(Posted) RD: Clarence Barlow

Nominator's comments: Influential composer and especially composition teacher, born in India, teaching in Germany, Netherlands, U.S and many more. I'm sorry that I looked only now, - he'd deserve more detail. Traveling tomorrow and hoping for help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - article looks good. 2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:8D80:D3C:4CB:CA7D (talk) 09:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I've added his year of birth, which was unsourced. Looks good now. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment WP:IAR restored from Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/June 2023.—Bagumba (talk) 04:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Was ready before being rolled over.—Bagumba (talk) 04:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Darren Drozdov

Nominator's comments: Former NFL player and WWE wrestler. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 15:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on quality until the 2 orange tags and 3 cn tags are resolved. MonarchOfTerror (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per above. TwistedAxe [contact] 17:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiener Zeitung

 2001:268:C080:A9B2:81E7:BF37:83B1:EACF (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)][reply]

• Support in principle but article still needs a little bit of work in the lead. A sign of the times, definitely blurbable. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, was announced in April, the article hasn’t been updated, and Berrow's Worcester Journal is older. Stephen 06:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So are The London Gazette and the Sankt-Peterburgskie Vedomosti; the latter is 7 months older, while the former is nearly 40 years! Curbon7 (talk) 06:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - the newspaper still exists, it's just no longer being published daily. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 06:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose My understaind is that the concept of the "oldest newspaper", and especially "oldest newspaper still in publication" is completely arbitrary sort of similar to the oldest university still open because there's no universal definition on what to consider a newspaper, nor on what does it mean to be "continuously still in publication". As an encyclopedia we should strive for precision not flashy blurbs and titles worthy of daily mail or russia today or cnn Daikido (talk) 07:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support News reports such as this characterise it as "One of world’s oldest newspapers" which seems fine. As we have a special focus on news, this historic event is quite appropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I planned to nominate this yesterday after noticing it on the German Wikipedia's main page but totally forgot due to some commitments at work. This is a significant event of high encyclopedic value.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Notable event in the decline of newspapers, a better blurb might be "one of the oldest". Gotitbro (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Article will need to be updated before posting as it currently says that the Zeitung is the oldest newspaper but the linked article (list of oldest newspapers) says it is the Gazzetta di Mantova of Italy. Gotitbro (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Supporters should try reading the article. Huge paragraphs are either unsourced or based on a single source, and there are a number of run-on sentences. I would certainly consider supporting once those issues and the blurb are sorted out. -- Kicking222 (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Would be notable if it was ending print all together, but it's still going, just on a monthly basis. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Print news media has long since been dead. --Masem (t) 13:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's an oddly POV comment from you. 😉 Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually if you've seen my MO for the past several years, I have pointed to how the shift of traditional media from print to this always-on 24/7 version, as to compete with blogs and armchair "experts" and Fox News, has weakened the objectivity of news coverage. However, we know that is not going to go away, it is the new reality. That a long-running newspaper has decided to drop its print version but continue on online is not really a huge piece of news - just like with the Old Gray Mare (NYTimes) it was a matter of when, not if. Masem (t) 13:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not true at all. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Suppose - I kind of think that a paper going from daily print to monthly print is a bigger deal than some people think. They are no longer acting as a daily news source through which people can stay up-to-date on current affairs, and the staff of over 200 employees has been slashed to a measly 20. It is effectively killing the newspaper; it's just a matter of time before it's finally laid in the ground and buried. While it's true the Internet may have effectively replaced print media, we also have to remember the historical significance that this paper carried as being the oldest in the world. --Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you suppose to support? Aaron Liu (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Whoops. I guess yes, I'm kind of neutral, but I am more support than oppose. Both sides have merit. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - per above, symbolic of the decline of newspapers and is also good way to diversify what's on ITN. Article needs work however. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 14:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, with alternate blurb Definitely noteworthy and agree with Knightsofthewords re: ITN relevance. Why not just say 'ends it daily print run after 320 years' to avoid the 'oldest' debate Schwinnspeed (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Support in principle per Schwinnspeed, I have also created alt2. Article needs more updating to reflect this though. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Would support if the printing altogether ended, but they're only ending their daily print. Newspaper still exists and is going to continue publishing their monthly prints. Also, there's a few dubious & "when" tags still remaining that need to be resolved. TwistedAxe [contact] 17:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The newspaper still exists, just because it changed from daily to monthly doesn't warrent ITN. Editor 5426387 (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. An important milestone in the slow death of print media. In particular, I agree with WaltCip that going from daily to monthly publication is a much bigger deal than a monthly publication going out of business. Davey2116 (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality. The article is in abysmal shape. Multiple unreferenced paragraphs, style issues, POV statements, structural issues, disconnected statements without context or stated relevance. It's nowhere near the level of comprehensive I would expect. The entire history between its founding and the late 1990s/early 2000s is covered in one paragraph; the last twenty years has more coverage than the first three hundred. There's no coverage of the lead-up to this decision and contextualizing it, which I'm inclined to believe exists as at least Politico discussed it. I can go on, but generally, the article is so far from meeting quality standard that I cannot begin to consider the merit of the blurb. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 05:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a comparison, look at the German language article. For me, it really puts into perspective just how lacking our own article is and what is missing to reach even minimal comprehensiveness. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's funny that the nomination could get a thousand supports, and yet no admin would ever post it. It's as if some people have forgotten that article quality matters. Kicking222 (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm doing my best to fill out the article, but it's very slow going on account that I don't read German, so parsing information is difficult (ah, trying to read sources in other languages, reminds me of my old days here), the recent closure of the daily print overwhelms results on account of recency bias, there's a WILD amount of music-history-related academic writing significantly referring to this paper, and the age of the paper means a lot of sources are print only and more difficult to find via Google (which is a mess these days anyway). I doubt I can get it in time to a place where I would feel comfortable supporting it, but it's improving slowly. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 03:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Good on you for giving it a shot! Kicking222 (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, It is a notable event. Alex-h (talk) 12:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on alt2. So, here's a bit of pedantry in the face of headlines. They have not been printing daily for 320 years. The daily print began in October 1813 (before that it was bi- then tri-weekly, especially visible at the Austrian National Library archives), so the daily print form is more like 210 years old. The newspaper itself has been overall publishing regularly in print for 320 years (save for a five-year gap over WW2). I don't know if the blurb should suggest that the newspaper has existed as a daily for 320 years. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. "One of the oldest" is not all that substantial a record, especially in an era where print newspapers continue to vanish, and given the paper wasn't always daily and will simply be less frequently printed going forward. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It was always daily since 1813. Transitioning from daily to monthly is a very big deal as that means the newspaper is no longer a means of staying up to date on the latest information. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay? That's big news for readers I guess, but effectively meaningless to everyone else. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added alt3 which has a more correct year count based on this. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support, newspaper which had published announcements of Mozart debut etc. anx is a major part of our history will no longer publish. Major story. Kirill C1 (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Bolsonaro barred from running for political office

Articles: 2023 Brazilian Congress attack (talk · history · tag) and Jair Bolsonaro (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Brazil, the Superior Electoral Court bars former president Jair Bolsonaro (pictured) from running for political office for eight years over his role in the attack on the Praça dos Três Poderes. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In Brazil, the Superior Electoral Court bars former president Jair Bolsonaro (pictured) from running for political office for eight years over his role in the attack on the Brazilian congress.
Alternative blurb II: ​ In Brazil, the Superior Electoral Court finds former president Jair Bolsonaro (pictured) guilty of abusing his power and bars him from public office until 2030.
Alternative blurb III: ​ In Brazil, the Superior Electoral Court bars former president Jair Bolsonaro (pictured) from running for political office for eight years over abuse of power during the 2022 Brazilian general election.
News source(s): Reuters - AP - Al Jazeera - France24 - NYT - Financial Times - CBC - SCMP
Credits:

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

Both articles need updating

Nominator's comments: Another supreme court case - however, this time, its from Brazil. The court barred Bolsonaro from participating in political office for his actions during the congressional attack in January. This is big news in Brazil, as it effectively removes Lula's big rival and leaves Bolsonaro side of Brazilian politics with no leader; Bolsonaro will almost certainly never regain power now. It's also somewhat historic. Considering we've posted the Trump impeachment after Jan 6, I think this is the perfect opportunity for the more anti-US-centrism portions of ITN to combat our systemic bias. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 18:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support largely due to the significance of barring a former president from public office, and given Bolsonaro's status as the main opposition figure in Brazil. However, saying Bolsonaro will not reattain his position in the future is CRYSTAL (and could have been suggested of Lula himself when he was previously embattled), and the magnitude of this ruling really does go well beyond the Trump impeachment. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Even if this ruling sticks, it would still enable Bolsonaro to run again in 8 years. He'd be 76 then, which is younger than Biden. And Brazil has other ways of arriving at a government too. It's all speculation with no immediate practical effect. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you saying that we shouldn't post him being barred from political office because he could just install himself as dictator instead? DecafPotato (talk) 02:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Coups, dictatorships and the like are quite common – see the current lead blurb and Ongoing. This is routine domestic politics which we see all over the world. Boris Johnson was censured and banned from Parliament recently. That was all over the news and is still making waves but we didn't even nominate it because he's not in power. In Bosnia, the Serb Republic is now refusing to recognise their Constitutional Court. So it goes ... Andrew🐉(talk) 07:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Barring someone from public office is not common. This court ruling is not speculation. It's an actual ruling. Can he attempt to regain power either legally or not legally? Sure. Trump tried to. But that's just crystal ball-ing. It's pure speculation to guess why Boris Johnson was not nominated. 331dot (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Barring opposition leaders is quite a common tactic. For example, here's another current headline: Venezuela Opposition Leader Machado Banned From Public Office for 15 Years. See also Poland, Guatemala, etc. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess we have different meanings of the word "common", which is fine. 331dot (talk) 11:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Machado was never a head of state (or government), same with Guatemala, the president holds power in Poland not the PM. These are non-issues that are being raised, if effective former power-holders are gettting convictions it can surely be discussed for inclusion on ITN. Gotitbro (talk) 11:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per DarkSide. The Kip (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I was going to support, as obviously a final ruling on this should be ITN - but the only source in the article says that he's "expected to appeal the ruling to Brazil's Supreme Court". Too soon. Also, there's no mention of this in the article itself - only in the lead; so some improvement is necessary. Nfitz (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral — I agree with Nfitz, but the precedent set by Donald Trump's first indictment does not support the argument that contentions to indictments bar a mention from ITN. I, however, do not agree with the statement that Bolsonaro will almost certainly never regain power now. In any case, prudence suggests that ITN should wait for the Supreme Federal Court's decision. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait -- post when and if it becomes final. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 20:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the idea that we should wait until X variable becomes apparent often times is just a way to set an exceptionally high standard for posting. Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) brilliantly pointed out once that there's always somewhat of a catch 22 with this; the first nom gets opposed because "its too soon" and then the second one gets opposed because "its stale" or "we should have posted it when the first X occured." The noms for the Ohio train derailment (1 and 2) are an excellent example. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 21:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – per DarkSide. ArionEstar (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom and DarkSide. The former head of state being barred from contesting elections is eminently ITN-worthy. Plus we've been staring at Prigozhin's smirk for too long already. W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 04:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per DarkSide830. BilledMammal (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support obviously a huge warning sign of yet another country going into democratic backsliding, if only they could be more like the us Daikido (talk) 07:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per DarkSide. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 08:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Conviction not indictments should be the rule and this is what we have here, of a former head of state and the effective opposition being barred from elections for years to come; the comments above are misleading, there is no appeal here this is the highest court in Brazil. That he will eventually return or there will somehow be a dictatorial takeover by Bolsanaro is hogwash and takes away from the immediate effect of this ruling from the highest court in Brazil. Comparing this to the censure and resignation of Johnson is facetious. Gotitbro (talk) 08:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• There seems to be some confusion. According to DW the court making this ruling was the Tribunal Superior Eleitoral which is a special election court. Bolsonaro plans to appeal this to the Federal Supreme Court and so it's not a done deal. And Johnson is a former PM of a major country and the effect in that case was more immediate as it caused him to resign his seat. Speculation continues as it will in the case of Bolsonaro. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• That does change things a bit, but I would still stand by my support, a subsequent acquittal should be posted (if this indeed is) but barring that this is still a conviction by a higher court of Brazil with "immediate" effect unless overturned. I think anyone can tell a miles difference apart between a mere resignation and a conviction barring electoral participation. Gotitbro (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Barring a former president of any country from running for office, even if temporarily, is consistent with the ITNR spirit. Target article looks ok, although an article on the court ruling itself could be a better target. Brandmeister^talk 08:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I often mention that real news in the Trump saga would be if he eventually gets barred from running for president. This story is a perfect equivalent.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Error All the current proposed blurbs seem to be wrong. The ruling was not made by the Supreme Federal Court. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well noted! I just made the corrections. ArionEstar (talk) 10:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I believe this is rather unprecedented in Brazilian politics. An interesting story to. Post it! PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This is obviously not unprecedented as it's easy to find previous examples such as Lula and Collor. Brazilian politics is neither stable nor sedate and seems to be more of an IAR kinda place. As such, it's quite like Wikipedia and it's interesting that this nomination has attracted so many !votes that are so clearly wrong about basic facts. Has this nomination been posted somewhere else? Discord? Andrew🐉(talk) 14:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't forget to assume good faith. Why would you assume this nomination is only getting so much attention because of meatpuppetry? This nomination is getting so much attention because it's a huge story that's pretty hard to avoid if you're subscribed to any news feed.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Lula was also featured in the news, so we also have prior examples for Support alt3ing this. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Support - Alt Blurb III is the most accurate as the actual ruling seems to be in reference to fraudulent activities carried out before, during, and after the election. The attack was the culmination, but not the primary issue being discussed in court, per various sources. The other blurbs may seemingly misrepresent the ruling. Schwinnspeed (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Per everything Andrew Davidson has said above. Politicians getting barred from public office happens relatively often and just from former national leaders alone, we have Martín Vizcarra, Nawaz Sharif, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, Silvio Berlusconi, and Imran Khan. StellarHalo (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• These examples are politicians who were removed from office or sentenced to prison time, and they were blurbed for it too. It's not every year that we get even one story of that nature, it's not like this is such a normal occurrence that ITN would be too cluttered if we posted about it every time something like this happens (which we usually do, as was demonstrated by the examples you provided).  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support For people who say that this type of stuff happens all the time, it's important to note that we're talking about Brazil here, a country with a large influence over other South American countries. Not to mention the huge population of Brazil. If somebody like Donald Trump was ever barred from taking office, we'd be supporting it, hence why I don't see the reason to oppose this. TwistedAxe [contact] 17:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Darkside, Editor 5426387 (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support If a recent former one-term U.S. president were to be judicially barred from office for his role in a similar insurrection and other similar attempts to undermine a democratic election, that would be very notable as well. Davey2116 (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Darkside. I am not particularly convinced by Andrew's rationale on this one - Brazil 40 years ago was undemocratic, therefore this ruling could be made moot if Brazil becomes a dictatorship again? That's not just WP:CRYSTAL, that's a non sequitur.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted General consensus to post due to its significance in the news now, independent of any future appeals or their results. AFAICS for the blurb, the court's ruling did not account for his alleged role in the congress attack.—Bagumba (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting oppose Since this can be appealed to Brazil's Supreme Court, this isn't the final decision. This would be notable enough to post once Brazil's Supreme Court makes its decision. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting oppose. The decision is not final yet and it's clearly a local Brazilian event. It has not even made it to the Supreme Court there. Are we going to post all Brazilian court decisions? --TadejM ^{my talk} 11:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting support. Seems like the sort of topic we should be posting, clearly in the news and of encyclopedic relevance.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Biden v. Nebraska

(Closed) Honolulu Skyline opens

Consensus to post will not develop. Stephen 01:02, 1 July 2023 (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: Skyline (Honolulu) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the United States, the Honolulu Skyline (train pictured) opens, the first new American metro rail system in over 30 years. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the United States, a metro system opens in Honolulu, Hawaii, the first new urban rail system in over 30 years.
Credits:

• Nominated by PrecariousWorlds (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Okay okay okay okay, hear me out on this one. I know that a lot of people are going to instantly dismiss this for ITN, but I do think it should be honestly considered for nomination. First of all, this is the first new American metro system to open in the last 30 years (if you don't count the Tren Urbano in San Juan, Puerto Rico, which still opened 20 years ago). Second, it is the only rail system in the entire history of Hawaii. Honestly, I think we have posted blurbs for news events a lot less significant than this. Even if this doesn't meet the bar neccesary to be posted, I still think that new infrastructure megaprojects should be posted. As an example, a new American high speed rail line, the opening of High Speed 2 in the UK, or the brand new intercity rail system constructed in El Salvador. Possibly even the Grand Paris Express. Maybe not though. If this isn't what ITN is for then I'll be on my merry way! PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle, but wait until it opens, and article is updated. A significant advance, and lots of international coverage of this stalled project over the years. Nfitz (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - firstly, this is a great chance to get a GA on ITN. Secondly, I'd say this is a pretty big landmark in America's embracement of public transport (like you said, the first new metro in the U.S in three decades). Thirdly, and I hate to invoke OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-esque arguments, but I'd say that this frankly affects a lot more people than say the barbeque restaurant story that's been on ITN for the past week (still number two btw despite that); this is mainly directed against anyone denouncing this as "too regional." - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 16:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I'm willing to consider this but it has to be in-the-news. However no sources are listed in the nomination and I'm not seeing much mainstream news coverage. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Huh, support. I follow the rationale of PrecariousWorlds, bein' a first system to be opened in dozens of years and all, but this is hardly world news... heck, I wouldn't have known about this if it weren't for ITN/C! --Ouro (blah blah) 16:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for multiple reasons. Firstly, this is a rapid transit system in a city with barely one million people in its metropolitan area. Three other systems were opened this year, including the Lagos Metro that serves the largest city in Africa, and six others are planned to begin operation this year (of all ten, only Gebze has lower population). Secondly, it’s true that we post large infrastructure projects from time to time. For instance, last year we posted the opening of the 1915 Çanakkale Bridge, which is the longest suspension bridge in the world and connects two continents. Thirdly, as pointed out by Andrew above, this news doesn’t really receive mainstream coverage.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The Lagos metro hasn't even opened yet and is suffering yet another delay, being pushed back to August 2023. [1] - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 17:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not a big deal. Even if we rule that out, we’re left with a total of eight other metro systems to begin operation this year, with seven of them serving larger cities. I fail to get what’s the posting rationale here. What makes Honolulu a more important city?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I haven't looked at the Ankara metro article, but the topic has certainly received enough coverage here for well over a decade. If they ever do open it, I can see it might be blurbable. Looking at Gebze Metro the article is but a stub, for quite a tiny system with only 4,800 riders a day projected (less than your average short urban bus route), and no future work beyond the initial section . The Honolulu system has a second stage under construction since 2016, with commitments for further sections, and a projected ridership of 85,000; that's almost 20 times larger than Gebze. What are the other 6 metros that have opened (though I'd argue that if planned opening of the Réseau express métropolitain in Montreal, for the first phase of a 67-km, 26-station line projected for 190,000 a day (the entire line is already under construction). Nfitz (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Quito and Karaj have already begun operation, whereas Riyadh, Konya, Navi Mumbai, Ahvaz and Kermanshah are planned to open later this year (see List of metro systems for more details). Note that Riyadh Metro is expected to begin with 6 lines. There’s absolutely no way that Skyline is the most significant metro system to be inaugurated this year in any sense.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Looking at Quito Metro, they did some limited testing during rush hours for a few days in May 2023 (who the heck does trial running with paying passengers?). [https://www.elcomercio.com/actualidad/quito/operacion-metro-quito-diciembre-2023.html sources in the article say that it won't open until (at least) December 2023. I can't find any information about Karaj and your link is a redirect. Looking at Karaj Metro Station, Karaj is part of the Tehran Metro. I haven't, User:Kiril Simeonovski, looked at the ones that you say aren't opened yet. Perhaps we should discuss those at the appropriate time Nfitz (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose it’s a nomination made in good faith, but I don’t see how it’s more relevant than the Turkmenistan nomination below that’s being shot down at this moment. Any tertiary Chinese city has a similar MRT system running by now, and we didn’t post any of them. Khuft (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Kiril. While likely a boon to Hawaii residents, this is not a novel transit design or the like. And the lack of coverage is a bit worrisome. --Masem (t) 17:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Kiril and Andrew. No sources effectively kills the nom. The Kip (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and SNOW Of little importance even on a national level, which is supported by the absolutely paltry amount of news coverage. I'm all for posting big infrastructure projects, but this isn't even close. -- Kicking222 (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Kiril. Another "interesting" piece of news, but that's not the focus of ITN. Go take it up with DYK perhaps. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Poor nom, with no sources and such low confidence in the nom's comments itself, this is a no starter. Gotitbro (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Opening of train lines is not significant enough to warrant ITN posting, especially when the country in which the train line was opened has other train lines in existence. Chrisclear (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and close per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2023 (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: Alan Arkin

Nominator's comments: The usual problems with an actor's biog means we'll have to do some work on citations etc to get it up to speed before it can go up. (Addendum: This is for an RD only: I oppose a blurb, despite the fact I'd love to see one). - SchroCat (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Such a loss. Article looks good (very quick glance). How about a blurb? --Ouro (blah blah) 14:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure he's in the field for a blurb. Lovely actor, but not a major changer of the artform. - SchroCat (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree - well-known Hollywood actor, highly-awarded but did not do much to have a legacy or impact outside the works he was in. (I do worry we are going to get the Carrie Fisher/Betty White rush of "support blurbs" based on the popularity and famousness of the person and best to establish now what we would need to see for a blurb). Masem (t) 15:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who mentioned them, Arkin is more famous and more awarded than both of them. Kirill C1 (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't use number of awards or films as any standard for a RD blurb. We need demonstration of their greatness, impact, and legacy on their field, which doesn't come directly from awards or role-count. Masem (t) 15:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose massive lack of citations throughout. Gonna need work for RD. --Masem (t) 15:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb. No-brainer for blurb - Oscar winner, six decades career, Hollywood legend, been in classic films such as Catch-22, and they, and he, are in world film history. After winning sort of career Oscar in 2006, he did not stop and made great many films, for some of which he may be remembered mostly, and reaped awards too. Kirill C1 (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Where's the legacy or impact, then? Having a huge filmography is not a reason for a blurb. RD Blurbs are supposed to be exceptional, and there are many other living actors that have had far more an impact on the field than Arkin. Masem (t) 15:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb I enjoyed his work, especially in Little Miss Sunshine and Argo, but just because he's more of a household name than many recent deaths doesn't mean he should have a blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD on principle, oppose blurb. Article needs a bit of sourcing work. Regarding the blurb, Arkin was an accomplished actor but was not exceptionally impactful. Mooonswimmer 15:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb, needs ref improvement. - Indefensible (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb - There's a lot of more widely known actors who haven't been blurbed. Arkin is hardly a household name, even in most English-speaking countries. (support RD of course - and looks ready - why wait?) Nfitz (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Then we should have blurbed them.

  I think he is. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD or Blurb - Great actor, great legacy.2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:60EB:B0F5:B4CA:DFC4 (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb so, we don’t post Nobel or Pulitzer Prize winning novelists, but any random actor is worthy of a blurb? Are we becoming Vogue? Sarcasm aside: how has he transformed cinema, since that’s the yardstick we would use for actors? I fail to see it.Khuft (talk) 17:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb Subject was not at a level that would justify one. I note that we declined to blurb far more consequential figures in the field (Kirk Douglas and Olivia de Havilland). Not Ready for RD. Article is in rough shape for referencing and is going to need a lot of work before it can be posted. I have orange tagged the article because adding CNs would basically involve carpet bombing the page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support RD Massive improvement. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose RD on quality as there’s still citation work to be done. Oppose blurb - he was a great actor, but simply not transformative enough. The Kip (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose blurb, support RD - Again, I don't think giving a recent death a blurb should be some award for a notable individual. Recent deaths should only be blurbed if they cause a widespread international reaction with tangible long-term effect, or if they're tired to a conventional news story (like the Titanic sub disaster). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb Agreeing with Ad Orientem, if Douglas and de Havilland did not get blurbed this clearly does not pass muster. Also what is with the rush to add blurbs for RDs even where the noms are not for them (or against them) especially when quality issues exist. Gotitbro (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb Only a couple of weeks ago, we did not post Glenda Jackson who won the Best Actress Oscar twice, whereas Arkin has one Oscar for a supporting role. Not posting Jackson has set a bar here, and posting Arkin would be nonsensical. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have removed the blurb nom as it had considerable and unanimous opposition besides the proposer. Curbon7 (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo has a point about one thing, and that's that we seem to inevitably have blurbs proposed for famous Hollywood actors. I don't know what that says about the industry in relation to human culture. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What it says, sadly, is most people propose blurbs for those that are famous above those that are truly impactful persons. I mean, I was floored to see so many oppose on Goodenough because such things as "he isn't a household name", which was especially weird coming from certain persons who frequently vote "Support" on death blurbs, and certain persons who suggest that ITN should guide people to pages they may wish to navigate to (An important person whose name is not universally known is a great candidate for such treatment!). Truthfully I think we have lost the plot on what death blurbs should be for. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD, I think the filmography is not quite fully sourced, and that may be this item's only significant obstacle to posting. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Some CN tags/additional citations might still need to be added as there are sentences without any? There was an overall citation needed tag on the article but it seemed vague. If someone adds CN tags, I and other editors might be able to find more sources if it's pinpointed where they are needed. 2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:5CE6:B6E2:4E06:219B (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb, oppose RD on quality For someone's death to be mentioned in ITN, they need to be very well-known, which doesn't seem to be the case here. I'd consider ITN deaths to be reserved only for the most known people, and whilst Alan was without a doubt a famous man, I wouldn't say it's justified to post him on ITN. However, strong support for RD once the orange sourcing tags are fixed. TwistedAxe [contact] 12:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's been several days now and I have to say that the overall article quality, especially referencing, remains quite poor. At this point I am less than sanguine that we will be able to post it to RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I and another editor have been working on this page for the last couple of days, filling in CN tags. All have now been filled in. So I reopened this. I hope that's okay? If not, please revert - but I request that another editor reopen it after reviewing the article. Note that the Filmography section might need more citations before it can be marked as Ready. Thank you. 2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:5CE6:B6E2:4E06:219B (talk) 09:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment/Update - Am working on Filmography section, not too many left to fill in. 2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:5CE6:B6E2:4E06:219B (talk) 10:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Update The Filmography section should be fully sourced now. Please note another editor sourced many of the films to BFI, which looks fine to me - but if this single source being used so much is a problem, note that these films are also covered by the TVGuide ref and the Washington Post filmography as well. So these can be supplemented with these refs already used elsewhere in the section - but I didn't do that yet unless it's requested. Finally, a few theater roles need to be cited and that's it as far as I can see anyway. 2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:5CE6:B6E2:4E06:219B (talk) 10:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Another update - Theater section and Bibliography now sourced and everything else should be fully sourced now. Will mark this as Ready now but if any editor has a problem with that please revert. If there is any issue with any references, let me know and I'll fix them, but they should all be good. 2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:5CE6:B6E2:4E06:219B (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted to RD - a spotcheck of the sources demonstrated verifiability (I replaced a couple, though). Good work bringing it up to par. Anarchyte (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Attention needed) Discovery of Neutrinos within the Milky Way

Articles: Neutrino (talk · history · tag) and IceCube Neutrino Observatory (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The IceCube Neutrino Observatory (pictured) in the South pole detects neutrinos from the Milky Way Galaxy for the first time. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The IceCube Neutrino Observatory (pictured), a neutrino detector in the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, detects neutrinos from the Milky Way for the first time.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Scientists at the IceCube Neutrino Observatory (pictured) in the South pole are able to map the Milky Way using neutrinos instead of light for the first time.
News source(s): NYT - Reuters - NPR - The Independent - Scientific American - Science - El Pais
Credits:

• Nominated by Knightoftheswords281 (talk · give credit)
• Created by 68.21.182.144 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Another scientific discovery. This one regards neutrinos, small, so-called "ghost particles" at the subatomic level. They're called ghostly because they're so small that even though Earth gets bombarded by them, we haven't been able to detect them - until now. The detection of neutrinos is major because it allows us for the first time to view and understand the Milky Way in something other than light. They've even produced images of the whole thing that you can see in the above sources and is being hailed as the start of neutrino astronomy. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 03:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose if the 2nd blurb is correct, this is a good accomplishment but it is definitely not that a certain observatory discovering nuetrinos for the first time (there are several other places on earth created to do that too, that I even remember from Cosmos [2])). And just by checking google scholar, this is continuous from other nuetrino observatories to understand the formation of galaxies and the universe. --Masem (t) 04:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, naturally occurring neutrinos have been detected since the 1960s. Stephen 04:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - none of the blurbs state that this is the first discovery of neutrinos ever; just the first detection of them within our galaxies, which hadn't occurred before. All prior neutrino discoveries were of ones outside our galaxy. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 04:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• You wrote “we haven't been able to detect them - until now” in your nom statement. Stephen 07:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Alt Blurb 2, the news is not about the detection of neutrinos but of the mapping of our galaxy with them. A scientist called the achievement "an entirely new view of our galaxy—one that had only been hinted at before". Alexcalamaro (talk) 05:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Looking at the Science article, there's been no mapping outside of identifying that a higher proportion of neutrinos are emitted by the center of the Milky Way. It implies mapping could be done, but they have not created an actual map in this sense. Masem (t) 13:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I could agree with you that calling the lower image a map is, maybe, an optimistic view of the facts. Alexcalamaro (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The idea of using glacial ice to detect neutrinos is cool! As ice is disappearing, it's good to make the most of it. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose neutrinos were first detected decades ago, and it's inevitable that some of those neutrinos originate from the Milky Way given how many neutrinos there are (heck, some of those neutrinos originate from the lab, see beta decay). What appears to be new here is that ICECUBE researchers have mapped the neutrinos of the Milky Way, which is interesting for neutrino astronomers, but not immediately impactful for everyone else (including other astronomers). Banedon (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support neutrinos!! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt blurb 2, as the other two are inaccurate. And to clarify, they're mostly non-interacting not because they're smol (photons are lighter), but because they're neutral, as foretold by their name. Folly Mox (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Big news! Will lead to very interesting revelations about the nature of Lactea Galactica! PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Stephen and Masem. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrino-detection's HARD, that should count for something. ~100,000/nanosecond fly thru a man but median distance till interaction is 6,000,000,000,000 miles of solid lead! The only reason neutrino astronomy started in '87 is a star exploded so strongly there was more energy/m² @.4 lightyears than hugging an H-bomb and 99% of the megatons went into spamming ~10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 high-energy neutrinos. Even in '87 only 1 neutrino interacting was enough to detect yet no other exploding star has been detected by neutrinos. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We're not saying its hard, just that this is not the first time it has happened or the like. That there seems to be a larger amount of neutrons from the galactic center is interesting but I dont think the astrophysics breakthrough of note. Masem (t) 17:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a sign of improving human ability to detect such things. In order to detect this it took $279 million of South Pole infrastructure made of 1+ cubic kilometers of detectors (thousands of them) up to kilometers deep and watching since 2005-10 (it took over 5 years to build). Which adds a little interest along with making the first galaxy "map" in one of the final frontiers of wave/particle detection hardness. So much of ~postwar astronomy has been trying to see what's behind galactic dust (most of the galaxy's stars are blocked by it), first with the lowest tech non-visible light to astroimage then progressively harder and less interacting rays/waves. Cosmic ray telescopes were also invented to learn more but they're deflected by not being electromagnetically neutral so we don't know their emission direction and even the ghostly cosmic gravitational wave background was detected before this (the pulsar timing thing nominated below). The cosmic neutrino background is even more of a "final frontier of hard-to-see" but it's so low energy it's almost hopeless, there's no point waiting for that one. However if neutrino telescopes don't get significantly bigger that galaxy pic would get sharper so slowly there isn't really a point where it becomes news. I think they only fly the hard drives out of the South Pole once a year so every year there could be an ever so slightly improved version. That pixel has a neutrino now. Add another blob!!! Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per above. The Kip (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment maybe I'm too stupid to read, but is this news reflected in any of the bolded articles? Can't find it referenced under IceCube Neutrino Observatory at all, and only with one sentence under neutrino. If more info was provided in these articles - more than a sentence, ideally a paragraph explaining what has been discovered and why it is significant - I could support, but right now I'm at a loss at understanding what the news actually means. Khuft (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also that section says "The galactic core of the Milky Way is fully obscured by dense gas and numerous bright objects. Neutrinos produced in the galactic core might be measurable by Earth-based neutrino telescopes" and "Neutrinos are also useful for probing astrophysical sources beyond the Solar System because they are the only known particles that are not significantly attenuated by their travel through the interstellar medium" but true it's only about a sentence of new info. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle Interesting story with plenty of RS coverage. However, the IceCube article needs more refs. Davey2116 (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Significant achievement, plenty of coverage. The article is fine too. --TadejM ^{my talk} 11:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Monumental achievement with plenty of coverage. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Hipólito Mora

Nominator's comments: This Mexican politician just got assassinated today. The article was freshly created (though he had enough coverage to have an article beforehand), and need serious expansion. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 00:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is a stub currently, not appropriate for posting. - Indefensible (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as it’s a stub. Needs expansion to be considered further. The Kip (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As the article contains exactly 89 words. That is not of substantial quality for ITNRD. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 22:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Technically 82 words without the date, but who's counting. Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 08:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, Per above, article needs expansion. Alex-h (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Article needs expansion. TwistedAxe [contact] 17:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @Knightoftheswords281, Indefensible, The Kip, Fakescientist8000, Iamstillqw3rty, Alex-h, and Twistedaxe: I've expanded the article. What do people think of it now? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Turkmenistan inaugurates its first smart city

(Closed) Canadian wildfire smoke resurgence

(Posted) RD: Stephen Owen (politician)

Nominator's comments: Canadian politician. Aside from 1 uncited sentence the article looks good. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well-written article. TwistedAxe [contact] 12:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article is good enough despite the cn tag. Scientia potentia est, -MonarchOfTerror (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted Stephen 21:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Marvin Kitman

Nominator's comments: American TV critic, author. - Indefensible (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose on quality Could we get some ISBNs or citations for the bibliography at the end of the article? Support Article's quality is well in regards to sourcing and length. Well done to Indefensible to fixing the issues brought up quickly. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 22:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. - Indefensible (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very well-written and well sourced article. TwistedAxe [contact] 12:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Black Kite (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Christine King Farris

 – Muboshgu (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article's quality is fine enough for ITNRD. Interesting note that was missed in a potential nomcmt is that this woman was the older sister of MLK Jr. Just a thought. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 22:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 04:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(needs attention) RD: Shakeel

Nominator's comments: . Rushtheeditor (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, not very informative and lots of uncited films. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, article is good. Fahads1982 (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Orange tag under filmography, needs citation work. TwistedAxe [contact] 17:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Only a few filmography spots to fill in, otherwise looks good and has several references. 2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:8D80:D3C:4CB:CA7D (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) U.S. Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action

Consensus to post will not develop. Stephen 22:19, 2 July 2023 (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.

---

Articles: Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (talk · history · tag) and Affirmative action in the United States (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In a 6–3 decision, the United States Supreme Court declares that the use of affirmative action in university admissions is unlawful. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In a 6–3 decision, the United States Supreme Court declares that the use of affirmative action in university admissions is unlawful, overturning Grutter v. Bollinger.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The Supreme Court of the United States (justices pictured) determines that affirmative action in college admissions is unconstitutional, overturning Grutter v. Bollinger.
Alternative blurb III: ​ The Supreme Court of the United States (justices pictured) determines that favoring minorities in college admissions is unconstitutional, overturning Grutter v. Bollinger.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ The Supreme Court of the United States (justices pictured) determines that considering race in college admissions is unconstitutional, overturning Grutter v. Bollinger.
News source(s): NYT, CNN, WaPo, BBC
Credits:

• Nominated by Davey2116 (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Another end of term, another landmark bad decision. Davey2116 (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support — I reluctantly support this nomination, but solely on the basis that universities in the United States are attended by students around the world, thus meeting an international impact. I am not entirely sold. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - beat me to it. Reminder of WP:NOTFORUM though. Considering how fraught this issue is, and how as ElijahPepe (talk · contribs) brilliantly pointed out, how international U.S universities are, I don't see how this is not ITN material. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 14:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

+1 on NOTFORUM. @Davey2116, lots of us have opinions about the ruling, but it's not helpful to provide them here. What's relevant is the significance of the decision, not the merit or lack thereof. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 16:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Expect more of these WP:NOTFORUM violations as we get closer to the 2024 election and more controversial topics like this are brought up. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was recently a discussion about discretionary sanctions for ITN, and it was determined that aspects already covered by sanctions (such as post-1992 American Politics) are covered here as well. So any uninvolved admin can issue a sanction (like a week-long page ban, for example) to anyone that engages in forum-like behavior here. Obviously I'd rather if this didn't happen, but it is an option if it gets bad. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we shouldn't be too harsh. I've seen a lot of people acting in Good Faith but just not realising the purpose of these pages.

For example, 'Talk' pages on Wikipedia articles are often mistaken for forums to discuss said articles. We should be a little lenient, but yeah I wouldn't like anyone to insert their personal beliefs into ITN, or even let their politics influence their votes. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. First of all, this is not "striking down affirmative action". This case applies simply to how affirmative action applies to college admissions. Just a point of mention is all. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 6-2, not 6-3 - one justice recused. BilledMammal (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe that's just for the Harvard portion of the case? ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 16:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment an explanation on what affirmative action actually means might be helpful to the blurb. One can also understand it in the way that gender equality has won a case.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Affirmative Action is an incredibly contentious issue that has been at the forefront of American public debate since the 1960s (as evident by the comments below). Having it overturned is a pretty big deal. I also find it likely that this will significantly impact American politics in the future. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - per comments, like those by @ElijahPepe, noting that this impacts major universities that are attended by students from around the world. Definitely meets the criteria for inclusion on the home page. Glman99 (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing an egregious WP:NOTFORUM violation; also incoherent and TL;DR. I would have removed it if people had not responded already. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It means that if a Black or Brown person and an Asian or White person are applying to a university and are so similar it's the most astounding coincidence in the history of Earth (all four parents came from the same country, the applicants have same sex, gender, age, orientation, religion, cis or trans status, dietary habits, criminal record, socioeconomic class and need for a full or partial scholarship to pay, whether they need THEIR scholarship or already have what they need, disability and medical condition status i.e. none or both diabetic, same personality, hobbies, interests, languages spoken and fluency levels thereof, similar biographies, same level of essay-writing skill and interest in sports and which ones, same gaming the system skill in both applications, visits, interviews etc, both took SAT and no other test, same number of siblings and birth order and skill at each sport and musical instrument, have the same school/club/job/volunteering and awards history for everything, same chess rating; same average, skew, peakiness and standard deviation of their face and body hotness in a scale from 1 to 10 (I don't know if it still happens but the finger on the scale has been the lady making the decisions thinking he's cute), same language(s) spoken and fluency levels, same citizenship(s) and nationalit(ies) held, similar lives, both born and grew up in Park Slope neighborhood of Brooklyn (NYC) to carbon copy parents, similar places on the spectrums for extroversion-introversion, conscientiousness, open to exprerienceness, agreeableness, neuroticism, autisticness and politics spectrums, both want to double major in paleontology and anthropology with a concentration in dinosaurs and minor in the most obscure thing they have, both families have never been to college, heck have their teachers be exactly the same since preschool but the White or Asian has slightly higher grades and test scores (a Scholastic Admission test of 2150 while the other person has a score of 2100) then the White or Asian probably won't get into Harvard and definitely won't if only one of them got in. Unless the Black or Brown person is from war-torn impoverished Sri Lanka then she won't get in for sure if she and her parents changed their names to Smith and put race as Asian (as is usual for Subcontinent-Americans) and didn't send their photos or let them know or suspect in any other way that they're "more minorityish" than the other girl cause she has the lower scores and grades. And if the White person is Jewish and doesn't otherwise have more minorityness than the other person they won't get in even though Harvard and other good schools all have a long history of discrimination against Jewish people. Like explicit quotas till about the 1960s. You can get into Harvard with as little as about an 1800 by being Black and not too boring or similar to any other person who'll attend at the same time as you. Also by being better at football, basketball or rowing than the weakest player on the team, 1800 and willing to play 4 seasons, you don't even have to be any kind of minority or avoid being unlucky enough to have too similar of a personality to too many other students or have any other hobby, award etc to make you more interesting. Possibly even just being better than the weakest player on any one of their many sports teams and >1800 test score and wanting to play 4 seasons and not being convicted felon is guaranteed entry. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply] I don't think you needed to list that many qualities. In summary, it means that minorities have more opportunities: a higher chance of getting into college in this context. Since part of ITN's purpose is to promote good (as in quality, not the rating) articles and a link is provided, I don't think explaining it would be needed. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply] Emphasize what's different by listing too many similarities and going into ones of little to no admission odds effect. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply] This is ITN, not political debate. Additionally things should be comfortable to read. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply] And sure, better to not explain what it is in the blurb. Would also make the blurb long. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply] I know what it means because non-american outlets translate it into protection for minorities or something similar. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Landmark decision which is extremely likely to have significant socio-economic consequences. Ppt91^talk 16:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Although the impact of the decision will be acute mainly at elite institutions, those institutions are important given their role in society. The U.S. is a large country, so for an event of this significance, I would not buy opposition arguments based on lack of international impact. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 16:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This decision will have significant consequences regarding race relations in America. X-Editor (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose this was 100% the expected result once these cases hit the Supreme Court. Masem (t) 16:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also the UNC case artucle needs to be brought into this one as it was decided by the same slip opinion. The only reason the two cases are not consolidated is due to Jackson's refusal on the Harvard case. So there is an article quality issue too.

Also also, I would challenge the claims re I ternational students at these schools. AA was always about American residents and the biases of those races. Schools are still limited in how many international students via visa counts. So I really don't think that angle makes sense here. Masem (t) 17:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just that it's expected doesn't mean it's not news. I'm not sure how we could bring that into this one. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Universities in the United States were usually attended by students around the world, and given the landmark change, this would warrant ITN due to its effect on students worldwide. Editor 5426387 (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt 2 since 1. there were two decisions, one of them (the case linked, actually) 6–2 and 2. it feels a lot more direct. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment alt3 is wrong. The ruling basically says using race as part of admissions is unconstitional, not about favoring minorities (though that is the practical effect of AA). Just change "favoring minorities" to "using race-based stanards". --Masem (t) 18:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah I also thought it was the wrong one, but affirmative action can mean anything and much more than favoring minorities. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Does this apply to cases in which students, who don’t have enough preparation, are admitted just because their parents have donated the university buildings?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The two cases substantially prohibit racial discrimination in college admissions. That's it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support when article looks good alternative blurb i'd like to propose:

In a 6–3 decision, the United States Supreme Court (justices pictured) determines considering race in college admissions is unconstitutional.

Note not using the phrase "affirmative action", using the phrase "in college admissions". I decided to exclude "overturning Grutter v Bollinger' but you may want to keep it in, your call. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, In a 6–3 decision, the United States Supreme Court (justices pictured) determines that considering race in college admissions is unconstitutional.QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with comment: The court didn't explicitly overturn Grutter, therefore the blurb should not mention Grutter at all. Edge3 (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I am really sure that not each and every SCOTUS resolution deserves our attention. In fact, their overall interest and impact is usually minimal, with very few exceptions. In this case, it is another particularly specific issue that affects only a part of the American population. Oh, European, Asian, Latin American, African and Oceanic universities are also attended by students from all over the world. I think that was pretty obvious. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  European et al universities don't have major news right now. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Because they do not need to and don’t overdramatize the events that take place there. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You don't need drama to be on ITN. I don't get what you mean by "they do not need to". Aaron Liu (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article in good shape and this has major ramifications towards the educational landscape of the country. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ALT4 Case is of significance both domestically (obvious) and internationally (given the many international students in US institutions), and far more so than the independent state legislature case the other day. The Kip (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  How, User:The Kip are international students effected? I don't see any indication of this in the references. Nfitz (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just as another wrench, tomorrow is 99.99% certain we will know the result of the challenge on student loan forgiveness, which is a more immediate issue to many. I would think ahead that we might be able to have one blurb support both, since all the cases are dealing with college issues. But I would wait to see what happens tomorrow. --Masem (t) 19:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is really local. And not particularly relevant as few universities, even in that country, still use such systems; few colleges too I'd think. Roe vs Wade is certainly big, as would be something like tossing out the 2nd amendment, or the 13th amendment. I really don't see such nominations for most countries (the UK being the exception), other than the very biggest cases - even in very large countries. Nfitz (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  or the 13th amendment Have things really gotten to the point where this is now the bar for a SCOTUS decision being posted? Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 00:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's hard to argue with the best minds in the country. Anarchyte (talk) 06:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Clear cut examples, User:WaltCip are not bars. Not even for the bar, when barring minorities! :) Nfitz (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Per Masem and Nfitz (cf. the Moore v. Harper section below too). - SchroCat (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Yes, it's a major court decision in the US. But major court decisions are handed down all the time all over the world. We almost never post them. FWIW, I supported the overturning of Roe being posted. But I think that was on a much higher level of significance. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as well even though I suggested blurb 3 and 4.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. As per the above: this decision will have significant consequences regarding race relations in the US, and it is also of international significance due to the US leading role and international students. The article is fine too. --TadejM ^{my talk} 00:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I asked above User:TadejM, but no one answered. How does this effect international students? I see no mention of international students that in the ruling, though it does mention Webster's Third New International Dictionary, which Gorsuch believes is some kind of precedent for constitutional law. Perhaps this would be suitable for a "Did you know that a USA supreme court justice believes that a dictionary is a legal text?". Nfitz (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You did not address the question to me. Some info may be found here. --TadejM ^{my talk} 15:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose internal to the US, and furthermore does not look like something that affects everyone in the country. Banedon (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do not... Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong article. This blurb should link to Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina instead since that is the "main" case where all 9 justices participated. The Harvard case simply follows the decision of the UNC case with Jackson not able to participate. So either the UNC article should be linked or both cases should be treated with at least equal weight. 18.29.64.10 (talk) 02:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The Supreme Court considers the Harvard case as the leading one, the UNC folded up within it. That's not our decision to change. Its why we shouldn't try to get into the details of the vote in this blurb because its complex. Masem (t) 04:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Refs 1 and 2 point to a non-existent target. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I simply cannot imagine this getting any support at all if it happened in any other country. HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• What other country do you think this could happen in? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't make me tap the sign...

  Please do not... Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive. The Kip (talk) 04:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You clearly cannot read!!!! My opposition is NOT because the event is only relating to a single country. It's because it's about one PARTICULAR country, the USA!!!! I simply cannot imagine this getting any support at all if it happened in any other country. It's pure and blatant US-centrism. Would you support a similar event in Australia? HiLo48 (talk) 04:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure if this really happened in Australia. Also, please calm down. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe. It's hard to provide any context unless someone nominates a similar event in another country. Someone's lack of nominating events doesn't justify the screaming and shouting and exclamation marks, however entertaining they may be. Sometimes I wonder if we need WP:RFCU back. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WaltCip Pardon my ignorance, but what was RFCU? A user-specific request for comment? Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 15:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think they were referring to RFC/U, which according to the dab page was some sort of RfC on user conduct without any consequences. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My opposition is NOT because the event is only relating to a single country. It's because it's about one PARTICULAR country, the USA!!!!

  Is that not the same thing? - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 15:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think they mean specifically the USA. Which is probably also covered by the criterion. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed it is; I’m not exactly sure what they were attempting to say there. The Kip (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Their opposition is because they are anti-American, not because it only relates to one county. Which seems much worse. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 17:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That is clearly an example of assuming bad faith. My simple point is that I wouldn't waste my time nominating an equivalent event in my country, or almost any other country, for one reason. It would get no support. That's being realistic, not anti-American. HiLo48 (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My apologies. There have been people posting here who have outright said that they do not want to see American stories on ITN and that they have an anti-American bias. I should not have assumed that you were one of them. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If people read my position carefully, they will see that I am actually asking for the US to be treated the same as every other country. HiLo48 (talk) 01:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If they indeed have the exact same opinion as Chrisclear below, then they meant that they believe the only chance this story can succeed comes from the fact that it's from the USA. Which I still need to see some more evidence to believe (that this wouldn't pass if it wasn't from the USA). Aaron Liu (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Please prove examples of equivalent items from other countries that HAVE been posted. HiLo48 (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I will try, but I don't have to as the burden of proof is on you per Burden of proof (philosophy). (Wikipedia has accepted it as a policy on articles at WP:BURDEN, so the philosophy applies) Aaron Liu (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I cannot prove a negative. Simple logic says that I cannot prove that I have not nominated equivalent items from my country. That's a silly demand. I admit my claim is a little speculative, but you could easily disprove it by listing all the examples where equivalent items from other countries HAVE been posted. HiLo48 (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You don't have to nominate them, as long as you know a couple blurbs that didn't get posted it would count. I've not been around so I don't know, and if I don't know evidence proving it I should be safe to assume that it does not exist. However, I'd like to know how you came to form that thought. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You are missing my point. I don't nominate such things because, firstly, I believe it's inappropriate to do so, and secondly, they would have no chance of being posted. I suspect most non-Americans feel the same way. HiLo48 (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And my point is that you should show evidence to prove that they are widely opposed. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• However, we also don't want to be US Justical System centric. That's a systematic bias of the media sourcing we have. That part of ITN has to be used in balance. Masem (t) 04:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And that's so, but I think it's still okay to nominate these types of stories. There's nothing wrong with a discussion, and if U.S. media centrism is a factor, that should be weighed in. In my opinion, the fact that this affects a lot of young or college-age people in the country (remember that the "minority" races actually represent a large cross-section of the population) means that it is at least worth a discussion. Is it ultimately notable? It's hard to say yet... that's the problem with these types of cases. Sometimes they merely open the door to noteworthy events in the future. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And that's so, but I think it's still okay to nominate these types of stories.

  Bingo. Systemic bias is about uplifting the rest of the world, not culling our part of the world. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 15:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you mean by uplifting, and "our part of the world", User talk:Knightoftheswords281. It seems wrong to me, and perhaps WP:NOTFORUM and WP:POINTy to be pointing out how backwards the USA is compared to other advanced democracies. Perhaps I'm missing something. Nfitz (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Systemic bias is combated on ITN by posting more stories from other parts of the world, not opposing more stories from the west. Also, ironically enough, your entire comment is a WP:NOTFORUM vio. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 18:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm still wondering what you mean by uplift and "our part of the world". Uplift is a rarely used word, and has many meanings. Also, I don't see opposing the stories from the west in particular - I've opposed stories from Europe and Asia as well. I assumed that by UPLIFT, you are trying to bring stuff up to the USA's level; which on one hand may be an AGF issue - but your pronoun use is concerning as it appears that you keep using "we" to refer to the USA - and not the normal meaning of us here. And your commment the other day while nominating yet another quickly-closed USA supreme court ITN, was that we should ignore USA-centrism concerns because "considering how much of the global system is determined by America and these days its incumbent federal government, I'd say that this is somewhat relevant"; which if was about ending democracy would be valid - but it was about some very wonkish legal disagreement about election management. I'm not sure how any of this is WP:NOTFORUM - I don't see us chatting about the pros and cons of affirmative action (which I'd think would we'd be clearer and more universal term positive discrimination, lest it be confused with some religious group). Nfitz (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose all hooks. Firstly, not a 6-3 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which is the linked article; Jackson was recused from that case, so it was 6-2 with respect to that case with Jackson abstaining. It's very specifically about race-based preferences, so "affirmative action" is a bit too broad (it doesn't ban other sorts of affirmative action., such as income-based). It also didn't overturn prior decisions explicitly, so... we can't use that in a hook. I'm on the fence notability-wise. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as it has wide-ranging impacts across the United States. For those saying that it's internal to the US, that is irrelevant, as ITN's rules clearly preclude using that as a reason. Please come up with a better argument than that. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You are misrepresenting the rule. The problem here, as at least two of us have already clearly pointed out, is that such a change in any other country would NOT even be nominated here. HiLo48 (talk) 10:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see reasons to believe that. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There are countless examples that can give you the reasons to believe it. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Such as? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as the scope of this decision seems to cover only race, while positive discrimination may be based on many other factors (e.g. gender, nationality, wealth etc.). I agree that race-based discrimination is an important topic in the United States, but this won't solve the problem that rich children can be easily admitted because their parents have donated the university buildings (wealth-based discrimination).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Just that it didn't solve that problem doesn't mean it's not a very notable event. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's notable for sure but not enough to go on the main page because of the limited scope. I planned to support the original nomination because it referred to positive discrimination in general, but the further discussion revealed that it only relates to a specific form.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This would be a good recommendation for Ameripedia, but this is a global encyclopaedia. I highly doubt this story would be published in ITN if it related to universities in New Zealand. Therefore for the sake of consistency and to avoid such bias, this story should not be published. Chrisclear (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If you want a Kiwi-equivalent court case to go on ITN, then nominate it. Why are people so frightened about standing up and nominating and instead cower under the fear of "it won't be posted!" Make an effort. Like I stated above, Systemic bias is about uplifting the rest of the world, not culling our part of the world. We ought to combat our systemic bias via raising the undercovered world to our level, not destroying ourselves to bring us to their level. In this case, doing that would just mean ITN would have bi-yearly updates. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 15:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But I don't want to nominate a Kiwi court case, because there isn't one worthy of ITN publication for a global audience, just as this one is not worthy for a global audience. Chrisclear (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  So what you're actually saying is you believe that this story only has its chance to succeed because it's from the USA? Like above I need some examples to believe that. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it's highly dubious that a similar story relating to New Zealand would be published. Regarding examples, as HiLo48 said above (1) I cannot prove a negative, (2) I (and probably other editors outside the US as well) don't nominate stories like this one that are inappropriate for a global audience and (3) Even if I did nominate a similar item that was inappropriate for a global audience, it would have close to zero chance of being posted. Chrisclear (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  While I disagree that just because something is relatively local means that it is inappropriate for a global audience, what I am asking for you to prove is (3). Aaron Liu (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  IT CANNOT BE PROVEN!!!!!! You have been told why. You are asking for the impossible. You are proving nothing with that demand. Read what others say carefully please, think about it, then bugger off!!! HiLo48 (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, it can. All you have to do is give some examples of such nominations from non-USA countries being widely opposed. Please stop shouting and actually read what I say carefully. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This is nowhere near the significance of the Roe vs Wade decision. Its effect does not rise to the level of ITN-worthy IMO, regardless of how many column inches it's getting locally. Internationally, it's not on the UK BBC News page at all, and it's only the second story (after the Parkland security guard) even if you navigate to "US News". Black Kite (talk) 10:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly will have greater effect than an administrative change in South Korea cited below. --TadejM ^{my talk} 14:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which also isn't getting posted, User:TadejM. I'm not even sure if this is the most significant (or bigoted) ruling to come out of the USA Supreme Court this week. Nfitz (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like there is a slight consensus to post that story. Also, again, reminder of WP:NOTFORUM. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 15:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, purely based on the !votes they seem pretty divided. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any discussions here that WP:NOTFORUM would apply to. I don't see referring to (yet another) USA Supreme Court decision that legalizes prejudice makes this a forum - especially as there no opining on whether allowing sucj prejudice is good or bad. Nfitz (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was on the verge of getting posted, but in the past hours opposition has been voiced to that. --TadejM ^{my talk} 15:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose after some reflection, based on the fact that the impact from this, although potentially very large, is yet to be seen. Furthermore, I agree with above calls to keep the NOTFORUM violations out of here; contentious topics policies still apply to ITN as much as any other page on Wikipedia. --Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Only because I mentioned this before, SCOTUS as expected ruled against the student debt forgiveness program today, thus if there is still any clear support to post this, I strongly urge that also to be combined with the student debt case. However, I see that there's a lower chance of this being posted based on current !votes. --Masem (t) 15:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the blurb could be more comprehensive. --TadejM ^{my talk} 15:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I’m an European and I don’t think we have been overly US centric in our postings recently. This made it to the top of Der Spiegel and The Guardian (online versions), so there’s definitely been interest also outside the US. Featuring this would actually make it easier for non-US people to find out about affirmative action, or how the US Supreme Court works. I would also support a blurb combining this with the student loans ruling (and potentially the Colorado LGBTQ ruling). Khuft (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose generally due to the scope comments above. I'm not really sure they would be rectified by the loans ruling, but I still believe I would support a combo blurb of the two. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — Several have proposed combining rulings. The notability is solely inherent to Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. Combining rulings will create a blurb that equivocates Harvard and Biden v. Nebraska, when Nebraska has no global significance. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The affirmation action one also doesn't have global significance because it primarily affects American citizens, not those internationally who have to get into these colleges with visas (itself a whole different selection process). Masem (t) 20:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If having "global significance" would be our criterion, we wouldn't post anything. None of the currently posted blurbs has global significance if you take a very stringent definition of it. The restaurant explosion in China, the prison drama in Honduras, the sinking of the Titan, Prigozhin's mutiny and the US Golf Open: all of these could be constructed as being of local or regional significance. So should we post nothing? Of course not. Global notability should be measured on the basis of whether a news item is being picked up by media in more than one country or region. All of these do, as does the SCOTUS ruling on affirmative action. Khuft (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We've had at least three nominations for court rulings from the USA this week alone (and I'm not sure the most shocking and significant ruling of international interest this week was even nominated). If were to start posting such humdrum top court rulings from around the world it would quickly exceed what is pragmatic to post in a day. Nfitz (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That is a fair point, but that's not what Masem was arguing about. We anyway shouldn't post "humdrum top court rulings from around the world", but only consider those that attain international notoriety as per the various media we typically refer to. In pratice, this will mean a handful of rulings by the US Supreme Court, the ECJ and possibly one or the other ruling by another court if it's a major case (such as whenever the Brazilian Supreme Court rules on the above-mentioned Bolsonaro case). Thus I don't really see the issue here. Khuft (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Where's the international notoriety from this then? Of the four references provided, 3 are from US sources, and the 4th is BBC News - which might as well be a US source, as they have huge resources in the USA, and maintain a LOT of US news on their website; they do this because they can advertise and profit from Americans reading news - which of course they can't do in the UK. Many English-speaking papers will plaster their websites with Reuters and AP wire reports - few making it to their printed editions; much more telling would be articles that are not in English. Nfitz (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ...This is the English Wikipedia. I would argue that English sources are the only ones that are relevant. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That is a major misstatement. En.wiki has no problem with foreign-language sources as long as we know the source is reliable and that we have a reasonable translation. (if the material is contentious, we better have a language-expert translation, but for basic facts, a run through Google translate is usually ok). This does apply to ITN as well. Masem (t) 22:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As mentioned in my earlier post, this was featured on Der Spiegel [6] and The Guardian [7]. I just checked, and Le Monde [8] featured it as well. Khuft (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The Guardian, like the BBC, has major resources in the USA, which it monetizes not only through their website, but also through a weekly print edition primarily aimed at the USA, and available at US newsstands. I'm not sure what spiegel says, as it's behind a paywall here - can you describe it? Le Monde is good, that I agree, and they do seem to have further coverage. Nfitz (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure, but the title suggests it's an entire article. (Der Spiegel) Aaron Liu (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, searching Der Spiegel's title produces a lot more German coverage such as Deutsche Welle. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Deutsche Welle is also an excellent source (and their English-language TV news channel is great too - and often free). Nfitz (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Impact still not quite clear and more importantly, I don't wish for the standard of ITN items to be lowered overall just to accommodate more events from the United States. StellarHalo (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you elaborate on standards being lowered? i.e. what was it before? I'm new to how ITN operates and there appears to be many unwritten principles. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As other opposers said above, this news item would not get nominated here to begin with had it happened in other countries besides the United States. In other word, it only got nominated and got this much support due to American-centric bias and if we follow normal standards of what usually successfully get posted to ITN, I highly doubt it would actually get nominated in the first place and even if it did, consensus would be very much against posting. Some supporters responded that we should try to nominate and post court rulings in other countries with similar level of impact to balance things out instead of not this one. StellarHalo (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would like to extend my request for similar nominations from other countries being widely opposed then. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose Heavily US-centric nomination. This doesn't affect anybody outside of the United States, and according to most sources, only between 4-6% of the total American college population are considered to be from abroad, which is less than a million people from abroad even being affected by this. We don't need to be posting every single SCOTUS ruling here on ITN, ITN is not a press department for SCOTUS. I get that this is English Wikipedia and that there are more likely to be more Americans on...the English Wikipedia for obvious reasons, we still have to consider a global view on things per WP:WORLDVIEW and WP:GLOBAL. TwistedAxe [contact] 12:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the above. - SchroCat (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2023 (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: Corazon Nuñez Malanyaon

Nominator's comments: Filipino politician, twice member of the House of Representatives and in her second stint as Governor of Davao Oriental at the time of her death. Jollibinay (talk) 09:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Well sourced and not a stub. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article's quality is fine for ITNRD. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 04:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• This politician kept winning elections, but her wikibio doesn't say much about what she did while in office. It reads like incomplete coverage of her career in politics. --PFHLai (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support,Article is sourced and has enough information. Alex-h (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Marking article as ready. TwistedAxe [contact] 12:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 04:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Needs decision) Cosmic gravitational wave background

Pulsars rotate precisely so minute variations in their signals show the effect of gravity waves

Article: Gravitational wave background (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The NANOGrav consortium announces detection of a cosmic gravitational wave background in the signals from pulsars (pictured). (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The NANOGrav consortium announces evidence for the existence of a cosmic gravitational wave background in the signals from pulsars (pictured).
News source(s): Scientific American, Science, Al Jazeera, NYT, BBC
Credits:

• Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
• Updated by XOR'easter (talk · give credit) and Thuiop (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Gravitational waves are hard to detect but this ingenious technique seems fairly solid with a group of papers being published by an international consortium. We have work to do improving our coverage but a start has been made. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is excellent ITN material of high encyclopedic value.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a great science story, however, the article needs some work. The cosmological sources part is completely unsourced. --Tone 10:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but article needs work. This is a big moment. The SA article does wonders to explain it all in simple terms, however I currently lack the time to do justice to the article. --Ouro (blah blah) 11:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (presuming quality improvements occur) but not as currently written. The blurb should clarify what this actually means, as should the article. Had to go to the Washington Post to figure out why this is important. Anarchyte (talk) 11:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Per @Anarchyte PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral, leaning support - the NYT article does indicate that the findings are shy of the five sigma level that would be required in order to state with any certainty that this is a discovery and not just a random fluctuation. It wouldn't be the first time that we'd post a major scientific discovery (like the Higgs boson supposedly being found in 2012) only for it to be found out later that it was just a random glitch. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 11:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the Science article refers to 3.5 to 4 sigma level. Maybe, it's too low for a ITN post. Alexcalamaro (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on quality - lack of sources. --Masem (t) 12:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning support but request some more sources as two paras are unsourced.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support - major scientific discovery that can provide serious insight into how the fabric of reality operates. However, needs additional citations for verifications; two whole sections lack sources. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 13:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support once the two tagged sections are addressed. Davey2116 (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

temp oppose on quality - article does not explain the theoretical mechanism, no equations or theoretical predictions either, etc. we need a good description of what the grav wave background is or is predicted to be. eg. compare to CMBR article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background, theres a chart comparing theoretical vs observed. I also want to see more indications that this is notable - it seems to me that this is just providign further evidence of gravitational waves existing and being pervasive, using pulsars as the medium of investigation (to prove that grav waves are pervasive). Quote sciam:

"...radio astronomers have tuned into the slowly undulating swells in spacetime thought to arise from pairs of supermassive black holes (SMBHs) that are about to collide.... five separate international teams... found evidence for these gravitational waves. They are far longer than the waves first captured .. in 2015, which emanate from collisions of star-size objects."

Are we going to post every single gravitational wave observation at this point? We have now observed grav waves from mergers between two black holes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_observation_of_gravitational_waves, that was the first observation and definitely deserves a blurb); but since then also a pair of neutron stars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW170817, GW190425). We can't just be posting every time a new gw is observed between two different objects, can we?

It's not clear to me that this is a significant discovery, in terms of addition of knowledge. (Certainly the methodology is significant, but that alone is not enough to merit a blurb?) QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was the quote from Science mag, not Sci Am. The biggest issue with this is that the authors are not claiming a discovery. Quote Sci am (for real this time!): "So for now, scientist... are modestly claiming “evidence for” the gravitational-wave background... But they’re confident that milestone will come with additional observations." Emphasis added. This feels to me like a clear WP: Crystal Ball issue and definitely means to me it does not merit a blurb. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, article quality is still lacking. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose solely on article quality. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support based on merit, major scientific discovery, article will need to be fixed though. Editor 5426387 (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality, both as far as sources go but also not giving appropriate context for why this is significant. The lead needs to be rewritten, too. Schwede66 19:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Conclusive evidence for the background of GW due to supermassive back hole mergers. This will shed light on the final-parsec problem. Count Iblis (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Due to the article's quality and because the authors are not claiming a discovery (as per Sci Am cited above). Everything is still tentative. --TadejM ^{my talk} 23:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Lean to oppose, big news indeed. But, apart that the article could be improved, my main concern is that the NANOgrav study had still a low statistical confidence : 3 sigmas (Bayesian) and 3.5-4 sigmas (frequentist) (source). Not enough to announce a discovery. Anyway, I have added an AltBlurb to reflect this. Alexcalamaro (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number of sigmas has to be considered in the context of the sort of research that has been done. In particle physics where you are doing a large number of experiments, a p value of 10^(-4) is not good enough because there are many experiments that are done. It would require a follow up study by an independent group to confirm such a result. In this case there was one big experiment that was run for 15 years. Another thing is that at large sigmas the p-value will deviate from the Gaussian behavior and will decay slower, see large deviations theory. So, it's not really true that 5 sigmas is enormously better than 3 sigmas, the context matters a lot. In particle physics you want to have 5 sigmas for many good reasons, most of which don't apply to the case at hand. Count Iblis (talk) 09:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – possible revolutionary development in cosmology, and
  Comment – I redrew the published chart as in the thumbnail and think it gives more information than the animation of a pulsar. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 00:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Kiril. TwistedAxe [contact] 12:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Sue Johanson

Nominator's comments: Canadian sex educator, TV and radio host, Order of Canada recipient Ornithoptera (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Article needs some ref improvement. - Indefensible (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Long enough and well cited, though I'd prefer if some of the shorter sections were expanded or combined. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Revolutionary sex educator. RIP。Hcoder3104 (💬) 03:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The Talk Sex statements need additional sourcing. Expansion would be helpful but not necessary. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 04:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That unsourced half-paragraph on Talk Sex with Sue Johanson has been removed. -- PFHLai (talk) 10:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Now sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Two minor but still somewhat glaring issues: a short lead section with only a single sentence, and a {cn} for the date of birth. --PFHLai (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. The intro has been re-written into three sentences, and the unreferenced DoB has been removed. --PFHLai (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Domingo Germán perfect game

(Posted) RD: Robert Sherman (music critic)

 Thriley (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Sufficient length and mostly sourced. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per the usual reasons (good sourcing + length). Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 04:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Three {cn} tags still to be addressed. --PFHLai (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems to have been fixed now. TwistedAxe [contact] 12:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well-written article. Marking as ready for now. TwistedAxe [contact] 12:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Rudolf Pardede

Nominator's comments: Indonesian politician, former senator and governor of North Sumatra. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 17:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article's sourcing and length looks good. Fine for ITNRD. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 23:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Lowell Weicker

Nominator's comments: American politician, former U.S. Senator and governor of Connecticut. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose Few cn tags. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I fixed up all the remaining CN tags, so the article looks good to go. The NYTimes obit is really in-depth if anyone wants to try getting this to GA. Curbon7 (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• How was he a board member of Compuware until 2023 if the company became defunct in 2020? - Indefensible (talk) 23:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Any end date for his time on the Compuware board is not supported by the source, so I've rewritten that sentence to remove the claim. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article's sourcing and length are good enough for ITNRD. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 23:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Killing of Nahel M.

Nominator's comments: The French are again rioting; this time over the killing of 17-year-old Nael M. by police in Paris after a traffic stop. The riots are receiving widespread, international coverage, with many outlets running multiple stories on the incident. In many ways, this is somewhat full circle for me since my first nom on ITN was over another police killing: Tyre Nichols. That didn't get posted because people alleged that police shootings in America were too frequent. Regardless of how true that was, I believe France does have less of these (though not as little as you may expect). - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 16:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on Quality. The article lacks way too much information at the moment. It needs to be improved before we can even start discussing significance. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per DarkSide830. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose First off, given that we didn't post the last time France had a riot, I don't see why we should post this time, Secondly, Per DarkSide830, Third, people die in Police shooting all the time, this is not new, and some protests, maybe riots, occur as a result all the time in America, so I don't see why this is any more important in France. Editor 5426387 (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We did post the French riots as an ongoing item. Additionally, many die in police shootings, but few provoke such vitriol as this has. And I'm not a huge fan of the front that will support because this isn't in the US; in fact, again, I nominated the Tyre Nichols situation and still believe that should have been posted. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 16:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait This feels like a situation that we gave a better understanding in 12 or 24 hr of a news cycle. Maybe these riots disperse quickly, I dunno. But the article clearly needs expansion before any posting can be made. Masem (t) 17:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on quality as the article's currently a disaster. Wait on notability - more than likely this doesn't lead to much, but we'll see. The Kip (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing vote to Support, article's in good shape and the protests/riots are continuing to escalate. The Kip (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because the article (which is awaiting a merge with Killing of Nahel M.) isn't good enough. Also because it & the reaction to it aren't important enough. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait Exactly the kind of item that needs a wider view. Kingsif (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Updated below for chronology[reply]
• Oppose - I suppose the bar is whether we would post this if it happened in another liberal democracy. The answer is "no". I wouldn't oppose putting this in ongoing if the unrest continues, though. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. We're now at 150+ arrests and very widespread unrests. This is worldwide frond page news. Sandstein 07:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait a day or so and then judge it. Note that Nael M. riots now exists that can replace the wl to riot. Anarchyte (talk) 10:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Separating the riots from the killing makes no sense. Unless the riots go on for months (ala the George Floyd protests), the riots are an immediate result of the killing that should stay with the details of the killing for the time being. Masem (t) 12:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding article - while I agree with Masem (talk · contribs) that such an article is likely a premature content fork, with the widespread coverage this is receiving, I think we should just wait and see. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 14:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on quality, though it might be worth posting once a merge takes place. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - article quality looks fine, although could be expanded a bit more (the Killing article). I have seen shorter articles posted to blurb! Definitely significant - has been going on for a few days now I think? QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on principle - the riots have intensified in the last 48 hrs - however, I will stand on the fact that there is no reason for the unrest article to have be split off from the killing article at this time, for purposes of ITN posting. Obviously, if the unrest continues as it has been for more than a week, the split may start to make sense, but the split now is not proper per NEVENT. --Masem (t) 12:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I've boldly merged the two articles, that didn't need to be split (yet at least). Nfitz (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I brought up on the talk page that the page has been unilaterally moved to an alleged surname with no sources to back that up. I can find no references for the alleged surname on Google News or on French Wikipedia - where it's also been moved. I don't know if there's a policy for sorting that out before an article goes on the front page of Wikipedia with a potentially inaccurate title. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I would now support on notability given the scale of the riots and government response, but the article cannot be posted to main page with such a BLP and V issue. Kingsif (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CNN, NRK News and the Evening Standard have all reported the name Nahel Merzouk. :3 F4U (they/it) 21:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support - This is front page news worldwide and the scale of the riots has reached every major city within France and are almost certainly unlikely to end during the weekend, it seems silly to oppose on that basis (though granted most of the comments here were from two days ago). For what it is worth (little), during the 2005 riots we featured (in the archives) it on the front page, though 6 days in seemingly. Tweedle (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Removed the second article, which was merged into the first. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Now the scale of the response is known, as it is major national rioting for several days. Kingsif (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The protests have now made this notable. 2607:9880:2D28:108:8D17:9C13:9461:EC62 (talk) 03:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Lead story on most news sites. --Travisthecrab (talk) 04:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted General consensus to post after early opposes due to sparse article, since developed. Some early waits and opposes also later changed to supports. Without much guidance, I generally used the first, simpler blurb. Feel free to discuss if more details are warranted.—Bagumba (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Seeing as Nahel Merzouk protests is now a separate article, I suggest altering the blurb to link it as “protests and riots.” The Kip (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Needs more input, as discussion above seemed to have merged articles before. Also should get more feedback if "protests" are significant enough to also be mentioned in the blurb.—Bagumba (talk) 03:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There really should not be separate articles yet. If the protests go on for, say, a week or more, then that would be its own event, but everything right now is still an immediate result of the killing. (and if they do go on for more than a week, that is likely good reason for us to put the protests as ongoing). We're an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and we shouldn't be trying to predict what is going to be the significant outcome of this yet. Masem (t) 04:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Support yeah that is what i was about to say because its a seperate article so it should be linked there Sebbog13 (talk) 09:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bagumba see above, my apologies for not tagging initially. The Kip (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: David Ogilvy, 13th Earl of Airlie

Nominator's comments: Was Lord Chamberlain from 1984–1997, close friend of the Late Queen, last living person to have attended the Coronation of George VI and Elizabeth, and via marriage of his brother, related to Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy of the Royal Family. Article may need some work. TheCorriynial (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Ready Referencing (as usual). Also is a bit lacking on family and succession. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Lack of citations in the Arms and In popular culture sections. Expansion on family (and sourcing as well) would be helpful not not necessarily necessary. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 00:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It appears the CN tag has been dropped. @Ad Orientem and the Fakescientist8000 you may want to look it over. TheCorriynial (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Still has an entire section that is unreferenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

=(Closed) 2023 Sierra Leonean general election

Article's quality concerns have not been addressed. With less than an hour until this gets pushed off, I think it's safe to say that consensus to post will not develop. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 23:33, 5 July 2023 (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.

---

Articles: 2023 Sierra Leonean general election (talk · history · tag) and Julius Maada Bio (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Julius Maada Bio (pictured) of the Sierra Leone People's Party is re-elected president. (Post)
News source(s): AP - AL Jazeera - The Guardian - Africa News
Credits:

• Nominated by Knightoftheswords281 (talk · give credit)
• Created by Moondragon21 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Number 57 (talk · give credit), Aréat (talk · give credit) and VosleCap (talk · give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Although the opposition is denying the results (which affects some people's support of general elections), he's already been sworn in, so it seems moot. Needs a lot of work (also surprisingly, there's very little coverage of the election results, even though the lead up did for the crackdown on the opposition). - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 07:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on quality per nom comments. Article needs major expansion. The Kip (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for two reasons, one for each bolded article. 1), the Bio article needs some restructuring, especially as a lot of the content in the lead (which is supposed to be a summary of the article) is not represented later on. 2), the election article needs a lot of expanding upon. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 00:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, Article needs work. Alex-h (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I suggest that the bio is less work to get ready. Schwede66 21:06, 30 June 2023 (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.

(Needs decision) All South Koreans become younger

Nominator's comments: The population of an entire nation has become 1 or 2 years younger. This was an ITN nomination in December 2022 when it was first announced and (some of) consensus was to wait till it comes into force, which is today. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - big news in South Korea; a millenia old tradition has finally been abolished in favor for the standard format. I too actually just read your December nom a few days ago and for the folks dismissing this as administrative trivia, this is actually been a big issue within Korea; for example, their COVID vax policy was all over the place due to inconsistencies in age measuring and was what actually finally led to them switching. Arguments about this just being an administrative change not only aren't true (since this system was in common use amongst SK populace) seem to be setting an exceptionally and rather idiosyncratic standard for what should be posted here, and it also comes off as reeking of the WP:ITNCDONT clause of please do not oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive, since I frankly doubt it would be considered "no big deal" if it occured in the US or UK. In fact, I wonder if this is considered "just an administrative change," how many of you would object to the US formally converting to the metric system being featured on ITN "because its just an administrative change?" - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 09:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please please please shorten your !votes?? I know you can make a concise point without writing a vote longer than two paragraphs. But these long, ranty !votes aren't helpful at all. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are bordering on disruptive, as they repeat the same arguments over and over, against the principles of WP:TE,too Masem (t) 13:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After multiple calls from you and FakeScientist, I shortened my responses from a max of one or two. The in #(Posted) Wagner Group mutiny, you responded to one of my replies with Second, could you maybe trim the length of your posts a bit? If your !vote is longer than one paragraph, consider whether it's too long. I haven't included a second paragraph since, and this paragraph was shorter than the bigger one from that reply. Now that's apparently not enough either? Are y'all doing this in a completely arbitrary manner or do y'all think this works best incrementally? I'm following what y'all stated. - Knightoftheswords (Talk · Contribs) 15:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's just -- can you find a way to communicate your point in a concise fashion without railing against other users? This isn't just arbitrary technicalities. Anyone can identify your !votes by the fact that they're needlessly long and rambling, and you go on tirades against opposing arguments. Masem is right, it's disruptive, and this is not the first time it has been brought up. I'm not sure what's being missed here; maybe I need to provide diffs so you can see what's being referred to? Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I don't think they're really that disruptive. I think Knight makes some good points actually. I'd say that debating over the appropriate lengths that an ITN vote should be is equally as "disruptive" as the long votes themselves, but that's just my opinion. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I can almost always tell if a comment, !vote, or even a nomination is from you if the comment lengths exceeds that of 2 sentences. In my previous request, I said maybe 2 paragraphs at most is fair (assuming on the rare occasion), not every time you comment (and as mentioned by others, they always repeat the same exact points). Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 23:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Needlessly verbose, certainly, but this is not disruptive by any stretch of the imagination. AryKun (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

^ PrecariousWorlds (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, a gimmick. nobody’s actually getting younger. Changing the way they count age in a way which affects nothing else in the world. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, interesting, in the news, and significant if you live in Korea. BilledMammal (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's not a major story but the article update is ok and it's more in-the-news than several of the existing blurbs (for example, the US Open finished 10 days ago). The Titan submersible story should be considered newer as that didn't climax until 22 June – four days later – and is still getting attention. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:ITNCRIT:

  a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable

  I don't see any updates since the announcement. What is the anticipation? What are the preparations? What is the expected impact?—Bagumba (talk) 11:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Struck oppose, per expansion (mentioned below).—Bagumba (talk) 06:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose both on the gimmicky nature of this (better for DYK as an interesting fact) and the lack of any significant update to explain the significance per Bagumba. --Masem (t) 12:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To those supporting thus, if it is that significant, there needs to be far more than a one sentence update to the article. We need to know what govt services and other facets of life are now changed in a significant manner. On the surface, this adjustment appears as a plain as when we have a leap year. Masem (t) 15:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I agree that this is more suitable for DYK.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I disagree with everyone who is suggesting this is only appropriate for DYK. I think this could be a perfect addition both for the ITN and DYK. It's a tradition that has been in Korea for like a thousand years now, and it has come to a halting end. Big news. TwistedAxe [contact] 13:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on significance This is a drastic cultural change that has local ramifications. Easy support. DrewieStewie (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Adding my Support too. It's interesting and newsworthy.

  2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:2C39:AF7F:1A62:CA6F (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. It's a bookkeeping move, plain and simple. If South Koreans want to celebrate their birthdays like they had in the past, they are not prevented from doing so, so the "cultural impact" here is dubious. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Significant, interesting, and has permanent ramifications. Article needs a touch-up though. There are some unresolved tags and a cite templates error. Folly Mox (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - does not meet notability standard, this blurb entry is basically for a 1-sentence update in the article. - Indefensible (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality as it's a one-sentence update. The Kip (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]