Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:48, 2 April 2023

Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here.

In the news toolbox
Error reports Nominations History (Posts · Nominations) Discussion General criteria Death criteria Recurring items Admin guide Image protection Current events portal
v t e

• WP:ITN/C

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

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

Grand Kartal Hotel in 2007 A fire at a ski resort hotel (pictured) in Kartalkaya, Turkey, leaves at least 79 people dead and 51 others injured. A series of attacks by the National Liberation Army in the Catatumbo region of Colombia leaves more than a hundred people dead. A ceasefire agreement suspends the Israel–Hamas war, involving the release of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners. Two Supreme Court judges are assassinated in a shooting at the Supreme Court of Iran in Tehran. Ongoing: Russian invasion of Ukraine timeline Sudanese civil war timeline Recent deaths: Russell Marshall Didier Guillaume Denis Law Hans Dobida Linda Nolan Tommy Brown Nominate an article view — page history — related changes — edit

Archives

April 2

RD: Galarrwuy Yunupingu

• Nominated by HiLo48 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Leader in the Aboriginal Australian community, and a powerful land rights campaigner. A great Australian. Deserves a blurb more than many who have had them, but I know there's no point in nominating him for that. NOTE: He actually died today, 3rd April, here in Australia, but that date doesn't exist in this article yet. I will move this nomination when it does. HiLo48 (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

2023 Andorran parliamentary election

• Nominated by Alsoriano97 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Article needs work. I'll go for it. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support conditional on article being expanded. We posted Monaco and this is much more of a real country than that This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Conditional support regarding quality - damn, everyone in Europe having an election today? - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 22:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

2023 Montenegrin presidential election

• Nominated by BastianMAT (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Not ITN/R as president is not the head of government but very very significant. Djukanovic era of power is over after 33 years, historical. BastianMAT (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Support - I think heads of state generally are considered ITN/R, but I'm not certain. Anyway, article looks good and the significance is there. However, the phrasing of the blurb feels a little weird, something along the lines of "Jakov Milatović is elected President of Montenegro, defeating incumbent Milo Đukanović" might be better, particularly to emphasize the fact that the incumbent was defeated. Estar8806 (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Support alt blurb I - looks good, is mostly prose and not a table wall. Agree with @Estar8806 that we should emphasize that his opponent was incumbent. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 21:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support AB1 Change of head of state is ITN/RThis post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Bombing in Saint Petersburg

• Nominated by Knightoftheswords281 (talk · give credit)
• Created by AgisdeSparte (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Rare, high casualty terrorist attack in St. Petersburg. Doesn't seem explicitly related to the Russo-Ukranian War so is not covered by ongoing (in the same way that we posted that Kyivan helicopter crash). Also killed Vladlen Tatarsky, who I'm not sure if he should be mentioned in the blurb or be nominated for an RD (EDIT: he's already been nominated). - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 21:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment - Would this be covered by the ongoing? Obviously there is notable death mentioned in the nom's comments, but he's already been nominated for RD, which I presume will be posted. I think that the ongoing + that RD would sufficiently cover this. Estar8806 (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

There's no definitive evidence that this was related to the war, and considering that we posted the Kyivan helicopter crash in January, I would say no. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 21:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - Sure, terrorist attacks in Russia are rare, but this only killed one person. The person himself being a simple Russian propagandist. So I personally oppose. Besides, we blurbed the helicopter crash because it killed 3 high-ranking Ukrainian politicians. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Support - per nom. Considering it's not necessarily related to the ongoing war, seems good for posting. Estar8806 (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

2023 Finnish parliamentary election

• Nominated by Estar8806 (talk · give credit)
• Created by Ethreen (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Fellow Mellow (talk · give credit), Spaastm (talk · give credit), VosieCap (talk · give credit) and Vacant0 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: ITN/R. Article seems ready to be posted. Estar8806 (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Support - looks good, has some real prose and is not just a table-wall. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 21:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

RD: Vladlen Tatarsky

• Nominated by BorgQueen (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Ymblanter (talk · give credit)

 BorgQueen (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

RD: Ryuichi Sakamoto

• Nominated by Maxxies (talk · give credit)

 Maxxies (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support - Legendary musician Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Misplaced Pages article are always presumed to be important enough to post; focus on the quality of the article, not the importance of the person. Curbon7 (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  True, and for what it's worth, the quality of their article is solid too. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support - Article is in great shape, no objections to posting. PolarManne (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Awards and discography sections need a bit more citations before I approve. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

RD: Salim Durani

• Nominated by Fahads1982 (talk · give credit)

 Fahads1982 (talk) 11:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

RD: Haziqul Khairi

• Nominated by Ainty Painty (talk · give credit)

 Ainty Painty (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support The article looks good enough to post.Fahads1982 (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Ramadan stampedes in Pakistan

• Nominated by Knightoftheswords281 (talk · give credit)
• Created by Ainty Painty (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Notable high casualty stampedes in Pakistan spurred by the country's economic crisis and Ramadan. Very demonstrative of the current economic crisis the world is facing rn. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 02:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support Tragic symptom of economic collapse This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Swayable Oppose Acceptable death toll, terrible article. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  "Acceptable death toll" - I know what you mean, but there are so many other, much better ways to express it... 51.154.145.205 (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  Also I disagree with the notion that we should have an "Acceptable death toll", as per WP:NEWSEVENT PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• This may be notable enough to post, but I’m currently opposed on quality. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NEWSEVENT. The scope of the topic is unclear as there's several incidents and issues being collected together in a rather synthetic way. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The article is too short, lacking details. Needs expansion. Fahads1982 (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

April 1

(Ready) Tornado outbreak of March 31, 2023

• Nominated by RandomInfinity17 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Extremely significant and tragic tornado event. Was the first high risk day since 2021.Maybe shouldn't've nominated this on April 1 but whatever.  Infinity (talk - contributions) 22:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Wait - Tornado outbreak is nowhere near done yet. Article is way to barebones to nominate. Mjeims (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support - 21 deaths and climbing. King O' Fools 19:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - storms in the spring and other normal things. nableezy - 01:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• still opposed, you have this youre going to be the weather channel the rest of the spring/summer. Yes, its sad, no it isnt anything out of the ordinary or so widely covered it should be on the main page as something people have seen in the news and want more information on. nableezy - 05:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Wait – Extent of impact is unclear as the outbreak is ongoing. We'll be able to better assess tomorrow. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Support combined blurb – the impacts are indeed extensive and with the previous outbreak still fresh on ITN it seems reasonable to combine them. We'll have to wait and see if we have to go for a triple on Tuesday. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Plus the forecast is suggesting an even worse series of tornadic storms on Tues-Wed, this one to focus in slightly higher latitudes. It has been an exceptional winter and spring. - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Support I was considering nominating this, but decided to wait until more damage occurs to get a better chance of pushing this true. Now its at six deaths, and has also affected 165 K customers. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 07:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Changing to wait, per others. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 00:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Support @Vanilla Wizard's blurb. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 00:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose We are already blurbing a similar tornado outbreak which happened recently and so it would be excessive to have a second blurb. Just update the first blurb or replace it with an Ongoing link to a more encyclopedic article like Tornadoes in the United States which explains that "...they are most common in spring ... Because spring is a transitional period for the climate, there are more chances of cooler air meeting with warmer air, resulting in more thunderstorms." Note that it's similar here in the UK where we have had a spate of hail, heavy rain and thunderstorms lately. This is not especially new, "March brings breezes loud and shrill, stirs the dancing daffodil." Andrew🐉(talk) 08:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose without fatalities. And per Andrew. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  There’s at least six confirmed dead. The Kip (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Wait - Per the above PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Changing vote to Support combined blurb as per @Vanilla Wizard PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose While now 11 have been confirmed dead, this is typical damage of a tornado outbreak for this time of year, and given that it was broad across multiple states, it is nowhere near the density that the previous outbreak that we covered had. --Masem (t) 16:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Masem. Tragic to be sure, but this is just not that far out of the ordinary for these sorts of events. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The death toll is now at 21 and likely to climb. The number of injuries and extent of damage has sadly moved this into the realm of a fairly major disaster. Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. Nom says 600 injuries, article says ">70". That's a massive gap that fundamentally changes the importance of this event. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Standalone Blurb While numbers like these would crush the InedibleHulk MCE Bar of Approval, they still fall way short on my Biologically Induced, Growingly Recurrent, Horribly Ordinary Natural Disaster Assessment (BIG RHONDA). Is there a twist? I think not. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment The Tornado outbreak of March 24–27, 2023, which is still on ITN right now, resulted in 22 fatalities +2 non-tornadic fatalities (total of 24 confirmed deaths) and >31 injuries. The nominated article states that the Tornado outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023 resulted in >17 fatalities +3 non-tornadic fatalities (total of 20 confirme deaths) and >87 injuries. I think it would be difficult to argue at this time that the March 31 to April 1 outbreak was less notable on the grounds that it was less destructive, as the two seemed more or less equally devastating. Would it be possible to consolidate the two tornado-related blurbs?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe something like:

• A series of tornado outbreaks in the United States from March 24 to April 1 leave at least 44 people dead.

A bit wordy, but more concise than having two separate blurbs.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I like it. It also gives us a chance to picture the Turing Award winner, who won't be eligible much longer. "Kill" is shorter than "leave dead", I find. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I also like combining the two tornado events. Jusdafax (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Also support combined blurb. Another outbreak is currently in the forecast for Tuesday, and if that turns out to also be major then it might complicate things slightly, but for now this seems like the most elegant solution. Ionmars10 (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Support combined blurb as the death tolls for both is significant. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Support combined blurb per above. Should there be an image for this one, like tornado damage or something? I'm heading to Sullivan, Indiana, a town that was hit by an EF3 tornado during the outbreak, so if I manage to take photos of the damage there, it could be used! Tails Wx 01:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• A combined blurb seems reasonable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support combined blurb Makes the most sense in this situation. Kafoxe (talk) 02:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Comment We have been very wary of combined disparate storm systems in the past, since we cannot claim causality between the events. Combining the blurbs is not a smart idea. If it were the case that, say, a weather system dropped torandoes in some states and later massive flooding in others, that would be reason to combine the blurbs. But two systems separated by a week isn't something we should be combining. --Masem (t) 02:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
  • @Masem: The alternative is axing the first one and replacing it with the new one to maintain balance while keeping them separated. I agree it's not ideal meteorology-wise (I've been against it in the past many times) but in this case it seems appropriate, especially with a third outbreak looming on the horizon. Would wording it more explicitly help? "Two tornado outbreaks on March 24–27 and March 31 – April 1 leave at least 40 people dead in the United States." ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

    I agree, and we should probably let editors know that another outbreak is anticipated for April 4th, so we may need to expand further in a "week-long" outbreak early next week. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support either individual or combined blurbs. This outbreak has enough to stand alone, but with the earlier outbreak and the potential for another major, newsworthy outbreak this coming Tuesday it may be prudent to combine blurbs. Ks0stm 03:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support combined or separate blurb. --Rockstone 06:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Important Clarification. As noted (but seemingly ignored) previously, there is no basis for the 600+ injuries claim. This is not substantiated by the target article, and rather, the first linked source notes that 600 was a prior estimate that was not substantiated. I have adjusted the above blurbs accordingly. I Support a blurb in general, but particularly would lean towards the combined blurb proposal. DarkSide830 (talk) 07:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support Combined with the understanding that we may need to expand in a few days (another widespread outbreak is anticipated). Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support combined, the disaster has now become a significant event. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

March 31

(Posted) RD: George Nagobads

• Updated and nominated by Flibirigit (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Jkaharper (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Latvian-born American physician associated with the Miracle on Ice team. Flibirigit (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Weak Support: Looks good with no unsourced claims. Not sure if notable enough, though. Octopusplushie (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Someone w/an article is automatically notable enough for RD if their article is good enough to post. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support - Sourced and RD ready.BabbaQ (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support The article looks good enough to post. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Indore stepwell collapse

• Updated and nominated by LordVoldemort728 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: I am not expert in writing blurb so can any other user improve the blurb. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ 07:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I have edited the blurb to make it clearer that it was the cover of the well which collapsed. It's an interesting headline as I wasn't previously familiar with stepwells. But, per WP:NEWSEVENT, it's not really an encyclopedic topic -- just another fatal accident. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support - Accidental mass fatalities seem to get a lot of oppose votes these days, but I disagree. And I also think that the unusual nature of this accident is noteworthy. The blurb could do with clarifying that the actual collapse was a concrete floor over the top of the well, which was not what I would have understood from the proposed blurb. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• The article doesn't say anything about concrete – it has "covered by grills and tiles". Andrew🐉(talk) 08:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The BBC says 'a concrete slab'. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Associated Press says "iron grills and tiles". Per WP:NEWSEVENT, "... early coverage may lack perspective and be subject to factual errors". Andrew🐉(talk) 09:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Update I've revised the blurb again as it appears that the stepwell is ancient but the temple is comparatively new and was built over the well. So, I think "floor" is a better word than "cover" to explain what collapsed. Also, note that there was a similar collapse a year ago – see 13 die in village well collapse at wedding.... Such incidents don't seem to generate long-term coverage. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support - good sourcing. High number of fatalities. Definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

*Support per all above - definitely ready for ITNRD, marking as ready. Cheers. WimePocy 11:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment The article is not in good condition. It's too short right now and needs expansion. Nythar (💬-🍀) 11:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose on quality The article is too short, lacking details. Needs expansion. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 12:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Support when expanded per above. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 (Talk-Contribs-Wikis) 12:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose on Quality - Article is pretty stubby. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose pending expansion. Per Onegreatjoke, article needs improvement largely by expanding what little bit is there, before posting on the main page. --Jayron32 14:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose on quality Not much more than a stub. Neutral on notability. The Kip (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Per all of the above - User:Editor 5426387 (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Curbon7, keep the $5 in mind! - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 17:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  This is my favorite running gag on this site. The Kip (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  I am thoroughly enjoying it PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Same. Redoct87 (talk) 04:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

What is this alluding to :)? Gotitbro (talk) 08:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Curbon7 promised to donate $5 to the Wikimedia Foundation if Editor5426387 made a vote without saying 'per the above' PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose on quality. Also neutral on notability. I still think there are editors who want to turn MP into something gloomy. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  They don't really have much of a choice when the nomination system here has lately been predisposed to favor disasters and a handful of other ITN/R topics. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support: Tragic event that gained international coverage. Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support big news. I heard about this disaster yesterday. The article is a little think but it has the essential facts and seems to be verifiable. Good enough. Jehochman 15:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose on quality. Alex-h (talk) 09:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

March 30

RD: Doug Mulray

• Nominated by HiLo48 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Australian comedian, radio and television presenter HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

RD: Peter Usborne

• Nominated by Phrogge (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Died today, founded Usborne Publishing (which may need some work) but his article is fine.  phrogge 'sup? edits 01:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nick Galifianakis (politician)

• Nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Died on March 27, announced today. Member of the U.S. House, uncle of the comedian. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support Article looks good for RD. Side note, it's uncle of the comedians Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support Dreadful news, but the article's alright and the scientist is taking it pretty well, so cheers! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support - Sourced and good enough for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 09:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Posted --Jayron32 11:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Trump indicted

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.

• Nominated by Presidentman (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Patar knight (talk · give credit)

• Comment First current or former president to be indicted, not just first former president. Might be more concise to just say first American president to be indicted and charged with crimes? I have no thoughts on a !vote yet. It's definitely going to be enormous news in the United States and very likely to receive large coverage across the world. Maybe once/if we have a standalone article about the ramifications of this news story it can be posted, but right now it might be a little soon since we don't know what he will be charged with yet and he has not been arrested yet.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I will not support an article at ITN that only has a footnote update on such an important matter. Noah 21:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose How many times do we have to talk about WP:BPLCRIME in this space? Exhausting. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  Indictments are not convictions, only that there is reasonable cause for him to be under arrest and under trial to determine guilt. Masem (t) 22:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  this is exactly what I'm referring to. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Please read WP:BLPCRIME before bringing it up, unless you are of the view that Donald Trump is not a public figure. nableezy - 23:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  It isn't a violation of WP:BLPCRIME to say that an indictment of a former US president is newsworthy. Birdsinthewindow (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  It's also important to read what one has commented on other nominations, so as not to make manifest incongruities. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  The point is BLPCRIME does not apply here at all. It very specifically says for people who are not public figures. nableezy - 22:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. Presidents have been indicted before. Not in the US, but they have. We don't need to post every first at ITN. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  Under this logic, 1/6 should not have been posted because "riots at governmental buildings/coups occur. Not in the US, but they have. We don't need to post every first at ITN." - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 (Talk-Contribs-Wikis) 22:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  There were other obvious reasons to post 1/6 beyond "it hadn't happened before". More specifically, this is a campaign finance violation, which aren't exactly rare in the US. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support Major news with historic gravity. -TenorTwelve (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a worldwide news page, not a list of news about U.S. politics. I'm so tired of this american/western bias here, jesus. it's like every other news piece is american congress this, american funded court that, american enemies do this (very bad!) thing, heroic american troops do that. Daikido (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  Are we on the same ITN? Because its frankly the opposite; lot of stories get put down because they occurred in the west (especially if they occurred in America). There is legit one story about America on ITN right now. Also, ITN entries do not require global significance to be posted and such arguments are actually discouraged from being used here. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 (Talk-Contribs-Wikis) 22:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  This may be an incredibly controversial opinion, but we are a[REDACTED] primarily centered around the Anglosphere, just the same as the Spanish[REDACTED] is centered around the Hispanic world. Naturally, more weight is given to articles in the west. Also, the USA is so central to how the world functions that its domestic politics affect the world an incredible amount. I don't think it's some injustice to place more weight on domestic affairs in the US. That being said, I do not think we should become a US politics ticker, nor do I think we should re-inforce a bias to the west, we should try to have a diverse array of stories we post, but for something like this I think it's okay to place more emphasis on the US. Just my opinion, I may be wrong. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion. But it is not and should not be our policy to focus on the Anglosphere. We already have a source-bias problem there, because it is generally necessary to be able to both read the source language and write English in order to contribute. That's a lot easier to find people for if the source language is also English. We should absolutely not compound that by intentionally focussing on Anglophones. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I never said we should intentionally focus on the Anglosphere, I even think we should strive not to in many circumstances, my point was that we shouldn't oppose this story purely based on the fact that it's America-centric PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Extremely based opinion. Look I support attempts to broaden coverage of the rest of the world, but this whole circus that occurs whenever a US-based story occurs or this attempt to "combat systemic bias" by opposing western stories is trivial and petty, and a direct violation of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 21:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The indictment of a former president, one of the most powerful jobs in the world, is not newsworthy? Manumaker08 (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support and change link to Indictment of Donald Trump - extremely important news and historic moment. The opposes seem to reek of contrarianism and anti-Americanism (excluding @Hurricane Noah). - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 (Talk-Contribs-Wikis) 22:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  Stop accusing of anti-Americanism to those who do not think the same as you. The world is bigger than you may think. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  If a being says its not a cat, but meows, acts, and looks like a cat, its a cat. ITN has no requirement for global significance and WP:IDONTLIKEIT or its thinly veiled, WP:OR variant of "the media is overblowing it" should not cut it here. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 (Talk-Contribs-Wikis) 22:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  I mean, the media is definitely over-blowing it. This probably has little impact on the next election. A conviction doesn't preclude Trump from running and if we are honest, it's probably not impacting very many voters if any. Most likely this situation results in the paying of a fine by Trump and not much else. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  It’s not “accusing of anti-Americanism” when multiple oppose votes above literally opposed solely because “oh posting this is America-centric” or some variation thereof. The Kip (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  That article is currently a stub and probably gets rolled into the current linked article anyway. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Conditional Support Unlike some other people on here I'm not inherently against posting indictments of current/former political leaders, and the historic significance of this can't be understated (though some are trying...). However, the Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal is in no shape to be posted. Once that article gets improved, or the Indictment of Donald Trump is expanded per Knightoftheswords281's suggestion, then I will support it. Mount Patagonia (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Suggest !wait - Maybe it's a little too early to accurately assess the notability? We don't know what the ramifications will be yet. Indictment of Donald Trump was started after this nomination was posted and it'll take time to develop into a suitable target article. I recommend holding off from !voting for at least a couple of hours, if not a day.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Wait for now. Obviously this is too short of an update now, but by later tonight, it should be fleshed out as those relevant comment. ---- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 22:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. Article at Indictment of Donald Trump is suitably fleshed out, so that should be the bold link. Altblurb 3 is probably the one that conveys the importance of the issue without mentioning something that might end up to be wrong (e.g. nature, number of charges), though it will have to be updated later. Former POTUS being indicted is unprecedented, and WP:BLPCRIME is not a complete bar on these pre-conviction legal matters, especially for public figures, which Trump obviously is. There's a lot of US stuff that gets nominated here that would be too American-centric to post, but this is not one of them, and posting would help our readers navigate to the an important and highly sought-after item in the news. ---- Patar knight - /_{contributions} 21:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Wait. As far as I can tell there is no indication yet of what the indictment is for, and whether it will turn out to be something utterly minor. BD2412 T 22:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• I wonder if we should wait until we know the actual charges. The indictment is still sealed. Clear historical first.331dot (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Agree that waiting until the actual charges are, and the article expanded, are known. --Masem (t) 22:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

    Yes; with Putin we knew what the charges were. And also agree the article needs expansion. 331dot (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

    In that case, we knew what the charges were and still falsely accused them of child abduction instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

    It's not false, many RS claim that. Russia has no authority to move a single Ukrainian civilian from Ukraine, they are an invader, much less force Russian citizenship on them. But I've already said too much. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

    The blurb wasn't about what many RS claimed about Russia, it was just about what the ICC prosecutor alleged Putin and Lvova-Belova did. Which was "unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation", not child abduction. If anyone's abducting children, it's their underlings, minions or goons. High-level politicians play high-level games. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. We don't want to have our remarks struck due to sanctions. We should make facetious remarks about imaginary screenplays instead. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's absolutely refreshing to see Misplaced Pages's "In the News" not following the example of mainstream US media, who as usual imply, by the size of their headlines, that Donald Trump is the most important and interesting person in the world. Bishonen | tålk 23:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC).
• Oppose. If he gets convicted, or indicted on an offense more likely to lead to conviction, then we can consider posting. BilledMammal (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Couldn't we have a pic of Stormy Daniels instead? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose We don't do arrests. We ignored the rules for Putin and Lvova-Belova, and proved we can't be trusted to present allegations as allegations or even get the allegation correct. Right off the bat, it was one payment and Michael Cohen made it, not Trump. Trump is accused of falsifying a record of the repayment. Not again, for any BLPs. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support and Bishonen you are in my top 3 admins or editors ever, but cmon it is not just the mainstream US media. This is the top story everywhere. Al-Jazeera Arabic (and English), BBC, The Guardian, Le Figaro, The Chosun Ilbo, Bild, Sydney Morning Herald are all leading with this. This is the top story on every single newspaper I look at it in multiple languages. I dont get the idea of waiting either, right now is when people would be looking for information on this story, right now is when it is most relevant to post to our in the news section. nableezy - 23:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  I hate to repeat myself but we are not a newspaper. We do not care how many RSes cover a story, we want to make sure we get the story right first and foremost for the enduring topic of an encyclopedia. That we have no idea what he was indicted for is the issue. Which should be known in a few days. Masem (t) 00:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  You keep saying this thing like it applies to this discussion. ITN exists to direct our readers towards topics they are reading about in the news. So yes, it matters how many news sources are covering something, as that correlates to the number of people reading about it and in turn searching here for more information about it. Nothing in the blurb I proposed is not solidly backed up by a ton of reliable sources. So the bit about we dont know is likewise not relevant here. nableezy - 03:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, Nableezy! Indeed, the mainstream media all over the world publicize everything about DT as if the least detail connected with him or word out of his mouth ("Alvin Bragg is a Soros-backed animal") was the most newsworthy thing in the world. And this, still, even after the media's soul-searching ever since 2016: "We created this monster!" Yeah, you did, guys, and Trump must be delighted to see the size of, say, Wapo's headline. Bishonen | tålk 08:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC).

• Premature The alleged indictment is under seal. Until it is published this is conjecture. Ok... it's well sourced and widely reported conjecture. But it is not real until the indictment is unsealed and publicly put on the record. Same for the leaked SCOTUS decision that overturned Roe v Wade. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Weak support — The indictment of Donald Trump has no meaningful impact on the world. However, given that this story is the top headline around the world (above Finland's accession to NATO), I'm going to support putting this in ITN. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nableezy, who did the same thing I did, look at multiple worldwide news sources. It's at the top around the globe. The news of the indctment itself is news. Opposers don't make a convincing case, as I see it. Jusdafax (talk) 23:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  Up until 15 or so minutes ago, there was another top story about the Paltrow verdict. Before that, it was NATO. Before that, the Vatican and the Pope personally. Opposers never think Supporters are convincing, nor vice versa, that's the point. But news changes. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  Paltrow was the top story in multiple newspapers across the world in multiple languages? I call bs. nableezy - 00:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  I only read French and English, and thought I was talking about multiple worldwide news sources here. So you may be right. But I shit you not. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Not just the front page, but the top story? Push everything off for the multiple stories that run off this story level of story? Cmon, the last time that happened was when some old lady died in Scotland. nableezy - 01:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  I cannot resist a cmon. Have it your way (meaning I like your alt). I could care less about Gwyneth Paltrow, but the important thing to happen today is still the Vatican's renunciation of the discovery doctrine. It's just one step, sure. But a much bigger step than this one step. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nableezy. Rushtheeditor (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Support - While I would oppose this in principle, as nableezy said it is the headline right now. ITN is intended for global news, and I agree that American/Western news tends to wrongfully dominate ITN, but this is not the event to try to make that point. Estar8806 (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment I forgot to mention my support is conditional on the link being changed as others above have mentioned. Estar8806 (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support This is a historical event and a high-profile occurence. Despite no arrest or convict as of now, it is something with historical precedent that warrants a mention. Jennytacular (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  A mention is one thing, but this is a prolonged photo of Donald Trump smiling you're supporting. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  An image of Trump's portrait is definetly not needed, the attorney office should likely be the photo. If that doesn't suffice, an image should not be added and just a passing mention. Jennytacular (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. Birdsinthewindow (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  And Hulk makes three, removed...for now. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support Major story in international English-language media, a historic moment for the US. It's absurd to say that this is not a noteworthy current event. Birdsinthewindow (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per above. It is true that ITN usually posts convictions rather than indictments, but this is quite historic for the U.S. and is a top story globally. Also, we did post both of his impeachments, which are the political equivalent of indictments rather than convictions. Davey2116 (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment The proposed blurb uses terminology/jargon that is specific to a small number of countries. Specifically, "indicted" and "grand jury". I suggest that these two terms are linked to Indictment and either Grand jury or Grand juries in the United States to make the article more accessible to all readers. Chrisclear (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose As far as I can tell, the person involved in this news item has only been charged and has not yet been found guilty by a court. Chrisclear (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Strong Support I am bewildered this is even debated. The idea that we should ignore this because the west or the USA gets a lot of attention already is a pretty silly argument. How would this anti-west framework even work? If the West starts nuking certain ethnic groups would we ignore that? Is it "something unprecedented" + "the west" = "Misplaced Pages ignores". It's silly, as for the idea that merely being charged is not sufficient, only conviction that's silly too. The most recent head of state of the most powerful nation on earth is being forced through the criminal procedure. How is this up for debate? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  So you're cool with saying he made multiple payments to a porn star we only know Michael Cohen paid once? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  I never said he made multiple payments, but if that's what New York says and they have the proof for it then absolutely. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  The blurb you just Strongly Supported says that. The target article, which isn't what it should be, makes the payment plan clear. Cohen paid Daniels, Trump repayed Cohen. We won't know if the state has proof (of any wrongdoing) until its evidence is tested in court. Just so you know, not trying to sway you. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  The blurb was corrected and we know the state has proof beyond probable cause at a bare minimum. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nableezy. Call it “America-centric” all you want, it’s a massive story that the former leader of the global hegemon is now facing charges for the first time in history. The Kip (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support, basically per WP:IAR, because it's Trump. Nsk92 (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support obviously. The sheer scale of coverage alone qualifies. This will drastically alter American history. Blade Jogger 2049 00:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• offered an alt I think works a bit better, nableezy - 01:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support While posting this would break precedent this is the story of the month. Not having this on ITN would be a failure to meet the goals of ITN Aure entuluva (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose since when did we start posting indictments instead of convictions? (And please don't say "since we posted the ICC issuing an arrest warrant for Putin"). Banedon (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support with reservations, Mr. Trump is an important political figure in the 3rd largest country by population, and this is a story that will be widely covered by news media globally. While I wouldn't normally support this in most other circumstances, this is one where I think we really should make an exception for reasons mentioned prior. I do think the wording of this could be reworded however to flow better. Planetberaure (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support—Per Nsk92. My understanding is that indictments aren't normally ITN-worthy, but this is the former President of the United States and a uniquely high-profile person. The fact that criminal charges are being formally pressed against a former POTUS is unprecedented, and a major development. Kurtis 01:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Et tu, Kurtis? C'est la vie. But FWIW, it won't be a fact until he's arraigned, probably Tuesday. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  I mean, I know it’s not conventional, but this indictment strikes me as being uniquely consequential and newsworthy. That being said, I do see the opposing points and am open to reconsidering. Kurtis 11:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Nah, yer good, bud. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Changing to neutral. I've been mulling it over since yesterday, and ultimately, I'm not sure where I land. On the one hand, convention is to wait until a conviction takes place, which I think is a good thing; we don't want to contribute to the perception that someone is guilty before they've even had a trial. Approving this could conceivably set a precedent for other indictments, which wouldn't be desirable. But on the other hand, a current or former POTUS even being charged with a crime is pretty remarkable, and it's proving to be big news. Kurtis 07:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: We post convictions, not indictments. Now, if Trump supporters start rioting in the streets over the indictment, that would be worth posting, but the post would be about the riots, not the indictment. --Carnildo (talk) 02:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Wait until Tuesday, which appears to be the date Trump has agreed to be taken into custody, which means we'll also know all of the charges at that point. --Masem (t) 02:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support altblurb2. Link to the article about the indictment. Update the blurb and article as this story develops. On Tuesday we can add “and arrested” and say specifically what the 34 counts are. Jehochman 02:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
  • The number of counts is not known. It is what is claimed to be the number from those with inside information, but it is no way official, and definitely something we cannot support on the main page. --Masem (t) 02:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
    • Reliable sources report 34 counts. It’s good enough for starters. Soon we will know more and update the blurb. It’s like a disaster where we keep updating the toll. (Unlike a disaster, this is great, great news.) Jehochman 02:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

      It is ABSOLUTELY NOT, and a major violation of BLPCRIME to include in the blurb. He's indicted on at least one count, and that number may be higher, which is the same way we handle death tolls, reporting "At least (known death toll)" and updating as we go along. Masem (t) 02:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

      BLPCRIME does not apply to public figures. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Support This is THE political news that people have been waiting on for years. This is amongst the first of likely several, and has historic implications as well as implications for the 2024 race. If any US political news made it as an ITN article over the past 6 years, this would be an obvious contender for top 3. People that oppose this either don't understand the full gravity of how "NEWS" worthy it is, or are biased and trying to mask it with feigned concern. When you think rationally about this, this is prime ITN material, especially on the English Misplaced Pages. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

'Especially on the English Misplaced Pages' my eye. This is Misplaced Pages in English, not Misplaced Pages about Anglophones. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support: Seems like a no-brainer at this point to post this -- a former US President and current presidential candidate has been indicted for the first time in US history, and on 34 criminal charges, is clearly of major political significance for the US, and is being widely covered globally with interest for potential domestic and international implications. --PopularMax (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support: This event has been quite widely spoken of for the past week, and yes it is only an indictment but I'm sure the whole Bill Clinton ordeal would have made ITN had it happened more recently. And though, yes, that was a different situation the publicity behind it is largely the same. Daneelis114 03:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support a formal indictment of an US former president. Yes, we probably won’t post a former president of Paraguay or Fiji being arrested, but let’s face reality: the US is simply much more relevant to any audience outside those countries. Juxlos (talk) 04:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose More US-centric news. Not a sitting president. Not even convicted. CoatCheck (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  "Please do not oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one." The Kip (talk) 06:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Reminder People face their charges at arraignment in America. When they literally (albeit sometimes virtually) face a judge. Until then, it's just a figure of speech and if it's posted early, no amount of reasoning can fix it later on ERRORS. Also bear in mind that nobody explicitly asked for a picture with this one. Nobody. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support: As per above, this is the first time that a former US president has been indicted. Even though convictions are generally considered for ITN, it's hard to ignore the criminal indictment of a former president of the most powerful country on Earth and its significant political and social ramifications. Waiting for his arraignment (most probably short) would not not change the initial significance of his indictment. I do not think that we should be seeking to be sensational by waiting to post only his arraignment as this is one of the steps that follows an indictment.^^Maxxies (talk) 05:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  If you're misunderstanding me, I'm just saying don't write that he's become a president facing charges until it's true, not don't post (in my Vote I'm saying don't post, but not in the Reminder). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  There is no doubt about the indictment. The district attorney has confirmed it. Arraignment will happen when Trump flies to New York and presents himself in court. The indictment has already happened. Jehochman 08:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  If there's a better way I might convey that my problem isn't with the indictment, but rather that the president will only hear/face his charges/judge on the coming Tuesday (at which time, unless something changes, half these blurbs will become accurate for the first time), just let me know. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Post conviction. Pavlor (talk) 05:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support - An historic decision. First former U.S President to be indicted.BabbaQ (talk) 06:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support -- this story is literally everywhere. It would make Misplaced Pages look ridiculous to not also post it. --Rockstone 08:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral on the actual posting - it's clearly big news, but other users are correct that we don't normally post individual arrests or indictments. We should definitely wait until it actually happens and the charge list is unsealed. And I want to stress again that the fact that a person is charged with a stated offence is frequently a public fact about them, and we shouldn't shy away from that. I appreciate not wanting to present the information in such a way as to prejudice a trial, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't cover it. And I notice that some of the people who are keen to rely on BLPCRIME when it protects prominent right-wing politicians, are not so exercised when speculating about other alleged criminals. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment - I would like to bring up that we posted the arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin by the ICC, so this isn't too much of a stretch. In fact, I'd even argue it's more notable due to the real chance that Trump will be arrested, while the ICC's decision was largely symbolic. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Mixed - I'm leaning support due to the fact that this is literally In The News, at the top of every news outlet, and the indictment of a former global hegemon, as others have pointed out, is big news. Opposing based on the fact that this is America-centric is not really a strong point. However, @InedibleHulk has made quite good counter-arguments, and it might be best to wait, as per the above. Hmmm PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Changing vote to Wait, per above Waits PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Listen to your heart, PW, not this ringworn old blob of cholestorolic vapourlock (but if you happen to never write "however" again, I'd appreciate it). InedibleHulk (talk) 09:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

This is the sort of remark I mean, when I say that your posting at ITNC includes a lot of wildly unhelpful material that is tolerated out of all proportion to its relevance. Can a third party comment on this phenonomenon, please? GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It's better than Indeed. We don't want to have our remarks struck due to sanctions. We should make facetious remarks about imaginary screenplays instead. Anyone want to have to guess what the hell that means? I can't bother. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

My guess is as good as yours when it comes to that phrase

Better to be a bit more relaxed, in my humble opinion. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

NEVER! That's when they get you. But yeah, I'll pace quietly. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this editor is consistently disruptive, but not so egregiously as to warrant sanction. Just don't look. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Listen to my heart, I shall PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose We post convictions, not indictments. The story could end up being a whole pile of nothing yet. Black Kite (talk) 09:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Wait until it is official, then post the indictment. If that means we're a couple days late to the news, so be it; it'll be on the main page for a couple of weeks regardless, based on the current slow news cycle. Anarchyte (talk) 09:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose We don't generally post indictments, we post convictions. I don't see this as necessary to break that standard. Furthermore, the article highlighted is neither sufficiently updated nor of sufficient quality. There are basically two fragmentary sentences (one in the lead and one in the timeline", and the article suffers from WP:PROSELINE quality problems. --Jayron32 11:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose i'd rather wait for a conviction. Onegreatjoke (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose a mere charge. We should reconsider if/when he is convicted. Modest Genius 12:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Narrow support on significance, but oppose on quality of this 50% WP:PROSELINE article. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support: After a brief check, this is currently on the front page of the websites for the BBC (where it is the top story), Times of India and Le Monde. Countless others have it as the top story of their "world" sections. This has ramifications beyond the United States. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose For the same reason I opposed the Putin blurb, mere charges and arrests should never be up on the main page. This has been the standard with the Putin posting being an aberration. Furthermore, at least in posting that we knew what the exact charges were and there was an arrest warrant (which is what that posting hinged on and not the mere indictment by the ICC); there is no such thing here, no exact charges have been revealed nor is the person up for arrest (as of this moment). Even those wanting this to be posted should wait for the exact charges to be revealed and the person being up for arrest/arrested (though I would still oppose for the reasons stated here initially and for a basic deference to BLP). Gotitbro (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment (as nominator) The Indictment of Donald Trump article was not written when I nominated this, but I would prefer this to be the main target rather than the Stormy Daniels article as initially proposed. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm replacing the article if that's fine with you. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 (Talk-Contribs-Wikis) 16:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, that's fine! Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Wait this is important enough to post, but we should wait for the charges to be announced. The "Stormy Daniels" payments being the main charge is still speculation at this time -- "business fraud" is what has been announced. 217.180.228.188 (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - it appears there is consensus to post, and given that this story is dominating headlines worldwide, I really think it makes Misplaced Pages look silly to not have already posted it. --Rockstone 17:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Picture - If this is posted, we need a picture of Trump like we posted a picture of Putin. Son Of The Desert (Talk) 18:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Son Of The Desert @PrecariousWorlds re-added picture removed by @InedibleHulk, per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - Knightsoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 21:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Support Blurb per above. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - Conviction, not indictment. There are 100 ways for an indictment to end, and 98 of them are non-stories. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose – It is not the first time a former President of a country has been indicted. News has relevance pretty much in the US alone. Yakme (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Why does this matter? I constantly see this, but the note up top explicitly admonishes people against opposing because an article only relates to one country. Are people just unable to read or...? -- Rockstone 03:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Wait - we don't know why he was indicted - there's rumours out there. If he's actually charged, or flees into exile, then I think we need IAR and post this. It's a massive story - unlike anything we've seen in a half-century since Vice-President Agnew (who was also facing indictment on similar charges). Yeah, we have a problem with an American bias here - but this is big. Nfitz (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Bish and Black Kite. No conviction yet, we don't know the contents of the indictment, it's presumably something to do with campaign finance laws that are not infrequently broken. If there is a fallout, it will presumably occur after a trial is complete. Also: this may briefly have made headlines outside the US, but as I write, it no longer is very prominent; it's dropped off of the front page for the non-US outlets that I checked; at best, there's a followup opinion piece or two visible. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Why is there some smiling photo of him? If we have to have an image, then are the AI generated ones of him being arrested not CC licensed? Half kidding, but I dont think we need his photo for this blurb, it adds nothing to it. nableezy - 23:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  When he surrenders on Tuesday we can add his photo. The mugshot. Jehochman

• Support - While not a completely unique event, it is still unprecedented for the United States and follows a lengthy investigation that was itself a long-running news story. While there's no guarantee this will be considered a big deal in a few years, I'm satisfied that it's a big deal right now, and suitable for the infobox. Tisnec (talk) 02:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) US Senate votes to end COVID-19 emergency

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.

• Nominated by 2A02:2F0B:B500:5A00:41F3:1AF6:93B2:B1C5 (talk · give credit)

• Oppose - For all practical purposes, the pandemic has already been over for quite some time. There is no need to post an official announcement of its end that only deals with one country out of more than 190. Son Of The Desert (Talk) 17:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• What? Let's not get carried away, the US is not the WHO and, therefore, the end of the pandemic can only be declared by this organization. This is far from being ITNR-worthy when, moreover, it is not even the only country to have done so. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Irregardless of what the nominator thinks, the WHO will eventually declare covid-19 has moved from a global pandemic to a global endemic. When that happens, it's news and we'll post it. In the meantime, the United States is just one country. Gopchunk (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't feel like I need to explain why. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. I understand why you've nominated this, but there are numerous flaws in the idea. The bill hasn't become law yet - Biden still has to sign it. The US Senate doesn't get to decide when a global pandemic is over. That's not what they've done anyway - the bill is related to emergency powers and funding that were granted to the US federal government to tackle the pandemic, not a declaration of when the pandemic itself began or ended. Those powers were due to expire in May anyway. There's no reason to post the US response to the pandemic over other countries'. Wait for the WHO declaration that Covid is endemic, whenever that may be. And finally, there's no updated article, which is an immediate fail for ITN. Modest Genius 19:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose – The WHO will, eventually, declare that the pandemic is over. The United States is not the WHO. DecafPotato (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Fort Campbell collision

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.

• Nominated by Knightoftheswords281 (talk · give credit)
• Created by ElijahPepe (talk · give credit)

• Oppose Article is a stub. Not worthy of the main page given that. Will reevaluate if that ever changes. --Jayron32 14:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  Still opposed. Reading the source material; it is a tragedy, but from my reading of the source articles, it looks like this is likely that this event is generating a lot of one-off stories (many of which are reprints from newswires) of relatively short length and it doesn't seem like this level of reporting indicates significance of a level that would indicate posting on ITN right now. Willing to be proven wrong in the future, with more indepth coverage. But it's not there now, from what I see. --Jayron32 16:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Article is a stub as Jayron mentioned. Though I would like to say that the main reason why the airshow crash was posted was specifically because it got a LOT of media attention. So this would likely have to receive some as well. Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. According to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2020–present), fatal military aircraft crashes seem to happen about once per month. Nine deaths is tragic for those involved, but less than many bus crashes. I'm not convinced this crash even justifies an article per WP:NEVENT (particularly WP:PERSISTENCE), let alone being listed in ITN. Plus the article is currently a four sentence stub. Modest Genius 14:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jayron Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 14:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose — U.S.-centric story. I'll change my vote if there is sustained coverage. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  From the instructions at the top of this page "Please do not...Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country... This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive." --Jayron32 15:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose we generally do not include the result of disasters to military personnel while in their duties, as this was. --Masem (t) 15:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Jayron32, @Onegreatjoke, @Modest Genius, and @Iamstillqw3rty as the article has been expanded past stub status. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 (Talk-Contribs-Wikis) 15:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

While that now meets our minimum length and referencing requirements, it doesn't change my view of the (lack of) significance. Modest Genius 16:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment The Dallas airshow was a very contentious posting, probably not a good testcase. There were also other factors which contributed to that posting, particulalry that the two aircraft invovled were historic planes among the last of their kind. This appears to involve two Black Hawk helicopters; helicopter crashes are fairly common compared to other aviation disasters. Curbon7 (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose We generally don't post deaths that occur during standard military operations since that is an inherent risk associated with being in the military. Noah 16:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• oppose per all of the above, -user:editor 5426387 (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

March 29

RD: John Kerin

• Nominated by HiLo48 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Former Australian government minister HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

RD: Michael Berlyn

• Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Game developer, creator of Bubsy and co-founder of Bend Studio. The date of death is not clear but it has to be no later than March 29 given the twitter reports. Masem (t) 16:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Weak oppose Bleh. Article is pretty short, one long list with a single citation added to it, overall, I don't think this is ITNRD ready. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

RD: Girish Bapat

Nominator's comments: Some A lot of issues. Rushtheeditor (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose: Article has more than "some citation issues", it is unfortunately lacking in any detail. It does not explain anything Bapat did through his career, only the offices he held. This article really needs a lot more to it. Octopusplushie (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Article is orange tagged and is far from ready for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paul O'Grady

 2A02:C7C:9238:D400:39E8:F434:CE99:3E68 (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support Clearly notable, very comprehensive article. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 06:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support, his article is good and he's definitely notable enough. Suonii180 (talk) 09:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support Definitely notable enough. --79.66.89.36 (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Conditional support provided the four tags in the article are resolved. Ritchie333 12:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support all tags resolved! Tails Wx 15:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support No issues, very notable UK TV personality. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support Very notable, article has good quality. Ollieisanerd (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support Article well written. Undoubtedly "a national treasure" in the UK.SethWhales 17:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Posted. Ks0stm 18:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - No objections to the posting, but why do people fail to notice the instruction that significance is a non-factor in posting to RD? Any person, or even animal, is eligible if they have an article that is good enough. Son Of The Desert (Talk) 18:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah I was thinking that. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

RD: Myriam Ullens

• Nominated by Fram (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Unexpected violent death, but notable long before this as art collector and philantropist Fram (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

March 28

RD: Derek Meyers

• Nominated by Rushtheeditor (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Needs expansion. Rushtheeditor (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

RD: Margareta Strömstedt

• Nominated by Thriley (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Article created after her death. Some citations needed. Thriley (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Saudi Arabia bus crash

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.

• Nominated by Ainty Painty (talk · give credit)

• Oppose, bus crashes are routine events, the article fails WP:NOTNEWS. Sandstein 08:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - Per @Sandstein, and, while this is a tragedy, death tolls do not automatically mean notability. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NEWSEVENT, "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, ... – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think this policy should come up way more often on ITN. It feels like every single disaster over 15 or so deaths gets posted regardless of actual significance (though not to downplay these tragedies). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Its not just ITN, but NOTNEWS overall that needs to be more strictly enforced. We shouldn't have articles on things like bus accidents like this in the first place, though a list of traffic accidents in (country) would be appropriate. Masem (t) 12:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment We recently posted a bus plunge in Panama. I don't see what makes this any different in terms of postability. Regardless, the article is at AfD, so that precludes this discussion until that is resolved. Curbon7 (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - while I generally revile arguments such as WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEWSEVENT being used in a section dedicated to covering the news, I think instances like this where there really shouldn't be an article at all are acceptable cases for those points to be invoked.
• Additional comment Article is now at AfD, thus automatically rendering it ineligible for posting unless the AfD closes as a keep (which given how its currently going, seems incredibly unlikely). As such, I'm requesting this be closed.

- Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 12:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Lisbon mass stabbing

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.

• Nominated by Knightoftheswords281 (talk · give credit)
• Created by Aarfrunzindin (talk · give credit)

• Oppose good faith nomination. I fail to see how this reaches the bar for ITN. -- Rockstone 22:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Care to explain how or define said bar? - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 22:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed, I'd like to know what the bar is myself. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 23:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Id say yall set the bar when you reflexively oppose any shooting with more casualties and substantially more coverage because it "Amurica doing Amurican things". nableezy - 23:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Hey, I voted wait on the Nashville shooting story, so I'm not "yall." - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 01:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose My bar for mass casualty events is at twelve, either dead or seriously injured. Still bad news when lower, never good. But not "major", absent some extraordinary twist. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - Personally my bar is at 15 dead minimum. So this will be an oppose from me. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

It feels weird to have a "minimum death toll" for notability. As Andrew pointed out above, WP:NEWSEVENT says "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, ... – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Scratched out what I wrote. Though, i've noticed that the article itself doesn't even really talk about the stabbing. Rather it just mentions the perpetrator, victims, and aftermath. Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment WP:MINIMUMDEATHS is not a thing and should not be a thing. Candidates should be assessed on significance, not an arbitrary number. Curbon7 (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Regardless, I don't really see this event as being that notable for ITN. It killed two people, which is sad, but that doesn't really make it notable from any other stabbing in europe or probably even portugal. That's why i'm voting oppose. Onegreatjoke (talk) 12:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - Per @Curbon7 and WP:NEWSEVENT PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose because although this is rare for Portugal, its death toll is low & we know very little about the motive. This should be on DYK instead. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support Article is in good shape, and reliable sources are giving this the attention to indicate it is significant. --Jayron32 13:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Absent a very unusual scenario or context (which there doesn't appear to be here), I don't see how an event with such a low death toll reaches the bar for ITN, regardless of whether it's in the USA, Portugal or anywhere else. Black Kite (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose on notability 2 deaths, multiple injuries, a shooting in Tennessee had more deaths and got shot down, and so will this. Cheers. WimePocy 16:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose trivial crime despite how tragic it was for those involved. In no way encyclopedic. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Personally, I feel a mass killing, gun or stabbing, should only make ITN if there's a major conversation occurring because of it. I would oppose most mass shootings in America in general, except things such as Uvalde and Buffalo, because conversations for gun restrictions were the result of that. Nashville, nor Monterey Park and Half Moon Bay had that, IMO. Then again, I'm not sure I have much of a say when it comes to how significant this event is, because, well, I'm not Portuguese. Though, I feel my point remains. If no major action/large conversation is taken because of this, then this should not be blurbed. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

RD: Jacob Ziv

• Nominated by Mooonswimmer (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Significant sourcing work needed. Mooonswimmer 14:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Support, Misplaced Pages wouldn't function without his work (; Synotia (moan) 16:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Support Notable enough, article looks good. Ollieisanerd (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment The biography section is almost entirely unsourced. Nythar (💬-🍀) 23:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Support, Article looks OK.Alex-h (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support article is fine and ITNRD ready. Cheers. WimePocy 16:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Not yet ready As Nythar states above, the Biography section is still mostly unsourced, and the article is made up almost entirely of one or two sentence paragraphs. Curbon7 (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• The final sentence in Jacob Ziv#Biography has one footnote, but there are none in the several paragraphs before that. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

RD: Muhammad Idrees (politician)

• Nominated by Fahads1982 (talk · give credit)

 Fahads1982 (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Needs additional depth about what he accomplished in his political roles. Spencer 03:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: Sources are mostly elections results, and the article does not go in-depth about anything except public offices. Need larger and more detailed biography. --Octopusplushie (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Ciudad Juárez fire

• Nominated by Knightsoftheswords281 (talk · give credit)
• Created by Nythar (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: High casualty disaster along the US-Mexico border involving migrants. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 12:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose on quality, support in principle. Noah 12:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose on quality per Hurricane Noah. Will flip vote when expanded. The Kip (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Count me as a Support now. Article's been suitably expanded. The Kip (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support From what I can see right now, the article is short, but definitely well more developed than a stub, and well-referenced. There's enough information here as of now for posting on the main page. Additionally, news sources appear to be covering the story in a way that indicates that it is significant enough for the main page. --Jayron32 17:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support looks more expanded since it was nominated. It's well-sourced, and I would go with the original blurb! Tails Wx 17:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Weak support It’s an important story & the quality seems just barely good enough to post. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support Notable event by its rarity and death toll Sheila1988 (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Hurricane Noah and @The Kip given the recent article's expansion. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 22:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NEWSEVENT, "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, ... – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

You're sure that an arson attack killing 40 people from several countries is a routine event?! Had this happened in the developed world (even if only a couple of miles away in El Paso, Texas), it'd have been posted within a few hours of being created. The article would be much longer & have been edited by several times as many people. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

...such as the deaths of 38 people at a deportation center. Curbon7 (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

38 is not a lot – it's comparable with the Saudi bus crash. Migrant deaths are commonplace and, when they are crammed into boats, trucks, camps and the like, you will tend to get death tolls of this size. Overall, the UN estimates about 100/week over the last 10 years. It's an ongoing problem like the cartel war in Mexico for which the stats so far this year include:

1,383 Reported Fatalities

273 Battles

130 Riots

927 Violence against civilians

It's not our job to detail each such incident. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. This is a horrific tragedy, but ITN isn't just a "disaster with high death toll" ticker. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support, high death toll and the article looks ok. Such numbers of victims are usually postable. Brandmeister 12:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per all above, article is fine in both quality and notability. Cheers. WimePocy 13:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Marked "ready". I am ineligible to post, as I voted and am thus WP:INVOLVED. Any other admin who hasn't voted can post it, given the widespread support. --Jayron32 14:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Posted ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 14:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Humza Yousaf

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.

• Nominated by 148.64.29.135 (talk · give credit)

• Support. The proper target article is in good shape. For the blurb, I recommend the concise altblurb. We can understand the practical effect that he will become First Minister, though some further formalities are required. To my mind this is like the US presidential election where we announce the vote results, not the meeting of the Electoral College. Jehochman 11:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Firstly, this is not on ITNR so I've removed that flag. Scotland is not a sovereign country (it is part of the United Kingdom) so its first minister is only the leader of a regional government. It's equivalent to the leader of an Indian state, Belgian community or US state - none of which we post in ITN. Secondly, I don't see how his ethnicity is relevant to the position. Thirdly, it's an internal party succession with no associated popular election. There's no reason to treat this differently from any other local government succession. Modest Genius 11:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  PS. see the ITN/C discussion when Sturgeon resigned last month. Modest Genius 11:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  That was a close discussion, and the result was wrong. Scotland is a country, not a state. Not ITNR does not mean it has to be rejected. This is a significant event that is widely in the news. Jehochman 11:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  As I said in that discussion, "when comparing different sovereign states it's mostly just semantics whether they refer to their largest sub-national entities as states, provinces, regions, cantons, communities, nations or countries". The fact that the major subdivisions of the UK are called countries is historical and doesn't make them sovereign. I'm British, I know how the UK works. Modest Genius 12:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I trust you do. California would be the ~7th largest country in the world by GDP, and has the same population as Canada, but we post elections in Monaco, which have much, much less significance and zero global news coverage. Our criteria is borken. Jehochman 12:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per MG. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 11:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support Topic has been covered sufficiently by news sources, article is in sufficiently good shape. The lack of ITNR is a non-issue as many stories are posted in the ITN box that are not in ITNR. --Jayron32 12:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose not ITNR and Scotland is mot a sovereign nation, so it’s more close to be a sub-national political event than an statal one. There’s no way this should be posted. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Weak support - I think there's a difference between the UK's subnational governments and those of countries like America. The fact that I and many other foreigners know about Sturgeon but not say Heather Stefanson or Tim Walz is demonstrative of this.

- Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 12:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, the same can be said for famous US Governors, like Ron DeSantis or Gavin Newsom, who are recognisable names overseas like Sturgeon. I don't think many people would be able to name the First Ministers of Wales or Northern Ireland (I even live in the UK and I don't know them).

While the UK and the USA have very different political systems, I feel like you can draw an equivalence between the constituent countries of the UK to US states. Both have an elected legislature in the style of the overall federal legislature, both have significant regional autonomy and control over many of their own affairs, etc. The only meaningful difference here is that the USA has 50 while the UK has 4, which if you adjust for population is roughly like 8-9 states to 4 UK countries. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Well to be honest, although that is true, I think another difference lies in the timing. You cited how we didn't post the 2022 Cali elections, which ignore that they were apart of the wider midterm elections that year and were thus already technically covered. This, as far as I know, is an independent election time-wise. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 13:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

There was no popular election here - voters didn't get a say. Only party members were involved. Modest Genius 13:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Still an election, as the article title and prose states, as well as governmental processes and news media. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 15:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, that's actually a good point, I forgot that the California elections were part of the midterms, but then I'll bring up that we did not post the 2021 California gubernatorial recall election, where Gavin Newsom was re-elected (Discussion for that here). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

America is a continent, btw. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

America primarily refers to the United States (see that that redirects to "United States", not "The Americas". Actually, America, by itself, is not a continent. There's North America, and South America, but there's no continent referred to "America". --Rockstone 03:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I know many in South America prefer to use "America" to refer to the two landmasses as a whole. If I'm perfectly honest the whole idea of a continent is stupid, there are incredibly arbitrary borders (Europe ends at the Ural Mountains and Black Sea. Why? Don't ask questions. North America and Africa both end at man-made canals, why? Who knows? And there's some mysterious sea border between Oceania and Asia that no one can quite define. Also, why are we even grouping these places together? The Middle East is insanely different from the Central Turkic states, which are different from Eastern Russia, which is different from China, which is different from Thailand, which is different from India, which is different from the Philippines, and etc. etc. Why are all of these places grouped together into "Asia"? Asia was literally just a Roman Province, same for Africa. Well I have no clue how I got from the Scottish First Minister to ranting about geographical divisions but I'm getting off topic so I better stop.). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - Scotland is merely a region within a nation. We didn't post the 2022 California election result, and even if we were to include regional subdivisions for ITN, we would have to wait for his approval from the Scottish parliament. He has only been elected party leader, not First Minister yet. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Subnational + he hasn't even been formally elected as First Minister. The Kip (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Does this not count as formal election?

  No comment on the overall proposal. Couruu (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Struck that bit of my oppose. The Kip (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support - It's explicitly not ITNR. But it is making the headlines. And for the record, I would also support a sufficiently prominent sub-national election elsewhere in the world. I am interested to see what becomes of the NSW proposal further down, once it is a done deal and not ongoing. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I support in principle the idea of posting election results in large sub-national regions, but Scotland is nowhere near the largest and most influential sub-national regions, so until such a practice becomes much more common I will oppose. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Strong Support (altblurb)- Simply because it's an election not listed on ITNR doesn't make it ineligible for ITN, which is what most of the opposition I've seen so far has been based on. Without regard to the fact that Yousaf is the first muslim leader of a major political party in the UK (I think in the whole of the West, if I'm not mistaken) but it is a major moment for the Scottish independence movement. For example, The Independent reports that Labour and the Conservatives are calling Scottish independence "dead". Not only is his election being reported covered by major UK news outlets (such as the Guardian). , but also by primarily U.S. sources like CNN and global sources like Al Jazeera.Estar8806 (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose -- We do not post the elections of subnational entities. We wouldn't post this same story if it happened in a US state or Canadian Province, even though US states and Canadian Provinces are more independent than Scotland is. To post this story would smack of UK-centrism, already a huge problem here. --Rockstone 22:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Objection! Scotland has Scots law. You don't see that kind of self-rule in Nova Scotia or Manitoba. If Ontario wants to reject the monarchy, it needs permission from the nine other provincial legislatures, the federal government and the monarchy. Scotland just fights (historically). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  ... Good point. I have a feeling that I don't understand Canadian federalism very well. Here in the US though, Louisiana has its own legal system that's a hybrid of civil and common-law, and here in Florida, juries consist of only 6 people (except for capital felonies). -- Rockstone 23:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, all fifty states are absolutely positively 100% sovereign. Florida Man is popular for a reason that just wouldn't fly in one of the hippy or yippie states. Here, we can't publish (decent) crime comics, anywhere, despite that panic having died out with the MPs who thought it made sense at the time. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Also, Cajuns are arguably more Canadian than hippy, yippie or Floridian, by virtue of their Acadian "bloodline". And those poor historical souls were arguably more French than anything. And as any Gallic historian can tell you, France probably had something to do with Gaelic diverging from Celtic and Welsh back in the foggy days when unicorns represented more than a district, ward, factory, metropolitan statistical area or fen. Maybe I'm just rambling. Support Photo Blurb because this formerly magic kingdom and its promising new ruler are still In The News today. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The election of a leader of a subnational govt. shouldn’t be posted. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support this is good news 5.44.170.26 (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - for the same reason as opposing the Sturgeon announcement, we dont post sub-national office changes. We would never post the election of the governor of California, which remains a much more consequential position in nearly every regard. nableezy - 23:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Subnational entity, and conceptually the position is no more powerful or constitutionally significant than the governor of California, which we wouldn't generally post... And that's before we even consider that California has a population more than seven times that of Scotland.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support per my prior rationale for supporting changes in the holder of First Minister of Scotland. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment There is a reason changes to heads of state/government of non-sovereign entities are not included in ITNR and why such noms have not received support here. A case can be made that this election is significant, with the choosen head being the first from an ethnic minority background, but this stemming from a mere party election and not a popular vote is not fully convincing as to the latter's notability. Gotitbro (talk) 06:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think he's more notable for trying to call an independence referendum on his first day in attempted service than for being...whatever one calls a native Glaswegian ethnic minority or minority ethnic leader in Scotland. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. what about the first Zhuang governor of Guangxi province while we're at it? Sheila1988 (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support – Yes, Scotland has less autonomy than some other subnational entities. But 1), the countries of the UK get significantly more worldwide media coverage than things like the governor of California (which, like I said when Sturgeon resigned, has a higher population and GDP and msot other metrics than some sovereign states, proving that "a bunch more people live there" isn't a valid reason to oppose), and 2) the campaign for Scottish independence remains significant and ITN-worthy in my opinion. DecafPotato (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• comment from nominator. I'll remember all this 'we don't do regions' during the US primaries then. but no doubt the US bias will rule differently at that point and we'll have a whole bunch of stuff about Super Tuesday and guff that only affects 'regions' of the US. 148.64.29.90 (talk) 11:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  As far as I am aware, we have never posted Super Tuesday in ITN. Modest Genius 11:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Even so, and this may be controversial, but I think a major US party nomination (especially for a contentious race like what's going on in the Republican party) could be argued for notability in ITN. I live in the UK, so it's not out of some American bias, but because American politics naturally has more weight as a. It is predominantly the focus of most major, reliable news outlets, and b. The US heavily influences the entire world. That being said, I'm sure there's plenty of good counter-arguments. Just my take. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support, If it is not ITNR it does not mean it is not suitable for ITN. Alex-h (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Support, a major event. Khan, Sunak, now Yousaf Kirill C1 (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose We wouldn't post if AOC became Governor of New York, or Omar the Governor of Minnesota, or Haaland the Leader of the Democratic party. Not ITNR, and not very notable. Sunak was an exception as it is somewhat the British equivalent of the US president, but this is a subnational election being held in a country-that-really-isn't. Cheers. WimePocy 16:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Sunak wasn't an exception. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose minor local politics. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Only relating to one area does not disqualify something from ITN, and I'd hardly classify Scotland's first minister as 'minor' – the fact that it made international news already distinguishes it from the 'US governor' comparison as well. DecafPotato (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  Does it? High-profile governor's races make it to international news occasionally. --Rockstone 05:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, we have a long standing aversion to sub-national politics for a reason: it becomes very difficult to decide where to draw the line. I could see this creeping further to include, for example the governor of California, mayors of Paris, Tokyo, Berlin... We already feature a lot of political news, no need to expand this - Dumelow (talk) 07:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

March 27

RD: James Bowman (countertenor)

• Updated and nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Thoughtfortheday (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: The No. 2 countertenor, Britten's Oberon in 1967, and as good in Early Music as world premieres. The article was pretty much there, but references missing + I was on vacation. I hope he can still appear. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

RD: Gianni Minà

• Nominated by Oltrepier (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Doc Cardio (talk · give credit), Gianluigi02 (talk · give credit), Cavarrone (talk · give credit), Robby.is.on (talk · give credit) and Normantas Bataitis (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: A key figure in Italian journalism, I didn't manage to nominate him until now. At the moment, the main issue is the evident lack of sources, but I hope I'll be able to solve it as soon as possible. Oltrepier (talk) 08:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Cuban parliamentary election

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.

• Nominated by Rushtheeditor (talk · give credit)

• Oppose on quality Article needs considerable updates/expansion. The Kip (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Nothing of value has changed in a single-party country. And the article, as pointed out above, is far from perfect. --Bedivere (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment I searched WP:ITNR and there is nothing saying that single-party countries are to be excluded. Is your rationale based on ITNR or personal opinion? Tube·of·Light 02:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - Single-party state, elections effectively mean nothing. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Weak Oppose - Just another sham election. TomcatEnthusiast1986 (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - WP:GOODFAITH nomination, however, it's an election in a single party state. Big deal. Crusader1096 (message) 01:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Weak support - since its the first election in Cuba not under the Castros, I reckon that this is fine for posting since it's WP:ITNR. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Rights ) 03:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Might I add that this is under the condition that the primary article is expanded and improved upon. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Rights ) 03:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Reinstating original vote following alteration of blurb. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 (Talk|Contribs|Wikis) 21:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment We do post the results of sham elections, such as Kazakhstan which is currently posted, but there is a distinction between the circumstances there and here. Curbon7 (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Not to defend Kazakhstan's government, but Kazakhstan is more akin to a competitive-authoritarian or illiberal democratic system, not a true one-party state. Besides, Kazakhstan's was notable in that it was the most competitive in their history, in relative terms. AFAIK not so in CubaThis post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

    Hence there is a distinction between the circumstances there and here. Curbon7 (talk) 02:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose on quality (note: there is nothing in ITNR saying single-party elections are not ITNR) Tube·of·Light 02:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The blurb is not accurate. The CPC did not win the election because the candidates do not represent that party and are not necessarily members. Instead, the candidates represent local assemblies and other bodies such as women's organisations. And there's no "winning" because it's not a competitive process. The voters just get to approve the single choice for each constituency. Most voters just tick a box saying that they approve all 470 candidates. So, what matters is who was selected as candidates by the National Candidature Commission. But the article doesn't list them – there's no list of names, who they represent and which constituency they were elected to. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Conditional support if and only if the blurb can be written in a concise way that explains the actual result without implying that this was in any sense a competitive election for the Communist Party as an organisation. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Wrote altblutb to account for the single-party nature of Cuba. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose good faith nom per above. Article is completely inadequate for one covering national "elections" and the elections were just a rubber stamp affair in a Communist police state. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Blurb is 100% false, with claim that neither Castro were involved in the 1976 "election". The Communist Part of Cuba won all the seats in 1976, and Fidel Castro was both the leader of the party and of the country before and after the 1976 election. Perhaps User:Rushtheeditor can explain this Stalin-like historical revision? Nfitz (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Excuse me? I saw that ON the page, and I DID NOT write that on there. I assumed (my fault) that it was true and posted it. Do not accuse me of such ‘historical revision’. Rushtheeditor (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Uncalled for. Mistakes happen; stating that an editor's honest mistake is a Stalin-like historical revision is absolutely a personal attack. Curbon7 (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support altblurb - oppose the tut-tutting of the anti-countering systemic bias in favor of entrenching it fuller crowd. People want to talk about elections but had no problem posting this "election" in which 140k people decided the UK PM, or this one in which not even that level of "election" took place. nableezy - 20:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  This is ITN/R and all the arguments about Cuba's elections dont count because I dont believe in Cuban elections should be ignored and tossed aside. The only objection that has merit here is quality, and of the people discussing it that does not seem to be a stopping point here. This should be posted, and the people advocating for keeping ITN a bastion of Western superiority should be rebuked. nableezy - 16:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I apologize for the original blurb. I see how it is wrong and I will learn from this and be more careful when proposing blurbs. Again, I am sorry for this. Rushtheeditor (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
  • No worries at all, we all make mistakes and people can sometimes be too harsh on here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Feels like SNOW is in the offing here, but I still passionately believe that we should post these sorts of elections. No one's refuting that Cuba's a one-party system, and I can understand a lack of belief that anything will change with this election. However, I believe this is an ITN/R election and thus merits posting. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  The reason I, and I suspect some others are opposing this, is because this was not in fact an election in any generally accepted sense of the term. The labels of the Communist Party notwithstanding. You can call a turd a strawberry, but that doesn't make it so and I don't think we should be promoting that kind of blatant fantasy to our readers. The subject is certainly notable enough for coverage in the encyclopedia. But presenting this farce on the main page as an election would be gravely misleading. Misplaced Pages should not be serving turds and labeling them strawberries. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  So you sit in judgment of another country's system of governance and deny it the legitimacy of Misplaced Pages's front page? And that is not systemic bias? nableezy - 22:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I don't consider the Communist Party or any official organ of the Cuban Government as a reliable source. I am unaware of any reliable source that treats this as in any way, an election in the generally accepted sense of the term. If you want to call that systemic bias, then I plead guilty. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Besides the al-Jazeera source cited, there is Reuters, NBC News, hell even Fox calls them elections. Uncontested ones of course, but they are elections according to reliable sources. nableezy - 23:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  They are all reporting the claims of the Cuban government, which is entirely proper. We should likewise report the claims, and we do in the article. But none of them have in any way suggested that what the Cubans are labeling elections, are in fact such. No reliable source has called these true elections, and many have made it fairly clear that they are not. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  What exactly is the "blatant fantasy" here? We know this election happened. You can debate the actual impact, but there was indeed a parliamentary election just held in Cuba, legitimate or not. Call it a semantic argument, but the phrase "sham election" contains the word "election" in it. The phrase simply means the election was not legitimate. The only way for you to believe this "turd" is a "strawberry" is if. quite frankly, you can't read or you didn't actually click on the article. It's not our job to cater to those who have no interest in actually reading what Misplaced Pages has to tell them. To quote Benjamin Franklin, "Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn". DarkSide830 (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support – There is no clause that excludes one-party or unfair elections from being posted to ITN. DecafPotato (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Wait We have no idea how any potential discussion on the removal of Cuban parliamentary elections from R might go, best to let that play out first, like with the despised and printed rocket failure. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Question do we post Chinese parliamentary (not merely Xi) elections? Because I feel that's the most appropriate comparison/precedent here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  It depends. Do RS come out and confirm politics (not merely government) as a significant motive and do we feel that an election winner of that motive is sufficiently interesting to post? If so, sure, sounds like news. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Hmmm, I don't see either of those things here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Precisely. So we Oppose. We may still disagree on whether a political motive is more crucial to promoting potentially developing election coverage than in the retelling of a relatively popular modern horror story as it unfolds. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per comrade InedibleHulk. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Yes elections are ITNR, but that is not the sole criteria. Firstly we have to look at the article quality (per ITNR itself) which is completely absent here, a few barebones paras mostly about the results without any contextual information on the history, conduct, impact and analysis. Secondly, we have to look at the precedent for such noms here on ITN; we have not posted elections or other leadership changes in similar one-party communist states beyond the general secretary positions, i.e., who actually holds power. The recent examples being China and Vietnam. This fails on both criterias, and I see no reason to deviate. Gotitbro (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Good points. Looking at the detail, there's some mysteries which the article doesn't explain. The number of seats was reduced by over a hundred but it's not clear what the practical effect of this has been. And exactly how many are there? There's a couple of numbers floating around – 470 and 474 – but which is it? I get the impression that the detail is fuzzy because it doesn't much matter. The actual headline figure seems to be the turnout as the closest thing the system gives to a verdict on the government (which doesn't change). Andrew🐉(talk) 08:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Elections are ITNR because the assumption is that they are of political significance and therefore in the news. This assumption does not apply in the case of sham elections of rubberstamp parliaments in autocracies, because such "elections" have no political impact. Sandstein 09:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Covenant School shooting

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.

• Nominated by Idislikenames (talk · give credit)

• Oppose Mass shootings such as this are commonplace in the United States.

Noah 02:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Wait @Hurricane Noah, although shootings are common in the US, we usually tend to post those with a peculiar motive. From what it seems there's a decent chance that this may have been a politically motivated shooting, with the perpetrator being transgender and possibly being motivated by transphobia and the like. However, since WP:RSes are slow to progress and all of these claims are still in dispute and unverified, it's best to wait. If these accusations are authenticated, I will support.

Crusader1096 (message) 02:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm just concerned with the fact there have been 9 shootings with more victims than this one thus far this year and that there has been a mass shooting five of the past seven days. Noah 02:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support Major news story, #1 story in the U.S. today, high quality article to post. For the purposes of ITN, the number that happen per year is irrelevant. Motive is irrelevant. The other mass shootings don't get this kind of news coverage. The ones that rise to "No Way to Prevent This" mockery are the almost 1:1 the ones that we should be posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  The other mass shootings don't get this kind of news coverage; I would disagree with this statement at the moment to be honest. With most mass shootings of this scale, there's a lot of instant coverage which tapers off in the following days. Curbon7 (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Many mass shootings don't have Misplaced Pages articles because they don't get this kind of news coverage. And "instant coverage which tapers off in the following days" refers to a lot of what ITN posts, or should be posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Tragic, but as is the case with many of these shootings, not notable to ITN levels. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - an absurd nomination. Six deaths in a US shooting - that must make it Tuesday. We've had this discussion before. Reading the nomination statement, User:Hurricane Noah nominated this fully knowing it wouldn't go through. Isn't that disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point? Nfitz (talk) 04:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  However, it isn't Hurricane Noah–I don't see their green glow with a splotch of red at the end of the nominator statement! Tails Wx 04:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Wx ... I completely misread the first three posts! Nfitz (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - tragic but predictable in a country awash with guns. Therapyisgood (talk) 04:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support any alternate blurb: "Nashville USA" isn't the best, but the event's made it onto French and German front pages and the article's good enough. RAN1 (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose fourth deadliest mass shooting in the first three months of 2023, fifth at a school since the last couple years. Kind of like posting a bombing in Kabul pre-2019. Juxlos (talk) 04:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• comment: the onion has republished its 'No Way To Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens article, suggesting that this may not be a run-of-the-mill event. dying (talk) 04:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NOTUSA. But I appreciate the effort. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Tragic but not notable. Commonplace and predictable in the US. Ericoides (talk) 05:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment by the nominator The notability isn't from the death count as much as it is from where the shooting happened. People care about children and school shootings are rare even in the US. By my count there have been 14 school shootings with more deaths in US history. Source: US school shooting before 2000, US school shootings since 2000 Aure entuluva (talk) 05:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note I support the close for the moment but am prepared to re-open the discussion if strong evidence emerges that this was some sort of terrorist/anti-religiously motivated incident. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
• Question why is this closed with a yellow box? Banedon (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Note Regardless of motive, I think RS have made it pretty clear that a woman who is also a man and shoots up a school that is also a church is a "sufficiently interesting" type of shooter, at least compared to a simple terrorist who shoots women anywhere mostly because he's a man with a political preference for men. Even if you just think of her as a woman who shot someone else's children, that's pretty unusual. But yeah, viewed purely in terms of an American with a gun and inclusive death toll, he or she doesn't stand out. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Note 2 Please do not delete other editors' comments because you do not agree with them. The close on this nomination is not a hard close and may be re-opened by any editor in good standing who believes the facts now available justify further discussion. FWIW I am ambivalent on that question. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Note 3 The box this was closed with used to be yellow, only one of us knows why and it doesn't matter anymore. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment – For the record, this is still in news around the world, which is a longer period than I recall (most) other U.S. shootings getting, and there are a lot of investigations into the motive and background of the perpetrator. I didn't !vote in the pre-close discussing, but I would be open to re-opening the discussion, as this is very much still a developing story. DecafPotato (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  What is news around this is the return to the non-debate around gun control, with Democrats trying to push on it hard, while Republicans are deflecting this on the shooter being a trans person. There's little about the actual shooting that's in the news at this point compared to the politic debate. Masem (t) 03:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  Which I think does contribute to the significance of this shooting in particular, no? DecafPotato (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

March 26

RD: Bill Zehme

• Created and nominated by Thriley (talk · give credit)

 Thriley (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• This is a stubby new article with less than 180 words. More text, please. --PFHLai (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Virginia Norwood

• Nominated by Thriley (talk · give credit)
• Updated by MumphingSquirrel (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Looks ready. Thriley (talk) 11:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support Article looks good to go, well cited and concise. Bluemarsman (talk) 19:18, 01 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support Relatively light in the career section but article as a whole meets minimum standards, fully referenced. Spencer 04:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) The Boat Race

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.

• Nominated by Whizz40 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by InedibleHulk (talk · give credit)

• Oppose on quality. The Boat Race 2023 is the appropriate article - needs fixing up like in prior years. Lee Vilenski 18:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm unsurprised that the article is of far lesser quality than previous years, since it's since been removed from ITN/R. Well done, everyone. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, it's not just that, it's the relentless hatred that's stopped me bothering. Fuck it, why bother? The ex-colonials win and the encyclopedia loses. Standard stuff these days. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

If this article was of the quality of previous years, I would have supported, not that it would help with the below. I do think the arguments of ITN being only suitable for surprising things that aren't scheduled events to be reasonably blind that almost everything outside of an act of God is scheduled, and something being "amateur" or "niche" isn't of itself not culturally relevant. If you do want to fix it up, or just want someone to update the item, drop me a line. Lee Vilenski 19:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose on significance. A minor event with limited international coverage. nableezy - 19:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Amateur competition with only two entrants, little public interest, and all the other significance issues that were raised in the recent discussion on WT:ITN. Modest Genius 19:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Not being on ITBR does not exclude a topic from being discussed as its ITNC entry. Masem (t) 19:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  I am well aware of that. I specifically referred to the significance concerns that were discussed there, not the outcome (delisting). Many of those arguments also apply to an individual nomination. Modest Genius 19:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Very true, albeit I believe he meant that his oppose is based off the same significance reasons given to remove it from ITNR (as opposed to arguing it shouldn’t be posted because it was removed). The Kip (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose MVP Jasper Parish doesn't have an article, much less a suitable picture, and Jasper Parrish is awful. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Have you tried writing relevant comments with your !votes? GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  It is relevant. When we post a sport, we usually post someone's picture and both sources agree he's the hero here (though not "MVP", exactly). He's also not mentioned at the target article. If that's not reason enough, its latest source is from 2016. Retrieved then, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Nableezy. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nableezy. The Kip (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Are we happy now? Did we somehow improve the English-language Misplaced Pages by doing this? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  To be frank, it seems like the entire reason this was on ITN/R at all was to appease some disgruntled old hand. The main page should not be held hostage by vested contributors, and yes I think not featuring unimportant crap like a rowing race between two and only two universities on the main page is improving Misplaced Pages. nableezy - 19:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  To be frank, seems like you're full of hatred against a 200-year institution which is broadcast around the globe. The main page was never "held hostage" (emotive language, typical of people like you), I always produced top quality material for ITN. You fucked it all up for a large number of people, so well done you. Applause. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Wee bit childish, innit. But hatred would imply I give a shit. Hint, I dont. nableezy - 19:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Despite what you may believe about its significance, it still receives absolutely minimal media coverage; having googled it, literally the only non-UK-based source reporting on the race or its results is the Olympics/IOC. Arguing for it to be kept, as a limited-coverage event between two and only two colleges, is effectively akin to arguing for us to post the result of Michigan versus Ohio State every year, which obviously should not be posted (and British editors would certainly be opposed to). The wider, not-just-British consensus was that it doesn’t meet ITNR’s standards for inclusion, and the consensus here seems to be that it doesn’t meet ITNC’s either; you can either accept the consensus of the English-language (not just English!) Misplaced Pages, or continue to be a sore loser of sorts as your comments are indicating. The Kip (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Article is far too brief at this stage. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• The way this process has played out is sad. Just very, very sad. An ugly vendetta has spilled out into open view on ITN/C and completely poisoned the well. I think there is plenty of shame to go around for all of us. Can we just close this before it gets worse. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 20:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Theres only one person showing any type of vendetta here, but apparently its just the ex-colonists (imagine thinking being a colonizer is a good thing lol) lashing out. There is exactly one person acting like a child here. Guess who it is. nableezy - 20:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Nobody appears rosy here, and I certainly find it depressing that you indirectly referred to an editor's long-time work as unimportant crap. I ask again the same question posed by Muboshgu: How have we improved the encyclopedia through this rabid and toxic bickering? ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 20:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  The Boat Race is unimportant crap. The articles are lovely. They can still be on the main page as DYK and FA when they make GA and FA. They just dont belong "In The News" because the news (worldwide) largely ignores it as unimportant. Asked and answered on the question. But the only toxicity is coming from one person here. One person you seem disinclined to say anything about. nableezy - 20:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Could you show a little sensitivity and civility here? 331dot (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure if Im not called an ex-colonial who fucked it all up for a large number of people. Strange sliding scale you have for civility. And why does this need sensitivity? Compared to things like this I think Im a paragon of sensitivity and civility. But theres that sliding scale I guess. nableezy - 20:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• That this was removed from ITNR kinda shows ITN has lost its way and purpose. The vitriol here doesn't help. The article involved might have gotten more work and attention had there been a willingness to post it, as it has previously. Does that help the encyclopedia? If you want Michigan v Ohio State posted, nominate it and tell us why. Neither Michigan or Ohio State is as old as Cambridge and Oxford, but maybe we've missed something. This longtime race watched live by hundreds of thousands and on TV by millions between two ancient universities is important to some, even if others don't think so. We should be thinking about readers here and we're not. Sorry to digress but, that's my two cents. And I do support this on the merits. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  If I can pay attention and update the article, having no interest in the race and taking vitriol, anyone can. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose on quality. Noah 20:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I recommend removing this nomination until the article has been improved further. When it is more complete it could be renominated. Please do not be deterred by the negativism in this thread, of which there is sadly too much. Last year's Boat Race article became featured. This one could be featured too, and appear on the home page through that alternative, if not through the News. Jehochman 20:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per all of the above - User:Editor 5426387 (talk) 20;50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

RD: María Kodama

• Nominated by BorgQueen (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Jorge Luis Borges' widow and the sole owner of the rights to his work. Needs more update. BorgQueen (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I've added 3 cn tags. Once this gets resolved, I think it'll be ready for RD. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Multiple CN tags need to be addressed. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Oladipo Diya

• Nominated by Ammarpad (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Nigerian military officer; article needs some more update – Ammarpad (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support article looks good (long enough + no unsourced paras) enough for RD. Cheers. WimePocy 12:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support - Sourced. And ready.BabbaQ (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support Looks good for RD. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Posted to RD. Spencer 04:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

RD: Innocent (actor)

• Nominated by Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Innocent Vareed Thekkethala an actor and Indian MP . Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Article needs many citations. Rushtheeditor (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Per above. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• Too much unreferenced materials. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax 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:

• Misplaced Pages In the news
• Main Page discussions
• Current events