Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:36, 7 December 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.

Joseph Aoun Joseph Aoun (pictured) is elected president of Lebanon after a two-year vacancy. A series of wildfires in Southern California, United States, leaves at least 5 people dead and forces more than 180,000 others to evacuate. A 7.1-magnitude earthquake hits Tingri County in the Tibet Autonomous Region, China, leaving at least 126 people dead. Indonesia becomes a full member of BRICS. Justin Trudeau announces his intention to resign as prime minister of Canada. Ongoing: Israel–Hamas war Russian invasion of Ukraine timeline Sudanese civil war timeline Recent deaths: Jeff Baena Rosita Missoni Brian Matusz Jean-Michel Defaye Ágnes Keleti Ripken Nominate an article view — page history — related changes — edit

Archives

December 7

December 6

First 4th gen nuclear reactor enters commercial operation

What does this have to do with Taylor Swift PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Went ahead and fixed the article link; odd error but probably a copy-paste fail, we've all done stuff like that. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps Taylor Swift is also a nuclear engineer on top of being a singer?? Now I understand why she won Person of the Year PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• Not ready – Article looks pretty good, but no writing has been done on 2023 yet. Once thoroughly updated, I think this will be a nice feature. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose No precise definition of a Generation IV reactor exists. The concept and claim of a first is therefore mostly hype. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know the tech, but perhaps we can be more specific in our blurb with a description of the new technologies used? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  It sure does exist. Gen-IV reactor designs (whether liquid metal/salt or gas cooled) operate at higher temperatures cf. conventional reactors, therefore have higher operational performance and efficiency. The fast neutron and breeder designs also have the advantage of being able to "burn" long half-life transuranic elements from waste fission products, thereby increasing the overall fuel utilisation and facilitating a sustainable closed nuclear fuel chain.

• Provisional Support once the quality issues per Maplestrip are resolved. Polyamorph (talk) 10:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Illia Kyva

• Nominated by Abcmaxx (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Assassinated in a Moscow suburb today, possibly by the SBU. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment The biography section has a lot of uncited info.

LynxesDesmond 🐈 (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support there are some CN tags, but overall relatively RD-ready. Editor 5426387 (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
• Not Ready The biography section is entirely unsourced and there are other gaps in the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose per above This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• Wait way too many unsourced statements, that's why I didn't nominate it myself. JM (talk) 03:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Norman Lear

• Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)

Masem (t) 14:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Looks pretty good, but it has a few too many citation needed tags to be ready just yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support RD: I've dealt with the citation tags (added refs and removed some transaction details I couldn't verify and which were extraneous anyway). Additionally support blurb as a transformative figure in US television: "revolutionized prime time television ... propelling political and social turmoil into the once-insulated world of TV sitcoms" (AP); "leaving a lasting mark with shows that brought the sitcom into the real world" (NYT); "It's impossible to overstate the importance of television producer Norman Lear to American culture ... For at least one generation, television doesn’t exist without Lear's singular vision" (WaPo). Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  It would be really help to have a paragraph or so specifically talking about his influence on TV, perhaps inthe Awards and Honors section, as to be able to support a blurb. I should be able to clearly identify why he was such an influence on American TV buy reading such a sourced section in the body of the article (I know he is that influential but we need to see that plain and clear) Masem (t) 19:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  On it... Hameltion (talk | contribs) 19:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Masem: OK, begun this para at Norman Lear § Awards and honors. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 20:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  Definitely a good start Masem (t) 21:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support RD but oppose blurb. Article is cited well enough but I personally don't think he meets notability for blurb ✈ mike_gigs _contribs 20:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support RD nice article. Polyamorph (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
• Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Time Person of the year

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 lukt64 (talk · give credit)

• Oppose I don’t believe we’ve blurbed Person of the Year in recent memory, and I don’t see any special reason to start it now, especially when this one has had less of a definitive global impact than past awardees. The Kip 19:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kip. A magazine saying "hey, you're slightly better than everyone else" is not ITN worthy qw3rty 20:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per The Kip ✈ mike_gigs _contribs 20:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - even the year it was me, hi im the person of the year it wasnt really news. nableezy - 20:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose no way. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support TIME's person of the year is always major worldwide news. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Per the Kip, plus this is only one magazine and wouldn't be that notable even if we had posted it before. Editor 5426387 (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - good for her, but we never post this. --Rockstone 22:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - We never blurb Person of the Year, and she's been far less influential than most before. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 22:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is exactly what we are talking about when we say "celebrity news". DarkSide830 (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per above JM (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

December 5

Cyclone Michaung

• Nominated by Leoneix (talk · give credit)
• Created by Sleepinthestars (talk · give credit)

Leoneix _(talk) 11:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. Added an alt-blurb that better follows typical consensus on cyclone blurbs. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Considering all 17 deaths were there, would 2023 Chennai floods be a better target article, or should a blurb incorporate it? The Kip 19:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support alt-blurb III on notability. There is a precedent where we posted a similar death toll in Bangladesh. The article isn't too expansive, however. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her) 19:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support Article is of sufficient length. I like alt blurb II the best, tho maybe restructure it a bit, here's my idea: "Cyclone Michaung makes landfall in India, leaving Chennai flooded and 17 dead." LynxesDesmond 🐈 (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
• FYI. I BOLDly merged the floods page into the cyclone page on account of the fact that they document the same issue and contained more or less the same content. No need to double-link the same event by separately linking the flooding. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support alt blurb III seems good now that the flood and cyclone articles have been merged. Leoneix _(talk) 06:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: William P. Murphy Jr.

• Nominated by Thriley (talk · give credit)

• Inventor of the modern blood bag. Thriley (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose due to the copyvio issue in the "Career" section. —M3ATH (See · Say) 19:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Along with the copyright violation tag, there's too many problems with the article. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 10:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Denny Laine

• Nominated by Martinevans123 (talk · give credit)

• Founder of two major UK rock bands, The Moody Blues and Wings. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
• Wait Some sections have tags on them, these need addressing. PS: He also wrote a great song "Say You Don't Mind". Ritchie333 21:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  Probably his best work. There is also a slight question over his birthplace, see Talk:Denny Laine. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support The article is alright, and I think it's good to honor his memory on ITN. His guitar was essential for Wings, and he wrote some very good songs for them. He co-authored Mull of Kintyre, one of the biggest hits in history of the British pop music.Trepang2 (talk) 09:33, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

UK 1977 Christmas number one, spent nine weeks there, first single to sell over two million copies nationwide. Not many pop hits have featured the Great Highland bagpipe. Although there was Wizzard's 1974 "Are You Ready to Rock?" Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC) p.s. do you know where Laine was born?

• Support Highly notable musician. The article is also looking fine so far except some tags. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  notability is irrelevant for RD, see the note at the bottom of the pale yellow box JM (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Wait way too many tags and uncited sections right now, must be improved JM (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Does every entry in the "Discography" section need an individual source? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing removal: Russian invasion of Ukraine

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.

I swear the moment we pull this from the main page, a new major offensive is going to start up and the news media will be yuking to blare the "BREAKING NEWS" horn again. I'm not saying the timing for this is wrong, it's more that we seem to have a (coincidental) tendency to trigger this anytime we pull something from ongoing. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The timing for this is wrong. Kirill C1 (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

What would be a good timing? This event defocussed the COVID-19 pandemic, which was removed from ongoing shortly afterwards, and it was recently defocussed by the Israel-Hamas war. That's simply how the media work. US not approving additional funding to Ukraine partly because they had begun supporting Israel is just a demonstration that it went out of focus in practice.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Putin just signed decree that increases the number of army by 170000, or 15 per cent

This is obviously a significant development, one that could lead to another wave of mobilisation. Kirill C1 (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

: It is still a Relevant topic with tons of articles everyday coming out of it.

Von bismarck (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose If there was a clear rationale behind the removal, it could have been summed up in one sentence.

It generates enough news and events, with USA funding not approved. Kirill C1 (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per Kirill C1, although I might be more readily convinced with a more concise rationale for removal. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Still the preeminent conflict in the world in terms or geo-political gravity. Has a much a stronger claim to being in ongoing than either Myanmar or Sudan. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral – In the past two weeks, only three sentences have been added to this article. It's a weak growth that doesn't really match what "ongoing" means on Misplaced Pages, but it's not nothing and I know that articles like this go in waves. Another wave of activity will probably happen. That being said, I don't know how much further this article specifically will evolve. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  what about the timeline article? I think the reason that it's also there is because the main article gets fewer updates (which itself could be a sign that it should be taken down). JM (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Ad & WaltCip; early winter has historically always seen offensives stall in this region. As the mud freezes, it's quite likely we'll start seeing offensive actions start back up. Additionally, we are undoubtedly going to see escalated drone and missile attacks as well. Unless there is a prolonged ceasefire or a peace deal, I see no reason to pull from ongoing. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a crystal-ball argument. If a major offensive starts during the winter, we can easily report it. For now, it's only a speculation.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per the above, I'm sure things will heat up again in the Spring, additionally this is still a relevent topic. Editor 5426387 (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. Per WaltClip. Though, I am not convinced to fully "oppose" either on account of what is more or less the fact that it is cold. This discussion is really lacking in strong arguments. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - I do understand where this is coming from, but this would be a bad idea. First of all, the COVID-19 comparison isn't valid because there's no such policy as WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. The notability of the war isn't due to the death toll. It's still regularly in the news and a huge part of global discourse, one of the biggest events in the 21st Century. And finally, I think if there was to be some escalation in the future, we should post it regardless like we posted the annexation of south-east Ukraine to Russia or the Wagner Rebellion. I do agree that Opposing because the war could escalate in the future is Crystal Balling, but still. Unless the war ends or really grinds down to a Korean-style stalemate (which it hasn't yet, still massive battles raging), it should stay up. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe if the status quo remains, we can come back and review in a few months. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

If nothing major happens by, say, July 2024, then id say this would be a genuine proposal. For now, its still the second-most covered war, only behind the War in Gaza. Lukt64 (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

December 4

RD: Suminda Sirisena

• Nominated by Abishe (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Gt4ale (talk · give credit), Kelisi (talk · give credit), 181.209.120.218 (talk · give credit) and Chanakal (talk · give credit)

RD: Thomas Ragle

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

• Obituary published 4 December. Thriley (talk) 04:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• Weak Support. Article looks okay in terms of sources. However, the article itself could be expanded more. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 10:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Sophie Anderson

• Nominated by Mooonswimmer (talk · give credit)

• Support article looks good enough. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Jerome O'Neill

• Nominated by Thriley (talk · give credit)

Thriley (talk) 07:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support - article looks well-cited ✈ mike_gigs _contribs 14:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Resume in prose format, mostly a list of roles without much depth. What cases was he known for being involved with? Spencer 06:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Juanita Castro

• Nominated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Support looks fine to me JM (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment DoB is uncited. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 07:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  @MonarchOfTerror: Fixed. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  Nice, I'll support. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 08:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support - article looks good. Never knew the sister of Fidel Castro worked for the CIA ✈ mike_gigs _contribs 14:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 21:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 eruption of Mount Marapi

• Created and nominated by LynxesDesmond (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Gianluigi02 (talk · give credit) and JarrahTree (talk · give credit)

Very major natural disaster, the first volcano eruption in 2023 with a death toll. Article is pretty short at the moment, though it will be expanded as more information is reported. LynxesDesmond 🐈 13:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• The article is a stub. Schwede66 17:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose First off, such a minimal death toll is not ITN-worthy, second, the article would need to be expanded to fit ITN-Criteria. Editor 5426387 (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Support on notability, oppose on article quality. The article needs significant improvements to fulfil ITN criteria. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose on quality Article needs to be expanded and be a bit more fully in-depth before posting. Support on notability. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support on notability Article lengthwise seems ok. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 12:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support – Great work @Borgenland: and others for expanding the article to its current state. It looks in a solid state for a main page feature. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support The death of a two-digit number of hikers as a result of a volcanic eruption is a significant disaster. Article looks minimally sufficient for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Support per above JM (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support - and I dont think an argument about a minimal death toll is ever valid here. Needs the target in the blurb, something like Mount Marapi erupts on the island of Sumatra in Indonesia, killing 22 hikers.. nableezy - 18:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
• Posted, with Nableezy's improvement to the blurb. Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Note waiting for the image to be protected before switching it. Black Kite (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

COP 28

• Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
• Created by Matthiaspaul (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Boud (talk · give credit), Gorebath (talk · give credit), John Cummings (talk · give credit) and Stephen Hui (talk · give credit)

There's a variety of possible blurbs and the president, Sultan Al Jaber, seems to be making waves. Perhaps Ongoing is best to cover all the angles. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support seems to be updated frequently, and is receiving ongoing coverage. Quality is also there. JM (talk) 11:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support The quality of the article is not great, but it's acceptable, and has been updated. The significance is overwhelming, given the climate emergency. This is ongoing for another week, and media coverage is not going to decrease, especially after al-Jaber's opposition to fossil fuel phase out (and mansplaining: I accepted to come to this meeting to have a sober and mature conversation) and the revelation that there are 70,000 participants ... Boud (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support This has been a worldwide scandal, with some significant coverage in multiple periodicals. The COP28 article is messy, but not particularly problematic. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per precedent. We waited last year for the conclusion of the event and any major decisions that came out of it. No need to post right now, and honestly, the controversies in question have me seriously doubting the actual value of COP at all. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• What happened last year was that an ITN decision was deferred and then nothing was done. This is the common outcome in this matter – procrastination. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per precedent. If something important comes out of this, we can post it, but given that the president is being accused of climate change denial, that is highly unlikely. —M3ATH (Moazfargal · Talk) 16:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Blurb - Put up the event and controversy surrounding PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose If anything significant comes out of this, then maybe a blurb may be more appropriate, but for now, this is not significant enough.Editor 5426387 (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support ongoing item nomination, many significant things such as the nuclear energy promise and the controversy promise Unknown-Tree (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Support Overwhelming significance, many updates, and honestly it's great to have something else than wars in Ongoing. The event spans several days and several points can be in the news even before the final decisions, that's exactly what Ongoing is for. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 20:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's a two-week conference which will be over in a week. That's not what Ongoing is for. If some actually significant decisions are made there, and not just blowing hot air, then post a blurb. Nsk92 (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  Ongoing is for when a blurb rolls off but the event is still notable and In The News, or if there is a significant amount of independent news items related to the event coming in. Neither has happened here. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  That's false as there are plenty of stories coming out of this ongoing event. For example, right now the online NYT has four headlines on its main page:

1. Climate Summit Leader Tries to Calm Uproar...
2. Global Fossil Fuel Emissions Are Rising...
3. Air-Conditioning Use Will Surge in a Warming World...
4. 1.5 Degrees Is Not the Problem

So, with four front page headlines, that's more than any of the other ongoing ITN entries for which the scores are Gaza=3, Ukraine=2, Myanmar=0, Sudan=0. Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah but I'd say 2 of those stories would not be suitable for a blurb. The only two angles that we could go for would be the event happening and surrounding controversy. It's no shock to anyone that fossil fuel emissions are rising, and the other article is an opinion piece. The quantity of headlines does increase notability, but doesn't necessarily indicate it should be ongoing. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose until end of the event and then determine if there's anything useful out of it. We have not posted the past COP nor the onset of other G7/G20/equivalent international meetings, but only give a blurb if there is some major, actionable agreement that comes out that, and that's usually not known until the last day of the event. --Masem (t) 01:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Support as per reasons above Roma enjoyer (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Wait until it's over and then blurb it if there is anything worth the notice. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose ongoing, support blurb as per Nsk92. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose ongoing, oppose blurb unless there's meaningful action worthy of being posted. --Rockstone 05:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support as affects so many countries Chidgk1 (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Wait until the conference ends and post any major conclusions. I don't see reporting on important decisions during the conference in the article to justify posting onto ongoing.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
• Needs work – Currently the lead section exclusive speaks of the background/leadup to the event. More writing needs to be done and the article must be rebalanced before this can be featured. Article has a lot of potential, however. I can see a lot of work has been put into this in the past months! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Venezuelan referendum

• Updated and nominated by Knightoftheswords281 (talk · give credit)
• Created by RayneVanDunem (talk · give credit)
• Updated by PLATEL (talk · give credit) and Ornithoptera (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Major news in South America that will further a diplomatic crisis and may even escalate into a war. It's an intriguing story that isn't getting enough news coverage, so will definately be worth a view to our readers. — Knightoftheswords 04:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support Oppose significant because it is an international incident and territorial dispute featuring a military buildup alongside this referendum, but the article needs to be updated; the results tables have no information. done after taking a second look it's clear those sources do not back up those numbers, which are inaccurate. this article cannot be blurbed until there are accurate numbers. JM (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Support quality has improved, the significance I outlined in my original review still stands. JM (talk) 07:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose on quality per JM. Those results were not accurate. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Support - I really don't think many realise how bad this situation is getting, and the massive impact it will have on everything. This needs to be put up on the front page. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 06:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Also it might be good to say that the people """"""voted"""""" to annex, supposedly by a 95% majority (shocking result I know) PrecariousWorlds (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - The referendum did not explicitly ask voters to approve the annexation of the Essequibo region, but rather supported the establishment of a state in the disputed area (among other provisions). The referendum is a step towards a potential annexation, but it wasn't asking for it directly. Ornithoptera (talk) 06:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  It could be argued that it is a de facto annexation, fully incorporating a neighbouring territory as a part of your state. It's the same thing that the Russians did, Donetsk and Luhansk becoming full fledged republics of the federation. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 07:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Even if it could be argued that it is a "de facto annexation", it still is not (the referendum is consultative and therefore voting to approve simply doesn't codify anything other than to send a message of approval), and there is not a significant body of work that directly states the referendum is asking to directly do so (however, there are many other things that are adjacent to a potential annexation or significant action being taken that are at hand in relation to the referendum) and the assertion of such would be a violation of WP:NOR. Ornithoptera (talk) 09:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  The big difference is that Venezuela doesn't have de facto possession of the territory. As I understand it, it's controlled by Guyana and they are backed up by Brazil's powerful military. Venezuela is sabre-rattling for domestic consumption as the country is otherwise a shambles. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment - I've made some improvements on the article, but more is needed on the veracity of the referendum. I highly doubt it was free and fair PrecariousWorlds (talk) 07:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support of clear significance and both bolded articles appear in good shape. I agree that annex is probably not the right word to use as that usually implies some degree of control over the territory. Not quite sure how best to word this - maybe "vote to a establish a state in the disputed region". ITBF (talk) 08:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose This is an ongoing dispute which is still before the ICJ. Venezuela's referendum does not seem significant as what will matter is physical control on the ground and international recognition. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment Blurb is a bit long, and two bolded articles might be too much. Also no need to add "shown in green" if the map is already labeled. Support the shorter and more concise altblurb. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 09:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Support and I have proposed alt2 to address concerns that the referendum wasn't technically for annexation. —M3ATH (Moazfargal · Talk) 09:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support altblurb, whatever happens, this appears to be a noteworthy aggressive move by Venezuela, underpinning its claim. Article looks ok. Brandmeister 11:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support alternative blurb II III in principle, Oppose main and alternative blurb: The referendum consisted in five questions, only of which the last one asked to begin steps to incorporate the territory, so the issue is more nuanced than voters asking to annex the territory, as others have mentioned.

Likewise, also commented above already, there's the initial results: while polls estimated a 20% turnout (around 4 million voters) and those figures were even coonsidered an overestimation, the Venezuelan government now says that over 10 million people voted (over 50% turnout). I think there weren't independent observers, but allowing this around 12 hours or so should allow to learn the position of experts and the opposition.

I know that electoral results usually aren't questioned in the ITN, but this should also be considered in the blurb (see (Posted) 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine). If everything else fails, I would support the inclusion of the Guayana Esequiba crisis article in the Ongoing section. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding referendum questions, as shown in the article, all of them are related to Guayana Esequiba which is explicitly mentioned in each of them, not just the last one. The 3rd one is perhaps particularly provocative, about "Venezuela's historical position of not recognizing the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice to resolve the territorial controversy over Guayana Esequiba". Also, altblurb II looks too verbose and conniving. Brandmeister 11:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support This is an important move by Venezuela, but i understand why some are apprehensive to add it. But it IS a vote to annex a part of another sovereign nation, and should be brought to light.

Manumaker08 (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support Altblurb III, Oppose main and alternative blurb Concise and addresses prior WP:SYNTH concerns I've had with the first two blurbs. Potential regional conflict that can arise, and ITN significance is clear. My only concern is that the article is not updated with the final results for any of the 5 questions. I believe Portuguese wiki has the results, but I'm uncertain as to if they have the source for the results. Ornithoptera (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
• Update The results are in: Maduro vote to claim Guyana’s territory backfires as Venezuelans stay home

  Turnout was minimal ... most voters shunned the issue ... the Venezuelan government has been widely accused by analysts of falsifying the results ... It was a resounding failure for Maduro ... they rigged the results ... massive PR disaster ... firing the propaganda machine ... 7 million people to flee the country ... leaves an enormous gap ...

  So, shall we blurb this as a "resounding failure" for the Maduro regime? Andrew🐉(talk) 09:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support amendment This has been one of my main points: the nuances of the referendum should be reflected, since the official results are widely distrusted. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Marking as ready — Knightoftheswords 01:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Removed as premature. Article still hasn't been updated with results, which are in dispute. The Kip 04:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Said results will likely be in dispute for a while; good chance that they will never be released given that we're talking about Chavist Venezuela. The article is otherwise decent. — Knightoftheswords 00:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The results would most likely be skewed twords Venezuela, but we'll see. Rager7 (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Support for obvious reasons. It's currently trending on the news and shall be posted. Rager7 (talk) 01:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Support conceptually, Oppose all blurbs. The statement that "Venezuelans vote to" support their government is dubious at the very best. Abundant nuance to this situation is evident, I accept, but lack of referendum tampering is improbable. Below example blurb, a modification of alt3, is preferable:

Amidst a diplomatic crisis with Guyana, a Venezuelan referendum succeeds to support the government's claim on the disputed Guayana Esequiba region (shown in green). 180.150.81.68 (talk) 11:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, in case of tampering something like "Venezuelan referendum supports the annexation..." may work, to avoid placing the responsibility on Venezuelan people whose opinion may have been manipulated. Brandmeister 20:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Much preferable indeed. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 22:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. RSes are making it pretty blunt that the government’s reported turnout/vote count is highly disputed, so to frame it as the referendum legitimately voting to support is to effectively take the government line. The Kip 21:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment Results tables updated. The precise amount of votes has not be announed, only the percentages.--NoonIcarus (talk) 04:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support I think Maduro declared on TV de facto annexation. 194.102.58.6 (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 attack on the USS Carney

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 NewPedia24 (talk · give credit)

• Oppose Poorly informative blurb, and ideally we should have an article talking about the incident before putting it on ITN. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 00:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Chaotic Enby + fairly mundane incident in the grand scheme of things. The Kip 01:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  The "actual" article should be 2023 attack on the USS Carney which might be a bit more relevant than "an explosion", but still. Also borderline under Ongoing. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 01:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• SNOW provincial, no article This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Even with the article, my understanding is that all of the US ships and bases in the Persian Gulf have generally seen these types of attacks or attempts at attacks by the various terrorist groups for years, and there's nothing new here outside this taking place at the same time as the active conflict in Gaza. None of these attacks have succeeded in any major issues (no lost of ships, etc) so while nothing to sneeze at, its business as usual. --Masem (t) 01:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose good faith nom. Trivial incident that probably doesn't pass WP:EVENT. If the article doesn't end up being merged/redirected I may send it to AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Changed heading and target article, and added altblurb JM (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose There have been multiple incidents like this in the past few weeks and this one isn't much different. No casualties and the U.S. warship wasn't actually hit. I also think the target article, 2023 attack on the USS Carney, should be nominated for deletion unless all recent attacks are merged into one. Johndavies837 (talk) 03:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Oh okay. NewPedia24 (talk) 03:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peta Murphy

• Nominated by MaxnaCarta (talk · give credit)

• Support Article is well sourced and I don't see any problems. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 04:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support Yes, a well sourced article. As well as her parliamentary duties, this lady was a champion squash and softball player, and a strong advocate on women's heath issues. HiLo48 (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support Article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 06:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

December 3

Mindanao State University bombing

• Nominated by Natg 19 (talk · give credit)
• Created by X2023X (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Hariboneagle927 (talk · give credit) and Borgenland (talk · give credit)

Significant number of injuries. Article in good shape. Natg 19 (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support – Article looks good. The lede section could use a bit of expanding, but the prose has a lot of details. Nice work! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Tudun Biri drone strike

• Nominated by Natg 19 (talk · give credit)
• Created by Gwanki (talk · give credit)

Article needs a lot of work. But there are a significant number of deaths caused by this accidental drone strike in Nigeria. Natg 19 (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Support on notability, oppose on quality wow (referring to both the event and to the article's poor quality) JM (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support on notability, oppose on quality. JM took the words right out of my mouth. Article is still in its infancy, but a massive tragedy. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  Support on notability, oppose on quality. per above Lukt64 (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support on notability, oppose on quality. Per everyone above. This is an awful tragedy, but the article needs to be expanded. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 10:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yacouba Sawadogo

• Updated and nominated by Jmanlucas (talk · give credit)
• Updated by WaddlesJP13 (talk · give credit) and Mohamad Darilin (talk · give credit)

“The man who stopped the desert” Jmanlucas (talk) 06:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment: three unsourced sentences, two of which is a summary of sourced sentences. I haven’t verified yet Aaron Liu (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I've fixed up any sentences I believe need citing. Feel free to add any CN tags to areas you still think should be cited. I don't believe every sentence necessarily needs a citation if a group of sentences use the same source. Jmanlucas (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think there was a rule somewhere that citations covered everything before it until the previous citation but I can't find it. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Posted Stephen 00:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Ronnie O'Sullivan wins UK Championship

• Nominated by AmethystZhou (talk · give credit)

Ronnie O'Sullivan defeats China's Ding Junhui 10–7 to win a record-extending eighth UK Championship title. The UK Championship is one of the three prestigious Triple Crown events in snooker, which O'Sullivan has won a record 22 times. AmethystZhou (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Is this ITN/R? If so, please indicate in the nom; if not, oppose due to insignificance. JM (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Nope, only the World Snooker Championship is WP:ITN/R. Oppose too. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 00:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. Snooker’s a debatable inclusion on ITNR in the first place, and a non-ITNR tournament doesn’t meet the bar imo. The Kip 01:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  I think any tournament of anything that is not by now in ITN/R is probably not significant JM (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose it's the second or third biggest snooker event of the year (World Championship being the biggest one, which is why it's ITNR), and the coverage of it is therefore not enough to justify ITN placing. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
• Comment O'Sullivan's longevity in this sport is truly remarkable. He first won the UK Championship as a 17-year-old in 1993, and now he has become both the oldest and the youngest winner of this tournament. To win the event 8 times, surpassing other dominant players like Steve Davis and Stephen Hendry is also a great achievement. But it's snooker, so it won't get posted. A shame.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  ITN is not for any person with "remarkable" achievement, and it's not even about it being snooker. The UK Championship just doesn't rise to ITN's threshold of notability. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 20:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Weak support – The article is beautiful, a really excellent job has been put on it. I do think snooker is well-represented with an annual posting of the World Championship, which typically reaches the same level of quality. As a feature of O'Sullivan's article as well (GA), I think this would be a lovely thing to be putting on ITN. However, I don't want to create precedent of regularly featuring minor tournaments in sports versus premier tournaments, especially when it comes to national stuff, so I'm rather on the edge here.. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support Why not? The thing that sways for me is the record, that they are now the youngest and oldest winner of the tournament. Polyamorph (talk) 10:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing against snooker, but only the world championship rises to the level of meriting a blurb at ITN IMHO. There are numerous sporting tournaments of interest around the world, including lots of highly competitive football leagues and such, but we just can't include everything.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Myles Goodwyn

• Nominated by Flibirigit (talk · give credit)
• Updated by EclecticEnnui (talk · give credit)

Canadian musician. Article needs a bit of work. Citations are slowly coming along. Flibirigit (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Just a citation or two left I know. Sad to hear this, big April Wine fan but obviously I haven't kept up on later developments. CoatCheck (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support. One remaining CN tag in lead but I think it's good. microbiologyMarcus 13:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support per above JM (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
• I will work on the article this week. It has two citation tags in the career section, and has little personal information. The discography section is not cited, and some production credits need citations. Flibirigit (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Glenys Kinnock

• Nominated by SchroCat (talk · give credit)

Needs a few citations before it's passable. - SchroCat (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

*Comment - will need a looot of work before it's good to go. See that the bulk of her article is badly written and sourceless. I've tagged the article for everything needing a ref. At the moment, the problems are quite extensive. Sad news though. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

 Working - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support - fixed all referencing issues. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support Well sourced article. Looks good to go! Good work, Tim O'Doherty. Jmanlucas (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support article looks good. So strange, I was just reading about her daughter-in-law earlier today.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support. No problems found, well sourced. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 00:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
• Publications need references. Stephen 08:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Added. - SchroCat (talk) 09:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Posted Stephen 10:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

December 2

(Posted) RD: Faustin Twagiramungu

• Nominated by Jmanlucas (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Connormah (talk · give credit), Kelisi (talk · give credit) and Mohamad Darilin (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Former Prime Minister of Rwanda who took power in the wake of the Rwanda Genocide Jmanlucas (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support on notability, and article quality is generally good. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Notability is not a critera for RD, all that matters is that the subject has an article, which all valid RD nominations have by definition JM (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support: has one "citation needed" tag, but is otherwise fine. --RFBailey (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  Fixed. Thanks for the notice. Jmanlucas (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Posted Stephen 05:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support The article has improved a lot. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 08:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Maria Martin

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

Nominator's comments: American journalist, known for her contributions to Latino and Latin American affairs. ForsythiaJo (talk) 00:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Weak support Article feels a little barebones, but it's well-cited and longer than a stub. The Kip 07:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support Looks ready. Thriley (talk) 07:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 22:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

December 1

(Posted) RD: Bob Albright

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

Nominator's comments: Former Alabama state legislator. Died November 27, reported in media on December 1. Kafoxe (talk) 06:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support Article appears to be well-cited and holistic, good work. Curbon7 (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  As an aside, more sources can likely be found on Newspapers.com, which is available through WP:The Misplaced Pages Library. Curbon7 (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I was not aware of this resource, as I'd been relying on ones that were publicly available online, outside of the database. I've also corrected his time of tenure, as AL.com appears to have been mistaken. Kafoxe (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support sufficiently sourced for posting. Polyamorph (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
• Posted. Black Kite (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Brigit Forsyth

• Updated and nominated by Black Kite (talk · give credit)

• British actress, known for Whatever Happened to the Likely Lads? and multiple other TV/film/stage work. Fairly short, but cited. Black Kite (talk) 09:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: The infobox currently gives her birth name as "Brigit Dorothea Connell", but I can find no source for that. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Whilst I've no reason to doubt it, nor can I, so I've removed it. Black Kite (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  Ok. But I found a couple of things - see Talk page. A bit baffling. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Yeah ... and then there's this interview... Black Kite (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  Place of birth now resolved. Likely birth name has been removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Looks reasonable. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 00:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Byrne

• Nominated by Yorkshiresky (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Johnbod (talk · give credit) and Sahaib (talk · give credit)

Noted Scottish artist and playwright, could do with a few citations. yorkshiresky (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per nom, article is orange-tagged. The Kip 22:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, article quality issues have been fixed. The Kip 07:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Been updated, think issues have been addressed. yorkshiresky (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  There's a single CN tag in the "Writer" table, but rest of the article's fine. Switching my vote. The Kip 07:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Posted. Black Kite (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Badar uz Zaman

• Nominated by Fahads1982 (talk · give credit)

 Fahads1982 (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Fairly significant amount of unsourced content. The Kip 22:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) George Santos expelled from US Congress

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 331dot (talk · give credit)

Support Very rare evert QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose "Sixth time..." already indicates this is not exceptional, and given the weak consensus for the outing of McCarthy from House Speaker, I don't think getting this far into US politics is a good idea. --Masem (t) 16:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  It's not six times this week, it's six times since 1787, and three of those were on one occasion(the Civil War) so really it's only four times. 331dot (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  Happy to support expulsions from other national legislative bodies, too. 331dot (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  As mentioned, it's the sixth time in history, across a span of years that exceeds the duration of pretty much every legislature on the planet besides the UK's Parliament. It's only the third time in the past 160 years. If we wanted to go with a Eurocentric view comparison here, this would be equivalent to something that'd just not been done since WW2 happening again. - Nottheking (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• In a different version of ITN, this would be a great nom. We should be posting articles that have substantial or interesting updates due to recent events, and this one has that in spades. This guy has been in office for less than a year and has a longer article than Nancy Pelosi (probably). GreatCaesarsGhost 16:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose so what? Nor does it seem to affect legislative normalcy or party domains. I suppose it is highly advisable that we look at the parliamentary activity (and its history) of other countries. Open the vision. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  "So what?" could be applied to most news stories we blurb. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support - it's not the US's fault that all the breaking news is happening here this week. Rare event, great article, etc. Have we ever posted the expulsion of a member of any legislature? --Rockstone 16:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  Expulsion of members of legislatures is not as rare as you might think. If it has not been posted, it is because the editors have made the previous exercise of thinking that it is not significant. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  Can you list some other expulsions? It's rare in the US. 331dot (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  The senate has expelled 15 members. However, 14 were during the Civil War and 1 was in 1797 for treason/conspiracy. Noah, AA 17:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you, but I was wondering about expulsions in other legislative bodies(to respond to the assertion that this isn't a rare thing) 331dot (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  In fairness, we kind of have to exclude those expelled during the Civil War. That was both some 160 years ago, and during a very different environment. This would be analogous to saying something happening in a European country is unusual just because it happened a number of times during World War 2. We're talking about an entirely different period of history. - Nottheking (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  In Spain: Laura Borràs, Alberto Rodríguez Rodríguez, Oriol Junqueras and others Catalan independence leaders.

  In Argentina: Angel Luque, Varela Cid and Ancari de Godoy.

  In Ukraine: Serhiy Vlasenko.

  In Russia: Gennady Gudkov.

  In the UK: Horatio Bottomley, Peter Baker, Garry Allighan.

  To give a few examples. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  I would argue that Have we ever posted the expulsion of a member of any legislature? actually works against inclusion on ITN. I don't think we have before, and I don't think we should (rationale below in my Oppose vote). Bremps... 17:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  Agree. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Certainly an exceptional event, but one that I feel doesn't have too much of an impact. Kevin McCarthy being ousted as Speaker just barely made ITN, and that was an even more unprecedented event. PolarManne (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Domestic political scandals below the level of a head of state/government are not ITN material. I can't remember the last time (if ever) we posted anything like this. Crooked pols exist all over the world. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Criminal expelled from congress... little impact on its functioning and not really that important of an event. This wouldn't be considered for any other country.

Noah, AA 16:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I would. And this does have an impact on functioning, reducing the already narrow GOP majority by one. 331dot (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

This is the first time that someone has been expelled who has not been yet convicted of a crime. He can't even be legally called a criminal yet.

FictiousLibrarian (talk). 20:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@FictiousLibrarian: He accepted a plea deal in Brazil for check fraud.

Noah, AA 21:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - this is not really that noteworthy in my opinion, basically just political trivia. - Indefensible (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support, agreeing with 331dot. -- Tavix 17:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - We are confusing the issue by suggesting that this has earth-shattering political significance on the basis that the last such expulsion came during the Civil War. Rather, this was someone who was federally indicted for fraud and refused to resign as most other politicians would normally do in this scenario. Nixon's impeachment would have been significant whether or not he resigned or stayed until the bitter end, just because of how massive the fundamentals of the case were. Contrariwise, we would not be talking about this if Santos had simply resigned. Indefensible is right in that this is trivia. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support per 331dot. This is historic and making global headlines, and as others have mentioned, we have a great article on this topic and this is the best moment to feature it. Davey2116 (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support This is the second Congressional expulsion of the 21st century. Not to mention one of 3 representatives who have been expelled on anything else than insurrection during the civil war. On top of the fact that the media is clearly covering this story extensively, this expulsion will set a new precedent in the operation of the United States House of Representatives. How this event will impact the house in the long term remains to be seen, regardless we are witnessing history unfold before our eyes. I strongly support this article's nomination FictiousLibrarian (talk). 20:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  FictiousLibrarian, Traficant was expelled in 2002. Curbon7 (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose What would be the wider significance of this event? He is not a national leader. Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House was debatable, as he held a major position and because it was the first time it ever happened. Santos, on the other hand, is one representative out of more than 400 and is not the first congressperson to be expelled. Bremps... 17:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Weak Support - Notability is a bit iffy but I could get behind putting it up due to how rare this event is and how much coverage it has generated. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I knew this was going to get nominated. A member of a legislative body getting expelled does not mean its life changing. It did not have a huge impact in the House, and isn't considerate for other countries outside of the U.S.

TomMasterReal 19:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Weak Support This is a highly unprecedented move. This marks a very unusual threshold (as I've seen others mention) as this is the first time ever (out of thousands upon thousands of people to serve in Congress) person to be expelled for any reason other than "they directly participated in a rebellion against the Union" or "they were convicted of a felony but refused to resign." This will certainly have serious implications for the USA as a whole (which is sufficient reason for ITN: almost all news posted in ITN only directly impacts a single country, and isn't inherently an international event) but as of yet this total effect is unclear. It's understandable to note that this doesn't hold up to the standard for level of impact of, say, the prior posting of Henry Kissinger, as Kissinger was a truly international figure that had a greater impact on multiple countries than any of their respective heads of government they've had since.

At the minimum, this clearly will appear in the past as an "OTD" item, but I can see there being legitimate arguments that it doesn't meet the threshold for ITN. (mostly centered around how the greater impact outside of the GOP is unclear, and that such claims to notability might be construed as speculation) Unfortunately, whenever a news primarily focused on US national politics shows up, the !votes are cluttered with a number that directly ignore the rules for voting, but do seem to routinely get counted all the same. - Nottheking (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

He is has not been convicted of a crime in the United States. FictiousLibrarian (talk). 22:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per above and no offence, but "global news" is not a synonym for "news in the Western world." —M3ATH (Moazfargal · Talk) 17:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Moazfargal We can only consider what is nominated. Very happy to consider non-Western nominations. That's not a reason to exclude nominations. 331dot (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@331dot: I think I was misunderstood. I was referring to some comments that described this as global news, so I said that being in the news in the West doesn't make something global news. —M3ATH (Moazfargal · Talk) 18:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

It has made global news though. The ascension of Somalia to the EAC or the India tunnel collapse were region-specific too, but they got in PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The only reason I can think to post the expulsion of a member of a legislature was if it tipped the voting balance from one party to another, and even then I'd be dubious. Black Kite (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support It is far harder to expel someone from either house of the U.S. Congress due to the required two-thirds supermajority than it is from the UK or Canadian House of Commons (in the latter, from what I've read, only a majority is necessary). Santos is the first member since the Civil War to be expelled in the absence of a criminal conviction, breaking a long custom that only members who refused to resign after being convicted should be expelled. This event marks a crossing of the Godzilla Threshold; it is more of a black swan than people here are giving it credit for.

  And as for it being U.S.-centric, the story has gotten a lot of traction in Brazil (for obvious reasons), and I've seen in my news feed plenty of British coverage as well. Daniel Case (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  We have a chronic allergy to anything to do with Domestic US Affairs. But next week we'll happily post the Ecuadorian Netball Tournament or whatever PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  This is not us.wiki, this is en.wiki. We look to a global aspects, not just what may be important users from one country. Masem (t) 18:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  They're as "domestic" as any other country's affairs. Since you're taking Ecuador as an example, would you post the removal of a congressperson from Ecuador? (which happened two years ago) ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 19:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  If it had wide impacts, yes. -- Rockstone 19:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  In this case it doesn't really have wide impact, as the Republicans still have a majority. It's just very talked about, but ITN standards and journalistic standards don't fully overlap. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 19:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, we are not posting stuff about individual congresspeople. The removal of McCarthy from speaker could've been ITN-worthy, the removal of a single congressperson certainly isn't. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 18:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose; this is not particularly consequential even in the US outside of his district, as it does not materially change the balance of power, and rarity in and of itself is not newsworthy. For the record, I would oppose posting the expulsion of a member of any national legislature unless there were other circumstances making it exceptionally newsworthy. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think we posted Johnson's election as Speaker, which is more significant as a news story. This doesn't change a whole lot even within the U.S. as others have said. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  Under the long-running precedent, selection of a Speaker (or even that of a Prime Minister in Westminster Systems) isn't considered a landmark, notable event, mostly because their formal selection is usually tied to a prior event (e.g, the general election) and thus their eventually ascension to premiership is seen as inevitable; that, for instance, the UK has a new PM or the USA has a new Speaker upon reconvening after an election isn't major news; it was expected.

  In the case of Johnson, this was somewhat unique because it'd taken multiple ballots (and candidates) for one to emerge, but the outcome itself was ultimately predictable: "Republican majority elects Republican speaker on party-line basis." Had something particularly unusual happened (e.g, the House elected a Speaker that wasn't a sitting GOP member) that would've warranted its own event. But as it was, it was the closure of a story already posted to ITN: the ouster of McCarthy & "interregnum" that followed. - Nottheking (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose; per presidentman. The election of a Speaker is more significant than the expulsion of a regular representative. Maj. Warden (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - definitely a rare event, but not unprecedented. The impact is pretty narrow, even though his seat will probably flip and narrow the already narrow republican majority.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - Rare event? Yes. Internal U.S. politics, yes. CoatCheck (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Suggest Close We are deep into WP:SNOW territory here. No need for the pile-on to continue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - rare but not all that important. One of 435 districts in the US does not have a representative in one of two legislative chambers. nableezy - 20:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  That's not what the story's about. After all, no one has been proposing blurbs for the deaths or resignation of unknown incumbent... Those are very common. However, to expel one is an extremely strong move that is strictly political; it's the equivalent to impeachment & removal from office. That is the actual topic being discussed; to direct the argument against something else would be something other than a move in good faith. - Nottheking (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, and that is rare, but it remains not that important, with the sum total of effect being one of 435 districts in the US does not have a representative in one of two legislative chambers. nableezy - 22:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support but suggest closure as it's clear that consensus will not develop This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Concur with suggest close I already voted further above, but my count put it at something like 9 support vs. 12 oppose, (once excluding zero/invalid rationale votes, such as "only affects the USA") which is far short of a "consensus." - Nottheking (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTAVOTE. Curbon7 (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Certainly interesting, but at the end of the day the removal of a backbencher who was already persona non grata is minor and insignificant. Curbon7 (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Per above, agree with Curbon7, his impact is confined to at-most a national scale, he's essentially a backbencher and insignificant in the broader scope. Ornithoptera (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Curbon. Disgraced domestic politician with limited influence as a representative anyways, doesn't quite have the reach for ITN notability. The Kip 22:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted RD): Sandra Day O'Connor

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 Ad Orientem (talk · give credit)
• Updated by DBlack2025 (talk · give credit) and Sunshineisles2 (talk · give credit)

Strong Support. Incredible woman, RIP. GuardianH (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

First woman appointed to the US Supreme Court. This news is just breaking so updating is needed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Clarifying My nomination is for RD. I oppose a blurb. She was an important person, but not that important. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support blurb Beat me to it. Perhaps some things need updating but is still a lengthy and well-sourced article. Jmanlucas (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think so. We shouldn't be blurbing every SCOTUS member death, and while we did blurb RBG, she had far more influence (as well as was still sitting). While O'Connor is notable for being the first women on the court and having her hand in a few key decisions, her influence wasn't as strong as RBG. Masem (t) 15:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think that's true, as she was at the ideological center of the Court and would be the one seeking compromise, whereas RBG being firmly on the left was frequently in the minority. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  I'm looking beyond just their role as a Justice (as one can argue for any Justice that they would be important in their role on the Court, either way, but again, we should not be trying to blurb all Justices). RGB was far more influential outside of the Court. Masem (t) 16:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  I think O'Connor was important both as a Justice and as a major figure in U.S. women's rights. Her decision striking down single-sex admissions in Mississippi University for Women v Hogan was a critical step in Equal Protection law. (And it was the basis for RBG's more famous, but not actually legally groundbreaking, opinion striking down single-sex admissions at VMI, United States v Virginia.) O'Connor was on TIME Magazine's list of the 25 most powerful women of the 20th Century. She was not just a Supreme Court justice, she was also an icon. RBG (to her personal surprise) became a celebrity in her last few years because some law students called her the Notorious RBG, but pre-internet female law students turned out in droves to hear O'Connor. ALKinNYC (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  While the circumstances of RBG's death were more notable, I’d say that O'Connor was more notable as a justice since she was the 1st woman on the Supreme Court & the swing vote in important cases. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  There is no signficant article update to prompt such a feature. No section on her funeral or anything like that, nothing for us to show off. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think it's typical to enter an RD as a blurb prior to the funeral. That being said, there are heavy edits being made and it could possibly make sense to wait a few hours for this one. I also believe she was immensely influential, paving the way for justices such as Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor, Barrett, and Jackson. Jmanlucas (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose on quality Not a lot but a handful of CNs and uncited statements at ends of paras. Also would be nice to see the proseline-type writing style fixed in the latter part of the article but that shouldn't stop posting RD. --Masem (t) 15:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Article has been updated with news on her death.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• RD only. I agree with Masem that she was not quite as influential as RBG. 331dot (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Quilty issues, but Support RD only. Once fixed, she is a perfect candidate for an RD. I'd needed convinced for blurb, other than be just the first woman on Supreme Court. TheCorriynial (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb Let's not propose blurbs to American personalities for the simple fact of being American. There are almost 200 supreme courts in the world with their respective first female members. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  Like -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  no one brought up this person's nationality as justification for a blurb. please try to contribute to the consensus with NPOV Belugsump (talk) 08:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support RD The remaining uncited statements are minimal (given the article length) and non-controversial. I oppose the blurb; while I typically endorse some US bias in blurbs due to the influence of American culture and politics worldwide, there is little evidence of that here. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support RD As much as my inner Arizonan wants a blurb, I have to concede that being the first woman on SCOTUS doesn't warrant one. We don't need two blurbs in a row being American politicians dying of old age. PolarManne (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb - if you look at her impact compared to Kissinger's, they are probably in the same ballpark, or she might even be ahead. Simply raising the bar higher prevents contradictory outcomes. - Indefensible (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think they are comparable. She was a run of the mill Supreme Court justice whose principle claim to fame was being the first woman on the court. Kissinger fundamentally changed the course of world history (for good and ill). He was the most consequential Sec. of State in US history and one of the most important foreign ministers in world history. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  I think you underrate O'Connor and overrate Kissinger. O'Connor was the pivotal vote on a number of issues and was in office for over 2 decades while Kissinger was only SoS for 4 years. - Indefensible (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  Those four years had a lot of impact that we are still feeling to this day, especially in the Middle East and in particular Israel. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 20:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  You can't really just compare the offices held. Kissinger wasn't your average Secretary of State, just like RBG wasn't your average Justice. For O'Connor, while being the first woman on the court was an achievement, I don't think she rises to the same level. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 19:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support RD, she was important but not enough for a blurb. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support RD, weak oppose blurb The article has 2 CN tags, which should be rectified first, but it's in pretty good shape otherwise. We didn't blurb Dianne Feinstein, and I think O'Connor's impact is similar to hers. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 19:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support RD Article looks good enough. Weak support blurb Since she was the first female Supreme Court justice in the country's history. I'd support a blurb for a first female justice on any supreme court/high court of any nation. Her tenure also oversaw some landmark decisions as well. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support RD and blurb O'Connor opened the highest court in the United States to women, a truly enormous event in one of the most influential nations in the world, at a time when women's roles were extremely limited, both in the U.S. and globally. It was a huge deal. If you question whether this is worthy of international coverage, note that her death is currently on the front pages of El Pais, The Guardian, Le Monde, etc. That her death comes near another high-profile civil servant should be irrelevant. Girona7 (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support RD, Oppose blurb I don't think this rises to the level of a blurb. Johndavies837 (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support blurb - First of all, article looks good to go. The fact that O'Connor was the first woman on the Supreme Court and had several notable opinions during her tenure (namely Planned Parenthood v. Casey, among others) would lead me to believe she had enough long-term significance to warrant a blurb.--estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support and blurb – First woman on the highest court in the USA. I second what User:Girona7 wrote above. Missvain (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support blurb - Article is good to go, and I think that her being the first women on the Supreme Court makes it very noteworthy, like what User:Girona7 wrote. Maj. Warden (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb - This does not rise to the level of importance we should expect to see for a blurb. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 20:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• oppose blurb, support rd - not so widely covered as a death to merit a blurb imo. think the article fine at this point too. nableezy - 21:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support RD, Oppose Blurb - Reviewed article, and it looks to be in great shape. While she was a significant figure, she wasn't very transformative in her field (a threshold that "first woman" falls short of) which is generally the requirement for a an ITN blurb for a death after leaving said office. (dying in office is unusual, and much more likely can merit a blurb, as the death itself has serious ramifications, as was the case for Justice Ginsberg in 2020) As it stands, definitely doesn't merit a blurb, but does seem ready to speedily post to RD: a good job to everyone who worked to ensure the high quality of the article! - Nottheking (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support RD, Oppose Blurb, per above. Ornithoptera (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Removing ready tag There's still at least one CN, one unsourced paragraph, and the list of the notable decisions she was involved needs sourcing as well. --Masem (t) 22:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support RD, oppose blurb per all above. The Kip 22:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb, support RD per above consensus and my general policy of opposing all RDB This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support RD, Oppose Blurb, article meets standards, old woman dies. JM (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support RD, neutral on blurb but I've added an altblurb that highlights her significance in case this somehow makes the blurb, although this would definitely make a weak DYK when/if it becomes a GA. @Admins willing to post ITN: snowball's chance in hell of failing RD, could we post that rn? Aaron Liu (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  I for one don't like posting bios where the date of birth is uncited. Schwede66 00:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Schwede66 I have cited the DoB. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. I was beaten to posting this. Schwede66 00:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• She's fabulous, her story was very inspirational personally for me and other young women, but "first woman on SCOTUS" probably doesn't raise her to the level of global significance needed for a blurb. Of course support RD once any quality issues are addressed, that should go without saying. Valereee (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
• Posted RD It looks good enough for RD, though it could use improvement with a few more citations and rewriting "Activities and memberships" to be less PROSELINE. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  If it needs "a few more citations" it wasn't ready to be posted. As I pointed out, the section about the major decisions she was involved in is mostly unsourced, and that really should be sourced. Masem (t) 01:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support RD, neutral on blurb—The thing that makes the passing of Sandra Day O'Connor different from that of Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the fact that RBG died while she was still a sitting justice, at a time when her absence from SCOTUS would effectively ensure a conservative supermajority. SDOC died of old age 18 years after she retired from the bench; it is far less consequential. On the other hand, there is something to be said for being the first woman to ever serve on the most powerful court in the most powerful country. For this reason, I can't outright oppose a blurb. Kurtis 01:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb I can't imagine we would ever blurb the death of a judge from any other country in the world (except in situations where 'death is the story'). I don't see the need to blurb this person just because they are an American judge. Chrisclear (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support blurb Ruth Bader Ginsburg got a blurb. I don't see why O'Connor shouldn't have one either. 159.118.77.237 (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Whether O'Connor was trailblazing aside, Ginsburg's death was unexpected and severely impacted the balance of power in the court. --Rockstone 04:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb The first woman on the US Supreme Court, yes, involved in some important decisions as such, yes. But beyond this (and the major siginificance being attributed to the "first" aspect) I am not seeing anything convincing enough to blurb especially when this position was held more than a decade and a half ago. Gotitbro (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

November 30

(Closed) Botticelli's recovered painting

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.

• Updated and nominated by Brandmeister (talk · give credit)
• Created by TulsaPoliticsFan (talk · give credit)

• Our article doesn't even say it was missing. Would be an embarrassing feature... Also how did we get an image of the painting in 2022 if it had been missing for fifty thirty years? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Actually quite simple. Scan/photo of a image in an old book/magazine. Or at least cropping from a news photo. Or taking a picture during the recovery, depends on luck. Brandmeister 15:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Comment The article is kinda stubby and there is not much detail about what happened. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose It would be different if this was like a major theft and has since been resolved, but this reads more like it simply got lost in a shuffle in protecting art from the earthquake in 1984. Its not the world's greatest mystery being solved here. --Masem (t) 15:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose on Significance, the recovery of art is usually not ITN-worthy, and it's not like this was some important or notable missing painting. Editor 5426387 (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

oppose - per above PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose not that significant, but it’s an interesting nom. This painting is not one of Botticelli's most recognized works, nor is its "disappearance" historical, since it was due to a sale. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I do not find this significant enough to post. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) LGBT rights in Russia

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 Chaotic Enby (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Sentries (talk · give credit) and Revangarde568 (talk · give credit)

• Support a blurb of some kind, but "setback" might not be the appropriate word to use, since it is somewhat non-neutral. Maybe something closer to "Russia's supreme court is condemned by LGBT rights supporters for banning the LGBT movement." -- Rockstone 01:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support Pretty big setback for the LGBT community, considering this is coming from one of the most influential countries on the planet - although a different blurb would be better per Rockstone. qw3rty 01:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose solely on article quality. Once the article is up to scratch (it has not been updated and referencing is seriously subpar) I would support alt3 as factual and to the point w/o any editorializing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support Considering that this genuinely might lead to the banning of any LGBT persons, this is a massive deal as countries around it may follow. Lukt64 (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Objectively, I think this news story meets the customary criteria for a blurb. However, Misplaced Pages, and ITN more specifically are not here to right great wrongs. And article quality is frankly nowhere near acceptable for posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose solely on quality as target article is orange-tagged. Definitely notable enough, though - it’s not just the banning of a single organization, but the entire movement. Rather disturbing news, honestly. The Kip 03:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Neutral Emperor Putin has already effectively banned the LGBT movement for years. He classified the flag and references as pornographic material and has had people arrested. He also banned same sex marriage via the constitutional amendment he pushed through. Hard to see how this is any different.

Noah, AA 03:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose on quality - besides the CN, the summary table should have sources (which ought to reuse what's already present) --Masem (t) 03:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support on notability, not ready on quality per Ad Orientem. Best case scenario is they've outlawed all public expression supportive of LGBT rights, worst case scenario is they've effectively outlawed being LGBT in public, and either of those are notable. All we know as a matter of fact is that the Supreme Court outlawed "the international LGBT movement". why does that terminology sound so familiar?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  Adding that my preference is for Altblurb IV - my !vote was originally going to have paragraphs of ramblings about how I don't like using the term "the LGBT movement" in Wikivoice and how that does not adequately tell the reader what actually got banned for a number of fairly obvious reasons, "the LGBT movement" is not an entity or organization that can be dissolved by a legal ruling, it is a category of person and those who are supportive of said people, hence why even the target article LGBT movement is actually named LGBT movements plural. But I got into edit conflict after edit conflict and lost the original ramblings, and at the time no other users had expressed issue with the language so I was worried I'd just look like a crazy nitpicker anyways. Thankfully, multiple other editors have said what I wanted to say (in much fewer words than I was going to use) and someone even offered up a satisfactory altblurb.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 13:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  No you're right that the language wasn't adequate, wasn't sure how to phrase it but having the claim in quotes is much better indeed. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 19:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Support on the basis of notability, but I think the blurbs currently proposed are unclear. I propose the following alternate blurb: Russian Supreme Court outlaws the "international LGBT movement" as "extremist". --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 06:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I added this proposal as Alt 4. JM (talk) 07:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support alt 3 since the other three blurbs are not neutral. MtPenguinMonster's proposed blurb is also OK. Banedon (talk) 07:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose on quality, way too many CN tags, and as far as I can tell there's only one line of update for this event, let alone having its own section. However if this ends up getting posted, if there ends up being a consensus to post, i would support Alt 4 because the first 2 blurbs are not NPOV, the 2nd altblurb is not the main story, and Alt3 definitely has the wrong bolded words (should be "bans" that is bolded, not "LGBT movement"). JM (talk) 07:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose any blurb which uncritically refers to "the LGBT movement". To the extent the phrase means anything (our wikilink redirects to the crucially more accurate LGBT movements), it is an unquestioning repeating of the conspiracist rhetoric used by the justice department, which Reuters translates as "the international LGBT social movement". Far better to reflect the term "activist" which Reuters uses when not referring to government statements, eg. "In Russia, the country's Supreme Court bans the LGBT activism." (Edit conflicted here, ALT4 is an alternative that presents the statement as a quote, which is another option resolving this issue.) CMD (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yep, wasn't feeling too well about it but didn't know how to word it better. Thanks for the better wordings that make it clear that "LGBT movement" is not a real, specific thing, but at the same time that it will have an impact on actual LGBT people. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 17:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose So, what? The LGBT movement is banned in much of Africa, Central Asia and Western Asia. There are even countries in which LGBT people get death penalties (e.g. Iran) or get tortured before death (e.g. Saudi Arabia). In addition, the LGBT community in Russia didn't have many rights prior to this decision so that this can be considered a major setback (note that death is regularly enforced in Chechnya). I think decrimanlisation in Iran or Saudi Arabia would be a much greater news than this decision that changes very little in practice.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  Chechnya is an autonomous republic, and not representative of the laws in Russia at large. This is a much bigger and much more worrying change. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 17:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  The blurbs are absolutely woeful, but the difference is that rather than saying "you can't be gay" and hurting those who still are, Russia has now apparently labelled any form of belief that LGBT+ people can exist as extremist ideology and basically treachery (comments from Milonov on 'extremist aims to destabilise Russia'). So not just LGBT+ people will face prison, but anyone who acknowledges homosexuality/bisexuality/etc is real. And it seems by calling it extremism (instead of just criminalising), Russia extends their powers in how harshly suspects can be treated, too. Kingsif (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  So not just LGBT+ people will face prison, but anyone who acknowledges homosexuality/bisexuality/etc is real this is hyperbole, the authorities themselves must acknowledge that homosexuality is real in order to persecute these people. It's fully possible to describe the significance of such a ruling and its consequences without exaggeration. JM (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  Milonov said they would try to clamp down on any information about LGBT+, period: it's not hyperbole. And how would the authorities have to acknowledge homosexuality is real to clamp down? They follow the party line that it's something made up to destroy families. (ed: Which seems to be the whole point of this new ruling, actually. Formalising for prosecution purposes that Russia says LGBT+ isn't real but a dangerous ideology the West has created to harm the state.) I know that a 'lesser' version of this ruling would be severe and significant, but they've really started with full censorship/invisibility tactics here. Kingsif (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  I believe the issue here is that we are using two different meanings of "real". Your "real" is "something that exists and is natural", my "real" is "something that exists whether invented or natural". It doesn't really matter, the result in Russia is the same, and so the significance for blurbing is the same. JM (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  I think the issue might be a little more in your interpretation of the legislation, because that's not how I meant "real". But yes, it's moot. Kingsif (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - Per @Kiril Simeonovski PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. This ruling is not transformative. The LGBT movement was already restricted before this ruling. Thriley (talk) 09:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose – No significant update to the article in question. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose On quality, as noted above by others, some statements have four cites, why other areas have nothing. There is a lot of sourcing in the article, but it is somewhat unbalanced. Also opposing per Kiril Simeonovski above, who I feel makes a valid point, there wasn't much difference on top of what was already banned. Govvy (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose solely on quality The news are definitely notable, but as others above have stated, there are far too many CN tags within the article. --Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk) 11:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Russia is known for a history of anti-LGBTQ movements, and the article is notable in itself as per above, however the quality of the article is not really in the best shape, once the CN tags are removed, may lean toward Support. Editor 5426387 (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The Russian government is already known for its anti-LGBT stance, this doesn't come as a surprise nor does it meaningfully impact Russian politics. PolarManne (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: This doesn't change a thing; it just formalises what has already been in practice for quite a long time. —M3ATH (Moazfargal · Talk) 18:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Edited blurbs to reflect the point made by several people about contextualizing "LGBT movement" in quotes. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 19:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Looks like the practical reality of this is worse than the worst-case-scenario I suggested might happen in my !vote above. Looks like the real-life consequence of this is the banning of not just pro-LGBT speech or being LGBT in public, but a police crackdown of being LGBT behind closed doors in privately-owned spaces. Moscow police raid gay clubs after high court labels LGBTQ+ movement ‘extremist’ - Politico  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Make a standalone article on the ruling itself (plenty of legislation articles in Category:Statutory_law_by_country to use as examples) and change the bold article to be that. Massively significant per my reply above – beyond no PDA and no books with positive gay depictions, Russia has given itself license to treat "the international LGBT+ movement" like any other state would treat any other extremist group. Per Amnesty International: Recognizing it as “extremist” carries severe legal consequences for everyone involved in LGBTI-related activities or even having a known, or assumed, association with the LGBTI community. Kingsif (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Elliott Erwitt

• Nominated by Mr. Lechkar (talk · give credit)

French-born American photographer, notable for documenting personalities such as Richard Nixon and Marilyn Monroe, as well as events such as the 2009 inauguration of Barack Obama and John F. Kennedy's state funeral. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment The unsourced tag on the article needs to be sorted out. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 01:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Needs more sources in the early life and filmmaking career sections. If I see this improved, I'll change my stance. Jmanlucas (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose on quality Has an orange tag. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: The section Elliott Erwitt#Iconic photographs has zero footnotes. Is "Iconic" a bit WP:Peacock-ish? --PFHLai (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

RD: Alistair Darling

• Nominated by BlakeIsHereStudios (talk · give credit)

Former Labour Party Chancellor of the Exchequer and Member of Parliament (MP). BlakeIsHereStudios (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: needs work on the citations. - SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per above - far too much unreferenced material. Ritchie333 15:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
• Comment There are still some area's not sourced, but I don't know how strict to be for a yes or not on RD. Govvy (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  1 or 2 CN tags is considered fine, any more than that is usually not. JM (talk) 07:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

  Since when? It most certainly wasn't considered fine 12 months ago. Polyamorph (talk) 14:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  WP:ITNQUALITY one or two "citation needed" tags may not hold up an article JM (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think that means one or two cns should not hold up the posting but rather that it's possible one or two wouldn't be seen by some/many people as a problem, especially if the content that is tagged isn't controversial. I don't think it's making a definite statement that one or two is fine, even if they're on contentious material and/or editors are objecting. Valereee (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  That also states Biographies of living persons are held to higher standards of referencing because of their sensitive nature, and these rules also apply to those recently deceased. As such I don't think the 'one or two' cn tags flexibility applies for RD. Personally I don't think it's acceptable on any article, but it certainly hasn't been acceptable to have cn tags on previous RD discussions. Polyamorph (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  There was just an argument about this in Kissinger's RD/blurb discussion, where Vanilla Wizard said the following: WP:BLP does not apply to the recently deceased when their death is confirmed by reliable sources. Any extension to BLP on such an article only apply to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime. JM (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  That argument does not represent the consensus here, as stated in WP:ITNQUALITY that you referenced. If you want this change in how things are done at ITN for RD then a more extensive discussion is needed, at this project's talk page and update the criteria notes accordingly. Polyamorph (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  Take it up with Vanilla Wizard, I'm just quoting them from below, where it seemed to be 4v1 in favour of BLP not applying to confirmed deaths (Vanilla Wizard, Ed, BilledMammal, and F4U vs Masem), so they seem to disagree that it goes against policy. Additionally, Queen of Hearts had no problem agreeing that ITNQUALITY was not an issue for a few CNs. Oh and also as far as I can tell BLP doesn't say we can't have any CN tags, just that contentious material must be sourced to RS. JM (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  Take it up with Vanilla Wizard they're not the one discussing here. This is not the place to decide consensus. Your 5v1 count is not consensus. Historically, here at ITN, RDs have required cn tags be addressed before posting. If you want to change that, a discussion is needed at the talk page, not here. Polyamorph (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC) note: the comment this is response to has been edited Polyamorph (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  As I said, the only consensus I see is that of the Kissinger discussion, where the consensus of people involved in the ITNQUALITY/BLP arguement was that a few CNs was fine. That's the only consensus on that area that I can recall (I haven't been here long) and it contradicts what you're saying. So where is this consensus you are talking about? If I could see it then I could judge for myself. JM (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC) note: my comment was corrected within 2 minutes of your comment, before I saw you had commented, in order to clarify that Queen of Hearts agreed with the ITNQUALITY part, not specifically the BLP part. JM (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  I've opened a thread on the talk page, as this is not the correct place for this discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shane MacGowan

• Nominated by The C of E (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Bastun (talk · give credit) and Serial Number 54129 (talk · give credit)

Lead singer of the Pogues (Fairytale of New York) The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 12:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose on quality issues. Still a lot of unsupported material there. - SchroCat (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I've just been working on citing the uncited bits @SchroCat:. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 12:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
    • The filmography is still unsupported, as is much of the discography. - SchroCat (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
    • Now fully sourced. ——Serial 16:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support sourcing issues dealt with. Go Shane. ——Serial 12:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support seems to have been cleaned up. "Fucking borders are just such a pain in the fucking arse." Ritchie333 15:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support Good article on a great artist. Maxxies (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support "A man of many words and few teeth" (- Andrew Anthony, The Observer, 2000). Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 22:26, 30 November 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