Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.

A blurb is a one sentence summary of the news story. An alternate suggestion for the blurb is called an altblurb, and any more suggestions get labelled alt1, alt2, etc. A blurb needs at least one target article, highlighted in bold; reviewers check the quality of that article and whether it is updated, and whether reliable sources demonstrate the significance of the event. Other articles can also be linked. The Ongoing line is for regularly updated articles which cover events that remain in the news over a longer period of time. RD stands for the "recent deaths" line, and can include any living thing whose death was recently announced. In some cases, recent deaths may need additional explanation as provided by a blurb; this is decided by consensus.

Waheeda Rehman A suicide bombing kills more than 50 people in Mastung, Pakistan. Waheeda Rehman (pictured) receives the Dadasaheb Phalke Award for her work in Hindi cinema. A fire at a wedding in Qaraqosh, Iraq, kills more than 110 people. More than 100,000 Armenians flee Nagorno-Karabakh after the region falls to an Azerbaijani offensive. Ongoing: Nigerien crisis Russian invasion of Ukraine timeline Sudan war Recent deaths: Dianne Feinstein Sycamore Gap Tree (felled) M. S. Swaminathan Aziz Pahad Saroja Vaidyanathan Terry Kirkman Nominate an article view — page history — related changes — edit

RD: Pat Arrowsmith

• Oppose for now needs a bit of citation work, but it's close to readiness (in my opinion). ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 05:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(RD Posted) RD: Dianne Feinstein

(Posted) Mastung bombing

 Ainty Painty (talk) 10:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support very sad news, and there's a lot of sourcing to back up the event and the article. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 10:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support altblurb when the article is improved sufficiently. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 10:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Count went up to over 50 deaths :( Chaotic Enby (talk) 12:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Biggest attack in Mastung area to date, and the death tolls are rising. MarioJump83 (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The 2018 bombing killed far more people, but this one is still easily important enough to post. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose only on quality - background needs sourcing and could be expanded just a notch to explain the origin of the hostilities. --Masem (t) 13:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Wait This is a complex and contentious part of the world, per
  WP:ARBIPA, and no-one has claimed responsibility. We are therefore not in a position to explain who dunnit and so should wait until the speculation resolves. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
  ]

It's easily important enough to post, regardless of the ideology or identity of the bomber. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neither of the proposed blurbs engages in this kind of speculation, only mentioning "a suicide bomber" without connecting the incident to any ideology or organization. Chaotic Enby (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's no hard evidence that it was a suicide bombing. It might have been a proxy bomb, a false flag operation, a premature detonation or other malfunction. It's speculation and jumping to conclusions. See

WP:DELAY

.

Note also that

err on the side of caution

".

Andrew🐉(talk) 19:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Article seems ready. Bremps... 14:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Posted per support above.
  [OMT] 05:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
  ]

RD: Ganira Pashayeva

• Support - article is pretty sparse, but what is there is all sourced ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 14:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted as RD): Sycamore Gap Tree

Article: Sycamore Gap Tree (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  The Sycamore Gap Tree (pictured) is felled in an act of vandalism. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

• Nominated by Mjroots (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Thoriginalone (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

WP:ITNRD.

 Mjroots (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

• Support - poor tree  :( ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 16:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support because it's a tree JM2023 (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support What a shame. The article is of high quality, so this is already ready as far as I am concerned. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support nice tree. AryKun (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose I doubt it's dead. Reportedly, Acer pseudoplatanus has "the ability to grow vigorously from the stump when felled". So as long as roots and stump are undamaged, it appears this is still alive. Brandmeister^talk 16:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Hmm, good catch. I may have to retract my support. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  This article from The Guardian also expresses doubt on whether the tree's actually dead. —

  Cryptic 18:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

  ]

• Support. Loss of an iconic tree and the media is stating that everyone is left speechless and furious. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 17:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• This is where we are, huh? I know RD says that any living organism with an individual article counts, but man... _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Well a tree is a living organism so it goes PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Yes I know, It is a tree, but RD is for any individual organism, not just people. RIP tree.Editor 5426387 (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Neutral Depends on whether the stump left is enough for it to regrow, really. Chaotic Enby (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Posted
  [OMT] 18:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
  ]
  • @The ed17: would you do the admin please? Mjroots (talk) 04:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Done
      [OMT] 04:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
      ]
• Oppose Are you fucking joking? A fucking tree? 184.179.169.144 (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  We are fucking serious. RD is for any person or organism that has died.

  AA^Talk 20:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

  ]

  ITN is very serious business PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong Support

RIP Robin Hood Tree. Gone, but not forgotten PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• IAR Post-Posting Support. Yes, the tree may not be dead, but the tree, even if it grows back, will not look the same, and being photogenic is what the tree was known for. So perhaps the tree is not TECHNICALLY dead, but something has certainly been lost here. Just let it ride. This isn't as silly as the duck situation. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Retrospectively agree with the decision. This tree had massive importance and its felling was an unfortunate and disastrous event, whether it will be able to regrow or not. Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  "the duck situation", some of us are in need of an ITN history lesson? JM2023 (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  There was some controversy over if a duck should be posted. The duck didn't end up getting posted and the discussion ended up being closed with no consensus developing. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 20:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The issue there was whether or not the duck actually died rather than controversy about a duck being posted.

  AA^Talk 20:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

  ]

  To be fair that was kind of the situation here too. Is the tree really dead or just chopped down? Chaotic Enby (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  That kinda was part of the issue. I still maintain that a university - nor anyone else - can declare a duck dead in abstentia. At least in this situation we can see the tree, and maybe it's not dead, but it certainly won't be the same. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I personally would've been happier with a blurb. Besides resolving the ambiguity of whether it actually died - we'd just say it was "felled" or "cut down", like our sources do - this tree's felling changed the world, in a way that the deaths of most of the people we blurb, who have been retired for five or ten years, do not. —

  Cryptic 20:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

  ]

  Put me down as Oppose Blurb as well per Rockstone a little ways down. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I might be in the minority here, but, I think we have taken this a tad too far, with a very open read of “organism”. In some sense it might be a disrespect to the others on the RD carousel as well. Ktin (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Btw it might be worthwhile to inspect where the term “organism” came into the template and the criteria. I am reading the past RFCs and it seems like the discussion was very specifically about “Animals”. I think introduction of “organisms” was an overzealous act. Ktin (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trees were specifically discussed.[1] Thincat (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Post-posting support and I would IAR support an RD image for this too. Davey2116 (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Post-posting support - The felling of this tree reminds me of The Senator (tree); a 3500 year old bald cypress tree that was destroyed here in central Florida in an act of vandalism (actually, the woman apparently was smoking meth and burned it down, but that's irrelevant). No idea if we posted it to RD at the time, but if it happened today, it would surely qualify. So, too, does this tree, which seems to be of similar importance. RIP. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• That tree appears in Deaths in January 2012. It doesn't seem to have new growth since but 10 clones were taken and it seems that seven survive as new trees. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment we've posted a tree on RD before, if anyone cares. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 23:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Post-posting oppose Missing ducks and half-dead trees are not "deaths". If the tree was actually dead it would be a support from me, but one rooted still rooted in the ground with quite the possibility of regrowth is not it. DYK would have been the ideal posting for this. Gotitbro (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Post-posting support RD, oppose blurb This is a clear and devestating event, but I'm not going so far as to make this a blurb due to, I'm afraid, the systematic bias towards US/UK events in English Wikipedia ITN. As for why I support this being RD, living beings, regardless of them being human or not, should be included. MarioJump83 (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Blurb This is front-page news and it's likely that the tree will grow more shoots, per coppicing. RD is not appropriate for such complex cases. Why can't we just have a few words to summarise the situation? ITN has become far too parsimonious and terse compared to other main page sections and it is obstructing clear communication. Brief blurbs cost nothing. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You repeatedly say that disasters in which dozens of people were killed aren't important enough to blurb, but you're saying that a tree being cut down is?! Jim 2 Michael (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Makes no sense to blurb the loss of a famous tree. And given that we are purposely blind to RD posting beyond article quality, many of the RDs we post are people that are likely unknown to a good fraction to the readers so being able to click through to read about them is appropriate - same with this case. Masem (t) 13:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Consensus to post this has already been established and this has been done. The issue is doing so in a clear and accurate way. There's already a complaint at WP:ERRORS that the RD entry is wrong. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not seeking for it to be pulled from RD; I'm questioning why you think it blurb-worthy. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let me count the ways:

1. It was the top news story on the BBC yesterday.
2. It was still a top news item getting continuing coverage in the midday bulletin today
3. It was on the front pages when I checked the newsstand today. And not just a sidebar – the entire front page.
4. It got about 150,000 views yesterday. That's about ten times more than the Qaraqosh wedding fire, for example.
5. The article was written by Dumelow whose work is always excellent in my experience.
6. This was a Tree of the Year – a rare distinction
7. There are lots of beautiful and iconic pictures of it and, as a blurb, we could use one (see above).
8. With blurb text rather than a bare link, we can better explain what has happened

Andrew🐉(talk) 16:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bob Saget & Anne Heche received extremely high pageviews last year. We didn't blurb their deaths. Tree of the Year is a trivial domestic award. You regard this tree being cut down as more notable than the Qaraqosh fire? Jim 2 Michael (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's day 3 and the tree is still in the top 10 most read articles on Wikipedia. The wedding fire not so much. The latter seems to be a standard

WP:NEWSEVENT while the tree has got and is getting continuing coverage. For example, this latest development is currently the top read story at BBC News. Other related encyclopedic topics like Hadrian's Wall, Robin Hood and coppicing are getting significantly more attention too. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

• Convert to a blurb about the act of vandalism. The tree is not dead so it shouldn't be posted as a death, but this well known tree being vandalized seems significant. I think if the
  General Sherman tree was cut down by vandals or even spray painted, we would at least consider posting it. 331dot (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
  ]

  To clarify my position, if this is not blurbed, it should be removed from RD, since the tree is not dead. 331dot (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  "Felling" is not equivalent to death. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support converting to blurb. The article is higher quality than most we post here, and it makes a nice change from the normal disaster stubs we post. BilledMammal (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose blurb. I've added a (felled) note to the RD entry to clarify the concern that it's not actually dead. As for a blurb, I think that's over the top, per other comments made above. It's no doubt sad for those who enjoy the view in that part of the world, but with everything else going on in the world, this is emphatically not a story of lasting significance. Trees also get felled in other parts of the world too, e.g.
  WP:WORLDWIDE issue to consider here too.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
  ]

  Was the Cotton Tree nominated? "Everything else going on in the world" is precisely the reason to blurb this, not to refrain from doing so. 331dot (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The Cotton Tree was posted to RD. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The Lahaina Banyan Tree was in the news recently too – I noticed the coverage at the time. IMO, such trees are more historic and significant than the routine sporting events that ITN runs as blurbs. But we have space for all – blurbs are not such a precious and limited resource – we could easily run several fresh blurbs every day, just like the other main page sections. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC) (edit conflict)Reply[reply]

  Well blurbs are limited to four at a time, so yeah, they are a limited resource by definition. Chaotic Enby (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose blurb as nominator, but consider an IAR image posting. Mjroots (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Pull Death is the biological end of a life. Is this tree biologically dead? No. Then it’s not a "recent death" because it is not dead. If it can grow, it’s alive. And if it’s alive…it’s not dead. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Post-posting support - I would support either the RD or blurb. The tree was technically "felled" but colloquially it is "dead". If someone wants to quibble about it being "dead", then a blurb is the way to go.

EvergreenFir (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: the RD item was tweaked so that it now reads "Sycamore Gap Tree (felled)". Also, there is a parallel discussion happening at
  WP:ERRORS. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
  ]
• Oppose blurb A tree being felled isn’t important enough for a blurb. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose / pull Not dead. It's a species that's notable for being receptive to coppicing. Also, shoehorning this into a section for people (and occasionally animals) who've actually recently died also seems a bit tasteless to me. I love trees, I get that people love trees, but there's a place for this, and this isn't it. EditorInTheRye (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pull / Oppose blurb Not dead, and there's no reason a tree should get a blurb if literal ethnic cleansing of 90,000+ people doesn't. That's pretty much adding insult to injury. Chaotic Enby (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• STRONG OPPOSE BLURB - for the avoidance of all doubt, I'm fine with an RD entry, but a blurb is ridiculous, and if we did blurb this, it'd be the biggest example of systemic UK bias on ITN that I can think of (no, we would not be blurbing this if it happened anywhere else). --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• See the Pioneer Cabin Tree – a sequoia in California which was posted in 2017. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• pull. i think there was a consensus to post early on, when many of us had believed that the tree had died, but now that it is clear that the tree had only been felled, and also has a decent chance of regrowing, i don't think it is appropriate to keep it in the list of recent deaths. to be clear, had the tree actually died, i would have thought that its death would have been appropriate for the list.
  the arguments that the tree is effectively dead enough for the list make me worried, as they could also be used to argue that people in deep comas who may be described as "virtually dead", or that people who underwent extensive plastic surgery who may be described as "virtually unrecognizable", would also be eligible for the list. keeping the tree on the list may validate those arguments and set a weird precedent.
  i don't think posting a blurb would be a wise idea. it seems farcical to refuse a blurb for a prominent senator who recently died, only to then turn around and post one for a tree that didn't. dying (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support blurb It's obviously contentious to post this as RD as technically, the tree isn't dead. The qualifier "(felled)" has been added but for many, that's still not good enough. The status quo works for me, but my preference is to have this as a blurb. Firstly, this is a notable event that's making the news around the world. Secondly, it has a lasting effect, as the area has lost a major tourism item. Thirdly, it overcomes the conundrum whether or not this fits under RD as a blurb can explain in a more nuanced way what's going on. Fourthly, I do not buy into the systemic UK bias issue. That Wanaka Tree got vandalised in 2020 but the tree itself is still standing. Had it been cut down back then, Wānaka would have lost its most-photographed item and I suggest that would have been suitable for a blurb nomination (granted, the UK tree is probably better known). That's a tourism item and some Kiwis might say "so what?". But if something fatal happened to Tāne Mahuta, New Zealand would go into mourning for a week, that's for sure. Schwede66 01:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Is there any scenario where a tree being cut down in the US would be posted here in ITN? No. Same if it happened in Canada or Russia. The UK gets special treatment in ITN and the systemic bias here has been a problem for years. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• See the Pioneer Cabin Tree – a sequoia in California which was posted in 2017. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Post-posting conditional support RD. Regardless of whether it could regrow, it is the end of the tree as we know it. The regrown part would be a new thing/offspring. On the person analogy, you have chopped off everything except the head and put that in a magical vial where it can regrow; 90% is already dead. The fact that the stump is alive and could facilitate regrowth is irrelevant.
  I support converting to blurb and removing the RD equally, as a blurb would also make this known. To clarify, the condition is that there is no blurb posted. I think either we post a blurb or keep the RD. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Aaron Liu, i am not sure if i am understanding you correctly. are you saying that, if a notable person with a quality article on wikipedia was reduced to a head in a magical vial, you would support listing that person at recent deaths? if that person then died a year later, would you support a second nomination for that person, assuming that the article remains of sufficient quality? dying (talk) 09:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The fact that the stump is alive is absolutely relevant. It is "recent deaths", not "recent end of organisms as we know them". Should Michael Schumacher have been posted to RD? ChaotıċEnby(talk) 14:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pull from RD. The tree could regrow, but we should wait until it is confirmed that the tree is dead. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 07:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pull. Tree can't die.

If this was blurb, I would understand its proposal.

But this is dubious — recent deaths entry Tree (felled). As if someone wonders how tree can tree actually die. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose. It's probably not dead, as pointed out by Brandmeister above. Maproom (talk) 08:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Michael Gambon

Article: Michael Gambon (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Irish actor Michael Gambon dies at age 82. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, AP, CNN
Credits:

• Nominated by Davey2116 (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

WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Possible blurb? Davey2116 (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

• Oppose RD on quality issues - lack of sourcing throughout body. Oppose blurb as while having received some of the highest awards for acting, there's little given about any impact or legacy he may have had. --Masem (t) 12:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose on RD because of sourcing issues throughout the article. While notable I don't think he has significant enough notability to warrant a blurb. Suonii180 (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment One line on his role in The Singing Detective, really? I'd argue that was his best-known performance outside Harry Potter. I would need to see some more detail on that before I could support.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• RD only (sadly), but oppose for the moment on quality grounds. SchroCat (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• RD only. No comment on quality, haven't had a proper look yet. Anarchyte (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. Lacking proper sourcing. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose blurb as I for one think deaths must be exceptional for them to be blurbed -- i.e., the death itself is famous JM2023 (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

support blurb once the issues are fixed, clearly a more notable individual. we've posted that guy who played Snape i think. we should post Dumbledore too since he was arguably a more important character Daikido (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alan Rickman was actually posted to RD only.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose blurb Old man dies. Nothing like the importance required for blurb. Nigej (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• We shouldn't give his
  Cryptic 20:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
  ]

  It was moved off a long time ago. If it was moved off just now to avoid sourcing it, that would be a problem. Masem (t) 21:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I can't agree. We shouldn't be declining to post RDs or blurbs, either one, just because someone tried to game the system; we should be looking solely at whether the current state of the article(s) is good enough to post. —

  Cryptic 21:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

  ]

  There's a couple factors here: If the filmography (or similar list) was undersourced and shuffled off to a separate article when there was no size issues to worry about, that would be a problem, as that's the literal "sweeping dirt under the rug" situation. On the other hand, if that type of list was actually large and the article was nearly

  WP:SIZE concerns, then shuffling it off wouldn't be a problem, but as Gotitbro states below, there should be a proper sourced summary prose left in place. Masem (t) 13:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

  ]

  If enough prose is there to substitute for it, I don't really see a problem. We have enough list-occupying bios as is. Gotitbro (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(RD posted, continue blurb discussion) RD: M. S. Swaminathan

Article: M. S. Swaminathan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Times of India
Credits:

• Nominated by Pharaoh of the Wizards (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

WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Father of Green revolution in India Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

• Support - a very well cited article ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 12:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support: Article looks good. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 13:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Blurb?. I do not say this often, but, is there an appetite (no pun intended) for blurbing this article? If there has been anyone who has helped millions from hunger and famine, it is him. NYTimes Bio here. Irrespective this is ready for RD. Article looks in good shape. Ktin (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• RD posted Blurb discussion can continue.—Bagumba (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Blurb His name is not familiar to most and so RD would not do him justice. And it's not as if ITN is overcrowded currently – there are only three blurbs and they are 4+ days old. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Isn't this a good reason not to blurb? Blurbs should be reserved for well known figures or if the death is the reason for notability. Natg 19 (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem is terms like “well known figures” or “not familiar to most” borders on a very ethnocentric read of the world and is not the best way to evaluate impact. If you believe importance and weightage needs to be given to transformational impact — we should evaluate the impact of work. In this case there is a case to be made that elevating millions from hunger and famine is impact like no other. Ktin (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know the name Norman Borlaug, who is given credit for saving those same lives. As the saying goes, "Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan." I don't know how much credit should go to Swaminathan here, but he was not the primary driver of this effort. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The “I don’t know” of them and hence not worth posting argument is frankly a tad tenuous.

I certainly don’t imply that we should go by a particularly news org, like Time in this case, but posting from the article — “ In 1999, he was one of three Indians, along with Gandhi and Tagore, on Time's list of the 20 most influential Asian people of the 20th century.” Certainly that should mean something. Ktin (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am neutral on this person, but was just commenting that his name is not familiar to most does not seem like a good reason to blurb someone. I don't know if ITN has a purpose to "highlight" lesser known figures in blurbs. Natg 19 (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

isn't ITN meant to highlight news stories relevant enough to receive their own articles or at least significant sections? so posting something with the justification of basically "he's not well known"... well that's really the opposite of a justification, isn't it. JM2023 (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah. I agree with both of you. We should not be posting because the subject was not well-known. On the other hand, we should not be not-posting because the subject was not well-known. There are many Rfcs that are pending on this topic, but, as it stands today, with our current policies — we should posting major figures who have demonstrated impact by their work. Call it transformational / groundbreaking / anything else. By those grounds, I think the subject deserves a blurb. We should not mistake opposes to the policy to be opposes to the individual case such as this. Policy opposes should go to the talk page. Ktin (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like an argument against blurb. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• For a blurb I feel the article needs a short section under Public Recognition about the green revolution which can borrow content from that article. His role is mentioned in the lede and scattered through but a single brief section of how he came by that term and what it means ands impact on India's ag industry should be clear.--Masem (t) 15:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose blurb blurbs of deaths in my opinion should only be done when the deaths themselves are famous -- all famous people die, but not all people die famously JM2023 (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Appreciate your point of view. The editor below references an RfC that has been some time in coming. In its absence, today, we do not distinguish between famous (sic) people dying and famous people dying famously. Best wishes. Ktin (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neutral on blurb, would highlight the life of someone with a little-known but massive impact on the fight against hunger, although I agree that blurbs of deaths could be reserved for the deaths themselves making news. I'd say we should have a RfC about this last point, to have an idea of where we stand relative to this in the future (and, depending on the result, Support if non-famous deaths of famous people can be blurbed and Oppose otherwise). Chaotic Enby (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Appreciate it. I know that the RfC has been sometime in coming, but, in its absence, I think there is a strong case to be made for this posting. Ktin (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For reference,

WP:ITNRDBLURB reads:

The death of major figures may merit a blurb. These cases are rare, and are usually posted on a sui generis basis through a discussion at WP:ITNC that determines there is consensus that the death merits a blurb.

—Bagumba (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

I know, and given the repeated discussions (a few days ago with Giorgio Napolitano, now today) often in confusion without clear indication as to what level of notability merits a blurb, I figure it would be better to formalize this more clearly. Chaotic Enby (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support blurb given the current policies until such a discussion concludes. Chaotic Enby (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support blurb Certainly transformative and at the top of his field. Davey2116 (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support blurb Article being a GA pushes this over the edge for me. Absolutely top of his field. Curbon7 (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Support Agree with Curbon here, being a GA definitely does it and we did post Norman Borlaug, it is only good that we follow in with a quality article which highlights thr further building upon his work. Gotitbro (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose blurb What RD is for. Making it a blurb would add nothing. As a GA it's still prominently linked in the RD section. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose blurb per above. RD is sufficient in nearly all cases, including this one. Nigej (talk) 08:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  With due respect, please can you explain why RD is sufficient in this case? Ktin (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose blurb per above. RD is sufficient in nearly all cases, including this one. (see above for attribution for this comment)  — Amakuru (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Again, with due respect Amakuru, please can you explain why RD is sufficient in this case? Ktin (talk) 08:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dissolution of the Republic of Artsakh

Nominator's comments: Related articles such as 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh have been continuously updated; major update in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict; follows precedent.

• Ongoing They don't seem to have much choice. Anyway, this development needs consolidating with all the other Nagorno-Karabakh conflict nominations. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment This is clearly a developing story with multiple implications that merit inclusion on their own, so ongoing is completely justified even though it's a bit challenging to find the right article to post.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment As the Republic of Artsakh article is oranged-tagged, perhaps an article on the decree itself could be created and added to the blurb. A historic milestone in the decades-long Nagorno-Karabakh conflict anyway. The future departure of Russian peacekeepers from the region would probably be the final milestone. Brandmeister^talk 10:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Wait until it actually happens. The decree states that all state institutions will dissolve by January 1st, and I think we're a bit off from that date. Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 11:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Wait per Iamstillqw3rty. We have three months until it happens, and its clear this region is not currently stable, so things can easily change. --Masem (t) 12:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment can we somehow merge this proposal with this one below for the ethnic cleansing of Artsakh? It's effectively the same event, the dissolution of the breakaway state with the expulsion of its people. JM2023 (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge with below proposal. This story really only makes sense in the context of the fleeing of Armenians from Azerbaijan, as Artsakh exists largely because of this group of people. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support, if possible also merge per suggestions above. Major development. Yakikaki (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Wait Until it actually dissolves, then, I'll switch to Support. Editor 5426387 (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wait - Once this actually happens and Azerbaijan actually annexes Artsakh then I would instantly support. Resolution of a 30 year conflict, major change in global geopolitics as a country annexes another country. If situation gains enough coverage and enough new developments happen then I think we could post now. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge with the current Artsakh ethnic cleansing blurb, perhaps by simply adding as the self-proclaimed Republic of Artsakh declares its intent to dissolve at the end of it. (According to the end of the discussion for that blurb, the potential merge should be discussed here.) JM2023 (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support News will be stale if we wait too long. Bremps... 01:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support, dissolution of a country - even a non-internationally recognized one - is a significant event. Oppose merging with the existing blurb; ethnic cleansing is so significant it shouldn't be diluted with other news. BilledMammal (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  the dissolution of Artsakh, the nation-state of the Karabakh Armenians, is part of the ethnic cleansing of Karabakh Armenians from their nation-state's territory. The nation-state is dissolving because the nation is being ethnically cleansed. JM2023 (talk) 06:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Yeah but like. The ethnic cleansing blurb got removed. So not really sure about merging to non-existence... Chaotic Enby (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support given the standalone significance, shouldn't be merged with the blurb relative to ethnic cleansing simply because both are about the same country. Chaotic Enby (talk) 02:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  the dissolution of a nation's state is inexorably linked to the exile of that nation from that state's territory. Artsakh is being dissolved because and as part of the ethnic cleansing. JM2023 (talk) 06:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Agree to some extent, but the point is moot given that the other blurb has been removed without any discussion. Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Since the point is moot, I've proposed alt-blurb 1. Given that the flight is no longer on the front page I think there is a clear consensus here to post. BilledMammal (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. Massive development. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Antimatter falls down

Article: ALPHA experiment (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The ALPHA experiment (pictured) shows that antimatter falls down in gravity, like normal matter. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The ALPHA experiment (pictured) shows that antimatter does fall down in gravity, like normal matter.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The ALPHA experiment (pictured) shows that antimatter, like normal matter, falls down in gravity.
News source(s): BBC, Guardian, Nature, NYT, Scientific American, Times
Credits:

• Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Drbogdan (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is a fine bit of fundamental physics – comparable with Newton and the apple. It hasn't been possible to check this before because apple-sized lumps of antimatter don't exist. But I'm not seeing any update yet and so there's work to do here too. ... (later) ... Drbogdan has kindly provided an update. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, we have some cool science-related stories recently! I like this one, but as Andrew says, an update is needed. And some references are missing, I see. Tone 09:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support pending update. It's clearly a significant discovery of high encyclopedic value.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose While we should feature more scientific stories, I don't see this as a revolutionary discovery, just more a confirmation of what was expected to happen. --Masem (t) 12:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose - No update, big unsourced sections, and I too question the relevance of this as confirms what most scientist suspected. If antimatter did "fall up" it would be a different story ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 12:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  "Confirms what most scientists suspected" can still be significant. The

  Higgs Boson was widely believed to exist, and we blurbed the experiment that proved as much. Kurtis ^(talk) 15:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

  ]

• support its cool Daikido (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong support - Yes, assumptions of what was expected to happen were confirmed, but one has to realize that when it comes to science - especially theoretical physics - this is a very, very big deal. We can theorize and hypothesize all day long with the best scientific knowledge we have on hand, but it doesn't take but one actual, in-the-wild observation to completely demolish a theory that looks good on paper. We need to publish more stories like this. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose on quality The first two sections after the lead paragraph are totally unsourced, as is most of the third. Just out of interest, a question for anyone more knowledgeable - why wouldn't anti-matter react to gravity in the same way as matter? Black Kite (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If the proper article -
    Cryptic 14:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
    ]

  This was predicted but scientists don't assume when they can check. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose is this against what the consensus expected to happen? as far as I can remember, the only known difference between matter and antimatter is the electric charge. It is really such big news that one type of baryonic matter falls down just like another type of baryonic matter? What would really be news is if it didn't fall down like normal. JM2023 (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. Not that this isn't a useful discovery, but I question the interest readers may have in what is effectively the null hypothesis being sustained. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose A great scientific discovery, I'm sure, but not sure if it's important enough for ITN, plus a lot of unsourced items. Editor 5426387 (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Weak support This nomination will probably fail, but it seems like a relatively important confirmation, even if it's not a surprise. This is also one of those rare headline fundamental physics experiments whose result is understandable and memorable to the average person (the detailed article less so, but that's to be expected). 70.181.1.68 (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose on quality but support on importance. Even if it's the predicted result, confirmation is important. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 16:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support on significance, as the gravitational interaction of antimatter article explains, this was the subject of considerable debate (hey, maybe antimatter is the opposite of matter in all ways?) and having tested it is a big advance. No opinion on article quality. The primary article could potentially be moved to the gravitational interaction of antimatter article, which only has a few CNs. Blythwood (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong support - Huge achievement in Physics, a lot of implications, interesting story that is a change of pace from the usual stuff, In The News PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support when the article is adequately ref'd. Davey2116 (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support in principle Most science is not "sexy science" à la The God Particle, but as IP/70.181.1.68 states above this is an important confirmation even it was somewhat expected. I have not looked at the article's quality, so am not commenting on that. Curbon7 (talk) 23:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support it would've been a huge shock if antimatter didn't fall down, but even verifying that it falls down is a notable result. Banedon (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support per Banedon. Double sharp (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment — No opinion on posting as I don't have the scientific knowledge to judge how significant this is. But I really dislike "[subject] does [verb]" constructions, because they're usually awkward and their infrequency can mean those skimming them read "[subject] doesn't [verb]," which is a much more familiar construction. Removing "does" also simply makes it more concise. I've added an alt blurb as such. I also moved "like normal matter" to avoid
  MOS:SOB issues. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 06:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
  ]

Weak Oppose I don't really think this all that notable. Antimatter was always said to have the same properties of normal matter. But if we are to post it can we please use blurb that doesn't say "fall down?" I know that's how most people think of gravity but its not really accurate. I suggest we quote the article and say something like. "The ALPHA experiment shows that antimatter particles behave in a similar way as normal matter in a gravitational field." I understand that's a bit wordy but it is more accurate. Aure entuluva (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The thing about science is that "well, we always knew that would happen" doesn't mean very much to a scientist. The boundary of theoretical physics is that you can't develop a working theory unless you are able to test a hypothesis such that it can empirically be proven or disproven. What we might regard as restating the obvious (which come on, how many of us here are experts in antimatter?) is in this case another step towards building a rigorous body of evidence, and this experimental outcome is truly a big step. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: John Tembo

• Oppose for Now Nomination is definitely good faith, but the article needs serious citation work. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 04:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: Aziz Pahad

• Oppose One citation needed, but otherwise good. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Procedural support meets minimum criteria This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Looks fine for an RD to me. Gotitbro (talk) 04:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support: I've added a source for the only cn tag. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 13:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Posted—Bagumba (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) Iraq wedding fire

Nominator's comments: More than 100 people have tragically lost their lives in a wedding fire in Iraq. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 08:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose on quality, support in principle Seems notable enough, but the article is a low quality stub, needs significant work. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 09:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose per
  WP:NEWSEVENT. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
  ]
• Oppose on quality but support on notability. First, a fire in South Africa, second in Vietnam, now in Iraq. It's pretty awful how many building fires have occurred during the month. It's getting much coverage from various news sites and the death toll is very high for notability but for now, I'm opposing this as it is still a stub. Will be happy to support once the article is expanded. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 11:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Building fires are very common and that's why most places routinely have fire stations to attend to them. Per
  WP:NEWSEVENT, we require "something further [which] gives them additional enduring significance." Andrew🐉(talk) 11:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
  ]

A small fraction of 1% of building fires have death tolls of over 100. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah yes, over a hundred people dying in a building fire is certainly common and planned for.

The callousness of this comment stuns me. The Kip 16:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I actually agree with Andrew to a degree. Not to dismiss the death over one hundred ppl, but in the grand scheme of things, it seems unlikely that this event will have any long reaching impact, compared to something like the Grendell tower fire from a few years back. We (not just ITN) have become too focused on current events forgetting about the entire work not being a newspaper per NOTNEWS. There are both natural amd man-made disasters that happen all the time, but few have suffently long tails of influence to be appropriate for an encyclopedic article, and we are losing our discretion for this. Masem (t) 16:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Imagine it'd happened in the

developed world. This article would be multiple times longer & have been edited by several times more people. It would've been posted hours ago. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

It really depends, and I do think we need (as a whole not just ITN) to keep in mind the regional systematic bias of news coverage when it comes to unfortunate events like this. This is the whole NOTNEWS problem we have because few are looking at the big picture. Masem (t) 19:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We shouldn't copy the Western-centrism of much of the media. Had this fire happened in Europe, it'd be a huge news story. Had the Grenfell Tower fire happened in the Middle East, it wouldn't have received a tenth of the media coverage it did, and the vast majority of people wouldn't have heard of it. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

well for one thing, (not to quote the joker but) some things are "according to plan" in the sense that they are not unexpected, while other things are "not according to plan" in the sense that they are unexpected. For example, there have been thousands of terrorist attacks in the middle east, yet the proportion of coverage they receive is miniscule; accordingly, a failure of safety that kills dozens in Iraq is considered less notable than a failure of safety that kills dozens in Britain because the Iraq version is not so unexpected. It is expected that Britain not only has less deadly accidents of this nature, but also that Britain has more rigourous safety standards and enforcement of those standards, a higher quality of life and a safer society... while Iraq is expected to have lower safety standards and higher danger. Britain is, as they say, a developed country in the developed world, so these things are highly unusual, whereas in an undeveloped or developing or war-torn poor country they are not considered to be so unusual, and thus considered less newsworthy. JM2023 (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An accidental fire, killing over 100 civilians, isn't expected anywhere in the world. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

but as i said, such a thing is more expected in a poor terrorist-wracked developing country with low safety standards, and less expected in a rich highly-policed developed country with high safety standards, which is why things like Grenfell are given more prominence than things like this. JM2023 (talk) 06:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't agree that it's at all expected anywhere. Accidental fires in buildings with triple-digit death tolls are rare everywhere. I think this is the only one in the world this year. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Being sad is not a factor in significance, and your comment is an inappropriate overreaction to a basic explanation of Wikipedia guidelines. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose on quality, support on notability Article is a stub at the moment, but certainly notable enough. The Kip 12:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose Article is still a stub. Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Article quality is OK. There's room for further expansion but there is sufficient information for ITN. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support We posted those other fires recently and the article is ok. Fdfexoex (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support because of its high death toll & article quality. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: @MonarchOfTerror, Midori No Sora, The Kip, Editor 5426387. Article is now expanded. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Consider my oppose stricken. The Kip 22:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Article is of sufficient quality and length now. --Mika1h (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. ITN should be posting encyclopedic topics that happen to be in the news, not the news stories themselves. Wikipedia is not an newspaper. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ITN posts news stories far more often than topics that are in the news. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose random event, no long term effect. Banedon (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Would you have decided not to post the The Station nightclub fire of 2003? Because this is essentially that, down to the use of pyrotechnics lighting inflammable materials. Not posting this is obvious systemic bias, especially since we posted the Grenfell tower fire. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 04:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• As I recall I opposed posting the Grenfell Tower fire pretty strongly as well - see June 2017 archives. Banedon (talk) 05:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You said that you couldn't see how Grenfell could have a long-term effect; it's been proven to have had major long-term effects. We don't know if they'll be a long-term effect from this fire or not, which is the case for most events posted to ITN. It's not a requirement for posting. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But knowing whether it has a long-term effect is a requirement for having an article. Whether posting P&G violating articles to the main page is acceptable is a matter up for debate. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Over 100 people were killed by fireworks being lit indoors, igniting illegal cladding. That'll have a long-term effect. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

somehow I doubt it will generate the sort of debates and public awareness that Grenfell did. The same way terrorism in Iraq is treated differently by the public than terrorism in Britain. JM2023 (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Grenfell & Qaraqosh fires were fuelled by highly flammable, illegal cladding. The reactions will be similar, though Qaraqosh will receive less media coverage. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Really? Like what major long-term effects? Remember, I am looking for major long-term international effects, and changing one building material that most people cannot even name is not such an effect. Banedon (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

•  Administrator note I have removed the "Ready" from the nomination header as there is nothing close to consensus to post as of right now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I see far more supports than opposes. Not sure why you think that's not consensus. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 04:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Also, it should be noted that only three of the opposes were on notability grounds. The others were due to the article quality, which has since been significantly improved. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 04:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support It is definitely an unordinary fire accident when it kills over a hundred people. Unless we have decided to stop posting disasters completely (which the recent postings show is not the case) I don't think why this should not be as well. Gotitbro (talk) 04:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Despite the fact it appears to be a domestic incident, a death toll of more than 100 people is extraordinary rare.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• A death toll of 100 is tiny because about 55 million people die every year – that's about a hundred every minute. The biggest killer is heart disease and, as it happens, it's
  World Heart Day tomorrow. And there is some news about this such as an alarming surge in prevalence amongst the young in the UAE. As an encyclopedia, we should be highlighting such broad, big-picture issues. Dramatic incidents and accidents are sensational, news-style coverage. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
  ]

  ...this section is literally called "In The News". (also, that's two deaths per second, not a hundred) Chaotic Enby (talk) 08:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I should have said minute not second – thanks for the correction. By my calculation, it's 104/minute but that's based on 2019 stats. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I wish there were more news articles about the majority of those 55 million people that die every year that could be considered for posting. You're welcome to nominate the alarming surge in the prevalence of deaths caused by heart diseases. I'd like to see a way to accommodate more such stories on ITN in the future.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I made a page called "links to my website", that doesn't mean we should refocus Wikipedia to allow links to my website. The same goes for news stories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Posting per consensus above with the improved quality of the article.
  [OMT] 18:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
  ]

Nominator's comments: 125 is quite a lot, especially in a (relatively speaking) developed region in Europe --Daikido (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose on quality. Article is a stub and definitely can be expanded. No opinions on significance for now, will revote later after expansion. S5A-0043^Talk 07:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support on notability, oppose on quality. Definitely notable enough for ITN but the article is far from ready. Johndavies837 (talk) 08:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Ongoing like the Flight of Karabakh Armenians below. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge with the #Flight of Karabakh Armenians proposal below. Chaotic Enby (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added a question below, asking whether the blurb on the exodus story (which seems to be getting more attention) should mention the explosion as well. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose Already covered by another ITN, plus article is not ready.Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - Careful to maintain NPOV on this highly contentious item PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) Dadasaheb Phalke Award

Article: Waheeda Rehman (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Waheeda Rehman is awarded the Dadasaheb Phalke Award. (Post)
News source(s): Hindustan Times Times of India
Credits:

• Nominated by PrinceofPunjab (talk · give credit)

The nominated event is listed on

ITNR film awards. She is awarded with India's highest award in the field of cinema. User:PrinceofPunjab (talk) 03:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

A handful of paragraphs in Acting Career are undersourced (long passages w/o any source or paragraphs ending w/o a citation) Masem (t) 03:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose Acting career section needs more refs and there are 3 unsourced statements in awards. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 06:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• strongest possible Oppose since when do we post minor regional awards from places like india? they hardly have any global importance. this is the first time im hearing about this and im something of a cinemaphile myself. I feel like this is another sign of the worrisome trend of indians getting access to the itnernet and then starting to ovrwhelm wikipedia with their nationalism Daikido (talk) 06:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The Dadasaheb Phalke Award is India's highest award in the field of cinema. Curbon7 (talk) 06:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  so? are we now going to post the highest turkish cinema award? highest russian one? Highest Nigerien one? This is absurd Daikido (talk) 06:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  We also post the highest award in American cinema(

  Academy Award). This award is on the ITNR list meaning that notability is not for debate. If you disagree with this award being on ITNR, please start a discussion proposing its removal. If you want to see other national awards posted, please nominate them so we can consider it. 331dot (talk) 07:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

  ]

  That's because the Academy Awards are the most famous awards in the cinema industry, I have never heard of the "Dadasaheb Phalke Award", neither have I heard any big news outlet talk about this. If we post this, might as well post the highest award in Yemeni cinema. 2601:58A:8E82:1FF0:B0D6:4702:226D:3569 (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I don't see where "2601:58A:8E82:1FF0:B0D6:4702:226D:3569 must have heard of it" is a valid reason to support or oppose a nomination. People in India have heard of it and they are 1/8 of this planet's population. They get some content here, too. 331dot (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The Academy Awards recognize some of the most famous and highest-grossing films on Earth, Hollywood is the world's biggest film industry, American popular culture through film is the most significant in the world -- plenty of reasons why the Oscars are more notable than these Indian film awards. Besides, this is English Wikipedia, and how many films at these awards were in English or known outside India and the Indian diaspora? JM2023 (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Frankly, we don't give a rat's ass that this is not a primarily English award. Curbon7 (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  highly advised to strike "we don't give a rat's ass" from your comment, or maybe just the entire comment since that's basically the entirety of your one-clause response. not appropriate whatsoever, rude, emotional. JM2023 (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  systemic racism to see why I take such issue with your comment. Curbon7 (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

  ]

  so not only are you explicitly challenging me to report you for telling me "we don't give a rat's ass", you're now alleging i'm a racist. JM2023 (talk) 06:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  This is

  WP:ITNCDONT point 5. S5A-0043^Talk 07:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

  ]

  This could have been easily taken for removal at

  WP:PERSONALATTACKs as to the nationality of other users, I urge you to strike these parts of your comment. Gotitbro (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

  ]

  Just saw that you have been trouted twice and warned thrice and more for this exact insult hurling and treatment of ITN as a

  WP:FORUM. And comments with derogatory slang usage such as orcs on that very Talk page do not inspire much confidence in a change of editing behaviour. I gravely suggest you desist from this. Gotitbro (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

  ]

• Support She seems to be a
  WP:ITNCDONT applies. The ITN/R agreement included the following editors who may wish to confirm their position @Dharmadhyaksha, ThaddeusB, 331dot, Neljack, AlexTiefling, and The Rambling Man:. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
  ]

  It's the highest award for film/cinema in India. I still support it being ITNR. 331dot (talk) 07:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I don't think TRM is allowed to respond here, due to editing restrictions --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 08:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• ThaddeusB doesn't edit much now and explains on their user page that they mainly "got burned out on dealing with nasty people". AlexTiefling hasn't edited for five years but it's not clear why. The other three editors still seem active. As for TRM, their topic ban was closed initially as "no consensus" but then there was a do-over. "Consensus" on Wikipedia is certainly "rough". Andrew🐉(talk) 10:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose, as many countries have film awards. I would also argue that the Golden Rooster Awards in China whose winners don't get posted are just as important. Sahaib (talk) 07:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  "Many countries do X" is not a reason to not post this. Please nominate an article about the awarding of the Golden Rooster award. We can only consider what is nominated. Alternatively, please propose the removal of this award from the ITNR list. We also post the highest award in American cinema(

  Academy Award). 331dot (talk) 07:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

  ]

  Small nit: the Academy awards also consider non-US cinema, as evidenced when Parasite and its director won the big categories a few years back. The BAFTAs is more restrictive but also still put those. This award being the top for Bollywood absolutely should be recognized since India is the most populous country in the world. Masem (t) 16:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  As noted above, Please do not "Oppose an item solely 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 generally unproductive." 331dot (talk) 07:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support - if this is ITNR, then it should be posted, regardless of merits. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 08:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To add: Although it looks like, although there was consensus to add it to ITNR, it got little notice or coverage. I don't oppose an IAR not posting, assuming we would then remove it from ITNR. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 08:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even if it isn't posted, that shouldn't result in automatic removal. There should be a discussion. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Article looks good to me which is the only thing that should matter for ITNR. While the
  WP:ITNR (only serves good that non-frequent ITNR items are brought forth to our attention). Gotitbro (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
  ]

Comment I should point out that Variety, an American publication, published an article[2] about the award. I don't know if one non-Indian publication is enough to consider it in the news, but it's something to take into consideration. Elipticon (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Weak support While I can certainly see the rationale for an IAR oppose, at the end of the day, Bollywood is huge and this award is its top honor. Makes sense to me. The Kip 16:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. A re-visiting of film awards at ITN/R in general would be great, but I see no reason to oppose here. Bollywood is huge - I'd guess the 2nd biggest film center in the world? If anything, maybe we remove Filmfare, because that's also a Bollywood award and seemingly less significant then this one. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Posted briefly, then realised there's are a few paragraphs in the middle lacking a single reference. Stephen 01:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @Stephen: Add citations for the bits that were missing them. Should be fine now I believe. Gotitbro (talk) 08:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support. Referencing and wordings have been improved since yesterday.
  To all opposing the ITNR entry of DPA; this is a wrong forum. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support. ITNR. Article seems to be in good nick. Ktin (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Posted Stephen 23:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Post-posting oppose hard to believe this was supported despite not posting any other national film awards (i.e. Golden Rooster), even harder to believe it was posted with its own image, despite the fact that there is an actual ethnic cleansing going on in the same ITN block, you would think that would merit a photo more than one of a woman winning a rather obscure one-nation film award. JM2023 (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  If you have any issue with other national film awards not being posted, then nominate those awards. And calling the Dadasaheb Phalke Award "obscure" and not the "Golden Rooster" sounds like western-centrism. Tube·of·Light 09:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I would argue that any national film awards (Canadian Junos, British BAFTAs, Chinese Golden Rooster), and even the Oscars, are too obscure for ITN, considering the magnitude of other current events which are life-or-death, science-progressing, or geopolitics-altering, but that's just me (and I'm sure there are various RfCs that go against my personal opinions, but this is for context for my views). Regardless, as @Sahaib said, the Golden Rooster Awards weren't posted despite China being just as populous as India, so there could be an argument for consistency. Moot discussion anyway considering it's been posted JM2023 (talk) 09:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Coming from someone who used the term "Mentally retarded" in an article your idea of "western-centrism" is just like that term... 2A00:23C7:DB80:A101:E496:82FE:7B01:884A (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  you're responding to the wrong person JM2023 (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: Brooks Robinson

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

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

WP:ITNRD.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

• Support Article is GA and has been updated. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Hall of Fame Baseball player whose article passed GA review just two years ago.--CaptainTeebs (talk) 02:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Reposted) Flight of Karabakh Armenians

Article: 

the region falls to an Azerbaijani offensive.
News source(s): Barrons, Armenpress, CNN, Aljazeera, The Guardian, CNBC, France24, DW, Bloomberg, AP, Reuters

Credits:

• Updated and nominated by RaffiKojian (talk · give credit)
• Created by Chaotic Enby (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Latest number is 28,120 have already reached Armenia. The number is growing incredibly fast, as the line of cars waiting to enter is said to be 24 hours of wait time. --RaffiKojian (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• This is obviously not a recent death, so I copied the wrong template. Can someone please tweak it to fix this? Thanks, I don't see where I went wrong. --RaffiKojian (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  you gotta remove the "recent deaths" parameter (along with the ITNR one too, since thats' reserved for yearly recurring stuff liek the oscars) Daikido (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe someone should create an article about the Azeri bombing of a gas station/reserve/storage that has killed mroe than a hundred people already with many more severely injured too? that happened yesterday Daikido (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Azerbaijan being behind it is completely unfounded conjecture at this point. Mooonswimmer 21:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose we already had an ITN heading about the conflict, so covered by the other blurb. Editor 5426387 (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The other blurb appears to have rolled off.

• Support affects >10,000 people directly. Banedon (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems like some of the more egregious users here have at the very least departed temporarily, so I'm coming back to ITN. Support - This involves the plight of tens of thousands of people, fleeing from their homeland in what many folks have dubbed an ethnic cleansing. People are dying too; nearly 70 people were killed in a gas station explosion while leaving, which also left 105 injured; a lone disaster like that would have gotten posted here on ITN. Additionally, receiving extensive mainstream coverage. I think this outlines three out of the four

WP:ITNPURPOSEs - the only issue is that it would likely be best to create a seperate, quality article. — Knightoftheswords 02:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

Welcome back Knight! PrecariousWorlds (talk) 05:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Wait but leaning support. It's not entirely clear how big of a deal this is going to become. But early indications suggest it might evolve into a major humanitarian crisis. There are claims that most of the ethnic Armenians fear political and religious persecution with many either already heading for the border or making plans to flee. A standalone article is likely justified. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support - Yes, we just posted a blurb, but it has already rolled off, and I feel the blurb failed to do this event justice. This is a war that has been going on and off for the last 30 years, and it appears to be approaching its climax. There is a huge refugee crisis, and negotiations are taking place between Artsakh and Azerbaijan that will probably result in an Azerbaijani annexation of Nagorno-Karabakh. This is big news. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 05:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Receiving significant coverage, and certainly has a major impact. Not 100% sure if posting now is appropriate, but it's seems significant enough at least. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 05:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment While I think this is certainly a postable event now, it may be better to wait until we have a fuller picture, especially considering the dissolution of the NKR seems inevitable at this point [3]. Curbon7 (talk) 06:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Support per mine and BilledMammal's comments; possibly combine with the Nagorno-Karabakh fuel depot explosion nomination above. Curbon7 (talk) 06:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support. The ethnic cleansing is more newsworthy than the inevitable annexation, but when the annexation does come there is no reason we can't also post that. BilledMammal (talk) 06:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose technically, as there's no specific article to bold and the
  2023 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes have already been posted earlier. Brandmeister^talk 07:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
  ]

  Created Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians, if anyone wants to expand it to ITN quality it would be amazing! Chaotic Enby (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support extremely relevant, should be in the news. Thousands of people are fleeing and the number rises each day. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 08:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Ongoing This started as a special military operation which rapidly became a ceasefire and now we have a large rush of refugees. Who knows what tomorrow may bring? As this is a long-running conflict which is now fast-moving, it should be an entry in Ongoing. BTW, I happened to notice a new memorial here yesterday and took a picture which seems topical. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC) (edit conflict)Reply[reply]
• Support Massive population flight regrettably caused by an attempt at ethnic cleansing. Having an Ongoing item would also be a possibility, although we'd need a separate article either for the timeline or for the aftermath (maybe Aftermath of the Nagorno-Karabakh offensive?) as the military conflict itself has ended. Chaotic Enby (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  We should also have an article for the Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians, given the notability and importance of the event itself. Chaotic Enby (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The best article to cover all aspects seems to be Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  True if we want an ongoing item, but too vague for this specific blurb. Chaotic Enby (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support but combine seems logical to also incorporate the explosion and general conflict articles into one blurb. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose.
  WP:NPOV. Presentation is not neutral. Should be not "attacked by Azerbaijan", but something like "after a military operation by Azerbaijan". Grandmaster 13:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
  ]

  ^ Yep PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  All of the statements by Europe and the United States support the word attacked, as well as most news articles, so calling it an "operation" like Azerbaijan did would actually be the opposite of NPOV. RaffiKojian (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As usual, they paint only half of the picture. This was preceded by several recent landmine explosions in the region that killed at least 18 people (which was one of the triggers of the offensive), so there's a question of who attacked whom first. Brandmeister^talk 14:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:NPOV given what the sources actually say. Chaotic Enby (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

This is currently moot anyway as there's no eligible target article for the main page. Brandmeister^talk 17:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1948 Palestinian exodus was renamed we may need to move it to to Expulsion and flight of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh. I also agree with Chaotic Enby that we should reflect reliable sources, who don't give much credence to Azerbaijani claims of Armenia starting the renewed conflict. BilledMammal (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

The clashes were already posted once, I'm not sure subsections are also eligible as targets. The proposed blurb currently doesn't include the subsection. Brandmeister^talk 18:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Subsections are eligible, and there is no rule against posting the same article twice if circumstances warrant it. BilledMammal (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For context I originally named it "Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians" but it was renamed. Don't have too much time myself unfortunately but I'll be happy if anyone can expand it! Chaotic Enby (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One needs to be careful with the term "expulsion", as it implies the use of force to drive a group of people away. That may or may not be the case here, but coming to a definitive conclusion would certainly require reliable sources. By comparison, "flight" and "exodus" seem uncontroversial and more-or-less interchangeable. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 07:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment - the blurb presented is not neutral, it should not use the word "attacked" and there's also no need to mention the blockade. The discussion at the article's talk page is leaning towards "offensive" as a title, which describes factually what happened without using loaded language. This might be a significant enough story to post other than that, or perhaps it's an ongoing, since the initial story rolled off. I'm kind of neutral on that question.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I've added altblurb one, although I consider the proposed blurb neutral; attack is widely used by reliable sources, such as the Guardian, AP news, and the BBC. BilledMammal (talk)

  Yes, that's much better, thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Moving from wait. There are now credible reports that people are being arrested by Azeri forces, in some cases as they attempt to flee. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Admin comment There is clear consensus to post here, and so I'd do that now ... but to what?
  [OMT] 19:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
  ]

  Would it be a good idea to move the relevant sections (with attribution) from

  Exodus of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh? Chaotic Enby (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

  ]

  I think either the article and section I linked to (2023 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes#26 September) is okay, because the context is above and quite accessible, or the new stub article which has prominent links to the main articles can work as well. I will add a concise if brief background to the stub right now in any case. RaffiKojian (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Okay @The ed17:, I have spent some time expanding the article to maybe triple or quadruple the size it was when I got to it, others have been editing it since then too. It still needs work but I hope it's enough to link to for now. RaffiKojian (talk) 06:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Amazing, thank you! Chaotic Enby (talk) 08:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  it's been significantly improved by others now, so should be ready to post. JM2023 (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support - I support posting if
  Exodus of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh gets expanded beyond a stub. --Mika1h (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
  ]
• Question Should the Nagorno-Karabakh fuel depot explosion be mentioned in the blurb? Either news story on its own would be ITN-worthy. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  no. getting too detailed means getting too long. we already have a planned dissolution of the state itself that could be added to the blurb first. JM2023 (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Did we post the flight of Afghans after the Taliban takeover as well? If so, I would be leaning towards a support. Gotitbro (talk) 04:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @

  2021 evacuation from Afghanistan was indeed referenced in the ITN section on the Main Page, but it wasn't the bolded article. Instead, the main link was the 2021 Kabul airport attack, which killed 183 people during the evacuation. That blurb might provide a decent example of how to handle posting the fuel explosion disaster and broader topic of the exodus at once, as I mentioned directly above. (Afghanistan is actually not a bad precedent to look at for Nagorno-Karabakh. The orders of magnitude are quite similar both for the number of people fleeing in the 'evacuation' and those killed in the 'disaster'. One of many obvious differences is that the airport attack was intentional, but the fuel explosion apparently wasn't.) 70.181.1.68 (talk) 05:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

  ]

• Support in principle. I assume that the departure of people comes as a result of the reported ceasefire violations, so it's probably worth mentioning it in the blurb somehow.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Update [4] The government of the Republic of Artsakh has officially announced that it will dissolve, effective January 1. This isn't at all surprising, given the decisive result of the Azerbaijani offensive, but seems like yet another aspect of this unfolding story that would normally be considered important enough to merit a blurb. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  indeed the dissolution of a (de facto) sovereign state is always notable. JM2023 (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment Small detail, but the altblurb isn't grammatically correct ("...after being the region falls...") Chaotic Enby (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  fixed JM2023 (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Also small detail, for "Created by", which article should be considered? Chaotic Enby (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  in my opinion, the bolded one, being the topic of the altblurb. is the creator who is credited the creator of that article? JM2023 (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I'm the creator (although not the main contributor) of the bolded article. Chaotic Enby (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Took the initiative and fixed it, not sure if I should've done it myself. Chaotic Enby (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support 65,000 people have fled so far out of about 120,000 who lived there. Artsakh's government has declared its intention to dissolve by the new year. It's a bona fide ethnic cleansing affecting over a hundred thousand people and a conflict over a hundred years old. I wonder if this can be merged with the above proposal to post the dissolution of Artsakh. JM2023 (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Merger with the Artsakh story, for the reasons mentioned in that nomination. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose in its current wording: "blockaded and attacked by Azerbaijan" does not adhere to NPOV. Something like "Tens of thousands of Armenians flee Nagorno-Karabakh after being a military operation by Azerbaijan." is more neutral Nemoralis (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  "Attack" is probably not the wrong word for a situation where virtually all RS use the word "attack" and Azerbaijan is by all sources invading Artsakh-held and Armenia-held territory, but by all means support the alt blurb, looks like that's the one going ahead anyway JM2023 (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @

  [OMT] 17:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

  ]

• Posted with thanks to
  [OMT] 17:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
  ]

  The item got removed, what happened? Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  This apparently: "19:10, 29 September 2023‎ The ed17 talk contribs‎  1,831 bytes −55‎   -Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians due to NPOV tag and discussion; re-add +Tigst Assefa for main page balance thank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor"

  Apparently the ongoing dispute at the main article, with the neutrality tag subject to an edit war, is the problem the editor found with the blurb.

  Personally I think this was the wrong course of action. JM2023 (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I posted the action at

  [OMT] 19:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

  ]

  (edit conflict) @The ed17: I would suggest restoring it; just because an editor adds the tag doesn't mean there is an NPOV issue; I think it would be best to let the community discuss here whether the article should be pulled or not. In my opinion it should not be; having been engaged in the talk page I am not seeing any policy based arguments for that claim - the main claim by the editor who added the tag is that the article doesn't go into sufficient detail into Azerbaijani grievances with the Armenians, but reliable sources on the flight don't go into such detail either, considering it not relevant, and thus per NPOV we should not consider it relevant. BilledMammal (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Fully agree, the consensus isn't that there are actual NPOV issues, and one editor adding a tag shouldn't lead to an entire article being pulled from the main page without discussion. Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @

  [OMT] 20:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

  ]

  Now that it has been pulled I believe it is better to continue the discussion here, where a renewed consensus to post can form. BilledMammal (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  What do you think of the proposal I made of having the other blurb (the one not linking to the NPOV tagged article) as an interim solution? Chaotic Enby (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  better than nothing JM2023 (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Reposted
  [OMT] 04:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
  ]

  Thanks and sorry for all these issues! Small detail, can the blurb be updated from "tens of thousands" to "more than a hundred thousand" given the most recent count? (Asking here because it's more of an update than an error) Chaotic Enby (talk) 10:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  seconded JM2023 (talk) 10:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  My bad, I checked and updates should be suggested in

  WP:ERRORS too apparently. Chaotic Enby (talk) 11:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

  ]

September 25

Portal:Current events/2023 September 25

September 25, 2023 (2023-09-25) (Monday) edit history watch Armed conflicts and attacks 2022–present North Kosovo crisis Banjska attack armored vehicles, a day after the village was attacked by gunmen. (Reuters) Aftermath of the 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh Exodus of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh The number of refugees that have fled to Armenia from Artsakh increases to 6,500, while a further 700 are sheltering with Russian peacekeepers.(AP) Russian invasion of Ukraine Military aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War Ukraine receives its first shipment of M1 Abrams tanks from the United States. (RFE/RL) Yemeni civil war Houthi–Saudi Arabian conflict An Bahraini soldiers, including an officer, and injures several others. (AP) Disasters and accidents Nagorno-Karabakh fuel depot explosion Sixty-eight people are killed and 290 others are injured by an explosion at a fuel warehouse near Stepanakert, Artsakh. (Al Jazeera) Six people are killed and 13 others are missing following heavy rains and a landslide in Guatemala City, Guatemala. (AFP via GMA News) Autlán de Navarro, Jalisco, Mexico, kills seven people and leaves nine others missing. (AP) Five people are killed when two private planes collide in La Galancita, Durango, Mexico. (AP) International relations Territorial disputes in the South China Sea The Philippine Coast Guard removes a series of buoys installed by China in the contested Scarborough Shoal in the South China Sea under orders of President Bongbong Marcos. (BBC News) Law and crime Aftermath of the Derna dam collapses The mayor of Derna, Libya, Abdelmounem al-Ghaithi, and several other officials are detained over mismanagement and negligence accusations following the Derna dam collapse which killed over 5,000 people. (Reuters) Burkinabe Armed Forces. (Reuters)

---

RD: Eugenio Calabi

Article: Eugenio Calabi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques,
Credits:

• Nominated by 70.181.1.68 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by ELbouardiB (talk · give credit), Gilgamesbalazs (talk · give credit) and Gumshoe2 (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

WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Very notable mathematician, undoubtedly one of the most recognizable names in contemporary geometry and well-known to physicists as well. The fact that his surname occurs three times in the geometry article and 15 times in string theory says something. Has numerous mathematical objects named after him (Calabi conjecture, Calabi–Yau manifold, Calabi flow, Calabi triangle, Calabi–Eckmann manifold) and even a play. Unfortunately, has a tagged section that needs reference work. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

If there's a need for it I could fix up the research section without too much trouble. (I wrote it so I'm familiar with the content) Gumshoe2 (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gumshoe2: That would be great. Once enough secondary sources are added to remove the tag, I think this will be ready to post to the main page under "Recent deaths". 70.181.1.68 (talk) 03:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Closed) Anthony Rota resignation

Consensus will not develop to post. Stephen 00:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

---

Article: 

Speaker of the House of Commons of Canada Anthony Rota resigns after leading applause of ex-Nazi Yaroslav Hunka during Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy's parliamentary visit.
News source(s): Globe and Mail

Credits:

• Nominated by Me (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: I think we post major resignations? --Daikido (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose We should not. As Wikipedia isn’5 a local news agency, we should never include the resignation of national non-executive or non-head of office positions. Even when it is a matter of global embarrassment such as this.

_-_Alsor (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, if you scroll up and read the meager couple of paragraphs describing what is and what isn't to be posted here, you'd learn that this place is precisely for stuff that's 5 a local news agency - for stuff that's In the news, idk where u live but that story has been the main story in the news forthe past 2 days where i live Daikido (talk) 06:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment This is a somewhat interesting story in the context of international relations (Canada, Ukraine, Poland), although I don't know whether it's important enough news for ITN. (Maybe DYK?) It's certainly the most prominent story in Canada at the moment. For reference, articles on the incident currently take up three of the top four news slots on the CBC.ca website, and eight of the top nine slots on the National Post website. The article on Yaroslav Hunka is currently nominated for AfD, although it's looking like it will end in a SNOW keep. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Alternative This has become quite the major news article, per the Comment above and I think making it about the event would be better. I know that this comes as there are talks about
  WP:GS/RUSUKR in major contributions in this space so we should be cautious about Wikivoice but I think this would make a valuable addition to ItN MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
  ]
• Point of Order The Speaker of the House might sound more major than it is, if conflated with the American version. The Canadian speaker is more like a moderator than a mouthpiece for the majority, and basically sacrifices his or her party's agenda-pushing power for the good of neutrality. It's more that the entirety of the federal government (and the president of the Ukraine) unwittingly honoured the other man than a matter of this man's resignation. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Lean support since it's dominating the news in Canada This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose if the prime minister (Justin Trudeau) resigns, then yes. Banedon (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose - This has been one of the most entertaining news stories of the year to follow, but unfortunately I feel this is not notable enough for a blurb. Oh well PrecariousWorlds (talk) 05:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment All of the proposed blurbs are way too wordy. Curbon7 (talk) 06:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Courtesy pings to Estar8806, Orchastrattor, and OhanaUnited who participated in the blurb discussion on 22 September prior to Rota's resignation. Curbon7 (talk) 06:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I've shrunk Alt II, but won't apologize. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Ongoing This belongs in the timeline which we have in Ongoing as there are many such incidents every day. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose (or Ongoing) Clearly not notable enough, the Canadian speaker resigning might sound like a lot but he isn't as powerful or influential as one would believe. If Trudeau resigns, now that would be notable. Chaotic Enby (talk) 10:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose Certainly an interesting story, but doesn’t rise to the level of ITN, especially when the Canadian speaker isn’t quite as importsnt as their US equivalent. The Kip 12:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Still oppose Same reasoning as last time (not significant enough to hit ITN). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Clean Support, I feel like Zelenskyy's visit being involved in the original fiasco and Poland and Russia joining in on the outrage both push this into the 'international' category. Orchastrattor (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.

RD: David McCallum

Article: David McCallum (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-26/david-mccallum-actor-dies-90s-cbs-ncis/102900304
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

WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Scottish actor well known for The Man from U.N.C.L.E. and NCIS. HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

]

• Not Ready for the
  usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
  ]