(Attention needed) Balkan Wars tribunal convictions

Judges of the UN International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals

Articles: Jovica Stanišić (talk · history · tag) and Franko Simatović (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The UN International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (pictured) sentences Serbian State Security Service chief Jovica Stanišić and his deputy Franko Simatović to 12 years in prison for their involvement in ethnic cleansing in the Bosnian War. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Serbian State Security chief Jovica Stanišić and his deputy Franko Simatović are sentenced to 12 years in prison for their roles in ethnic cleansing in the Bosnian War. (no picture)
News source(s): The Guardian, The New York Times
Credits:

• Nominated by Sdkb (talk · give credit)
• Updated by 3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: (Borrowing from the current events portal listing) The conclusion of the longest international war crime case in history, and the first time senior Serbian officials have been convicted for war crimes committed during the Bosnian War, this is major news in international law. Someone should double check me on whether the photo is correct (I'm not 100% sure the trial took place in the ICC building). ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 20:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/!votes, anyone? ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 04:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I am fine with either blurb. The photo is wrong, though, I think. The International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals is not in the same building as the ICC, as far as I know. I've changed it to the only photo we have of the Residual Mechanism.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support posting war crimes convictions from an international body. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The caption in the image is incorrect though, this isn't the ICC, but the successor body to the ICTY and ICTR. 331dot (talk) 08:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed caption. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 17:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Significant moment in the prosecutions around the Yugoslav Wars. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not clear what the significance of this is. Surely there should be a linked article, for example to the prosecutions, rather than just links to the individuals concerned, if this is a momentous and newsworthy event?  — Amakuru (talk) 16:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A conviction for the actor of a mass genocide is clearly something worth posting in the main page. I've removed an irrelevant sentence in the Franko Simatović article.--ϗ (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Gordon Brooks (photographer)

Nominator's comments: Carried on the duty of taking photographs on the West Indies national cricket team for 40 years. His death was mentioned on 30 June by Cricket West Indies in its press release (died on 29 June) Abishe (talk) 09:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've added two citation needed tags. Uses x (leave me a message) 20:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Still needs some more source. --ϗ (talk) 06:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jack G. Downing

Nominator's comments: Only reported today (June 30); died on June 27 (i.e. provable gap of at least two days) —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Everything checks out and the article is a decent length. Uses x (leave me a message) 20:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 01:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD/Blurb: Donald Rumsfeld

Donald Rumsfeld

Article: Donald Rumsfeld (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Former United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (pictured) dies at the age of 88. (Post)
News source(s): USA Today, AP, Guardian, Al Jazeera
Credits:

• Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)
• Updated by 145.130.5.84 (talk · give credit), DemonDays64 (talk · give credit), Strattonsmith (talk · give credit) and AllegedlyHuman (talk · give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Article appears in good shape to post Masem (t) 19:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Got edit-conflicted nomming this, but I was using Twitter and DailyMail as the sources so you can have it haha. In all seriousness the article needs to be duly updated and has two cn tags to be fixed, but otherwise this looks adequate.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose borderline blurb for me (as a non-yank). But article needs work. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't thinking of blurbing this. He's an important name tied to US's activities in the Middle East, but I can't see that close to the Thatcher standard in terms of impact of the death; half of the US is going "good riddance" from looking around various forums. --Masem (t) 19:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be fair half the UK had that reaction to Thatcher's death. I'm not sure there'll be street parties to celebrate Rumsfeld's passing like there were for Thatcher, though. Black Kite (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per Black Kite, notability need not be positive for blurb purposes; I still think it's lacking in Rumsfeld's case, though, but I would have blurbed McCain if we didn't.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD only - not quite notable enough for a blurb IMvHO. Mjroots (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose blurb for now. Rumsfeld influenced so many things that affected people outside the US that I kind of feel maybe he's internationally important, but is he important enough for a blurb? I'm open to being convinced. —valereee (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, obviously. I don't see anyone proposing a blurb. BD2412 T 19:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, no blurb. — Goszei (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality, quite a few CN tags. Support RD only when that's fixed. Black Kite (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose CN tags. Uses x (leave me a message) 20:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb, not a head of government, not head of state, not sufficiently significant. Chrisclear (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Good Riddance, RD only if ready. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, neutral on blurb - Article of sufficient quality. His influence on the Iraqi and Afghan wars and the shaping of the post-9/11 reaction had undoubtedly a world-wide impact, but still a very US-centric figure overall Abcmaxx (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD Not notable for blurb. Albertaont (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I oppose most blurbs for "major figures" including this one but consider that Rumsfeld was more consequential for US foreign policy (and as a result, for millions of people outside the USA) than HW Bush who we blurbed. Rumsfeld was at Fords side as the Vietnam war ended and also really kicked off the US use of special forces and drone warfare that continued unabated through the Obama years, as well as pushing for continued US "leadership" in the global security framework following the collapse of the Soviet Union. You're unlikely to find a more transformative post-cold war military commander and in terms of lives touched he's infinitely more consequential than most (if not all) of the dead heads of state we robo-blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Rumsfeld Doctrine, he's been a character in multiple motion pictures including W._(film) and Vice (2018 film) and an Errol Morris documentary The Unknown Known and for anyone paying attention to world events between 2003 and 2006 was certainly a household name. I'd actually say he satisfies User:LaserLegs/NOTMANDELA. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose woefully inadequate sourcing. And oppose blurb as we wouldn't do it for any non-American politician who wasn't the country's leader. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There are quite a few citation needed tags to be dealt with. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Blurbing of RDs is not limited to just heads of state, Rumsfeld is certainly significant enough - one of the most prominent names of the post 9/11 conflicts (the blurb might need some reworking). Some cn tags but not significant enough to hold this. Gotitbro (talk) 23:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb per Chrisclear, and I'll add a ??? to indicate bafflement. Banedon (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Electoral history of Donald Rumsfeld is its own page, and is unsourced. Does this affect the nomination? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No only the bold article (and even then, it's iffy) CFORKs are used all the time to bury poorly referenced content. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD He was a significant figure in the global War on Terror and the Iraq War. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There are several tags in the article. Hanamanteo (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb Rumsfeld was the most notable and influential Secretary of Defense in recent memory. He was a household name in the United States during his six years in the job, regularly appearing in media, often daily. After Bush, he was the public figurehead of the Iraq War. I expect the notorious Secretary of State Henry Kissinger will get a blurb when he dies, another cabinet level official who was and still is a well known figure. Thriley (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Kissenger's still alive? Wow. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb Practically unknown outside the United States. Not a head of state or head of government. Steelkamp (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Steelkamp: Incorrect. Donald Rumsfeld was in fact very well known around the world for his role in the invasion of Iraq, among other things. I don't know if I support a full blurb, but he is a globally recognized figure. Kurtis ^(talk) 08:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support blurb Per Thriley. Probably the most influential cabinet level official since Kissinger Scaramouche33 (talk) 06:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb I'm a bit surprised that this is even considered for a blurb. 'Secretary of Defense' equates 'Minister of Defence' in most countries and this is a relatively low-ranking position so that its office-holders get blurbs.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not convinced this should be blurbed(though there is a case for it) but I don't think that controlling the guns and troops is a "low level" position. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't mean that but, as we usually consider the death of a head of state or government for a blurb, any other position is 'low-ranking' in this particular context.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose RD Per Rambling Man. Article still has CN tags, and needs a bit of work. I was trying to remember who the Secretary of Defence is over there now. Had a vague feeling he was a general, but maybe that was Trump's secretary. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Hawkeye7, that would be Lloyd Austin. And you are correct, he is a general. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for that. I see Strattonsmith is working furiously to make the Rumsfeld article presentable, so it will probably be up to scratch soon. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb, neutral on RD. Not a head of state or government, which we generally require for blurbs. Sandstein 12:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb, as he wasn't a transformative politician, just a government minister who spent a lot of time on TV. Neutral on quality for RD - there are a few cn tags, but that's a long article and I don't have time to read it in detail. I'll leave the quality assessment to others. Modest Genius ^talk 12:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• RD only – A household name two decades ago, not now. Mr. Rumsfeld was nearing 90; he died of 'natural' causes. – Sca (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD There are a couple of cn tags that have to get fixed --Vacant0 (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A RD-worthy death but the wikibio needs some clean-up. Too many {cn} tags, not to mention the [needs update] and [clarification needed] tags. --PFHLai (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD While there are a lot of CN tags, some of them are WP:Skyblue, and others are for sections with reasonable citation. It's close, but I think we can post this. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support both some of the arguments cited here are insane to me. Rumsfeld is not almost unknown outside of the US, the US Secretary of Defense is not a low ranking position, and blurbs arent only given out to heads of state/government. Ruth Bader Ginsburg got the top blurb with a picture in September ( https://web.archive.org/web/20200919201703/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page). Rumsfeld was one of the most well know/hated figures in US politics with regards to the Iraq war, I cant believe its even a question whether he should get a blurb. Meanwhile Senator Gravel is listed in RD, and hes mainly notable for a Twitter account using his name. And next to him is a South African cricket manager. Acknowledging someones death isnt an endorsement. I dont like him, I imagine most here dont like him either, that isnt a reason to try and hide behind the amount of [clarification needed] tags in an article. jonas (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb, wait on RD - Ginsburg was blurbed but looks like that was pretty contested, so not sure it was the right decision. Can be posted but someone should clean up the citation tags beforehand, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a newspaper so should rank quality over timeliness. - Indefensible (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD and possibly blurb, pending additional citations where they are needed. Rumsfeld was a very significant political figure known around the world for spearheading some of the US's most consequential foreign policy initiatives. Kurtis ^(talk) 08:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb per Banedon. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb and RD Rumsfeld was a highly notable figure in what's arguably the most influential country in world politics. 1779Days (talk) 11:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There are still a bunch of {CN} tags, particularly in the section on the Nixon era. This problem with missing citations needs to be resolved before the RD nom can proceed. --PFHLai (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb, first it was ancient former leaders of countries, now it's ancient former members of cabinets? Stop. Abductive (reasoning) 17:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality. Lots and lots of citations, and no they are not WP:SKYISBLUE. Also oppose a blurb, if this is ever fixed up. He was significant around the time of the Iraq war, but principally as the underling of President Bush. He wasn't transformative in his own right in the Thatcher/Mandela mould.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As Amakuru says, article still needs fixing in terms of references. --ϗ (talk) 06:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Update I have addressed the remaining CN tags. Pinging @PFHLai, Ϗ, and Amakuru:. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, AllegedlyHuman, you've fixed quite a bit. Yes, there are no more CN tags, but if you look hard enough through this very long wikibio, you may find more to fix. For instance, the "Affiliation history" section could use more refs. There is also a [needs update] and a [clarification needed] in the "Retirement and later life (2006–2021)" section. (Why are numbers missing in front of "& nbsp;"million?) --PFHLai (talk) 07:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Bill Cosby sexual assault case

Reclosing as there seems to be consensus against this.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Bill Cosby

Article: Bill Cosby (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania overturns convictions of sexual assault by actor and comedian Bill Cosby (pictured). (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the United States, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania overturns convictions of sexual assault by actor and comedian Bill Cosby (pictured).
Alternative blurb II: ​ The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania overturns convictions of sexual assault by American actor and comedian Bill Cosby (pictured).
Alternative blurb III: ​ American actor and comedian Bill Cosby (pictured) is released from prison following a decision by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania overturning his convictions of sexual assault.
News source(s): ABC, AP, BBC, NBC, NYT, Philly Inquirer, WaPo
Credits:

• Nominated by AllegedlyHuman (talk · give credit)
• Updated by TheSandDoctor (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Major breaking news. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose In the news and all that, but this was overturned on a technically (he had made a deal in 2005 with the DA before giving his testimony in a different trial; the DA then later reniged that deal in convicting him on the charges that sent Cosby to prison, which is what the court ruled today). For all purposes, there's no issue that Cosby's "crimes" still exist, he just couldn't be convicted on them. This is not like he was completely cleared and rendered innocent (particularly given all the other civil suits against him). --Masem (t) 17:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose previously convicted people have their convictions overturned all the time. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it were a case where it was a high profile person who's been contesting their innocence all this time, the courts continually ruled against them, and then finally got everything dropped from legal technicalities and ruled fully innocent (eg such as the results of Flowers v. Mississippi if Flowers had been a more high-profile individual) that might be a reason, but fully agree otherwise such reversals or overturns are commonplace and usually set the grounds for more legal engagements. This is not one of those times to post this. --Masem (t) 18:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A technicality.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Especially since the hook as phrased implies a level of innocence, when the Supreme Court just ruled the state is bound by the sweetheart deal it had previously offered him. Morgan695 (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The NYT's opening sentence is: Bill Cosby was released from prison Wednesday after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned his 2018 conviction for sexual assault, a dramatic reversal in one of the first high-profile criminal trials of the #MeToo era. Other sources have similar wording. The hook should not be worded in a manner that is not reflective of the sources. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Just a technicality.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Extremely reluctant Support We posted his conviction. Technicality or no, that conviction has now been overturned. We labeled Mr. Cosby as a convicted sex offender on the main page. That is no longer accurate, whatever our private opinions of the man. I encourage re-opening the discussion. (I am no longer active on the project. If someone wants to communicate with me please do so by email as my notifications are turned off.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nearly every report considers that he is absolutely guilty of those crimes but made that detail that he couldn't be convicted on them. He's still facing numerous civil suits that that deal can't erase. As I pointed out above, this is not like where a person who was long believed wrongly convicted and years later finally got the conviction overturned. --Masem (t) 02:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I actually think it's quite interesting; it's in the news, the article is of good quality, and sources assign significance to the event. I'm sure our readers will be interested to know about it too, certainly as much (or more) than many of the things that hit ITN. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Article updated, and whether it's a technicality or not, it's *in the news*. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 03:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Overturning of a conviction and sentencing we posted on ITN. Nuff said. Disagree vehemently with the overturning, but notable for ITN nonetheless. DrewieStewie (talk) 04:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- I agree with the overturning of the conviction as the prosecution's actions rose to the level of misconduct (even though no one is doubting that he is still guilty), but I don't think this should be blurbed regardless. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 05:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The proposed blurb does not state the country in which Cosby was convicted. Chrisclear (talk) 07:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there another Pennsylvania elsewhere? But also, this was a decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, not the Federal one, so I'm not sure if it matters. He was convicted in a State court as well. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 07:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are places named Pennsylvania elsewhere, however this is not particularly relevant. Presumably if an ITN item relating to the High Court of Chhattisgarh (population about double that of Pennsylvania), we would include the name of the country as well as the state. We should include the country in which Pennsylvania is located, just as one would expect for Chhattisgarh. Chrisclear (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not aware of other places called "Pennsylvania" but I have proposed an altblurb. 331dot (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Chrisclear never fails to show up and complain when the United States is not explicitly mentioned in a blurb, no matter how obvious it is. We shouldn't indulge him.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, it's not obvious to many Wikipedia readers who are not from that one particular country. Chrisclear (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • It absolutely should be. Just like we refer to Northern Ireland as "Northern Ireland", and not "Northern Ireland, a country within the United Kingdom...". Actually, Northern Ireland is less sovereign than Pennsylvania is. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 21:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not entirely sure to what your first word "it" refers when you stated that "It absolutely should be". Are you asserting that it is obvious to non-Americans the country in which Pennsylvania is located? Chrisclear (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes. It is as obvious to non-Americans where Pennsylvania is as it is to non-Britons that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 06:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I don't see why somebody couldn't simply click (or mouse over) the hyperlink for more information. Alt blurb sounds a bit redundant IMO. But I suppose it doesn't matter either way Belugsump (talk) 06:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                    • It just seems weird. You don't see, for example, blurbs which reads as: "In the United Kingdom, riots erupt in Northern Ireland" -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 06:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                      • We can agree to disagree on the idea that the majority of non-Americans know the country in which Pennsylvania is located. (A related question - just how many of the USA's fifty states are non-American Wikipedia readers assumed to recognise? If less than fifty - which ones are they not assumed to recognise?) To include the country name in a blurb is not 'weird', and it's not redundant. It's actually the de facto standard for blurbs for events that take place outside the US. (Eg. the third blurb on the frontpage: "In Saskatchewan, Canada,") Yet for some strange reason this de facto standard does not exist for blurbs relating to the US. Chrisclear (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose sentencing should not have been posted in the first place, and overturning the conviction is equally not noteworthy. Banedon (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly. We shouldn't just post it to "correct" our mistake of posting the sentencing originally. That's not the point of ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• We can't post that he was convicted and not post that the conviction was tossed out, as a BLP issue. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It was tossed out on a technicality, and therefore this isn't making the front page of many papers, and so isn't ITN-worthy. Posting this would be just trying to right our great wrongs for posting in the first place. Nobody is going to remember that we posted this years ago, and the news for this event doesn't meet the ITN threshold. If Wikipedia wants to apologise for posting the conviction years ago, they can do that somewhere else. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• People will not see the distinction of it being a technicality. If I were Cosby I would be pissed about this not being posted. This is not a RGW issue but a BLP issue. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't matter what Cosby thinks, nobody cares. Wikipedia has no mandatory requirement to post this kinds of stories, claiming BLP is ridiculous, the main page is not a biography of a living person, the details of this sordid affair are covered in the Cosby article. If you want to create a "corrections" section, feel free to propose it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You know as well as I do that even if such a thing existed no one reads them, just as with such sections buried in newspapers. If Cosby was aware of this, he might be very interested. We announced to the world that a man was convicted of a crime and aren't telling anyone it was thrown out? This is a travesty. 331dot (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, I point to the case of Flowers from above: if was absolutely clear that this ruling completely made Cosby innocent in the eyes of the law and that he had never had committed any potential crime, then yes, there would be a BLP issue to not present it that way. But the story here is that Cosby got a deal to avoid being convicted before giving incriminating evidence in a separate trial. Even if the DA stuck to that deal and Cosby was never convicted, the testimony he gave in that prior trial would have ruined his reputation as there was potential criminal acts described. He is now "innocent" by rule of the law, but nowhere near considered innocent by the bulk of RSes talking about the matter, in addition to the fact he's still facing numerous civil lawsuits related to all this. So no, for ITN, it's not a BLP issue not to post this, since that would require us to make sure we post followup actions on every individual we mention in a conviction/sentence at one point. Some might be appropriate, but this is not required. Clearly our mainspace pages have to be up to date and track these to be BLP compliant but thats a separate matter. --Masem (t) 13:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Violins for Cosby. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Whether it should have been posted or not, it was, and as a WP:BLP issue this resolution of the case should be posted as well. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Conviction overturned, so he's innocent now. Like Cardinal Pell. Article seems to be in good enough shape. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above arguments about BLP. (And can we please stop closing ITN threads quickly? It's not like writing "closed" ever stops anyone, you know...) Levivich 09:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose' per Masem. He is absolutely right. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Conviction was big news, release on a technicality is not. Sandstein 12:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - We have to apply WP:BLP consistently.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The reason we published Cosby's original conviction is because he was a public figure - non-celebrities being convicted of similar crimes is rarely big news. This technicality impacts his personal liberty, but, as per Masem, this does not change the reality of what he did, nor will it change perceptions of him as a public figure. WP:BLP does not force us to post things to the Main Page. --LukeSurl ^t c 12:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think there needs to be a discussion at the BLP noticeboard or somewhere to decide whether it's actually a BLP violation to blurb a conviction but not the overturning of it, becasue I for one am not buying it.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you wouldn't want it corrected if we told the world you were convicted of a crime and it was later thrown out? 331dot (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "correction" as the blurb was correct when we posted it. I would feel differently however, if it was a miscarriage of justice. This blatantly is not. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cosby's actual criminal acts and the state's prosecution of them are of discrete interest to the encyclopedist, and I believe you are conflating the two. The real notable story is that he (might have) raped a bunch of people. BLP properly precludes us from phrasing it so directly, so instead we say he was accused, indicted, prosecuted, convicted, etc. The weight we give to legal outcomes in the BLP is a choice, taken against all other information available. Our BLP of O.J. Simpson implies he committed a double-murder for which he was not convicted. The successful prosecution and imprisonment of Jack Johnson is treated as racist persecution. Both of these are accurate reads of the historical record, which nonetheless disregard legal outcomes. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Conviction overturned on a (dubious) technicality. His name was not cleared. Story has been blatantly hyped due to his former popularity, but it's not significant. – Sca (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Need to brainstorm a better blurb. My understanding is that the court ruled because it found the government broke a deal involving Cosby's right against self-incrimination. This is a bit of a bigger deal than some kind of legal trivia or 'technicality' and anything we post should reflect that. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 13:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support Wikipedia's voice and Front Page was used to describe someone in a way that is no longer true. BLP demands that we follow up on this in an equal manner. Whether the conviction is vacated on a "technicality" makes no difference; virtually all vacations are on technical grounds, and our adherence to them is what makes the system a legal system (and not merely a system of popular moralism). Criminal convictions are something that is considered "factual", and are thus different from civil judgements (at least in the US). Presumably, there will be no further criminal proceeding in this manner (Double jeopardy, similarly related to the "technicality" under discussion here), so there's no need to worry about having to post about Bill Cosby ad infinitum because we posted about him once.130.233.213.61 (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Pretty much this is the crux of the matter. How he is perceived in the public eye is irrelevant as to the status of his conviction. As far as the legal system is concerned, Bill Cosby is a free man. WaltCip-(talk) 14:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So? His article has been updated. – Sca (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

• This is not a BLP matter as we are under no obligation to post an overturning of a conviction we previously posted if it's not due to questions of actual guilt; that would be righting great wrongs, which we are not supposed to do. Contra 331dot, this is universally recognized as being on a technicality in the sense that Cosby is not actually innocent of the crimes. (I'm glad technicalities work in our liberal justice system as process is important, mind you, but Cosby himself admitted in court to the crimes.) I'm leaning oppose on this because of it, but Cosby's release might be of interest to certain people so his release might be ITN-worthy.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Masem. The BLP argument makes no sense. We are not obligated to post a new blurb about a subject because we posted a similar blurb in the past. Who is monitoring all the old blurbs?! GreatCaesarsGhost 14:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a similar blurb. This is the final resolution of the case, which threw out the conviction. We told the world that a man was convicted of a heinous crime but aren't going to tell people that he is an innocent man(from a legal standpoint). 331dot (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you were arguing this nom on the merits, we could debate that. Instead you are making multiple factual arguments that are untrue: 1. that Cosby is legally "innocent" 2. that not posting something at ITN could be a BLP violation, & 3. that if we do not have a policy obligation, we at least have a moral obligation (to a suspected serial rapist) to post a future ruling in his favor because we posting a ruling against him prior. These are plain balderdash. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He may be morally guilty but from a legal standpoint his conviction was vaporized and never existed, and the US legal system presumes innocence. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very interesting, but it doesn't mean Wikipedia needs to (nor is obliged nor "per BLP" etc) publish a story relating to this. This is not the travesty. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I fail to see any sort of BLP issue. No untrue fact regarding Cosby was ever posted. And, even if there was a BLP violation, why would that mean we owe him positive news? If we posted "bill cosby is a stinky poo", would we have to post "bill cosby smells good" 3 years later? Nohomersryan (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a BLP matter. Unlike gossip, civil judgements, hearsay, popular perception et al, criminal convictions are factual statements as to the legal status of living persons. The questions "Is Bill Cosby a sexual assailant?" can only be answered in one way, and it is in the exact opposite way in which Wikipedia told the world that last time he was on the Front Page. Had the conviction never been posted, a simple update to his article would suffice. But instead, Wikipedia exercised editorial discretion and elevated the then-conviction to it's most outside-facing page, a page that gets many more hits per day than many RSs and has global reach. Was Bill Cosby's case so important to get posted to the Front Page then? Then why not now?130.233.213.61 (talk) 06:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You say it is a BLP matter, but your argument does not answer why failing to post would violate our BLP policy. GreatCaesarsGhost 10:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There is no way this is the end the matter, I've already seen various articles about "outrage" etc. As per others, it was a technicality rather than being absolved of responsibility and there is no obligation to have a "1 good news = 1 bad news"; what if he gets another trial etc.? Will we then have to blurb every single time he is court, rightly or wrongly? Would set out a problematic precedent. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't about good news equals bad news. He won't get another trial on this matter, per the court decision(the dissenters said he should, but the majority disagreed). The problematic precedent here is that we will post when people are convicted of a serious crime but not when their legal status changes to innocence as far as the legal system is concerned. It's no different than doing it on the article itself. I won't contribute anymore to this discussion as it is clearly fruitless, but this is not a good day for ITN. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Somewhat parochial US legal drama. Seems like local news to me. --PFHLai (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – After a couple of days, posts running about 3:2 against. – Sca (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Although I disagree with the verdict (pun intended), I think we have reached the point where we can lower the curtain on this discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Posted) RD: Goolam Rajah

Nominator's comments: had served as the manager of South Africa national cricket team for 20 years between 1991 and 2011. Abishe (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article in good shape. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Abdur Razzaq Iskander

 Ainty Painty (talk) 10:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, I was just going to nominate it and someone else did it. I have cleaned up the article and updated it. Good to go in my opinion. I'd be expanding it timely as I get access to new sources. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 10:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Robert Sacchi

Nominator's comments: Only reported today (June 29); died on June 23 —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Comprehensive enough and everything checks out. Uses x (leave me a message) 21:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Scott Reid (baseball)

 Bloom6132 (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support No issues with coverage or sourcing. --PFHLai (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Seems adequate. Marked ready. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Delia Fiallo

Nominator's comments: Distinguished writer. Considered the "mother of the telenovela".  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 02:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "Telenovelas" sections needs a lot more sourcing. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Article needs more source. Otherwise subject is notable enough for display in the Recent Deaths. --ϗ (talk) 06:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Jacob Zuma sentenced to prison

Article: Jacob Zuma (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former president of South Africa Jacob Zuma is sentenced to 15 months in prison for contempt of court (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

• Nominated by Dumelow (talk · give credit)

 Dumelow (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support He's very high profile and was president for a long time so this is very significant, and the article is in a good state. However, more detail could be given and this should be given a dedicated section either under his article or that of the Zondo Commission (which could possibly be mentioned in the blurb as well).
• Support prominent former head of state sentenced to prison, a post-Apartheid first.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Shorter sentence, but meets the Mandela standard. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support a former national leader being sent to prison is unusual enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Unusual for a former head of state to be sent to prison.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. It's my understanding that the yellow tag(long lead) does not prevent posting, but if I am mistaken, please revert. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is a section called "Rape", so I took a look. First paragraph is unsourced, second is not backed by the refs provided. That's where I stopped reading. I know we established with the Kenneth Kaunda that outrageous BLP violations are no reason to keep such an article off the main page, but if anyone cares, the whole article really needs a detailed audit. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Zuma looks like he's smiling in the pic, which doesn't match the nature of the blurb. Something like File:The Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi and the President of the Republic of South Africa, Mr. Jacob Zuma, during the Joint Press Statement, at Union Buildings, in Pretoria, South Africa on July 08, 2016.jpg or File:Jacob Zuma, 2009 World Economic Forum on Africa-1.jpg might be better.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 14:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I simply used the image that was offered with the blurb. If you are able to crop one, it could be switched. 331dot (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

​File:Mr. Jacob Zuma, during the Joint Press Statement, at Union Buildings, in Pretoria, South Africa on July 08, 2016 (cropped).jpg or File:Jacob Zuma, 2009 World Economic Forum on Africa-1 (cropped).jpg?  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 19:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I prefer the latter, but would like to hear other opinions. 331dot (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like a smile to me, just exposed teeth. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That picture is cropped from File:Malcolm Turnbull and Jacob Zuma in Jakarta 2017 11.jpg. In my opinion, he's clearly smiling for the camera while shaking hands with Malcolm Turnbull.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 00:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, he doesn't look overly happy, and the current image is better than either of those proposed. Stephen 00:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have swapped in a different crop of the same 2009 pic. (right) --PFHLai (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing: Taliban insurgency

(Posted) RD: Menelik Shabazz

 Bloom6132 (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've added 3 citation needed tags, marked one user-generated source (which is needed to back up two quotes), and one permanent dead link (the only info needed from that is for the "Hackney Picturehouse", the rest is elsewhere; probably fine). Uses x (leave me a message) 21:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Uses x: fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support as the rest was fine. Uses x (leave me a message) 11:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tigray War

Nominator's comments: The government captured the city in November but have now lost it in a significant resurgence of fighting in the region - Dumelow (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support very much in the news. Banedon (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality the section about mid-2021s conflict needs expansion, and tone needs resolving to fix the tag on that section. If what's in the article is all that can be said about the event of recapturing the city, then that's not ITN-worthy. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Major turning point in this ongoing war. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 03:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This article has an orange tag, as factual accuracy is disputed in the section "After the capture of Mekelle". This issue needs to be resolved before the nominated ITN blurb can go on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per Nice4What. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This article now has two orange tags ({update} & {disputed}). Both need to be addressed before this nom can proceed. --PFHLai (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Greg Noll

 Bloom6132 (talk) 03:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good --Vacant0 (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Legendary American iconic pioneer dude, and I've read worse posted. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Lauren Berlant

Nominator's comments: Major US cultural theorist. Article a work in progress but several interested editors are contributing. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per now Interesting bio, but there's a lot of work to be done. Willing to support it when the article is fixed. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 11:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for reading Alsoriano97. It’s now fixed up as far as the issues that jumped out to me. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support article meets RD requirements. Innisfree987 you did a great job! _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the kind words! Innisfree987 (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Elephant & Castle railway station fire

Consensus will not emerge to post this. Black Kite (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Article: Elephant & Castle railway station (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A major fire occurs at Elephant & Castle railway station in London (Post)
News source(s): Evening Standard, GB News
Credits:

• Nominated by The C of E (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Mjroots (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Ongoing, but looks fairly major. Feel free to change the blurb  The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and wonder why we even have an article for this WP:NOTNEWS thing before it is clear that it actually is "fairly major". There are, as of now, 2 injured. So what (for enwiki, not for those people). House or shop fires with a few injured people happen all the time all over the world, this one gets some more attention because it is in a major Western city, but WP:NOTNEWS. Extremely premature ITN nomination. Fram (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't have an article for the fire itself, we just have an article for the station.Jackattack1597 (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, we do have such an article, Elephant & Castle fire, it just isn't linked in the ITN nomination and the author not included in the nomination here. Fram (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That's because the separate article for the fire did not exist at the time the station article was nominated. It wasn't created until 18 minutes afterwards. Mjroots (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Fine, but an ITN nomination for something which doesn't even have an article is just weird. A "disaster" which isn't even worth a separate article is definitely not ready to be nominated for an ITN blurb. Fram (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, naturally. Small fire in big city. Absolutely bizarre nomination. ——Serial 16:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Serial Number 54129, not that bizarre when you consider WP:Systemic bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Absolutely a fair point, Muboshgu, and very true. ——Serial 17:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose only three source - are you sure this article should exist at all? --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course it should exist, railway stations are generally held to be inherently notable. Mjroots (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mjroots: I mean the fire. I won't question the station article at all... --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Under control after two hours, thankfully only two injuries - this isn't a major enough incident. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion Thanks to the brilliant efforts of firefighters, this fire remains a local news item. This blurb may be better for ITN at Portal:London transport than ITN on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It definitely belongs at Portal:Current events – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Fortunately this is no Notre Dame de Paris fire. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, suggest snow close and AfD for Elephant & Castle fire. It wasn't even a fire at the station itself, it was in a car repair centre located in one of the viaduct arches. Disruptive for passengers and those working in the burnt-out premises, but two minor injuries and some cancelled train services is local news. Modest Genius ^talk 17:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Closed) Stefan Löfven/2021 Swedish government crisis (again)

(Posted) Western North America heat wave

 Bri.public (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The article may need quality improvements. I just removed some opinion from the lede. Support on significance. Jehochman ^Talk 18:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm in the middle of it, but people are inconvenienced and have to stay cool for a few days. (It's dropping tomorrow). If there were a significant number of deaths or other disasterous issues (like wildfires) associated with it, that would be different. --Masem (t) 18:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that we now have at least 100 deaths reported (Canada and Arizona) then as long as the deaths are properly documented in the article and the blurb nominated, this is appropriate to post. But the article is not at this point yet. --Masem (t) 22:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those Arizona deaths were from June 12 to 19. Hot in the desert, sure. But not seemingly part of this late June deal. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still, now we are getting more death reports tied to the weekend heat wave that clearly put this as a disaster/catastrophe, which is the reason I would support posting related to the deaths following article improvements. I would not support posting just because we broke tons of records, because, as others below have said, this can be anticipated to happen routinely with global warming. --Masem (t) 02:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: And wildfires apparently... [1] Noah^Talk 02:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see that but that adds to the postability of this too. --Masem (t) 02:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support for posting a blurb focused on the highest temperature ever recorded in Canada, but otherwise I agree with Masem. 331dot (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Masem. A heat wave in summer? What a surprise. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Far be if from this user to support a mere U.S. weather story. However, keep in mind this isn't your usual U.S. summer heat – records broken all over the PNW, many in cities such as Portland that don't normally get very hot, and which aren't equipped with universal home AC like the usual U.S. hotspots. So let's wait and see how many North Americans (Canadians too) die of causes related to the heat. – Sca (talk)

PS: In my town, the temp at noon (18:00 UTC) was 95F (35C) and the high was forecast at 102F (39C) today and tomorrow. – Sca (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if there is a reasonable number of deaths or other catastrophe associated with this, then this is reasonable to post. We may not know that until tomorrow, since I know news stations have been alerted everyone to this since mid-last week. --Masem (t) 19:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hope we don't get a rash of wildfires. – Sca (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

If this graph continues till fall the West US would continue having it's worst 21st century drought ever right into peak wildfire season. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment posted 2015 India heat wave, 2015 Pakistan heat wave, 2019 European heat wave. Not posted 2018 North American heat wave (snow closed with 4 opposes in under 4 hours and sent to AFD) - same heat wave in Canada also snow closed. I don't see any obvious pattern, but some recent heat wave post/non-posts for context. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • First two had hundreds of deaths attributable to the heat wave, so clearly those made sense. The EU heat wave was still dubious IMO and I think an example to remind us when you put it against these other examples that we should avoid simple flat out temperature records (barring things like from UN's world average temperature assessments related to climate change). --Masem (t) 19:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose ITN doesn't need to post everytime the weather changes in North America. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is much more than "the weather changing in North America". Records are being obliterated and people are now dying. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heat wave deaths skew to the second half. And obliterated is almost an understatement, Portland, Oregon (broke by 9°F) literally almost reached the 10.4°F margin of recordbreaking record for an Earth heatwave (centuryish periods of record only, obviously if a station has only been recording a few years or decades then raising the all-time high by 10.4°F in one heatwave becomes easier, it broke the June record by 14°F but June records are based on a sample size of only a week or 2 of the calendar where the record could realistically be, compared to the month or 2 for all-time records. Oh shit, the all-time record is now where it shouldn't be (the previous record was twice in August and once in July (all 107°F) and now it's 116° in June). Oh snap). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait until impact becomes more clear and article becomes a bit more fleshed out. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Suggest you read this and this. – Sca (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This heat wave is notable for breaking all time weather records by a huge margin "The dangerous heat wave enveloping the Pacific Northwest is shattering weather records by such large margins that it is making even climate scientists uneasy". The temperatures reached now would likely only have been reached before in the previous interglacial 120,000 years ago. Count Iblis (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia recognizes that climate change is a thing, we don't deny it. But we should not feed into panic/fears about it but wait for actual published studies on it per SCIRS (in a similar vein as per MEDRS). That these are record breaking temps absolutely should be documented, but if that's all we're getting, we should avoid this type of fear-mongering in this area on ITN. --Masem (t) 22:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad parts of the article should just be edited into a dry tone that sounds like an encyclopedia instead of very informal English. Would linking to that still be bad as other weather extremes are posted all the time? i.e. hurricanes, floods, tornadoes etc. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see that the part explaining sigmas like I'm five has already been removed. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Things like hurricanes/etc. have direct and immediate impacts on human life that make them ITN-appropriate. Their increasing numbers/severity is a secondary effect of global warming but we're not posting them because of global warming. --Masem (t) 23:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Count Iblis. Also it's wild that the all-Canada record of 113°F was broken on the Pacific side of the mountains (A desert-like 121.3°F – the new Earth record for ≤45° from a pole, literally on Vancouver's river). Normal sea temperature Jun 28: c. 55°F 17 miles inland: 109.2°F. In an oceanic climate! Vancouver Island reached 108.9°F even though the wind had to blow over the cold strait to reach there. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As discussed last year, meteorological records are not significant enough for ITN. Whether it be most storms in a hurricane season or the highest temperatures ever, it isn't appropriate to post here. We don't post heatwaves elsewhere when they occur. Posting this is just US-centric and hypocricy. As there are relatively few to no deaths from the event, I must oppose. Noah^Talk 23:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you even read the proposed blurb? Canada is a sovereign state, and a country in North America. If your !vote isn't overlooked for naked anti-US bias, it should be overlooked for what has to be willful ignorance. If only we got the same level of venomous hate from you when a hurricane during hurricane season does hurricane things. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hurricane Noah Coukd you please link to the discussion where a formal determination or policy was established that "meteorological records are not significant enough" for posting? Please see WP:CCC. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was no "established policy." People opposed back in November 2020 per climate change and that we post storms (impact) and not season articles with records. They are correct that we shouldn't be giving in to climate change as more records are likely to be broken in the future as we continue to warm. I oppose all of the blurbs (main, alt 1, and alt 2) because the record is just a number value with no real meaning. I would support a blurb mentioning the deaths and/or other impacts mentioned below. Noah^Talk 20:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Original, Neutral on Alt(s) The Canadian record has already been broken in under a day, this new mark probably tomorrow. We could plausibly go the rest of our lives gradually getting hotter every day, can't keep blurbing it, so why arbitrarily start now, before July? But who knows, that wave article could get important for other reasons (though heat waves don't so much "strike" as "settle over", "envelope" or "engulf" their intended victims). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't understand... these records aren't broken very often, are they? Looking at List_of_extreme_temperatures_in_Canada, the last record before the heat wave was in 1937 at 45.0 °C. This seems notable enough for a blurb Belugsump (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Used to be longstanding. Now it's been broken twice in two days, and summer isn't nearly over. Too soon, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I don't think record-breaking temperatures are enough on their own. I'm looking at the "Impact" section and not seeing an awful lot.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The Oregon Health Authority said 128 people visited Oregon hospitals for heat-related illnesses on Sunday. Haven't seen an update on this statistic, but it's probably grown, since on Monday Portland reported a new-new all-time high of 116F (47C). – Sca (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  France was only 115 and India was 119 for any city bigger than Allahabad. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – One aspect of this slowly developing situation that should be borne in mind is its obvious connection with the much larger topic of global warming/climate change. – Sca (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative support – Unprecedented, persistent and potentially perilous. Favor Alt2 – partly because the main impact in terms of numbers of people is on the U.S. (also the locus of most of the coverage). – Sca (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  PS: Changed to tentative support because the temps in Oregon are considerably lower today/Tues. (Not in my town, though – currently 103/39. Got a big jug of sun tea brewin'.) – Sca (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – 63 possible heat-related deaths in Canada and 2 in the United States with hundreds of hospitalizations. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  "63 possible deaths" means nothing. Must be confirmed. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  103 excess deaths from June 25 to 28, significant spike above normal with many unquestionably due to heat. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – This heatwave is serious, lots of broken records, and unfortunately lots of deaths, per CycloneBiskit, and frankly it is unprecedented, considering some areas have never experienced this level of heat before now. Not to mention that I live within an area that is being affected by it, so it means a lot. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 19:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The article now states that I-5 (the main north to south/south to north superhighway of West North America) was severed in multiple places in Metro Seattle by buckling, they're cooling their drawbridges with hoses to prevent expansion joint getting stuck like vise, their streetcar cables "melted" (insulation? or they merely sagged?) and their bedroom community reached 118°F. For comparison the Phoenix and Vegas records are only 122 and 118 and those are full deserts, not desert with a non-desert season like Los Angeles or North India. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support OK, the significance here has now become clear. This CNN article addresses it pretty well. Article also looks better than it did before. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• This heatwave raised the Canadian record from 113°F to a Turpan Depression-like 121.3°F and moved it from Saskatchewan to Southwest British Columbia 640 feet above sea level. Insane. 121.3°F: our new record for Earth poleward of the 45 and 50th parallels, 100.6°F: 0.6°C/1°F short of a new record for Earth poleward of 60th parallel and 2 Fahrenheits short of the record for poleward of the 40th parallel which is the aforementioned Turpan Depression desert of China 500 feet below sea level (each 300 feet lower surface elevation pretty much adds a Fahrenheit automatically). The 80-year old record for Earth poleward of 50th parallels was absolutely shattered by 5.2 Celsiuses or 9.4 Fahrenheits. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support breaking records, in the news. Banedon (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support. The Canada record, which held for 74 years, was broken 3 days in a row in the same place—-Lytton, British Columbia. Today’s record was 49.6C! (source) That’s almost 50C (122F). 145 people have died suddenly in Vancouver, BC alone. The heat wave is expected to move into Nunavut. Extremely unprecedented, four sigma[2] heat wave. 142.117.34.192 (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4.4 sigma. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver alone had about 65, Burnaby and Surrey shared the rest. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support due to the unusually high death toll and the fact that an 83-year old Canadian heat record was broken by an absurd 4.5 degrees. NorthernFalcon (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Anyone that suggests the record highs in the Pacific Northwest being over 10 degrees F higher than Austin, Texas (just as an example I saw in the news earlier which made me do a double take) is not enough for it to be "in the news" is just making up criteria. Not to mention the other factors - low rate of AC equipped buildings in the area (due to temperate climate) and others. I suggest adding something about the records, not the impact, to the blurb. There is no reason we must cover the depressing side of things - and to be quite frank, the deaths aren't why it's in the news - the event itself and the number of extreme (again, 10 degrees higher than Austin all time record high) high records set is. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canada north of 50 got hotter than the Riyadh record. Also above the records of Europe, North and South America besides Mexico/U.S., Abu Dhabi Airport, Albuquerque, Alexandria, Algiers, all major Australian and Indian cities, Amman, Aqaba, Aswan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Burkina, Cairo, Cameroon, Canaries, CAR, Chad, Cyprus, Djibouti, Dubai, Eilat, Eritrea, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Gambia, Giza, Islamabad, Karachi, Khartoum, Kirkuk, Lahore, Las Vegas, Lebanon, Mali, Medina, Mongolia, Muscat Airport, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Nouakchott, Port Said, Port Susan, Senegal, Somalia, South Africa, Suez, Syria, Tehran, Texas, Tijuana, Tripoli, Tucson, Tunis, Turpan (city), and Yemen. Equal to Morocco record. 0-1.50°F less hot than Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya, Mauritania, Mecca, Phoenix, Qatar, Sudan, Tunisia etc. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Extreme heatwave that shattered numerous records and had plenty of notable impacts. Also, the heatwave resulted in the deaths of at least 103 people, and it started multiple wildfires, some of which are forcing evacuations. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted -- tariqabjotu 05:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Shouldn't it be mentioned that this broke national all-time temperature records? TornadoLGS (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ITN box is not well suited for just record-breaking weather events (since it is bound these will be broken in the near future due to climate change); instead, the reason this is considered significant is the catastrophes that resulted from the insanely high temperatures, which is a more tangible aspect for ITN to work from. --Masem (t) 19:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Lambert Mascarenhas

Nominator's comments: Indian journalist. Article can do with some expansion, but, should be ready soon. Ktin (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support article is on the short side, but good enough for RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Refs need to be in proper format. (I've fixed a few.) In particular, Ref. #1, which was used 5 times in the article, is a bare URL that leads to a domain name advertisement. Where should the actual ref be, please? --PFHLai (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • An archive link for Ref. #1 has been added. Joofjoof (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your timely fixing, Joofjoof. --PFHLai (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Reuven Bulka

Nominator's comments: Canadian rabbi. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Could use more refs on his media appearances, fundraising efforts and publications. --PFHLai (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Steven Horwitz

Nominator's comments: American economist. Article requires some work before it can be ready for homepage / RD. I will get to it unless someone gets to it before me. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This article was tagged for {More citations needed} since June 27th. This issue needs to addressed before the nom can proceed. --PFHLai (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Johnny Solinger

Nominator's comments: American singer-songwriter. The article is a start, but it's tagged and will require some work to make the Main Page. --SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 01:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This stub has less than 300 words of prose, and the section on his "Musical career" lacks refs. Much fixing is needed to allow this nom to proceed. --PFHLai (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Frederic Rzewski

Nominator's comments: "Selected discography" section needs references. Article is otherwise good to go. Zingarese talk · contribs 20:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article should now meet all criteria for inclusion Zingarese talk · contribs 22:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions A few things that need to be addressed:

1. Is it customary to include recordings by other performers in the composer's own page?
2. The paragraph about his works in the Career section needs source verification: did the composer actually state that his variations were "a companion piece" to the Diabelli Variations?
3. The Slonimsky quote in Appraisal should have a page number.

Joofjoof (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joofjoof: 1) yes, it is customary; most composers aren't prolific concert/recording artists. Rzewski was somewhat of an exception-- with emphasis on somewhat. The vast majority of recordings of a composer's works were made by other performers. See Ned Rorem, John Corigliano, Elliott Carter, and countless others. 2) no, it did not. Removed accordingly. In the verification process I also detected a handful of other mistakes, which I have now rectified. I also replaced the source with an online version. 3) I have removed the quote for now, since I don't have access to the book. That quote was added way back in 2004; perhaps Antandrus, who added that quote at the time, knows the page number. Let me know if you have any further questions Zingarese talk · contribs 04:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we didn't bother with footnotes, let alone page numbers back then. It's on page 857 of the Concise Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians. Antandrus (talk) 04:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joofjoof: Do you have any further concerns with this RD nom, please? --PFHLai (talk) 10:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PFHLai: It looks good to me now, thanks for verifying the sources. I think I have found a citation for the Russian book at the end: OCLC 794813048 Joofjoof (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The Personal Life and Death section has footnotes for the death but not for the personal life materials. Is this a BLPO concern? If the info came from the Washington Post article (I don't have access), please redeploy the footnotes as needed. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 03:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PFHLai: yes, they came from the Washington Post article!! Zingarese talk · contribs 03:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Zingarese, for inserting the extra footnote there. I find no other issues with this nom. This RD is good to go. --PFHLai (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Attention, please. I would appreciate if more eyes can go through this soon-to-expire nom before I put this RD on MainPage. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support – ref 26 is from Apple Music, while refs 27–28 are from Amazon. That should be fine given that they're being relied on for basic info about his works and not citing user reviews (per WP:RSPAMAZON). Everything else looks alright. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bloom6132: Yes, those three sources just verify the existence of the albums. That should be fine per RSP if you look at some FL-quality articles of artist discographies, many of the refs are from Amazon Zingarese talk · contribs 22:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 23:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mike Gravel

Nominator's comments: A notable American politician, good article-rated --Vacant0 (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support GA, no concerns about article quality.Jackattack1597 (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Thriley (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Reading the Pentagon Papers into the congressional record is definitely notable. Connor Behan (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing: Tour de France

(Closed) Matt Hancock resigns

RD: Abdalelah Haroun

 Count Iblis (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose multiple tags. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This stub needs to be expanded. --PFHLai (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The various tags are now gone, but the wikibio is still a stub. Please expand. And also, the records and personal bests lack footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mir Hazar Khan Khoso

Nominator's comments: Khoso was interim prime minister in 2013. His wikibio is in reasonable shape. Some updating and cleaning up would be good. No need to rush this to MainPage, though. Better wait till more info becomes available. Cause of death is not there yet. PFHLai (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article is good enough for RD.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks ready for RD, well sourced neat article JW 1961 ^Talk 17:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 01:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Brian Bamford

Nominator's comments: English professional golfer who won the 1961 Schweppes PGA Close Championship. Nigej (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good. Maybe this is just me, but the article seems to suggest he only played for a few years. I see some starts on the European Tour in the 90s. Would it be appropriate to say he retired in some year, or he played in X tournaments? GreatCaesarsGhost 12:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It looks good --Vacant0 (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted A little short, but okay. --PFHLai (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Romulo Yanes

Nominator's comments: Only reported today (June 25); died on June 16 —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion: The refs and external links can be put in proper format. --PFHLai (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @PFHLai: done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Thanks for getting things fixed so quickly, Bloom6132. This wikibio is good to go for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted Stephen 00:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) UFO report

Dragon Man (archaic human)

Nominator's comments: Notable discovery Thriley (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - what makes this notable? I'm not an expert on finds of ancient humans, so I don't know if this Dragon Man is the oldest, or unique in some way, or just one of many such finds.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems possible that he could be from a previously unidentified species. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Or from dragons! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Though in Latin, he shares almost shared a name with two Chinese fish (Cyprinus and Poropuntius). InedibleHulk (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This discussion could drag on for a long time. – Sca (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC) [reply]

  Or it could vanish in a puff of smoke. Mjroots (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC) [reply]

• Comment "Prof Marta Mirazon Lahr, from the University of Cambridge, believes that Dragon Man was, in fact, a Denisovan.". Count Iblis (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A scientific article on it has been published in The Innovation. The skull was reportedly discovered in 1933, but appears to be analyzed more thoroughly only now, so I've corrected the blurb. Brandmeister^talk 19:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unless it's the very oldest human Not even discovered, just described.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no oldest, there's human bones, chimpanzee-like ones and bones in between and where human begins is fuzzy. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm aware (although "chimpanzee-like" bones is a bit of a simplification), I was thinking something like the oldest verified Homo species or oldest verified Homo sapiens proper (even if the latter is even harder to pin down).  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The designation "homo" is an ad-hoc convention. There exists a continuum of possible organisms. If all the archaic homonids were still alive, and humans would occasionally mate with Neanderthals and Denisovans and they would in turn occasionally mate with Home Heidelbergensis and Homo Erectus and Homo Erectus would occasionally mate with Homo Habilis, and Homo Habilis would occasionally mate with Australopithecines, and Australopithecines would occasionally mate with Chimpanzees and Gorillas, then there would be gene flow from Chimpanzees and Gorillas into modern humans, even though humans could not mate with them directly. Count Iblis (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support This may be the discovery of a new species of archaic human, which we previously posted at least once back in 2010 ( Denisova Hominim), but I'm not sure if this is notable enough for today's ITN standards.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this was discovered in 1933, also there's a lot of "coulds" and "maybes" about whether it's actually a new species linked to humans or not. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it wasn't brought to science until 2018, and wasn't ever described until June 25th   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Joseph2302. We run the risk of looking excitable and foolish here. Lets not fall into the daily newspaper trap of unquestioningly running the most sensationalist bits from qualified scientific studies. Ceoil (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - 1. Because it is science 2. "The team has claimed it is our closest evolutionary relative among known species of ancient human, such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus." and "The researchers say the discovery has the potential to rewrite the story of human evolution." but ""The results will spark a lot of debate and I am quite sure that a lot of people will disagree with us,". I think we should update the blurb to specify the "could" "maybe" Sherenk1 (talk) 05:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Has claimed"- this sounds like speculation and assumption that it's true. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Mainly conjecture. Hyped. – Sca (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Didn't they find another one in Israel or Palestine like yesterday? Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, see here. Count Iblis (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt it's a published name in an established publisher that will certainly generate discussion for years to come   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article looks good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't think this is suitable for ITN, might work as a DYK. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — It is a significant finding concerning the mankind. STSC (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt 1. Per above; sources make the description out to be quite important in terms of human evolution and a rethink of the homos. (You know what I mean) Kingsif (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The article has significantly improved in quality from last 2 days. Its unusual for ITN to have actual peer-reviewed sources, given the very nature of ITN, so this is a notable change. Albertaont (talk) 04:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Significant new find. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]