on an item

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

Please do...

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

Please do not...

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

Suggesting updates

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

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

Archives

January 29

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology


Kamila Valieva ruling

Article: Kamila Valieva (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Court of Arbitration for Sport rules that Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva violated anti-doping rules, banning her from competition until December 2025 and stripping her of medals won since December 2021, including at the 2022 Winter Olympics. (Post)
News source(s): NPR
Credits:

Big international news in the world of figure skating. Probably means that the USA wins the team competition now. Natg 19 (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Jimy Williams

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

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

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

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

RD: Arne Hegerfors

Article: Arne Hegerfors (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [1], [2]
Credits:

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

15:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Icon of the Seas

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

Article updated

It's getting coverage because of its size and its use of LNG as fuel. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support - Per @Maplestrip. Interesting encyclopedic entry. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose indistinguishable from advertising. 217.180.228.138 (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I'm not in favor of giant cruise ships either but I do think it's interesting news and it does have some innovative technology. News doesn't have to be good to still be news. Because of this ship we're finally starting to get some debate on the merits of having these monstrosities roaming the oceans. I didn't know, for example, that Venice, Amsterdam, and Barcelona are closing cruise terminals and starting to restrict how many visitors can debark at a time. Others have argued that bigger ships seem to arrive every couple of years. It seems that way because the recent expansion of the Panama Canal made these bigger ships possible. Now that Icon of the Seas has gone into service they can't get much bigger, so we will see the pace of these new arrivals start to slow down. It's possible that Icon will be the biggest cruise ship for a while. GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose per Masem. Only the largest cruise ship as of 2024. Reading List of largest cruise ships it looks like every couple of years Royal Caribbean International debuts a bigger and bigger ship. Before Icon of the Seas, the #1 largest was Wonder of the Seas, also a Royal Caribbean ship, which unveiled in 2022. Before Wonder of the Seas, the #1 largest was Symphony of the Seas, also a Royal Caribbean ship, which unveiled in 2018. And before Symphony of the Seas, the #1 largest was Harmony of the Seas, also a Royal Caribbean ship, which unveiled in 2016. Not to say that posting something every few years is too frequent, just that this particular record doesn't seem to be too notable. Always having another "brand new largest cruise ship in the world" seems to be the gimmick of one particular company.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 15:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Prior to the Icon of the Seas the preceding five largest cruise ships were Oasis-class cruise ships which debuted in 2009 with the Oasis of the Seas. Icon of the Seas is the first Icon-class cruise ship. Next Icon class ship Star of the Seas is coming in 2025 and the third (as yet unnamed) in 2026. Probably the last Oasis class ship Utopia of the Seas debuts later this year. When looking at from the new largest cruise ship class point of view, it has been 15 years between Oasis and Icon classes and that is the reason for excitement and news coverage. IlkkaP (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Vanilla Wizard, mostly a commercial gimmick. Adding that Star of the Seas from the same class is expected to beat this record (at least in gross tonnage) when entering service next year. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 15:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above, this record is continuously broken every few years. More of a marketing gimmick at this point. The Kip 16:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Not of encyclopedic interest. Duly signed, WaltClipper -(talk) 18:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Just another cruise ship which is a bit bigger than the last one. Sourcing is mostly news sites using press releases. Lots of greenspin re LNG. Let RCI pay for their own advertising Lyndaship (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Tower 22 drone strike

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


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

Evergrande Group

Article: Evergrande Group (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Evergrande Group, formerly China's largest real estate firm, has been ordered to liquidate. (Post)
News source(s): https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/28/business/china-evergrande.html
Credits:
  • Oppose Group has been basically out of cash since 2021, this was (as the article notes) just signing off on its death. --Masem (t) 13:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article says the group went bankrupt in August 2023, and had collapsed financially by 2021. Being liquidated with those details in mind doesn't seem to be that significant. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on principle, weak oppose on update We didn't post this story in 2021 or in August 2023, so I think it's still eligible to be posted. Appears to be the largest non-bank bankruptcy ever. Article quality is fairly good, with one CN tag on a line that doesn't need to be in the article and could easily be deleted by the posting admin. All that's missing is a prose update. This also allows underrepresented business news to be posted to ITN. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ITN generally doesn't post business news in the first place. Masem (t) 19:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support per NorthernFalcon, especially if we didn't previously post this. The Kip 18:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 28

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Sports


Australian Open

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

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

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

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

(Closed) Ongoing: War in Sudan

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


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

January 27

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Malcolm Gregson

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

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

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

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

(Closed) UNWRA October 7 controversy

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


WARNING: CONTENTIOUS TOPICS PROCEDURES APPLY TO DISCUSSION
Article: UNRWA October 7 controversy (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The UK, US, and 7 other Western countries halt aid to UNRWA over claims that staff members were involved in the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel. (Post)
News source(s): CBS, BBC
Credits:
I'm not sure whether or not this should be considered to be already covered by Ongoing, but I'll nominate it anyway so the community can decide what to do with it. It is related to the Israel-Hamas war in that it is related to October 7, but it's also a significant change in Western support toward a major UN agency whereby these 9 countries are not going to give anything to it anymore. Blurb taken and altered from Current Events entry above. Currently the top story on BBC's homepage. JM (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Unless the situation develops into something larger, it's not that notable right now given that these countries will probably resume funding after the investigation is over. TwistedAxe [contact] 00:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say any assumptions about resuming or not resuming funding after the investigation might be WP:CRYSTAL, so it's best to be careful about it. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 00:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    True. I still stand by my first point though. TwistedAxe [contact] 15:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Per TwistedAxe. Also, the out-of-context blurb might give the NPOV impression that UNRWA as an organization was involved, while the employees (alleged to be) responsible have been fired and are under investigation by UNRWA itself.
    Edit: thanks for the reply, I agree that should be okay as NPOV. The investigation is still ongoing and cutting aid over it isn't necessarily that notable, although assuming anything about the future of funding (in one direction or the other) is WP:CRYSTAL. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 00:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to avoid that by changing the current events entry to match what the BBC said: UNRWA claims: UK halts aid to UN agency over allegation staff helped Hamas attack (emphasis mine). So I believe that's following NPOV. JM (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A handful of countries stopping funding some relatively minor organization because of some alleged malfeasance isn't particularly newsworthy. JDiala (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Part of the ongoing. Also the article only has one or two paragraphs actually about the controversy. The rest is repeating background info and reaction kudzu (not including those that actually have stated they will pull support). --Masem (t) 00:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As per above, this is sufficiently covered in ongoing. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as this is already covered by Ongoing. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 08:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

January 26

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Sukhbir Singh Gill

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

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

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

(Closed) Texas border dispute

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


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

South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention)‎‎

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

Article updated

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

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

RD: Jesse Jane

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

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

Sourcing work needed. Mooonswimmer

(Actioned) Ongoing: Red Sea crisis

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

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

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

January 25

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Science and technology


(Posted) RD: Sanath Nishantha

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

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

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

(Closed) RD: Kenneth Smith

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


Article: Execution of Kenneth Eugene Smith (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Kenneth Smith is the first person executed by nitrogen hypoxia. (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
American murderer, executed by the state of Alabama. First execution in history via nitrogen hypoxia. TarkusABtalk/contrib 03:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - it pains me to oppose this, especially since I oppose the death penalty and think it's important that people be aware of the fact that it's still happening.... but he doesn't have a standalone Wikipedia article, as the article is about his execution. This means he doesn't qualify for RD. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 04:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NelsonLee20042020: For your awareness. I think your move was improper. TarkusABtalk/contrib 04:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did the move is because, the article is about the crime Smith is convicted and executed for, and many details are covering his trial and execution, and there was no background information about Smith before the case, so the title: execution of __(name)___ is appropriate NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 05:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths) - see this guideline for more information NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it needs to be reverted by an admin; anyone can do it... I'll do it if you want. One issue though is that the article is only 25 days old. Is that long enough to be appropriate for RD? --RockstoneSend me a message! 05:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've read, this wasn't kind or gentle at all.... --RockstoneSend me a message! 11:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disqualified, close this nomination has the same problem as the one below: it's not a biographical article, so it's disqualified from RD. JM (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Bat-Sheva Dagan

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

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

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

(Posted) Ingenuity end of mission

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

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

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

RD: Rafiuddin Hashmi

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

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

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

January 24

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

  • Saudi Arabia, where alcohol has been banned since 1952, opens its first alcohol store in the diplomatic quarter of its capital Riyadh. (CNBC)

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports


RD: Jack Riddell

Article: Jack Riddell (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The London Free Press; Exeter Lakeshore Times-Advance
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Protests against Javier Milei

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


Article: 2024 general strike against Javier Milei (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A nationwide strike paralyzes Argentina amid protests against President Javier Milei. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Protests against President Javier Milei's policies paralyze Argentina.
News source(s): The New York Times, Al Jazeera, BBC News], El País
Credits:
Simón, el Silbón (talk) 07:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability, but the article quality may need improvement. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 08:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Article suffers from POV issues PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obviously important. Also fuck austerity Kasperquickly (talk) 09:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose insignificant. Setarip (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Strikes and political protests in Argentina rival soccer for the national pastime. I would need to see some evidence, currently lacking, that this is a really big deal. And on a side note, the article is tagged for NPOV. That's a showstopper until the tag is resolved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: ABilly S. Jones-Hennin

Article: ABilly S. Jones-Hennin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [4]
Credits:

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

African-American LGBT rights activist – ForsythiaJo (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article is of generally good quality. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 08:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Howard Golden

Article: Howard Golden (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [5]
Credits:

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

– Muboshgu (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Melanie

Article: Melanie (singer) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety
Credits:

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

Although not a likely pass, Melanie was a folk singer songwriter who preformed at Woodstock 1969, and had one number one in 1971/1972 with Brand New Key. Article needs helps about everywhere. TheCorriynial (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Charles Fried

Article: Charles Fried (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [6] [7] Washington Post
Credits:

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

–  GuardianH (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Korochansky Il-76 crash

Proposed image
Article: 2024 Korochansky Ilyushin Il-76 crash (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Russia, a military transport plane (model Ilyushin Il-76 pictured) carrying 68 Ukrainian POWs crashes in Korochansky, Belgorod Oblast, killing all 74 aboard (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In Russia, an Ilyushin Il-76 military transport plane carrying 74 people crashes in Korochansky District, Belgorod Oblast, killing all aboard.
News source(s): CNN - France24 - ABC (Australia) - NYT - Euronews
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Nearly 70 people died in a crash of a Russian military plane in Belgorod oblast. I don't think this should be dismissed as "ongoing;" we posted the 2023 Brovary helicopter crash for example because the cause of the crash wasn't related to the war and had a high death toll. — Knightoftheswords 16:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Currently debating whether or not this is notable. It definitely is related to the war, but the resulting coverage of this may be enough. We must maintain NPOV as per @Tube of Light, there are too many unknowns atm PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - until we've got some concrete information as to who/what was onboard and what caused it to crash. Nigej (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support but wait, per Nigej. --NoonIcarus (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support This is a major plane crash. There's no point in waiting because Russia and Ukraine will never agree on what happened. If necessary, change the blurb to "carrying 74 people" instead of mentioning Ukrainian POWs. Johndavies837 (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added altblurb. Brandmeistertalk 08:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has the death count of 74 been independently verified in any way? 70.181.1.68 (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support primarily on the basis of notability. The article is well-sourced and of generally good quality. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support POWs are essentially civilians when it comes to the rules of war, and we would have posted it if it was a civilian plane being shot down. In fact, im pretty sure that civilian Malaysian plane that had been shot by the Russian rebels was posted here. Hence, my support vote. Kasperquickly (talk) 09:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is part of the ongoing war for which we continuously list the timeline to cover all such incidents. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait The information in the article still indicates that, while Russia says that plane was carrying POW's, Ukraine still has not corroborated this. We should probably wait until some third party provides evidence in support of either of their claims. As for notability, I would only support it if there is some other impact from the crash. I think the crash itself can be adequately covered in the ongoing.2G0o2De0l (talk) 13:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability, such events are quite rare and notable, although this is partially covered by ongoing, the incident is still major and article appears to be in good quality. Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alternative blurb pretty notable. Setarip (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 23

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


RD: Mohammed Ghobadlou

Article: Execution of Mohammad Ghobadloo (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): El País, Hengaw
Credits:

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

Iranian man executed for his participation in the 2022 Mahsa Amini protests NoonIcarus (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Doomsday Clock

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


Proposed image
Article: Doomsday Clock (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Doomsday Clock (pictured) stands at 90 seconds to midnight. (Post)
News source(s): Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Al Jazeera, BBC,DW, South China Morning Post, USA Today
Credits:

Article updated
We now have AI and drone swarms to add to the growing list of existential threats... Andrew🐉(talk) 23:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No blurb... nothing changed. Noah, AATalk 23:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Snow close how does andrew always post the most useless thing it didnt even change??????????????? Lukt64 (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)\[reply]
Assume Good Faith. No need to be rude PrecariousWorlds (talk) 06:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Arch of Reunification demolition

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


Proposed image
Article: Arch of Reunification (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Arch of Reunification (pictured) in North Korea is demolished. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The North Korean government demolishes the Arch of Reunification (pictured).
News source(s): Reuters, Forbes, NK News
Credits:

Article updated
Demolished some time between 19 and 23 January, but reported today. Rather a historical move, regardless of further developments. Brandmeistertalk 21:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - somewhat well known landmark, but also comes as North Korea has publicly ruled out reunification with the South. Regardless of how well known the arch was, it is very mucus much emblematic of a big shift in Korea. — Knightoftheswords 22:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
very mucus?? oh no, it snot!! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused because, from what I've seen, North Korea still wants the reunification of the entire peninsula, just under their rule and without the existence of the Republic of Korea (South Korea). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 07:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, not any more; they have seemingly abandoned reunification. — Knightoftheswords 15:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe what the editor is referring to is reunification in the sense of the country's constitution should reflect the issue of "occupying", "recapturing" and "incorporating" the South into its territory (from the article you linked). i.e., southern territory reunified with northern territory unilaterally under the DPRK alongside the state extinction of the ROK. JM (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was, thanks. I guess this is just the end of any hope of peaceful resolution to the conflict, not that there was much in the first place. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't see the significance. From article — "It was opened in August 2001 to commemorate Korean reunification proposals put forward by Kim Il Sung" — so it isn't even a historical monument, it only existed for around twenty years, and it wasn't made to commemorate an event or some real steps. Just proposals.
The reunification being ruled out is not a major event, it's the reality what everyone understands. During the years of division, North Korea has become increasingly isolated, and South Korea is now of the most technologically advanced countries. Purely local event. No reunification was possible before public statements, they don't change anything, no blurb. Kirill C1 (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Look, I understand the significance of the message being sent, but this is essentially, “tyrant has temper tantrum, tears down twenty year-old thing that his dad built,” vibe to me. RPH (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability but the article quality needs improvement. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 07:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge Your opposition to my honest and open usage of this term. --Ouro (blah blah) 09:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the fact that what's significant (if anything) is the end of any pretense of reuinification, not the demolition of a 22-year-old monument to it. JM (talk) 09:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Clearly some sort of symbolic gesture from Kim Jong Un, but we've really no idea what that is. Currently not significant enough. Nigej (talk) 10:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Oppose I have to oppose this for the moment simply because it would contradict what the article currently says, that the demolition hasn't been independently verified. IF it is confirmed, I might reconsider. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I think the wider geopolitics concerns about North Korea tend to be underplayed, and this act is symbolic for much of Asia.
Arind8 (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not North Korean, but associating this arch to the Eiffel Tower or the Washington Monument seems facetious. I am doubtful that it rises to that level of significance as a monument / landmark. Natg 19 (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside from the many more years and much more publicity those two have, many American and French people actually read this culturally significant and geopolitically aspirational site, and might reasonably expect to see us write something about such hypothetical news. I, for one, oppose their destruction. Not opposing this nom, just saying. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Charles Osgood

Article: Charles Osgood (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [8]
Credits:

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

– Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2024 Uqturpan earthquake

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


Article: 2024 Uqturpan earthquake (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A 7.1 magnitude earthquake occurs in Uqturpan County, Xinjiang, China. (Post)
News source(s): AP
Credits:
7.1 magnitude earthquake. Minimal damage so far, but notable based on the size of the quake. Natg 19 (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oppose per “minimal damage”. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one's even died in this earthquake, so I oppose. Quake1234 (talk) 10:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ITN isn't a natural disaster ticker. Good faith nom, but not notable PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no one died Setarip (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the casualties have been updated, that 3 peoples died. Are you still going to oppose? Bakhos2010 (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three unfortunate deaths, but too few to be ITN-interesting. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

January 22

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Posted) RD: Arno Allan Penzias

Article: Arno Allan Penzias (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [9]
Credits:

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

Needs a little bit of work. Natg 19 (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Norman Jewison

Article: Norman Jewison (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [10]
Credits:
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Notable director, some citations still needed. Flibirigit (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did not suggest a blurb when nominated, it was added later by a different user. I recommend only listed as a recent death. Flibirigit (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb. Very influential film director, was nominated for Oscar staggering seven times and won Thalberg Award. Won other important honours — BAFTA, David Donatello Award, Berlin Silver Bear and others. Made Fiddler on the Roof, Moonstruck, and In the Heat of the Night, the latter starring Sidney Poitier and being the staple of anti-racism work. From Guardian obit by Peter Bradshaw — "For five extraordinary decades, Norman Jewison’s film-making was the beating heart of Hollywood drama: he could do anything and supercharged it with idealism, confidence and style. Jewison has been behind an extraordinary array of classics and hits: for half the time the cinema has been in existence, Norman Jewison was the gold standard of a night at the movies." In Thomas Crown Affair and Cincinnati Kid "he invented the stylish presence of Steve McQueen"[11]. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb. This is exactly what RD is for. He was nothing like important enough for the blurb. Nigej (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Gigi Riva

Article: Gigi Riva (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): la Repubblica
Credits:

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

Considered to be one of the best players of his generation, as well as one of the greatest strikers of all time. --Martin Mystère (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Dexter King

Article: Dexter King (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN Associated Press
Credits:

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

American activist and youngest son of Martin Luther King Jr.  RONIN  TALK  19:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Ram Mandir

Proposed image
Article: Ram Mandir (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Ram Mandir is consecrated at Ram Janmabhoomi at Ayodhya in India. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Ram Mandir is consecrated at the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi at Ayodhya in India.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The Ram Mandir temple is consecrated at the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi in Ayodhya, India.
Alternative blurb III: ​ A temple to Rama (pictured) is consecrated at his disputed birthplace in India.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ A temple to Rama (pictured) is consecrated at his birthplace in India.
News source(s): Hindu Hindustan Times Times of India NBC CNN CNN BBC Independent Reuters Bloomberg Bloomberg Washington Post Washington Post Foreign Policy Wall Street Journal Wall Street Journal Strait Times New York Times New York Times RFI Al Jazeera Al Jazeera
Credits:

Article needs updating

Needs some updating post it's actual consecration that happens in exact 4 hours from now

Significant religious event that marks the culmination of long drawn movement to build the Ram temple in India. It's history has been mired in long drawn legal battles that has spanned over more than 200 years in 2019. Hailed as an event of lifetime for the fellow Indians, was also a political movement for many organizations based out of India. Has been covered in epic proportion by the media from all around the world. Regards, theTigerKing  03:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait Once the event is completed and necessary updates are made to the article, we can put it up on ITN. Leoneix (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support to Alt blurb and alt blurb 3. Leoneix (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It has been inaugurated. Interesting story that I hadn't heard of until now PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs work To understand the significance, see Why India’s New Ram Temple Is So Important. But the main article has future tense statements which may now be in the past or present. And the proposed blurbs try to cram in too many links to other articles. But none of them have the essential English word "temple" which is needed as context for the general reader. An image is needed too but I'm adding one now. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above; I have also added another altblurb taking into account Andrew Davidson's comment as well as ITN wikilink conventions. DecafPotato (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mandir and temple mean the same Regards, theTigerKing  15:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC) 10:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, however "Mandir" may be unfamiliar to the general English-speaking audience expected on the front page of Wikipedia. DecafPotato (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Altblurb3 I think it's the clearest at explaining the importance of the event to a global audience. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ARBIP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Support - This is a major symbolic topic for Hindus and has been a major agenda in politics for many years, with the version of "Ram Mandir is consecrated at Ayodhya in India." I oppose using the "dispute" word because it's too unclear as to what is actually disputed because it's no worse than Temple Mount in Jerusalem which is actually disputed, and the argument in this debate seems to be more about how to apply property law to the site. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seem to be several disputes including:
  1. Was this really the birth place of Rama?
  2. Is his name Ram or Rama?
  3. The exact history of the site and its previous mosque/temples
  4. The credit for making this happen
  5. The implications of the event – is this the Ram Rajya?
  6. On Wikipedia the topic is subject to WP:ARBIP sanctions and especially extended confirmed protection. So, the opinions of new editors should perhaps be discounted.
Andrew🐉(talk) 13:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, Ram, Krishan, Yog is more common in North India while Rama, Krishna, Yoga is more common in South India (specifically Dravidian language speakers) and in Europe/US. --84.252.98.62 (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The questions asked seems to relevant (Ram or Rama and so on ); either we declare them in the beginning and use them consistently thereafter to mantain the flow and avoid confusion to the readers of the articles.Regards, theTigerKing  15:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also I would also add that "Rama" seems to be the most common in East Asia and South East Asia as well. In fact I have always heard the term as Rama and not Ram except in the context of the Ram Temple. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this related to India vs Pakistan? There was a mosque on the site but that's related to Indian Muslims. Indian Muslims don't identify any more with Pakistanis than they do with Persians or Arabs, similar to Indonesians relationship with Arabs. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
India/Pakistan/Afghanistan as a whole is designated as a CTOP, regardless of whether this article has anything to do with more than one. The Kip 18:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. You could make a similar argument about anything related to history, mythology and religion. The original use of Stonehenge is disputed for example. Did Jesus exist? etc...
2. Ram and Rama are the same word. It's no difference to Jesus and Yesus.
3. Scientifically there is no dispute about what was there. As to who should be allowed to use it is a case for property law.
4. I think there is virtually no dispute about who is taking credit for this in the eyes of the Indian public; the right wing is viewed as supporting the Mandir and the left wing as opposing the Mandir.
5. There is no discussion about the Ram Rajya. It's seen as a milestone in the political conflict between Hindus and Muslims, and the aftermath of removing the negatives of colonialism for the Hindu side.
6. This is more related to the Hindu - Muslim conflict than anything to do with Pakistan. Rama is important for Buddhists and Jains to, and is widely understood in countries like Nepal, Burma and Sri Lanka. Pakistan should not have a big say in this article. CollationoftheWilling (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWould rather not recommend the word "dispute" in the blurb considering it has been "resolved" by the final authority which is the Supreme Court of India and "Accepted to" by all the parties involved. Period! Regards, theTigerKing  15:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support the alt blurbs Surely the news here is the "dispute", otherwise I don't see this as any different to any other temple/church/whatever opening around the world. Nigej (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb 1, but should it be "The Ram Mandir" not "Ram Mandir"? Not sure. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

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