Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Click here to nominate an item for In the news. In the news toolbox
Shortcut

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS. Archives of past nominations can be found here.

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.

Pedro Castillo in 2021
Pedro Castillo

view — page history — related changes — edit

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated).
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
    • Preferably use the template {{ITN candidate}} to nominate the article related to the event in the news. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable secondary source. Press releases are not acceptable. The suggested blurb should be written in simple present tense.
    • Adding an explanation why the event should be posted greatly increases the odds of posting.
  • Please consider alerting editors to the nomination by adding the template {{ITN note}} to the corresponding article's talk page.

Purge this page to update the cache

There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN.

Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template.

Headers[edit]

  • Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.
  • Items can also be marked as (Ready) when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked (Ready), you should remove the mark in the header.

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

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

Please do not...[edit]

  1. add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  2. 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.
  3. accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  4. comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. The criteria can be discussed at the relevant talk page.

Please be encouraged to...[edit]

  1. pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
  2. review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. Maybe the previous reviewer has missed a problem, or an identified problem has now been fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes may also help administrators identify items that are ready for promotion to the ITN template on MainPage.
  3. point out problematic areas in the nominated article and, if appropriate, suggest how to fix them. If you know exactly what to do, by all means, go ahead and fix it as you see fit.
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Archives[edit]

April 8[edit]

April 8, 2022 (2022-04-08) (Friday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Science and technology

April 7[edit]

April 7, 2022 (2022-04-07) (Thursday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Fujiko A. Fujio[edit]

Article: Fujiko Fujio (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): South China Morning Post Nikkei Asia France 24
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Part of a duo who created Doraemon, among other works, the character is recognized as a very well known cultural icon. Fujiko A. Fujio is the pen name of Motoo Abiko. Ornithoptera (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Notable person. Rin (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Completely unsuitable for RD at the moment, there is precisely one source in the first nine paragraphs of the Biography section. Black Kite (talk) 12:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Huge amounts of unsourced material. AryKun (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russia Suspended, Quits UN Human Rights Council[edit]

Article: United Nations Human Rights Council (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​The UN General Assembly suspends Russia from the Human Rights Council, and Russia quits. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Russia quits the UN Human Rights Council after the General Assembly suspended their council membership.
Alternative blurb II: ​The United Nations General Assembly adopts a resolution suspending Russia from the Human Rights Council.
News source(s): Reuters, Associated Press, Al Jazeera, UN News, NPR, Axios, The New York Times, Forbes, The Washington Post
Credits:

Nominator's comments: The second time a country has been suspended (Libya in 2011). Russia is a GA. Human Rights Council needs more sourcing but isn't hopeless. P.S. Chronology of when Russian quit isn't clear so blurb was reworded. SusanLesch (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Big shakeup and internationally recognized. Second time this has ever happened as well. Ornithoptera (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Part of historic event in Europe. BabbaQ (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: barely/not mentioned at either article. Not groundbreaking/decisive news given the current conflict. — Bilorv (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A member state, whose temporary membership expires in one year from now, being suspended from a body with 46 other member states doesn’t have any major impact and isn’t newsworthy at all. Major news would be Russia’s removal from the UN Security Council, but this is very far away from it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. With half the countries abstaining, removal from the Security Council is out of the question. This is the first time a permanent member of the Security Council was ever removed from any UN body. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thank you, but the article isn't quite ready. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's more meat on the story at Eleventh emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly#7 April, if that could be pipe-linked instead of the broader UNGA article. Moscow Mule (talk) 01:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this. Best to link it to the emergency session article or to the United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/3 article. Pilaz (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreeing with Pilaz's point, the United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/3 article is much better suited for an alternative blurb. Ornithoptera (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The ES-11/3 article would be best if this is to run. — Bilorv (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Altblurb2 submitted for your consideration, then. Moscow Mule (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support notable, given the last time was in 2011. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 03:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Little to no impact of a body that doesn't live up to its name. If they do something in regards to sentencing Russian officials than may be that would be worth posting, but being suspended from a human rights council when it's generally believed that you are committing the crimes the council combats isn't exactly surprising and has very little impact in the grand scheme of things. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Extremely rare occurrence, and it being a SC member makes it all the more notable. The Kip (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality target article is orange tagged for needing more sources. Unless that is fixed, the whole discussion is a moot point. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt2 Given that Russia's removal from the UN Security Council is impossible under current rules (as compared to Soviet Union's expulsion from the League of Nations after Winter War), this is likely as far as it could go in the UN. Brandmeistertalk 08:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rare and notable. Alex-h (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt2. Article is short, but sufficient; it is well referenced and lacks the orange tags that Joseph2302 notes may be a problem with other targets. --Jayron32 12:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Very widely covered and tellingly indicative of Russia's international standing due its brutal invasion of Ukraine. Favor ALT2 – but with this small clarification: "...from the UN Human Rights Council" or "its Human Rights Council." (The relevant 'Suspensions' section of the main target article seems well-documented.) – Sca (talk) 13:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ALT2 only as this links to the article about the actual event, and that article is good enough article quality. ALT0 and ALT1 both bold United Nations Human Rights Council, which is orange-tagged, and so not an acceptable article target, and anyway, linking to the specific event article is way better for readers. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Often a separate article about the event is optimal, but this one seems rather thin. In this instance the main target article appears to be a better choice, and I don't see the orange tag about "tertiary" sources as being necessary; overall, the article looks well-documented. But either article would be OK to get this event into the box. -- Sca (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The United Nations Human Rights Council also has sections with lots of citation needed tags too. Whereas Eleventh emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly is more than good enough at explaining this, as it covers the entire timeline of issues around it, which the general article does not (it has one paragraph). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ketanji Brown Jackson[edit]

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.
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.
Nominator's comments: Major political development in a global superpower nation, and one that has a far more powerful judicial branch than most others. I included "confirm" in the bolded link to avoid an MOS:EGG. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on global perspective: I very much want ITN to be a global venue, but to say that this isn't significant enough to post makes us basically a parody of ourselves. Much of the opposition so far (e.g. Members of supreme courts around the world are being voted all the time) evidence a fundamental lack of understanding of American politics. Most countries' supreme courts are not nearly as powerful as the U.S. Supreme Court, which heads the entire third branch of its government, so it's not an analogous situation. And most don't appoint judges to lifetime tenure. Further, we need to cure ourselves of this idea that to be global, we need to treat all countries, no matter how big or small, identically. A major political development in the U.S. is fundamentally more newsworthy than a major political development in Liechtenstein. That isn't because we're giving any special treatment to the U.S.—it's because the U.S. has 329 million people whereas Liechtenstein has 0.04 million. We should treat countries equitably, not equally. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a sampling of publications of record from around the world, all of which currently have the Jackson nomination on their front page in the local edition: Le Monde, Der Spiegel, The Guardian, Asahi Shinbun, South China Morning Post, The Hindu, etc. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
China and India combined contain 36% of global population. The United States contains about 4% of global population. Would an “equitable” ITN reflect these numbers? Thriley (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so 4% of ITN would be news related to the United States? If so, this news item wouldn’t make it in my opinion. Thriley (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to disagree. Just because the United States has 4 percent of the world's population doesn't water down the fact that it has a massive influence on the world as a whole. We, instead of pointing to a number and immediately changing ITN policy because of it, should instead take each submission on a case by case basis. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • of course, this also keeps the court at a 6-3 conservative/liberal split and hence means little to the overall issues widely known with SCOTUS (eg shadow dockets) until that ratio changes. Status quo remains, outside the first for racial/gender equity. This is not like RBG dying with Trump in position to move a 5-4 to 6-3. --Masem (t) 20:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is in a high-quality state, news outlets are providing an adequate level of coverage to indicate newsworthiness. --Jayron32 18:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is good (and semi protected). Definitely notable for American history. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This vote, while well-covered in media, doesn’t have the significance to be on ITN. Nothing changes in the philosophical dynamic of the court. I assume the last three nominees to the Supreme Court did not make it to ITN. Jackson shouldn’t either. Thriley (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Amy Conan Barrett's nomination was not posted. Brett Kavanaugh was posted, then pulled. Neil Gorsuch was not posted. But none of those had the historic nature of the first Black woman to be appointed.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If Jackson’s race is the reason for this to appear on ITN, then it should be mentioned. Otherwise, this is a uneventful news story that does not fundamentally change anything. Thriley (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - ready for posting. Notable in American history.BabbaQ (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose when the election of members of the Supreme Courts becomes ITNR we will talk about this. For now it’s another American joke. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Alsoriano97, (a) typically something like a SCOTUS nomination would get support at ITN before getting an ITNR nomination, (2) these "anti-nationalist" comments, best term I can come up with, are not helpful for discussion in any way. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as a routine vote. Members of supreme courts around the world are being voted all the time. We don’t need a precedent for this.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We wouldn't post a judge joining the Supreme Court of any other country. Only notable aspect is that she is the first black woman on the court; but let's put it another way: would we post the first time a Muslim was added to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom? NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose does not change the ideological status quo, and we routine don't post such confirmations from elsewhere. Being the first African American female justice can be a DYK. --Masem (t) 19:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Historic nomination that is receiving widespread coverage.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think we should lean towards rewarding good articles that are wholly created (rather than merely updated) to reflect recent events, as this supports the intent of ITN. But I the significance here fails to cross even a lowered threshold. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an extremely editor-centric perspective. Current events articles would still be written and updated even if ITN ceased tomorrow, so that's not a very strong raison d'être. The value of ITN is that it makes it easier for readers to find content that will be of strong interest to them. And there are a lot of readers right now who are interested in this news. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are mistaken. While the main page is organized in such a way as to facilitate certain benefit to readers, its raison d'être is to promote improvements to the mainspace. This is in no way editor-centric, by the way. Readers benefit. GreatCaesarsGhost 23:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - First X in Y is a tired argument. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose the ideological balance of the court stays the same, so it comes down to just the first person of a demographic to be appointed some internal post, so no. Bumbubookworm (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this is groundbreaking news, it is truly a historical moment. Netherzone (talk) 19:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposeideological balanceis is not changed. Shadow4dark (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Historic from an American perspective, and great for her and the nation as a whole, but not entirely unprecedented or groundbreaking on a global stage. NorthernFalcon and Kiril Simeonovski put it quite well already. Ornithoptera (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support given that she is going to be a historic addition to the court, and this story has global RS coverage and is of particular interest to many readers. However, I would alternatively support a standard of posting an item only if there is a change in the ideological balance of the court. This would retrospectively justify posting the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a blurb rather than RD. The only other confirmation since Clarence Thomas in 1991 that would be debatable is Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, since he replaced the swing vote on an arguably 4-4-1 court to solidify a 5-4 conservative majority, which has obviously had a large (detrimental) impact on many issues affecting millions of people. Davey2116 (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose More appropriate for 2022 in the United States. Do we post things on ITN about judges getting appointed to the Supreme Courts of other countries (Canada, France, Australia, Japan, Germany, etc...)?Canuck89 (Converse with me) 22:05, April 7, 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We don't normally post supreme court appointments, and I see no justification for posting this. BilledMammal (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, one change to a court of one nation that doesn't affect ideological balance is not exactly earth shattering. Kafoxe (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The article is in good shape and this is in the news internationally. -- Tavix (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - it's in the news (globally not just in the US) and article quality is sufficient. Levivich 22:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It's really just a case of a judge being promoted, it's a domestic matter that has no significance globally in the grand scheme of things. If I didnt turn to American media, I wouldn't really hear much about it. 4iamking (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - While historic indeed, it's only historic in the U.S. therefore it's domestic news not global news. Can't really see her confirmation having any global ramifications/impact and therefore not global news worthy. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We almost never post domestic political events below the level of national elections because every country has their own version of something like this and we can't post them all. This isn't saying the event lacks significance. It is saying that the significance outside the borders of one country is pretty limited and we would almost certainly quickly decline any nomination of a similar nature from any other country. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - While historic in the United States, and thrilling on that basis, I don't think it reaches a level of global significance as a domestic political event. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.

April 6[edit]

April 6, 2022 (2022-04-06) (Wednesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

First known dinosaur fossil from K-T extinction[edit]

Article: Tanis (fossil site) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​The first known dinosaur fossil from the K–T extinction is found in the Tanis fossil site. (Post)
News source(s): [2]
Credits:

Nominator's comments: This has been making lots of headlines and I think it would be interesting science news to the readers. 2610:148:1F00:1000:6425:B69C:12FF:15B2 (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose on the basis that, if I read this correctly, this claim hadnt yet been published through a peer reviewed journal even though there's been careful checks through the process. We usually want that confirmation for these. --Masem (t) 21:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The Tanis site is the Pompeii of the KT extinction. Findings at that site are extremely valuable. Scientific rigor about the latest finding is less important for ITN, what matters is that there is a good Wiki article that puts this latest finding in the context of all the other discoveries made at Tanis. Count Iblis (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose, while I like good science stories, and this is one, the news at the moment is just a confirmation of what has been already announced months ago. So, we should have posted it then, not now. --Tone 21:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Attenborough's BBC show is still upcoming (April 15). -SusanLesch (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Count Iblis. Incredibly important scientific discovery. and to @Tone:, why would we post it then? At that point, it was just pure speculation and thus a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    From the article, it is not clear what the April 2022 update is. The most recent paper in that section is from Feb 2022. This needs to be addressed first. Tone 06:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Important scientific discovery. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above, I would also add a Comment requesting for an alt to mention that the specific dinosaur being mentioned here is a Thescelosaurus as per the BBC article. Ornithoptera (talk) 03:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Utterly massive discovery. The Kip (talk) 06:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the target article should be the specific fossil species found, not the site itself. Brandmeistertalk 06:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose target article contains no information relevant to the blurb which is dated to the time frame for an ITN posting. --Jayron32 12:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Päivi Räsänen[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Proposed image
Article: Päivi Räsänen (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Päivi Räsänen is unanimously acquitted of homophobic hate speech charges by the District Court of Helinski. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The prosecution does not contest Päivi Räsänen's acquittal of homophobic hate speech charges.
News source(s): Newsweek, Christianity Today, EuroNews
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: The trial is an intersection which spans the interest of multiple groups: Freedom of speech advocates, freedom of religion advocates, homosexual rights and traditional marriage advocates, those concerned about prosecutorial abuse, and political pluralism advocates. The prosecution had until April 6, 2022 to appeal this, the verdict becomes final today if there is no appeal.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - My instinct is to oppose on whether this is a notable enough news event to qualify, but I feel like I probably do not know enough about how much coverage this got in Finland to make that judgement. Anyone more familiar have any thoughts on this? 82.15.196.46 (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Google News lists many different Finnish language sources in the last six days, including major outlets.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose result of a trial of a non-leadership government official. Not significant in light of larger world events. --Masem (t) 15:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier, Räsänen was the Minister of the Interior, a department which includes the administration of the state church. This was an element of her trial, because she had made public statements with the intention of swaying the state church away from the path which it later took. Räsänen is not part of the current government, yet since the start of this year her Finnish language Wikipedia article has higher peaks than the article for the current Prime Minister of Finland, and about half the total number of views as the current Prime Minister.
As for the relationship with larger world events, her trial attracted protests and commentary in Hungary over the previous months. The blurb about Fidesz relates to this in that the elements in Hungary which supported Räsänen could be assumed to side with Fidesz as opposed to the opposition. In addition part of the trial concerned her prosecution for things she stated before the Finnish government and state church adopted its current positions on homosexuality. Had the trial gone the other way, Fidesz lost, and the opposition enacted similar legislation to Finland's, Räsänen's conviction would have set a precedent to prosecute current high profile Fidesz elected leaders. Concern about the sort of precedent this would set in foreign countries was cited by critics.
The article describes public advocacy, some rather strongly worded, by representatives of 45 Lutheran church bodies, five senators, and ten U.S. academics. This sort of foreign interest is especially because the trial has implications for how foreign nations will balance the various rights. Had the verdict gone the other way, it would encourage similar prosecutions elsewhere. Other aspects of the trial included the prosecutions' formal demand for sentences against the bishop of a small Lutheran church body in Finland, the censorship and fine of an organization related to the denomination, and the censorship of portions of a show from a well known host on YLE, a major public media outlet.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its still not going to change how any major government is going to be run or have any landmark change in laws or policies. Its not the type of story that works well on ITN due to how narrow it is. --Masem (t) 00:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Stale. News is from March 30, oldest current blurb from April 3. --Jayron32 16:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the blurb earlier but did not submit it because the prosecution said there was a high probability of appeal. In Finland the prosecution can appeal too. Today is the earliest I can say that it won't be appealed to reverse the ruling. It is still within the 14 days for ITN.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
14 days is a rough estimate. Blurbs are posted in (fairly) strict chronological order, and bumped off the bottom when the list becomes too long. The date in the article related to the blurb is March 30. That would place it under the Orban blurb (indeed, also under several other blurbs that have also since rolled off), and as such, would never make the main page. Even if it were otherwise okay. --Jayron32 17:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why not date it to April 6 as this altblurb: "The prosecution does not contest Päivi Räsänen's acquittal of homophobic hate speech charges."? (Added in just now)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I would oppose posting this whether it was in India, the US, Egypt or Tuvalu. It's irrelevant to the global audience of the encyclopedia. She isn't even a leader of any great significance. On a side note given the History of same-sex unions I question the use of the term "traditional marriage". AusLondonder (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Her trial and/or charges were covered by BBC, Reuters, MSN, The Hill, Washington Post, The Spectator, FOX News, Newsweek, National Review, and U.S. News & World Report. I agree that she was never a world leader. What is especially significant in this story are the decisions of the prosecution.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose Older than the current oldest blurb on ITN from 3 April. The acquital would be the major story, not the alt blurb of the prosecution not contesting.—Bagumba (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I had written the blurb for March 30, I could have gotten a procedural oppose on the basis that District Court isn't very high up in the Finnish judicial system, and that the prosecution plans to appeal.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment any blurb should probably explain that Räsänen was Minister of the Interior in Finland in 2015. But her article doesn't make it very clear what she has done or what she has been since then. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Her career besides as a minister: on the Riihimäki City Council since 1993, Finnish Parliament member since 1995, an MP, and former chair of the Christian Democrats. Having been on the parliament for 27 years makes her higher in profile than most MPs. I agree to any changes to the blurbs to clarify what her position or positions is or were.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Vladimir Zhirinovsky[edit]

Article: Vladimir Zhirinovsky (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Provocative Russian nationalist politician. Page has a citations tag but is 90% well cited Unknown Temptation (talk) 11:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, of course. It's not the ordinary politician from Russia. First, he was a leader of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, a third/fourth political party in Russia. Second, he was and he still is one of the most extravagant politicans in the world due to his bright, some bold style of speech. He's known for his anti-Western and pro-Russian position in many spheres of Russian life. You can also read some facts shows that he was not an ordinarry person. He can also be considered a real "visionary" of many future political events that have taken place or are taking place (like now, I mean - Ukraine). --Brateevsky (talk to me) 12:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Little English-language coverage. Subject not widely known internationally. Impact seems negligible. – Sca (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe this is a regular RD nomination, not for a blurb.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops! -- Sca (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, I suggest a Wikiwide ban on any and all mention of Russian politicians named Vladimir – there are too many of them.
– Sca (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]
There are now as many Vladimirs in the Duma as there are Mikes in your House (13). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until orange tag is fixed, then it's fine for RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose More references required, several unsourced contentious statements.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support One of the most notable figures in post-Soviet Russian politics. An RD (or even maybe a blurb) would be highly recommended. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support article is fine, I guess. Subject is not notable internationally, so no blurb. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Very notable actually. Not knowing about him personally doesn't make him insignificant. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support – Vladimir Zhirinovsky is one of the most significant Russian politicians of this era, and he is pretty infamous internationally. His death definitely warrants a blurb. He is known for his fiery rhetoric (even called "Russia's clown") and outlandish ideas, in addition to playing a significant role in setting the tone for Russia's post-Soviet policies. The only issue I see is that one section of the article needs some more citations, but this is an issue that can probably be remedied rather easily. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality due to being under-referenced. Would oppose a blurb as well (RD only) because the manner of his death does not need extra explanation. If all we can say is that he died, there's no need for a blurb. RD is sufficient. --Jayron32 16:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb, doesn't appear that his death is notable enough to warrant a blurb. He was not a head of state or otherwise transformative in his field (... of being a clown?) -- RockstoneSend me a message! 21:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb per Rockstone. There would be nothing but grief around here if we regularly posted U.S. political provocateurs as blurbs.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is "political provacateurs" a tautology? -- Sca (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I never proposed a blurb; I personally don't think any politician who wasn't a head of gov/state deserves one, and I voted oppose for Bob Dole. The votes here should be on whether the article is appropriate to post (I see the cite tag has gone now), as there is overwhelming opposition to a blurb, which was never requested to start with. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It should certainly be in RD at least. Zhirinovsky was one of the most well known Russian politicians of post-Soviet Russia. In the 90s he was causing alarm in the West due to his rhetoric and statements while being a major contender at the time. There is plenty of English-language coverage about his death in RS. Mellk (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article looks good enough for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 5[edit]

April 5, 2022 (2022-04-05) (Tuesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

(Posted) RD: John Ellis (baseball)[edit]

Article: John Ellis (baseball) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Day
Credits:

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

 – Muboshgu (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Bjarni Tryggvason[edit]

Article: Bjarni Tryggvason (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC.ca
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Canadian astronaut. Article requires some udpates. Ktin (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Graciela Giannettasio[edit]

Article: Graciela Giannettasio (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): La Nación
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Argentine politician. Article seems good enough. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Nehemiah Persoff[edit]

Article: Nehemiah Persoff (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Hollywood Reporter
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American actor and painter. The article needs some work to get ready for the MP. --Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 03:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Acting career and filmography sections both need citations. Please fix them. Support Citing issues have been fixed. Article ready for RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have added citations for the career and filmography sections. Pinging oppose vote Fakescientist8000. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Good work on citing the filmography and career sections, however I feel that lead is pretty short as it doesn't even mention notable roles as most actor's wiki leads have. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Salvadoran gang crackdown[edit]

Article: 2022 Salvadoran gang crackdown (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Almost 6,000 people are arrested in El Salvador during a crackdown on gang violence. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​After authoritarian president Nayib Bukele suspends most civil rights, over 6,000 Salvadorans are declared gang members and indefinitely detained without trials.
News source(s): https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/apr/05/el-salvador-crackdown-ms13-state-of-emergency
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Hey, I've never done this before, so sorry if this is all wrong. I know this article isn't ready yet (it obviously needs a lead and some reactions by various specific entities, for example), but it's a little too much for me to handle alone, especial if this continues to generate more news coverage, so I thought I should bring it here and see if maybe I can recruit some help this way. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait Article is only in its infancy at the moment, though the large number of arrests and the circumstances surrounding them, coupled with concerns I'm seeing over press freedom and human rights, makes this a nom I'd probably support if the article can be improved upon. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as stale According to the text in the article, the relevant events all occurred on March 25 - 27. That is significantly older than our oldest current blurb on the Serbian election. --Jayron32 12:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bobby Rydell[edit]

Article: Bobby Rydell (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Hollywood Reporter
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American singer and actor --Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 00:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Article looks ready now. Alex-h (talk) 10:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article looks good. Fully cited, nothing to complain about. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nothing to complain. Grimes2 (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I see a handful of Cn tagsc—Bagumba (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know if we really need the Cashbox chart positions as well as Billboard, but if we do then they should be cited too. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - All tagged content is now sourced. Cashbox chart positions have been removed. It isn't really necessary to have them along with Billboard and I don't know of any individual source to source all of the chart positions. Only a few of the respective song articles include the Cashbox chart positions. As such, the article looks ready.--Tdl1060 (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 06:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone give me the "credits". Thanks. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 00:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You got it. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Patricia MacLachlan[edit]

Article: Patricia MacLachlan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Washington Post; Publishers Weekly
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: First reported today (April 5); died on March 31. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And RovingLibrarian (sorry I overlooked!) Innisfree987 (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2022 Peruvian protests[edit]

Article: 2022 Peruvian protests (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Protests in Peru against inflation and President Pedro Castillo result in at least nine deaths. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Protests in Peru against inflation and President Pedro Castillo result in at least nine deaths and the declaration of a state of emergency.
Alternative blurb II: ​Protests in Peru against inflation and President Pedro Castillo result in at least nine deaths and the looting of the Supreme Court's offices.
News source(s): Bloomberg, Reuters, France 24, DW
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Large national general strike and rioting not seen in Peru since the 2020 Peruvian protests that resulted with the resignation of President Manuel Merino. Deaths have already surpassed the numbers seen in 2020. WMrapids (talk) 04:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An 'interesting' opinion.

Just as an addendum: France24 is probably not a very valid source, as it's state-owned government media that is entirely under the control of the French government for the purpose of exporting soft power. Ergo, any claim they make must be examined with additional scrutiny. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 07:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait – Developing. – Sca (talk) 12:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anywho, Wait per Sca; the story is currently developing. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose -- at least for now. Propose new blurb if protests continue to grow. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 22:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Sca, Fakescientist8000, and Rockstone35: Quick update. The number of dead is rising, the Supreme Court offices were looted and protests have grown. Many calls on Castillo to resign (And not just from traditional opposition).--WMrapids (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @WMrapids: Changing to Support then. No doubt that if the Supreme Court of the United States (or any country within the Anglosphere) were to be looted, that we'd post this on ITN. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 18:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative blurb II the magnitude of the protests and the international coverage that they are receiving certainly merits a blurb, and at the moment alternative blurb II does the best job of highlighting the most notable aspects, though this could certainly change as the event unfolds.--Tdl1060 (talk) 06:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ALT2 per the new developments. The looting of the Supreme Court of Peru is unprecedented, and this looks like a bigger deal than the 2020 Peruvian protests, which we posted. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted --Jayron32 14:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pull No concensus has been reached. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 14:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pull? I see only one 'oppose' vote! and that has been crossed out and changed to 'support'. --PFHLai (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There were five total votes, three of which were Support. That's not even remotely a consensus. The Kip (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull Peru is in an essentially permament state of political crisis; the previous two presidents were impeached, the one before that is facing trial on corruption charges, the one before that killed himself before he could be arrested... this seems like a not particularly major flare-up in a long-running national drama. 9 deaths are of course tragic, but not in and of themselves anywhere near the level of notability for ITN; when terrorist attacks in Northern Nigeria (60 dead) or Somalia (48 dead), or mass shootings in California (6 dead), Mexico (20 dead), and Israel (6 dead) don't make ITN, I can't see why this would be any different. Neither the level of casualties nor the political ramifications here are currently worthy of ITN. Frankly, I would say events in Sri Lanka or Pakistan, for instance, are more noteworthy. This may of course change as events evolve, but as things stand now posting this was premature. --Varavour (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you nominate the Northern Nigerian attacks to ITN? Or any of the others? --Jayron32 18:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you? Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull and continue debate. Posted with five votes, three of which were Support and two were Wait; that's not even remotely a consensus and doesn't seem to meet the standard for posting.The Kip (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull per above !pull votes. 3 supports and 2 waits is not nearly enough for a consensus. I'm asking any admin out there to pull this and continue the debate. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Minister of Finance (Sri Lanka)[edit]

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: Minister of Finance (Sri Lanka) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Sri Lanka's Minister of Finance, Ali Sabry, resigns one day after his appointment due to the nation's worsening financial crisis (Post)
News source(s): Hindustan Times;Reuters; Al Arabiya, AlJazeera
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Pretty significant development in the ongoing Sri Lankan economic collapse as the newly appointed minister (to replace Basil Rajapaksa, brother of the president Gotabaya Rajapaksa) has already resigned amidst the worst financial crisis in Sri Lanka's post-colonial history. There is now no minister, the government is in chaos, and the crisis only worsens as the days go by. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 08:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose we don't usually post the resignation of Government/Cabinet Ministers (unless they're the Head of State, which Sabry isn't), as they aren't important enough for ITN. Especially since Sri Lanka has had 3 Finance Ministers in the last year, and 5 in the last 5 years, and Sabry had the role for 1 day before quitting. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, Ali Sabry (Sri Lankan politician) would need improvements including fixing cn tags, and not sure why there's a section called "Racist attacks" which doesn't use the word racism at all, and therefore seems POV. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @PeaceThruPramana26: In relation to your remarks above about France24 being state-owned and therefore "not very valid" - are you aware who owns Al Jazeera? AusLondonder (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Joseph2302. There is no consensus to post members of government cabinets (unless they are the Head of State). If you don't believe me, see Madeliene Albright's blurb proposal. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Per previous opposes. Below the radar. – Sca (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The resignation of a minister is just not significant enough for ITN. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As already explained above, this is below ITN threshold.– Ammarpad (talk) 04:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

April 4[edit]

April 4, 2022 (2022-04-04) (Monday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Science and technology

Sports

RD: Eric Boehlert[edit]

Article: Eric Boehlert (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT, Deadline
Credits:

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

 Sunshineisles2 (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(READY) RD: Joe Messina[edit]

Article: Joe Messina (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Detroit Free Press; The Guardian; The Detroit News
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support well sourced, covered by the Guardian, Rolling Stone and others. Bammesk (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Short, no cn, sourced. Grimes2 (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Donald Baechler[edit]

Article: Donald Baechler (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Art news
Credits:

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

 Thriley (talk) 09:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Grimes2 (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Thanks to Grimes2 for removing cn tags. That now means that this article is READY for RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 03:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) NCAA Men's and Women's Basketball Championships[edit]

Proposed image
Aliyah Boston
Article: 2022 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship Game (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In NCAA Division I men's basketball, the Kansas Jayhawks win the national championship. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In NCAA Division I basketball, the South Carolina Gamecocks win the Women's Championship (Most Outstanding Player Aliyah Boston pictured) and the Kansas Jayhawks win the Men's Championship.
News source(s): Women's Championship, Men's Championship
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Men's championship is ITN/R, women's championship is not. Both were posted in one blurb (in the same format as ALT1 above) last year. The men's tournament most outstanding player (MOP) is Ochai Agbaji of Kansas - typically the men's MOP is the image accompanying the blurb, but there is not an image of him on his article as of now, so I've added an image of the women's MOP Aliyah Boston of South Carolina. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support alt blurb. Both articles meet the quality requirements for ITNR - though I am not convinced it should be ITNR. BilledMammal (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb per BilledMammalRoyal Autumn Crest (talk) 11:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I tweaked to expand MOP to "Most Outstanding Player" in the alt, since there was enough pushback that it wasn't a common term. See last year's stable version.—Bagumba (talk) 04:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you - I didn't realize that got expanded to the full term last year. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For MVP, we always post it as MVP, with a wikilink. Not sure why this needs to be different, as now this takes up way to much of the ITN box, as it's way longer than any other article listed there. MOP is fine as it's linked. I have also raised with at WP:ERRORS, as I believe it's a bad change. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt-blurb Both men's and women's championships are in the news and the articles are in good shape. Image is great too, let's cycle Orban off soon please. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 04:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't we do something like abbreviate MVP and have both the term hyperlink and a mouse-over active as to help save wording space, relatively recently on a different sports blurb? --Masem (t) 04:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes MOP would be much better, as it's so long at the moment. Make it shorter, which makes it better. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shrug. MOP get nixed last year for the expansion.[3] If its not the perennial Americans compaining about "Oxford win..." its Brits not knowing MVP (let alone MOP).—Bagumba (talk) 11:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter which abbreviation is used as long as its both consistent with the sport (MVP for this event) and that we give a means to quickly ID it with mouse-over text and hyperlink. --Masem (t) 12:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, mouse-over text doesn't work on mobile devices. Forcing those people to click through to an unrelated article isn't ideal. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, here was this year's WP:ERRORS' thread, which was a toss-up on using MOP or expanding it.—Bagumba (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment just for future reference, this game "drew nearly 5 million viewers and peaked at 5.91 million". Basically any future entertainment event with 10 million viewers should get posted if the same rules were to be applied.SI 2A02:2F0B:B414:B700:31D9:9CD1:BF83:20BA (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Bad faith argument, this has already been approved as an ITNR topic years back. The Kip (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OTOH, if someone so valued getting their work posted to TMP that they made MLS Cup-level events look like The Boat Race, we should absolutely reward that. Main space quality is colossally more important than ITN balance. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD:Pamela Rooke[edit]

Article: Pamela Rooke (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Guardian
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Iconic member of Sex Pistols circle. yorkshiresky (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bruce Johnson[edit]

Article: Bruce Johnson (journalist) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Washington Post, WUSA
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Longtime anchorman and journalist at WUSA. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 15:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: June Brown[edit]

Article: June Brown (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Sky News, The Guardian
Credits:

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

 -- AxG / ✉  12:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Striking looks fairly decent now Support Josey Wales Parley 07:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IPCC AR6 WG3[edit]

Article: Climate change mitigation (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​The IPCC releases Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change (Working Group III) as part of its Sixth Assessment Report. (Post)
News source(s): Guardian IPCC
Credits:

 –Jiaminglimjm (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC) Climate science news is news :)[reply]

  • Oppose Part 1 we posted in August 2021. Part 2 was nominated in Feb 2022 but the article was not brought to spec and there was concern we had already posted the first part. The same concerns sit here. --Masem (t) 18:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose we posted the first one, but don't need to post every other one too, especially when the news coverage is lower than the first one. Also, article quality is lacking as it's just a lost of bullet points. If it's that important, then I'd expect way more sourceable content to be added. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Basically,the first Part had already posted, but the article was not brought to spec. Alex-h (talk) 10:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 3[edit]

April 3, 2022 (2022-04-03) (Sunday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

RD: Gerda Weissmann Klein[edit]

Article: Gerda Weissmann Klein (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Deadline Hollywood
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: One of the last few Holocaust survivors, extensive documented her experiences. Article needs much sourcing help. Masem (t) 03:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Support I have cleaned up the article of the unsourced content. If anyone can find RSes with the old information and can add it, please do! Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Gene Shue[edit]

Article: Gene Shue (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times; NBA.com; Reuters
Credits:

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

 Bloom6132 (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grammy Awards[edit]

Article: 64th Annual Grammy Awards (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​We Are by Jon Batiste wins Album of the Year and "Leave the Door Open" by Silk Sonic wins Record of the Year at the Grammy Awards. (Post)
News source(s): CNN, Associated Press
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Ceremony has just concluded. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 03:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that we have had problems with the Grammy ceremony getting updated to quality expected for posting in the past several years, compared to something like the most recent Oscars one. This one is currently also in a similar state that will need a lot more info on the ceremony itself. --Masem (t) 03:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The 2021 and 2020 nominations seemed to have been posted in decent time.—Bagumba (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am just noting as I did in 2021 that getting updates to include the ceremony (and not just a listing of winners) has been a slow process to the point where including the Grammys as ITNR has been questioned but it has not been removed. We need that ceremony information before this can be posted. --Masem (t) 12:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just listings of results That complaint is used a lot on pages for elections and sporting events. After some review, I don't see how this or past Grammy pages are any different. At a minimum, shouldn't there be a few sentences of prose on the merits of the winners, at least for Best Record and Best Album?—Bagumba (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with this, we reject lots of articles for just listing results (e.g. 2022 Australian Open tennis tournament was never improved with prose and so wasn't posted). No prose = no posting. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We rarely discuss the merits of the winners unless there's something historic (as noted in RSes) about them. But we do need info on the ceremony itself just like a recap of a sporting event. --Masem (t) 12:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think we shouldn't be posting this. No one gives a shit about the Grammy's and it's evident in the fact that the article never gets quality updates. --WaltCip-(talk) 12:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It got posted the last two years, in 2021 with unanimous support. So maybe someone will fix it in a day or so. WT:ITN would be the place to discuss removing from ITNR. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I realize this. Thus why I didn't vote a straight oppose. WaltCip-(talk) 13:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Needs prose on Best Album and Best Record besides "they won". Batiste's win was considered an upset. Bruno Mars of Silk Sonic has also won Best Record before.—Bagumba (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose no prose describing winners; I'd think this is needed at minimum, especially for the major categories as Bagumba mentioned above me. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Award articles like Oscars or Grammys rarely discuss the winners beyond the listing unless reliable sources make note of unusual conditions like major firsts or records. Not that there aren't any for this run of the Grammys but that's not been a required section. We still do need more about the ceremony itself before this can be posted. --Masem (t) 04:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2022 Costa Rican general election[edit]

Proposed image
Rodrigo Chaves Robles
Article: 2022 Costa Rican general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Rodrigo Chaves Robles (pictured) is elected President of Costa Rica. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Rodrigo Chaves Robles (pictured) is elected President of Costa Rica, defeating José María Figueres.
Alternative blurb II: ​In the Costa Rican general election, Rodrigo Chaves Robles (pictured) is elected President of Costa Rica, while the National Liberation Party wins the most seats.
News source(s): Reuters, DW, France24, APNews
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Has been declared winner, political outsider. BastianMAT (talk) 06:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose missing second round abroad votes. Apart from that, looks okay. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support when ready when the missing section has been updated, the material checks out, change of political administration is notable as well. Ornithoptera (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Joseph2302:, @Ornithoptera:, @Tone:, article fully ready now, all results with abroad votes added, no more missing sections. Should be good to be posted now. BastianMAT (talk) 06:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks ready indeed. I wonder, should we mention the general assembly vote as well, since it was general election? Tone 07:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added alt2 if you want to include the party that won the most seats in congress (not the party of the president-elect). BastianMAT (talk) 09:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, I am still having another issue, I kind of expect to see the assembly vote results in the intro, while now it is just about the president. Infobox as well. I just realized it. Tone 12:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support looks ready now. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above, thanks for letting me know! Ornithoptera (talk) 08:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above !votes. Article looks good to me. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 18:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No prose description of the results from what I can see; at present, results is only a bunch of tables. SpencerT•C 01:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above, looks ready now. Alex-h (talk) 09:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, please, before it gets too stale. Article is well above average for an election in a country that isn't in the anglosphere core. With a preference for the original blurb, in the interests of brevity. Moscow Mule (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Clearly ITN ready. And should get posted.BabbaQ (talk) 08:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment clearly ready, if this were a US-based nomination, it would have been posted much more quickly. It's been marked as ready for about 24 hours.... Joseph2302 (talk) 08:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting... Just waiting for the image protection to clear. Black Kite (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2022 Serbian general election[edit]

Proposed image
Aleksandar Vučić
Article: 2022 Serbian general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Aleksandar Vučić (pictured) is re-elected as the President of Serbia, while his Serbian Progressive Party loses its majority in the parliament. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In the Serbian general election, Aleksandar Vučić (pictured) is re-elected as President of Serbia and his Serbian Progressive Party wins the most seats.
News source(s): BalkanInsight, DW, France24, BBC, Guardian
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Has been declared winner. BastianMAT (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait Great article, except I see no winner, no results tables... Kingsif (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose results needs listing, and lots of "who" and "which" tags need fixing in aftermath section. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the aftermath needs clarification, otherwise the article looks fine. Tone 09:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support but what is important is that the SPS loses the majority in parliament. Yes, it did win the plurality of seats but that's not as important. I propose main blurb to remedy this. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Braganza (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support issues I raised above look to have been fixed. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Issues have been fixed. The article is up to date.--Vacant0 (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting. --Tone 22:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2022 Hungarian parliamentary election[edit]

Proposed image
Viktor Orbán
Article: 2022 Hungarian parliamentary election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In the Hungarian parliamentary election, Fidesz, led by Viktor Orbán (pictured), wins the most seats. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Fidesz, led by Viktor Orbán (pictured), wins a fourth consecutive term in the Hungarian parliamentary election.
News source(s): Reuters, Financial Times, CNBC, DW, AP
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Big big win for Orban, Reuters describing it as ”crushing”, as it is even more than opinion polls predicted, Orban has claimed victory, opposition has conceded and RS has declared it too. BastianMAT (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose needs some refs on opposition primary, results tables need some kind of updating, and I can't remember if we wait for 100% vote check or accept the concessions. Either way, some updating still needed. Why do I never hear anything positive about Orbán? Kingsif (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Important headline that has already been confirmed by multiple global media outlets as a resounding victory in favour of Orban, so I think it would be appropriate to say he won the win as big. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support article quality looks good enough. Of the 3 elections held yesterday and nominated here, this is the one that is getting the most coverage (albeit all 3 might get posted, as they're all ITNR). Joseph2302 (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting. I moved the reference in the opposition primary, it covers the entire section now, so it's ok. --Tone 08:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Lygia Fagundes Telles[edit]

Article: Lygia Fagundes Telles (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Globo.com, Folha de S. Paulo, Estado de Minas
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Brazilian writer --Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 20:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support article seems well sourced and ready to go.  Hamza Ali Shah  01:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems to be a solid article. Grimes2 (talk) 12:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a major article seems well sourced. Alex-h (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 14:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Bucha massacre[edit]

Article: Bucha massacre (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Russian troops are accused of killing hundreds of civilians in the Ukrainian city of Bucha. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Hundreds of Ukrainian civilians were found dead after Russia's occupation of the city of Bucha.
Alternative blurb II: ​Hundreds of Ukrainian civilians are found dead after Russian forces leave Bucha, near Kyiv.
News source(s): Reuters, BBC. AP, Guardian, DW, AlJazeera
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Although the invasion is and should remain in ongoing, this apparent massacre is currently the main story on all major media outlets.  Sandstein 20:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong support - similar to Fântâna Albă massacre - EugεnS¡m¡on 20:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We don't post mere accusations, even for something as dire as this. --Masem (t) 20:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support altblurb which is based on objective evidence and removes the accusations. --Masem (t) 12:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually while I would still support a blurb, the article is not in a good shape, far too much on reactions and too little on the actual events of the occupation. Its written very much in a clear "point the finger at Russia" tone and not objectively. --Masem (t) 12:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose so far it is an accusation but not proven (although it probably is true) so posting it right now would be WP:CRYSTAL. If the accusations are proven then it can be posted.  Hamza Ali Shah  21:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]
    Even if who perpetrated this isn't proven, the dead bodies are real. It is a significant development regardless of who killed them. Maybe the blurb could be adjusted a bit to reflect this? 4iamking (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Support alt 1 , I think alt 1 is fine to post as it doesn’t explicitly say that Russia committed this atrocity (even though they probably did) as they are still accusations.  Hamza Ali Shah  Talk 11:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support also going to the security council (per request of Russia), so whether just an accusation or the truth, it is in the news. 2A02:8109:9C80:7024:40:F683:9071:E9FD (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is still in need of some adjustment, mainly some expnsion and addressing of tags, but in principle I support the nomination as this marks a major turning point in the conflict and its narrative. Yakikaki (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment May I also suggest the blurb is rephrased in order to avoid an indeterminate discussion as to when the accusations have been satisfyingly proven? Something along the lines of "Hundreds of dead civilians are discoverd as Ukrainian troops enter the town of Bucha after Russians troops pull back" or something along those lines? Just a thought. Yakikaki (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with a blurb along the lines of what Yakikaki suggested, to avoid any premature accusations.4iamking (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL. We cannot go around ITN with pure accusations. Support More information has come out now regarding the facts that Russia did, in fact, do this. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Significant development in the ongoing war that at this point has generated significant coverage in mainstream media. The ITN blurb should note that it is a developing situation/alleged, but at this point I'm comfortable regarding this as factual. ThirdDolphin (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Highly significant development. I've added an alternative blurb, phrased in a passive voice to focus on what is factually confirmed at this time. — Newslinger talk 03:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose As per everyone else who opposed, it is merely an accusation at this point and frankly, the sources just aren't there with the narrative in the article: The Human Rights Watch link doesn't actually offer any supporting evidence of a massacre in the text, aside from witness testimony which cannot be considered authoritative considering the nature of the war and all and thus I think an inline quote is necessary, while another source is some regional Indian newspaper that is basing its reportage off Twitter links. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible support Russia is demanding a security council meeting, making this in the news. These are not accusations with no evidence -- the bodies are real, people were killed, and Russia is responsible. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 04:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fyi, "Strongest possible support" = Support. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 11:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, it's not a supervote, just an expression of how important I feel that it be posted to ITN. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 21:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support because this is a major article that has made hundreds of headlines, per WP:SIGCOV. However, the "hundreds" part should be removed as the exact death toll is unclear. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add I support altblurb II. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Russia is responsible"? You have information that we all don't? This doesn't give me the greatest faith that you're entering this discussion with a neutral, impartial point of view on this topic. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 04:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:NPOV doesn't mean we deny reality. We state the facts as they are, it's why we say Donald Trump attempted to overturn the U.S. election (because he did), instead of trying to strike up a "balanced view"; and why we state that evolution is fact (because it is). Same here. Russia is responsible for slaughtering hundreds of people in Bucha; and it's quite obvious when you consider the fact that they were the last ones there. Unless you have another explanation? -- RockstoneSend me a message! 04:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What more evidence are you expecting? Written confessions? Civilians tie their own hands together and then shoot themselves in the head? Or do you support the narrative by Putin and Peskov, and spouted by the official Russian news media, that it's all just made up "fake news" (and that the corpses were played by actors) and/or that the Ukrainians are doing this to their own people (as a punishment for not fighting the Russian invaders)? I'm not sure which is the more ridiculous suggestion. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked for evidence on Ghost of Kyiv, Snake Island, et. al. because it wasn't forthcoming, and look at how those turned out. I don't think it's 'ridiculous' to want to have more evidence on claims made in a war where both sides have been (frankly) rather dishonest from the beginning (and it certainly doesn't help that we have a hysterical mass media that regurgitates claims from government officials without any scrutiny in order to raise Lockheed's stock price). PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 07:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Stunned. So which of those two Russian claims do you offer as reasonable explanation? But you are also claiming that Zelenskyy is somehow in the pocket of Lockheed Martin?? And I don't see the wholly factual reports of the BBC as part of any "hysterical mass media"; perhaps you see Russian Today as the flag bearer for truthful reporting here? I think you should strike out or withdraw your comment. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything you said in the first clause, except that I differ on the interpretation of this 'reality' and that is the source of all contention and why we even have these sort of discussions on Wikipedia in the first place. Regardless, my opinion is not on the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, but the article itself, and frankly I just don't see how the sources hold up. Can you find me where in any of the aforementioned sources that prima facie evidence is given of the claims being made in the text of the article? Because I cannot. PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 05:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No answers to my questions. To which "aforementioned sources" are you referring? What do mean by "the first clause"? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Yes, we don't usually post accusations. But gathering evidence for prosecution will take years and simply ignoring these sickening revelations invites the conclusion that we are tacitly accepting Putin's narrative that this is all "fake". Martinevans123 (talk) 07:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL. I wonder who'd salvage Wikipedia's reputation if there's no evidence at the end. This is an excellent example of a speculation that we never post.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • BBC have already broadcast some of the evidence. Or maybe you think Iryna Kostenko, who had to bury her own son in the garden, was just making it all up? 09:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • BBC report that the UN Secretary General has called for an independent investigation. Let's wait for the results from the investigation and then we can post it if the accusation is proved.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's all look forward to the Russian veto at the UN. We'll be waiting a long time for those results. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Facts like there being many, many dead civilians? As reported by reliable sources, the only thing that should matter really. Not up to you decide the veracity of those claims made by reliable sources. Or are you claiming the reliable sources are lying here? 91.96.25.17 (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't deny the fact that hundreds of civilians were killed; the problem is that the proposed blurb uses an accusation, not a mere fact that someone committed the crime, and there are no reliable sources which report it as a fact.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So why do you not support the blurb that is supported by RS then? That there are many dead civilians after the russian occupation? It at most implies that russia is responsible, as is done in RS. They don't outright say that Russia is responsible and neither does alt 1. Russian occupation, liberation of area, deaths of civilians. That surely will be in the vast majority of RS about this. What is your problem with alt 1, which is widely supported by RS?91.96.25.17 (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I evaluated this as an alleged genocidal act because that's what would make it extremely notable. Otherwise, there's no need to single out this particular event given that it's a war and such events are not uncommon, this is not the first report of killed civilians during the invasion and it's already posted to ongoing. Ukrainian sources claim that around 7,000 civilians were killed. Why do you think that these 300 are more important than the rest?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because RS say so? You know, the thing that shapes all content on Wikipedia. That would be my Wiki answer. Personally i believe there is a difference between bombing civilians, a war crime in itself, and shooting people in the head with their hand tied behind their backs. Both are horrible and there ultimately is no 'less important' when it comes to killed civilians. But i have to ask again, where do the RS come into play in your personal evaluation? There seems a distinct lack between what RS claim, proposed alt1 and your personal synthesis, OR, and what have you, on the matter. You do not base your vote on the claims of RS but on your own view.91.96.25.17 (talk) 11:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you wish so, it's fine to me. I've stricken my vote above and now I'll oppose because of the arguments in my previous comment (incident during a war, not the first instance of killed civilians and already posted to ongoing). As for your information, there are hundreds of stories covered in reliable sources on a daily basis and the vast majority of them doesn't get posted. That this is covered in reliable sources is a strong case for a standalone article, but that's not enough to consider this for inclusion on the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather obviously only a miniscule fraction of of things appearing in RS make it to getting posted at ITN. But this is more than just another article in RS. Due to volume of articles in many different countries, the importance placed on it even by the ones reporting on it and the like. The international condemnation of this event even rising above the other killings of civilians, which by itself were viewed as war crimes. This rose above that, certainly in coverage in RS, which even reported not only on the event itself but the international reaction to the the event. But do as you will, i hope whoever evaluates posting this will give your vote the weight it deserves. Have a good day anyway. 91.96.25.17 (talk) 12:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even then, large amounts of civilians dying is still a somewhat notable event, regardless of the certainty for the responsibility. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 13:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support the swathes of dead bodies with tied hands/holes directly through the head are corroborated and in the news, and encyclopedic. We can omit responsibility if there is not enough consensus for that for the time being Bumbubookworm (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is in the news now, and sources are blaming Russia for this. Yes, there hasn't been a formal investigation yet, but the article and blurbs are supported by reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, we report what RSes report. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I think ALT1 is better, as we shouldn't post accusations (regardless of how true they are likely to be). ALT1 states facts, so is better. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportI was about to write something pretty much along the lines of what Joseph above wrote. It is only about what RS claim here, and they have a pretty universal view on the matter. There are dead civilians. And a lot of them. So, is this notable? I sure think so. 91.96.25.17 (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think alt1 seems better. No allegations, just facts(according to RS anyway). There was a russian occupation of the area, the area was liberated and many dead civilians were found. 91.96.25.17 (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is Wikipedia:InTheNews, and this is in the news supported by reliable sources. Definitely a significant story, article seems okay. 82.15.196.46 (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - No one here on ITN has the professional status and credentials to engage in forensic analysis on the authenticity of reliable sources.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Very widely covered; leads many RS sites. Given the photographic/video/satellite evidence in some reports, there seems no doubt the killings occurred. OTOH, we must avoid inflammatory language, and shouldn't label this a 'massacre' except in quotes from observers carried in RS reports. Favor Alt2, offered above. – Sca (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Well documented and sourced. Fântâna Albă massacre, Babi Yar, Katyn massacre, and My Lai massacre all estabish notability of war crimes. This is encyclopedic and deserves to be on the main page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sad event, undoubtedly. However, I'd wait for a formal investigation. Oppose alternative blurbs but support the first one. Bedivere (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We're basically saying "never post this" then, since any formal investigation would only take place after Ukraine is no longer a warzone, at which point the item would become stale. WaltCip-(talk) 13:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, then don't post it. The article starts saying these are alleged war crimes. I have an opinion on the issue and may personally believe this actually happened. However, it's not correct nor serious to post it as if it was an undisputed event. Bedivere (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Verifiability not WP:Truth. We do not need to wait for a War crimes tribunal to estabish it for the world. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying these events may not be true. I'm just saying they are still "alleged" war crimes. Bedivere (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So it's a good job that none of the proposed blurbs use the words "war crimes", even if there is growing consensus across the world that they were. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. – Sca (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    However the article itself does use it in wikivoice without attribution and there is currently an effort to rename it to a title that includes war crimes. That is not appropriate for posting here. --Masem (t) 16:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with that, too. Perhaps Bucha massacre should be renamed "2022 Bucha killings." This isn't Katyn, where the graves were examined by an international commission in 1943 and much later documented by Yeltsin. – Sca (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There's clear evidence of hundreds if civilians killed over a short period of time in a manner far more gruesome than simple casualties of war. Given numerous RSes going with massacre, that is a reasonable neutral term. And the article has shifted appropriately to say "alleged war crimes" (at time of posting). Just that we need to watch the urge for rhetoric on that page. Very easy to jump tl inappropriate, non neutral conclusions for this situation. --Masem (t) 17:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree "massacre" appears in much of the coverage, but I'm just concerned that such a definite term AFAIK hasn't been confirmed by independent sources. That the victims were "killed" seems incontrovertible, and we should post that fact. -- Sca (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'm personally coming to some very non neutral conclusions when I read about "Bodies rolled over by tanks turned into “human rugs” while Russians shot dead even the elderly who got in their way...." and "280 bodies buried in mass graves". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I bet you can do better. As I said earlier, I'm not anywhere near to being a Russian supporter, but anyway our personal opinion should not matter much. Most media call this a massacre, and that's okay, they don't aim to be neutral. Wikipedia does aim to be neutral and we should choose the most precise words. The first blurb seems okay to me. Bedivere (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting that the first blurb I mentioned is not the one that is currently first; rather, the one that has been published on the Main Page. Bedivere (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool. 2603:300A:1510:A600:F115:AA3A:EE57:7840 (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This sad and shocking event was widely publicized and is definitely worth mentioning in the news. --НСНУ (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with the first, factual blurb. Russia has been accused, it is not a violation of policy to report that. We are not accusing them, simply reporting widespread accusations that have led to urgent discussions surrounding further sanctions from the European Union. I have added to the article although it still could do with some minor work. I have also added details of Russia's response and denial. AusLondonder (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't believe the dead have been "found dead" -- ?? Sca (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see many forward-looking comments here. So, putting WP:CRYSTAL aside because coverage in reliable sources seems to be strong, shall we post any other similar event in near future (not unlikely given it's a war and who knows what else will be discovered)?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't say, can we: that would be WP:CRYSTAL. There may be "forward-looking comments" here, but the proposed blurbs are pretty rooted in factual events that have actually happened? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That depends if there are other events that are ITN-worthy. But this is not a normal part of war, and it's getting substantial coverage, e.g. BBC News has two articles about specifically about this ([4], [5]) showing on their front page- this is incredibly rare for this to happen. If other future events had similar impact and similar news coverage, I would support posting them as well. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the coverage is global, and features several expressions of "outrage." We shouldn't ignore this event just because something similar (or of even greater magnitude) might happen in Ukraine in the future. Definitely top-drawer material for a blurb now. – Sca (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted ALT1. Regards SoWhy 17:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Should be are found dead, per ITN present-tense style. -- Sca (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made that change. Sandstein 18:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post Posting Support I have opposed pretty much all of the Ukraine related nominations since the invasion began. But this is clearly on a different level. I would gently suggest tweaking the blurb which sounds a bit clunky. Perhaps "following the withdrawal of Russian troops from Bucha." -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post Posting Comment Is this confirmed, that the dead are civilians? Grimes2 (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    From all I've seen (in sources listed above), yes. – Sca (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reuters: no, BBC: "dressed in civilian clothes", AP: no, Guardian: subscription, DW: no, AlJazeera: no. Please give citation and source for your statement. Grimes2 (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reuters: "Tortured, executed civilians."
    BBC: "Shocking images of bodies of civilians."
    AP: "corpses of what appeared to be civilians."
    Guardian:” the discovery of the killing of hundreds of civilians.”
    DW: "Photos and videos … show mass graves and the bodies of civilians."
    AlJazeera: "... mostly civilians shot dead by Russian troops."
    -- Sca (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Antonio Guterres has called for an independent investigation" Did that happen? Is it confirmed (by identification etc.), that the dead lying on the street are civilians or is this an estimate because of the civilian clothes? Whats the independent source for "hundreds"? Grimes2 (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can read the coverage yourself. Schönen Tag noch! – Sca (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, Guardian is not subscription, you are looking at the wrong site if it is. You can sign up to the Guardian for free, or you can close the sign-up screen blocking articles by clicking "not right now". Their mandate requires they never block access to news, even with free sign-ups. Kingsif (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post Posting Support. If hundreds of people died in a hurricane then there would be no opposition to posting it on ITN; not doing so because they were killed in a war crime would be absurd. I would also support changing the ITN picture from Orbán to the lede picture at Bucha massacre as it explains the situation more clearly than we can in a single sentence. BilledMammal (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep in mind we cannot call it a war crime under policy. It is definitely the unusual killing of hundreds of civilians by means that are beyond the usual casualties of war, and still appropriate for posting compared to the hundreds of deaths already that have happend in the conflict (that are covered by the ongoing), but we need to watch our language and wording very carefully here. --Masem (t) 00:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't remove the words "apparent" from the article until there is a consensus in reliable sources or a guilty verdict, but I don't feel the need to avoid calling a duck a duck here. BilledMammal (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting comment – Note that AP is still using the phrase "alleged massacres." – Sca (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Delfina Entrecanales[edit]

Article: Delfina Entrecanales (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Art Newspaper
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Sourcing looks good. Note: death was confirmed on 3 April, no actual date of death given so far. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) The Boat Race 2022[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Proposed image
Article: The Boat Race 2022 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In rowing, Oxford win the men's event and Cambridge win the women's event The Boat Race. (Finish of the men's event pictured) (Post)
News source(s): [6]
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: ITNR, but needs some race summaries. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Ready Article has not been adequately updated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good to go now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seriously? --WaltCip-(talk) 17:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is missing anything about the actual races section. I assume TRM is working on this and will be adding it within the day. --Masem (t) 17:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh okay, my mistake. I misinterpreted "Trials" at first glance as being the race. WaltCip-(talk) 17:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image added, caption could probably be better. Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to support as soon as the race details are added. TRM has a long history with this event, so I have complete faith it'll be added soon. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment now hopefully sufficiently updated and in a reasonable condition for our main page. Pinging Ad Orientem, WaltCip, Masem, Lee Vilenski, all of whom commented above. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, happy for this one to go up. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The matching of the umpires to the men's and women's races in the infobox doesn't match the lead text. LukeSurl t c 22:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 23:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure I didn't and/or won't make any difference here, but I'm still having a hard time fathoming this race. A regional football cup between countries isn't significant for Wikipedia standards, yet a boat race between two white men elite aristocrat universities do. Hmm. 182.2.132.202 (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's like Harvard the race breakdown is similar to the country it's in, half the students have been female for decades and they don't care much about your social or economic status anymore (descendants of students slightly overrepresented) and I've heard that no
    non-academic critehas ven laffect on admissions ess tin the United Statesrica. Also these might still be the two best universities on the planTop league unis for almost a thousand years, though the oldest existing university in the Western world is slightly older from 11th century Italy. et. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an WP:ITNR event, so you'd need to discuss at WT:ITN. Also, it gets at least as much coverage as the college sports finals in the US which are listed as ITNR. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No-confidence motion against Imran Khan[edit]

Article: No-confidence motion against Imran Khan (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In Pakistan, a no-confidence motion moved by Pakistan Democratic Movement against Prime Minister Imran Khan succeeds. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In Pakistan, a no-confidence motion moved by Pakistan Democratic Movement against Prime Minister Imran Khan fails.
Alternative blurb II: ​In Pakistan, President Arif Alvi dissolves the National Assembly on Prime Minister Imran Khan's advice, after a no-confidence motion by the Pakistan Democratic Movement against Khan is dismissed.
News source(s): Dawn Dawn
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The National Assembly will be in session shortly and the article will be updated as it concludes. MasterOfMetaverse (talk) 06:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)  Checkuser note: MasterOfMetaverse is a sockpuppet of Depressed Desi, who commented below: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Depressed Desi. Mz7 (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait for Successor, like usual (alternatively, Oppose Failure). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: the motion has apparently failed, Pakistan will have elections in 3 months. Tube·of·Light 09:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Blurb 1 is incorrect information, the motion has been rejected by the speaker as it has been declared unconstitutional. As for Alt 1, I don’t think the fact that it was unsuccessful is notable enough to post.  Hamza Ali Shah  09:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per the previous time this was nominated, only a successful vote/change of govt would have raised this to ITN. Gotitbro (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I have updated the altblurb2. This is turning into a Constitutional crisis. MasterOfMetaverse (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for Outcome, Alex-h (talk) 11:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Assembly is dissolved, let's wait for a successor, once the successor is chose, it can be nominated for ITN once again. Elmisnter! (talk) 12:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alternate blurb II is the outcome since National Assembly stands dissolved as of now. USaamo (t@lk) 12:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and wait for the election. Just like last time this was proposed. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose solely on article quality. Multiple gaps in referencing. Support Alt Blurb II on significance. This looks to be the beginning of a constitutional crisis. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All CN tags are dealt with. MasterOfMetaverse (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb2, it's illogical to wait for 90 days before fresh elections are held and then post this. It's In the News right now and must be posted as is. If this were to happen in some Western country, this would already have been posted hours ago. I remember seeing Trump & Brexit-related blurbs every other week. Depressed Desi (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)  Checkuser note: MasterOfMetaverse, the nominator of this ITN, is a sockpuppet of this account: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Depressed Desi. Mz7 (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was not the case at all for Trump or Brexit. We carefully kept those a minimum. --Masem (t) 17:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't speak for all parliamentary democracies, but I know in Canada, a government dissolving Parliament to avoid a particular vote including a non-confidence motion (particularly in minority governments) is not unheard of. See 2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute. Now, I'm struggling to find the right words to generate the relevant precedent nominations - but I'd suspect that your point might prove not to be the case. Anecdotally, it is certainly receiving a lot of international attention, at least - but dissolving Parliament in itself is a regular occurrence in a parliamentary democracy. Canadianerk (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think the non-confidence motion itself is the main topic here. Surely 2022 Pakistani constitutional crisis about the dissolution is the key article - which needs a lot of development. Though presumably it will lead to the Next Pakistani general election. Unless the courts intervene, or the election isn't forthcoming, this all seems to be pretty routine in a minority government. Nfitz (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don’t think the dissolution of the assembly is notable enough to post. The no-confidence motion would only have been posted if successful. Once elections are held, we can post the results but right now we should wait for any further developments.  Hamza Ali Shah  20:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, User:Hamza Ali Shah about the dissolution of the assembly not being notable. But what's the difference in the outcome between an early dissolution and a non-confidence vote? In most parliamentary systems, it's two different ways to trigger the same process. Perhaps there's a regional nuance I'm missing? Nfitz (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That was my thought as well, but the wikipedia article (I admittedly glanced through) seems to imply the same - a dissolution of parliament seems able to be requested by the PM and accepted by the President, at any time, just like in Canada/others - and a non-confidence motion resulting in dissolution, the same result with different steps... at least, that's my ignorant read of it. Canadianerk (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nfitz, the no-confidence motion would not have dissolved parliament but it would have only changed the government. The opposition doesn’t want the parliament to be dissolved (as there’s quite a big chance Khan will regain his majority in parliament if there is an election) so I don’t think it would have been dissolved had Khan’s government been ousted. In other words, an early dissolution leads to election (which the opposition opposes) and the no-confidence vote would have lead to a government lead by the opposition until 2023.  Hamza Ali Shah  01:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:Hamza Ali Shah - ah yes, I see that would be notable then, with the change of government. I forgot that even here, a non-confidence vote can lead to a change in government too - but it's rare. Convention here is that a non-confidence vote leads to new election (and such events are frequent), unless there just was an election with the last few months - maybe a year. Nfitz (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's hold off until a successor is announced (if there is a change). Jehochman Talk 00:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We need to reassess here. Non-confidence motions and dissolutions of parliament aren't unique in parliamentary democracies, I think we can agree. What is fundamentally different is that the Pakistani government is alleging foreign interference, and the deputy speaker blocked the motion even coming to a vote, then the PM dissolved parliament anyway. The crux of the nomination, in my opinion, is now whether the act of blocking a non-confidence motion, the allegations of foreign interference, or a combination of, is blurb worthy. Source (taken from article) Canadianerk (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment should this discussion be closed as the nominator has been confirmed as a sock account?  Hamza Ali Shah  Talk 15:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The country is currently going through a constitutional crisis. And Imran Khan is no longer the Prime Minister but will continue to hold the post of Prime Minister on an interim basis till the appointment of caretaker Prime Minister. Ainty Painty (talk) 06:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait The Supreme Court has ruled that the non-confidence vote can proceed and will take place on Saturday. If the motion does pass then (which looks likely), we should post once that occurs. --Varavour (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Women's Cricket World Cup Final[edit]

Proposed image
Article: 2022 Women's Cricket World Cup Final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In cricket, Australia defeat England in the final (player of the match Alyssa Healy pictured) to win the Women's World Cup. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In cricket, England defeat Australia in the final to win the Women's World Cup.
Alternative blurb II: ​In cricket, Australia defeat England in the final to win the Women's World Cup (player of the series Alyssa Healy pictured).
News source(s): ESPNcricinfo
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: As of right now, the match is still ongoing thus the article will be updated with a match summary once it finishes. MasterOfMetaverse (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The main final article needs a LOT of work as of typing this (it's essentially a stub), while as the main tournament article has been updated fully by myself. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality "Route to the Final" section is a mess to read, and should be converted to text. And needs a background section, as well as some match summary. See 2017 Women's Cricket World Cup Final for idea on how much content there should be. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Updated blurb. Healy is also player of the series. Joofjoof (talk) 09:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I am only seeing tables in the article. 09:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
    Article about the tournament (2022 Women's Cricket World Cup) appears fine but we have only hooked (AFAIK) finals in the blurbs. Gotitbro (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added a blurb which has the world cup as the bolded article.  Hamza Ali Shah  10:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt 2.  Hamza Ali Shah  07:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose only 53 words of the prose in the article, and none outside of the lead. Some prose summarizing the "road to the final" and the event itself is definitely needed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2[edit]

April 2, 2022 (2022-04-02) (Saturday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

RD: Estelle Harris[edit]

Article: Estelle Harris (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Deadline Hollywood
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Needs a bit more sourcing work before it can be posted Masem (t) 03:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is that including or excluding the filmography? Or is the obit doing enough lifting for it? CreecregofLife (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Full filmography including TV appearances will need sourcing per standard. --Masem (t) 13:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Clarification may be needed on her exact date of birth: the article says she was born on April 4, 1928, but the linked Deadline obit says she was born on April 22, 1928. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 05:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Vance Amory[edit]

Article: Vance Amory (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.thestkittsnevisobserver.com/former-premier-of-nevis-has-passed/
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Two-term Premier of Nevis. Could use more coverage on both his cricket and his premiership, not to mention details on his passing. --PFHLai (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose A good chunk of the article (27 references at present) is sourced to a dead link. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 06:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Still, it was probably verifiable in the past per WP:KDL. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2022 Sri Lankan protests[edit]

Article: 2022 Sri Lankan protests (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Sri Lanka has declared a state of emergency in the wake of violent street protests against the economic crisis. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In Sri Lanka, hundreds of student protestors are dispersed by police using tear gas.
News source(s): Al Jazeera, The News, BBC, AP, Guardian, Reuters
Credits:

 Ainty Painty (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait to see what comes out of this, whether the government will listen, or if the protesters will be squashed. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Or quashed, as the case may be. Sca (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    *will, as the case will be. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks fine, similar to the posting of 2022 Kazakh unrest. Gotitbro (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support article looks good to go and this seems significant enough to post. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ... in principle on significance. Widely covered. However, the situation may still be developing. Cleaned up POV lead; probably could use a total copy-edit. – Sca (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the system still dating posts April 3? In most of the world it's April 4. – Sca (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC) Oops. Doh.[reply]
We go off UTC 0:00 time, (aka London/Greenwich) for timestamps. --Masem (t) 15:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's not London time, as London has put its clocks forwards, so is in UTC+1. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – At 1,600 words, of which 240 compose a fairly restrained 'reaction' section, it's looking pretty comprehensive. No tags so far. – Sca (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted adapted version of the main proposed blurb. SpencerT•C 02:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 1[edit]

April 1, 2022 (2022-04-01) (Friday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Maks Levin[edit]

Article: Maks Levin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): pravda.com.ua and many
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Photographer killed when covering war, body discovered on this date. - Read interview. Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Article ok, but no NPOV: "Russian aggression". Grimes2 (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 03:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Neil Stevens[edit]

Article: Neil Stevens (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Canadian Press
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Hall of Fame Canadian sportswriter --PFHLai (talk) 12:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: C. W. McCall[edit]

Article: C. W. McCall (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Best Classic Bands, Washington Post, Rolling Stone
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Singer/songwriter: real name Bill Fries. Activist/politician who served as mayor of Ouray, Colorado for six years. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • 10-4 good buddy Andrew🐉(talk) 12:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Discography needs references. Additionally, intro states that he is an "activist", but that isn't used elsewhere in the article (doesn't seem like it's described further in the article body). SpencerT•C 02:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose discography is largely unreferenced. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 06:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Spencer: and @PCN02WPS: I have removed much of the unsourced content from the article. I hope it now meets your satisfaction.
  • Support looks like the article has been fixed up. 2601:183:C800:7EA0:45EB:FFD8:63D0:2588 (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Pope Francis apologizes for the Canadian Indian residential school system[edit]

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: Canadian Indian residential school system (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Pope Francis apologizes for the Catholic Church's role in the Canadian Indian residential school system. (Post)
News source(s): CBC, WaPo, Guardian, NY Times
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: The pope is the last person to apologize for the Canadian Indian residential school system; the other churches involved apologized in the 1990s, and the Canadian government apologized in 2008. Previous pope's refusal to apologize was notable enough to require several paragraphs in the target article. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is pretty big news regarding this subject. The article is in very good shape. Nothing to complain about. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 15:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose An apology is nice and all but that doesn't seem to be anything actionable here or the type of resolve we'd expect on something like this (eg something like a conviction or the like). --Masem (t) 16:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody in their right mind went into this expecting to convict the pope of genocide. The goal was to convince the pope of genocide, and many were surprised to hear him actually plead guilty on behalf of those he understood as evil and contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ. I wouldn't call the spiritual leader of 1.3 billion people asking the Creator themself for forgiveness and shamefully asking the victims' pardon "nice and all", unless I was trying to be a sarcastic dick or ignorant atheist about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is still an empty gesture for all purposes, particularly when the articles covering this talk of other things that could be done. --Masem (t) 13:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all purposes, but yes, no material reclamation yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not in the article, also the article says that the Canadian Church apologised in September 2021, so it just seems like an extension of this? Either way, if it's not in the article, we cannot post it, and if it's added to the article, then I'm sceptical as there isn't that much coverage of this. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Both rationales for opposing above seem to have been ameliorated. The article is updated with April 1 news, and I've added more sources regarding coverage. There are also many more independent and reliable sources from many different countries covering this as well. --Jayron32 16:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No it doesn't, at least for mine. Nothing actionable has happened here; its (hypothetically) if the Russian Catholic church apologized to Ukraine for Putin's invasion - Nothing has changed about the invasion. At least from the CBC there are potentially actionable steps the church could do such as rolling back past policies that would retrify matters. An apology is not really actionable. --Masem (t) 16:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't responding to your rationale, I was responding to the two rationales that Joseph used. Regardless, you don't need to defend yourself to me. Everybody around here already knows how much of a problem I am to the ITN process. You can go back to ignoring me like everyone should. --Jayron32 16:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)It hadn't been updated when I posted. Just because the regular news articles publish it, that doesn't make it ITN worthy. It isn't a front page news story on e.g. BBC News, whereas most ITN-worthy news does usually feature on front pages of most big news websites. This is a valid policy-based oppose, so stop trying to claim otherwise. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say it wasn't policy based. I said that they had since been ameliorated, which is to say, fixed after the fact. You can vote however you want. It's no skin off my teeth. You don't need to defend yourself to me. Remember, I am the problem around here. Never forget that. --Jayron32 16:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no ITN policy for significance that says anything like what you are saying. The guidelines state that the item must be covered on newsworthy sources (which this is) and that there is a consensus to post. See WP:ITNCRIT. WaltCip-(talk) 18:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is big news. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 16:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article is very good quality, article has been updated, topic is in major news sources. Checks all of the boxes for me! --Jayron32 16:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Per Masem, Joseph2302. These retroactive apologies for historical misdeeds offered by current heads of historically offending institutions may be mollifying for present-day members of the groups wronged, but beyond that have little effect and IMO lack wider significance. – Sca (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I find the pope's thinly veiled rebuke today of "potentate" Putin over Ukraine much more consequential. – Sca (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nice quality article, significant update from new news, covered by every major news outlet, opposition votes (mentions of the Canadian Church, not being front page on BBC News, and lack of something "actionable") are nitpicky IMHO and far less important to consider than the feelings of the affected: First Nations’ Chief Gerald Antoine echoed the sentiment, saying Francis recognized the cultural “genocide” that had been inflicted on Indigenous. “Today is a day that we’ve been waiting for. And certainly one that will be uplifted in our history,” he said. “It’s a historical first step, however, only a first step.”[7] – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • And the "action" at least seems to be that Pope Francis will travel to Canada to apologize in person soon. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I feel like that would be the more appropriate time to post it personally. Would what happened today be considered the "formal apology"? Floydian τ ¢ 19:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      This delegation traveled the same distance, with the same purpose, in greater number. I'd consider it the first apology. The second, if it happens, will be more personal (for the survivors, relatives and peripheral victims who didn't make this trip) but still as formal as any papal visit. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Masem and Sca. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A contextually enormous response from the Catholic Church. We should be in the business of posting high quality articles that are in the news, and that's what this is. --WaltCip-(talk) 18:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a Canadian raised part Catholic and part Ojibwe (though mostly secular), I personally feel the goodness and bigness of this apology. I accept it as genuine, historic and alright. But I'm not about to contribute to this schism over whether the general Wikipedian audience needs to know. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. Seems notable, one of the biggest headlines right now below Ukraine. Article in good shape. Davey2116 (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The target article is lengthy and difficult to navigate. If this is posted, it may be necessary to make the update into a separate section in the target article and then link directly to that section in the blurb, instead of making the reader try to locate the update. Alternatively, it might be useful to have an update in the lead of the article.
  • Oppose Much as we don't post the 12 country to legalize gay marriage, we shouldn't be post the guy who apologies decades after his peers. As others have stated, this comes with no substantive action (how about dipping into those coffers for reparations?), so posting only serves to praise him for taking an action he stubbornly refused to for a decade. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The pope's only peers are previous popes, in Roman Catholicism, none of which ever apologized. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, no. The pope's peers are fellow church heads and heads of state. But I do think you are hinting at the issue here: an archaic view of the pope's sway as the titular leader of 1/6 of the world who is seen as infallible. Modern Catholics feel comfortable rejecting anything he says that contradicts their priors. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    More about his papal supremacy than his papal infallibility. Not belittling the Archbishop of Canterbury, either, but Anglicans did have objectively much less to do with this dark chapter in Canadian government. I hear you on his waning influence; per a prophecy I also take somewhat seriously, Francis is the last real pope. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Significance appears to be limited as evidenced by the fact that news item does not rate its own article. Nice gesture though. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is historic. It's the recognition of a history involving genocide and is major news for the Roman Catholic Church. -TenorTwelve (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the pope only apologised for the conduct of some members of the RCC, not for the church as a whole. Stephen 06:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yeah, not all of us tortured generations of people in the hopes of eradicating their way of life. Most Catholics are better than that. The worst I've done is adultery. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only nine to go then. Stephen 07:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Five left, actually; I said adultery was the worst. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Significant acknowledgement of the evils done by the Catholic Church. The article is comprehensive and well sourced.Melmann 07:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The lead of the article says nothing about the Catholic church whose role in this seems to have been similar to numerous other Canadian institutions. As a previous pope already expressed his regrets over 10 years ago, this seems to be just more of the same. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not significant enough for posting. The announcement is an attempt at rehabilitating the Church’s reputation without action to settle the victims’ claims. Jehochman Talk 13:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Hard no to posting an "apology". Actions speak louder than words, and to anyone who is not a Catholic this means very little or not at all. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I imagine it means quite a bit to the 1-2/3 million aboriginals in Canada, although perhaps still with a similar sentiment (re: actions vs. words). - Floydian τ ¢ 14:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree. There are decent number of combined First Nation individuals and Catholics combined that it would matter too, but I think the lack of progression from words to actions hurts this nom. As also noted above this feels like a face-saving maneuver more than anything. Perhaps not even enough of a "gesture" to call it an "empty gesture". DarkSide830 (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. I obstained on voting because I feel as though the pope coming to the First Nations and apologising is really the epitome of singular events in this ongoing story. This was just an obligated response really. Floydian τ ¢ 17:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with the above comments that there must be a very strong presumption against posting official apologies which, by definition, are symbolic actions with limited significance. As mentioned above, this also appears to be only one in a range of apologies for this particular issue too. The only point that gave me pause for thought was the quality of the FA target article but on reflection I am not convinced that this status is actually justified on the basis of the article's current state - hugely long and with more space given to the apologies than to the actual subject itself. I think we should pass. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is a press release, not a news story. Brazilian man in Italy apologizes for other peoples' actions in Canada. I'm not sure this justifies updating any article, much less front-page coverage. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He's Argentinian, but whatever. BSMRD (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He's argentinian, but go off. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He's also in the Vatican City, not Italy, but apart from that... Thryduulf (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References[edit]

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=1081610625"