Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

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

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

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

Jim Lovell in 1969
Jim Lovell in 1969

view — page history — related changes — edit

Glossary

[edit]
  • Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
    • Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
    • A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
  • Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
  • The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.

All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.

Nomination steps

[edit]
  • Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
  • Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
  • You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.

The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

[edit]
  • When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
  • Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
    • If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
    • Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
    • Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).

Voicing an opinion on an item

[edit]

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

Please do...

[edit]
Shortcut
  1. Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
  2. Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
  3. Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.

Please do not...

[edit]
Shortcut
  1. Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
  2. Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
  3. Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
  4. Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. Oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. Discuss them here.
  6. Use ITN as a forum for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome and are potentially disruptive.

Suggesting updates

[edit]

There are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:

  • Anything that does not change the intent of the blurb (spelling, grammar, markup issues, updating death tolls etc.) should be discussed at WP:Errors.
  • Discuss major changes in the blurb's intent or very complex updates as part of the current ITNC nomination.
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Archives

[edit]

Archives of posted stories: Wikipedia:In the news/Posted/Archives

Sections

[edit]

This page contains a section for each day and a sub-section for each nomination. To see the size and title of each section, please expand the following section size summary.

August 13

[edit]
August 13, 2025 (2025-08-13) (Wednesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

International relations

Law and crime

August 12

[edit]
August 12, 2025 (2025-08-12) (Tuesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Sports

August 11

[edit]
August 11, 2025 (2025-08-11) (Monday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

RD: Sheila Jordan

[edit]
Article: Sheila Jordan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American jazz singer. 240F:7A:6253:1:4C63:96C7:442:1749 (talk) 07:47, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Christophe de Menil

[edit]
Article: Christophe de Menil (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American patron of the arts. Death reported 11 August. Thriley (talk) 06:30, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Ready) RD/Blurb: Miguel Uribe

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Assassination of Miguel Uribe Turbay (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Colombian senator and pre-candidate in the 2026 presidential election Miguel Uribe Turbay (pictured) dies two months after being shot. (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Colombian Presidential candidate dead 2 months after being shot in the back of the head in a targeted attack, probably significant enough for a blurb GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 11:51, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose blurb The assassination attempt was nominated in June but failed due to the article being a stub. While the article has been expanded since, that he succumbed to the shooting later doesn't seem to be that significant. Nor does the Turbay article show significance for a blurb about him. Unsure on RD as his bio article is heavily based on the assassination article with only a couple extra paragraphs beyond the assassination details. I'm not saying he isn't notable (generally, any elected official of a country's top level legislative body is likely to be notable), just that I'm not sure of the need for a separate article on the assassination if the bio article can't be expanded further. Masem (t) 12:02, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, Uribe passes WP:NPOL, something that already codifies what you've said. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'm not debating his notability, but the need for a separate article about the assassination given how little there is in the bio right now. Masem (t) 12:13, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb - Doubtful that the assassination, unusual as it is, rises to the level of meriting a blurb. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:01, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb as his shooting wasn’t posted; definitely significant (a game changer) in the next year's election. ArionStar (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "taking a second bite of the apple", eg posting now because we didn't post the first, is not a good rational for ITN. Masem (t) 20:41, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As the previous nominator, I say it should have been posted at the first opportunity, given the notoriety of the fact in relation to the election. Since it wasn't, I'm supporting it on the second try. ArionStar (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb, assasination of politician who was presedential hopeful. He was also grandson of former president. It is a major event. BilboBeggins (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb under the "death as the main story" clause, not the "major figure" clause. It's the successful assassination of a major candidate for the political election of the executive of Colombia; this level of interference in a political campaign is blurb-worthy. NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the amount of time between the actual attempt and this, calling this event the assassination is really stretching it. He died ultimately from complications created by being shot, but survived the original assassination attempt in that immediate time frame. Masem (t) 20:40, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously? Assassination of James A. Garfield. 184.75.204.27 (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If he hadn't been shot...he wouldn't be dead....The crime has been consummated, so it is an assassination. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Masem, yours is one of the names that I see most frequently on this page. You have contributed meaningfully to hundreds, if not thousands of discussions here (possibly many more). You are a thought-leader here and perhaps an administrator. While personally, I take no position on the blurb-worthiness of this event, having little familiarity with it, I am astounded to note the reasoning here that an assassination cannot be counted as an assassination if a certain amount of time has passed. An anonymous reply already used the counterexample of James A. Garfield, who died six months after he was shot. For a second example, James Brady's death in 2014 was ruled a homicide due to complications from having been shot at the Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan in 1981, even though it had been 33 years after the event. Surely there have been countless other, less high-profile cases, where someone died as a result of complications months or years after sustaining injuries. As an influential contributor here (which I am not), surely you see this. Perhaps I misunderstood your reasoning, and perhaps my knee-jerk response here is unnecessary, but I was surprised.Ryan Reeder (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    When I look at the RSes covering this death, the word "assassination" is not coming up routinely. While clearly what happened in June was an assassination attempt and suspect is being tried on that, that the word us not being used now begs if we should be using it. Mind you I'm looking only at English sources, it may be different in other languages. Masem (t) 23:42, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Many hispanic RS are using the word "assassination" and the Colombian authorities themselves. Maybe we should start here...El País BBC in Spanish /France 24 in Spanish (in this one it is mentioned that the Prosecutor's Office speaks of "magnicide", Yahoo _-_Alsor (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the clarification and for not taking offense, Masem. While it does appear to be clear that Uribe Turbay died as a result of complications from his injuries and as a high-profile candidate in his country, his death should be considered an assassination, (with the elapse of time between the incident and the death being irrelevant if death was caused by the incident), I support the idea that, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should report established facts, not determine them. If other sources are not declaring it to be an assassination, we should not be the ones to make that call. It sounds like the jury may still be out on that point.
    Lean Support Blurb Despite not being particularly familiar with Colombian politics, I probably should take a position since I'm making comments. Since Colombia has a significant population of 52.7 million (ranking 27th) and a GDP of $1.04 trillion (ranking 32nd), it seems that it ought to be sufficiently notable on the world stage for an assassination of a Presidential candidate to merit mention in a blurb. However, although, according to list of assassinations, the assassination of presidential candidates is fairly rare worldwide, Colombia has had a fairly large number of high-profile assassinations over the past few decades (43 listed since 1984).
    Also, I relied on faulty memory without double-checking the facts in the case of James A. Garfield, who died 79 days after being shot, not six months. I apologize for my inaccuracy there. Ryan Reeder (talk) 07:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem here is that right now, no one has yet eliminated any fault of the hospital staff that could have caused the complications (not that I believe they did anything here to make the condition worse, it is still in the realm of possibilities, eg as what happened to Garfield), so in the current time, the most accurate statement is that "he died from complications while under treatment from the attempted assassination". In the long run, it may be that everyone considers the shooting to have been an irreversable point in time in terms of survival, and thus "assassination" may then be the way it is described from then on, but that's something that will not be known for at least a few weeks if not more. WP has to be careful with these types of situations and not immediately jump to conclusions that may not be well supported in RSes. Masem (t) 12:03, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb per Orbitalbuzzsaw and Bilbo. As a sidenote, I think it would also be a pretty naked double standard for us to decline to post this while simultaneously posting 2025 shootings of Minnesota legislators. Whereas those were legislators in a regional assembly, this was an assassination of a candidate for the highest national public office of the respective country. Yes, that's a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, but precedent and consistency is de facto a relevant consideration at ITN. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 23:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb major political killing. Scuba 02:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb per orbitalbuzzsaw and NorthernFalcon. –DMartin 02:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb per above. Definitely relevant in Latin America, and basically per Flipandflopped, it would really be double standard not to post this. --Bedivere (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb The death is covered in a wide range of international sources so it's in the news and the article seems ok. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb per Flipandflopped. This is a good example of a death-blurb where the primary reason for blurbing is the nature of the death, rather than the individual being a transformative figure in a particular field. Adding that we did blurb the stabbing / Attempted assassination of Jair Bolsonaro back when he was still just a candidate for president in 2018 (and more recently the Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania, but not the other one where no shots were fired and no one got hurt). The difference here is that the candidate really was killed.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 10:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I think the "transformative figure" standard is too vague, and should be got rid of entirely. As part of a more general discussion on RDBs that we need to have at some point, the fact that the event has its own target article (rather than pointing to the biography) seems like a minimum criteria for RDBs I would hope we can all agree on. All of these do, while most (spurious, like the astronaut) RDBs do not, which is an obvious marker of the notability of the death as event This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 10:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that proposal would be too likely to get a consensus. We've had consensuses in favor of posting so many RD blurbs for individuals considered at the top of their respective fields that it's reasonable to assume that a consensus of ITN contributors would agree that someone considered sufficiently transformative ought to be posted.
    This proposal limits death blurbs to only assassinations or freak accidents and pretty much nothing else, unless "Death and state funeral of (name)" pages would count as a person's death being an "event" in which case we could still blurb some world leaders, but even figures like Kissinger (who was overwhelmingly agreed to be worthy of blurbing) would fail if there needed to be a standalone article about someone's death. It's true that there has always been a not insignificant percent of ITN contributors who are unsatisfied with how open we've been to posting blurbs about deaths, but it's also always been true that proposals to tighten the criteria always fail to get a consensus, so the way we've been doing things is still more agreeable than the alternatives.
    Speaking only for myself here, I may be in the minority when I say this, but I don't actually think there's a problem of us blurbing too many things, deaths or otherwise; my complaint with ITN in recent times hasn't been that there's too many blurbs, it's that there's often times not enough, resulting in the ITN box being full of old/stale blurbs. I also find that most proposals for reforming ITN seek to find an objective criteria for notability for some reason, when the line between notable and non-notable is fuzzy and the source of many debates everywhere else on Wikipedia. Never understood why many people have a problem with ITN being an inherently subjective thing.
     Vanilla  Wizard 💙 12:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We cannot control when news actually happens, so to expect or try to force any type of routine basis for how ITN blurbs are posted makes no sense. Its why we stress its not a news ticker. (Moreso, the problem is the lack of nominations of stories that are news items but not always front page news, but do feature quality articles that have been updated) Masem (t) 12:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with everything you said here, I am not proposing we change anything when I say that if anything I think there's not enough blurbs, I'm just explaining that I don't think there's a problem of too many blurbs.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 12:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I see it
    1. There's no objective criteria for "transformative figure" - e.g. I would argue that there's no sports player who should qualify for an RDB unless the manner of death is unusual, but evidently some editors feel otherwise. Therefore, the criteria is flawed and, at best, needs to be refined
    2. "Death and state funeral of [x]" would count, since it's a separate target article about the death. The point of ITN is to post newsworthy events, and a retired sports player dying is not a newsworthy event. Conversely, Kissinger probably should have had a "death and funeral of" article given how widespread the news there was.
    3. You definitely are in the minority there, especially when it comes to the sports - another complaint of mine with ITN, sports blurbs should be cut down to really the World Cup and equivalents - the FINA swimming championship is not global news, and should not be posted on "In The News"
    This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There was an ITNC for when the attempted assassination happened here, but at that time, the article failed to meet quality requirements.. Masem (t) 11:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb. This wasn't posted back in June when the situation was less clear. However, now that Miguel Uribe Turbay has died and his death is the result of an actual political assassination, it will have a significant effect on the upcoming presidential elections in Colombia, see, e.g. this El País analysis[1]. Nsk92 (talk) 12:26, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
  • @Admins willing to post ITN: Please be advised this has been marked as ready for almost 24 hours. –DMartin 20:23, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb: a tragic assassination of politician. ROY is WAR Talk! 03:22, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Ready) RD: Zhu Liang

[edit]
Article: Zhu Liang (politician) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Lianhe Zaobao
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Chinese politician, former head of the International Department of the Chinese Communist Party Toadboy123 (talk) 10:27, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 10

[edit]
August 10, 2025 (2025-08-10) (Sunday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

RD: Bobby Whitlock

[edit]
Article: Bobby Whitlock (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBS News
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Founder of Derek and the Dominos. 240F:7A:6253:1:59F4:3007:284C:EFA9 (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Biddy Baxter

[edit]
Article: Biddy Baxter (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Guardian BBC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: British TV producer. Article is in decent condition. Black Kite (talk) 10:42, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted RD) RD/blurb: Anas Al-Sharif

[edit]
Articles: Anas Al-Sharif (talk · history · tag) and Assassination of Anas Al-Sharif (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  In Gaza, Israeli forces assassinated journalist Anas Al-Sharif along with four of his colleagues. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In Gaza, Israel says it targeted and assassinated Al Jazeera journalist Anas Al-Sharif in an airstrike that also killed four colleagues.
Alternative blurb II: ​ An Israeli airstrike in Gaza kills Al Jazeera journalist Anas Al-Sharif, along with four of his colleagues.
News source(s): Reuters The New York Times BBC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Israel claimed the shelling of Anas Al-Sharif and his alongside four colleagues including cameramanI created a separate article during my research it delibarate killing so used assassination (Assassination of Anas Al-Sharif) QalasQalas (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support as he was one of the most well known journalists in Palestine covering major events of the genocide in the past years. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 07:33, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb IDF assassinated journalist justifying Hamas without solid evidence.
95.183.203.20 (talk) 07:35, 11 August 2025 (UTC) -striking IP user comment due to WP:ECR on ARBPIA -GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 12:01, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb - One of 200 journalists killed by Israel, and this specific journalist doesn't stand out as highly-influential. Didn't even have an article till yesterday. — EF5 07:45, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People have used this same argument for the other 200 journalists... That's exactly the issue with what Israel is doing, it is killing so many at such a fast rate that people can't keep up and grief each life. I'd say Anas was very well known in Palestine, and outside Palestine - we literally had a call with him last week during a protest in the Netherlands. Feels surreal to hear he was murdered - and in front of a hospital no less. I think the fact that there are no Al Jazeera journalists left, how known he was, and the way he was killed, should grant his name on the Recent Deaths. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 07:52, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because when people die en-masse it usually takes away from the individual importance of their death (albeit all 200 deaths are obviously important). It’s sort of like posting one single victim of a bombing that claimed 200 lives, in my eyes. And ongoing also covers this. EF5 08:00, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but in this case Israel had already for months threatened to murder Anas. This was a targeted assassination. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 08:03, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even taking that into account, how many other people have the IDF targeted for assassination? We're picking one name out of the hat to make that featured when there's still a huge number left over, which is why we should let the ongoing cover this rather than feature one individual. Masem (t) 12:37, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb. This page is "In The News" and this is getting big coverage - certainly here, it's the top story on the BBC front page and most other UK news orgs. Black Kite (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Seems to be OK in terms of quality for an RD. But we don't normally blurb events covered by an event already listed as "ongoing" (in this case, Gaza war), except for the most exceptional or important developments, which this does not seem to be. Sandstein 11:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb on the basis that the amount of deaths in Gaza by the IDF, including that of journalists and aid workers, is covered by the ongoing, and it does not make sense to elevate the death of one journalist, even if this was a very influencial journalist, above all the others (particularly those that are actually trying to live in Gaza) to be a blurb, it actually would look really bad. RD is fine in this situation, though in terms of quality, the article could be a bit cleaner. Masem (t) 12:08, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb, since this mass killing of journalists in a single airstrike has been widely covered by all international news organizations. And I believe it's of particular importance to this encyclopedia, since we rely on reliable news sources for our content. -Darouet (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb, covered by ongoing. Support RD article seems good enough. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb, add to RD, part of ongoing. Why make it a top news story of one journalist's death in war instead of others? To put it in perspective: Cnn: 2024 Deadliest year for journalists. Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb, covered by ongoing. BilboBeggins (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) More than 500 arrested in support of Palestine Action

[edit]
Good faith nom, however consensus to post will not develop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2025 (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: Palestine Action (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In UK politics, more than 500 people are arrested after showing support for direct action group Palestine Action. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Over 500 people are arrested in London for protesting in support of proscribed group Palestine Action.
News source(s): BBC News, The Guardian
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Happy to write an alternate blurb if consensus is to include a reference to them being a proscribed organisation in the UK, but might become wordy if so.
  • Comment Sad turn of events (the designation and arrests) but I am afraid this is covered under the ongoing Gaza war where events of much more significance are the mass starvation and occupation approved by the Netanyahu cabinet. Gotitbro (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah that's fair enough. Makes sense to not have overlap. EphemeralPerpetuals (they/them)talk 21:02, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - As authoritarian as these arrests are, it's covered by ongoing Nfitz (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vaguely support concept, oppose it as it stand currently I'd be fine with posting this, but the current blurb is insufficient and the target article needs to be the protests/arrests not the organizers of the protests. Scuba 22:50, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I feel there are two issues with this nomination. Firstly, I think the target article should be the primary subject of the article, the protests, rather than any secondary subjects. Secondly, as others have already pointed out, I feel this is already covered by ongoing. 5.57.243.123 (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but the wording is definitely biased. This is not in "UK Politics" but "UK policing/law and order". And in the UK you quite obviously don't get arrested simply for showing support for direct action groups. And I think even that phrasing underplays the frightening nature of a group that's prepared to enter military bases and mess with safety critical equipment. In a country where until recently, "direct action" merely meant breaking windows, climbing infrastructure (that's not on military bases) and generally glueing yourself to things. Mainly for annoyance and financial harm, where the worst you could say was that innocent people may have died due to their actions because ambulances were delayed. These people however, could easily be directly responsible for deaths if they aren't very careful about what they do and don't mess with. And that means they risk being shot by UK military personnel if the threat is immediate and there's no realistic alternative. So don't be running toward any radars with hammers ignoring shouted warnings by figures in camouflage gear, would be my advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TRIPPY42 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 11 August 2025 (UTC) IP user + new user are not WP:XC - striking votes per WP:ECR on ARBPIA topics. The Kip (contribs) 03:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Spray painting UAVs is not something anyone would call "frightening". This is milder than anything Just Stop Oil did but even that wasn't designated terror. Ludicrous assertions to base notability on. Gotitbro (talk) 03:33, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose covered by ongoing + nowhere near the significance/coverage of other protests that we didn't post. The Kip (contribs) 03:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose covered by ongoing and not that notable. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - if we’re not going to post protests with 5 million participants, why the heck are we seriously considering a protest with 500? EF5 16:18, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I am not very educated in this so I sorry if this is wrong but it seems like the government is arresting people for supporting a designated terrorist group. That seems pretty routine/normal. People committed a crime, they get arrested, and there is no mention of notable people being arrested. History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:34, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a group which has very recently been designated as a terrorist group by government fiat. Unlike every other proscribed group in UK law, it has only ever caused property damage and never directly harmed or threatened any person. These moves are widely viewed (rightly or wrongly) as a heavy-handed and draconian attack on freedom of speech, particularly in the area of criticism of the government's perceived support of the current government of Israel. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Crystal Palace win the Community Shield

[edit]
Oh for goodness sake, stop it and grow up. Black Kite (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2025 (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: Crystal Palace F.C. (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In association football, Crystal Palace F.C. defeat Liverpool F.C. to win the 2025 FA Community Shield. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Upset result in the English Super Cup, curtain raiser for the 2025-26 Premier League season. Palace have now beaten what many consider to be the team of the 2000s (Manchester City) in the 2025 FA Cup final, and repeated that shock result by beating the 2025-26 Premier League champions Liverpool for the super cup (Community Shield). Having beaten the best on the field, they now go to the Court of Arbitration for Sport to hopefully defeat their UEFA imposed demotion from the 2025-26 Europa League to the Conference League, after breaching common ownership rules. Bit different from the usual Chelsea/City/Arsenal/Liverpool beat Chelsea/City/Arsenal/Liverpool in a glorified friendly that this match usually represents. OliversArmyWinsDaTing (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose good faith suggestion but the level of football additions has to be higher than what the nominator himself has described as often a "glorified friendly". An event of low importance doesn't become more important because its new winner is a smaller team. For the uninformed, this is at least the fourth honour of English football (open to debate whether the EFL Championship means more given its stakes) Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In the end of season Championship playoff, featuring two of the 3rd to 6th best teams in the second tier, you're winning the right to probably get beaten more than you win in the following Premier League, before going back down again. In the Community Shield, you're settling who is the better team, the winner of last year's Premier League or last year's FA Cup, the two most prestigious domestic trophies. So by definition, the Shield has more honour attached. It's only seen as a friendly (by some) because it's held at the start of the season rather than the end, so, like today, you see a lot of new players bedding in. And since it is only a standalone match, with the two more prestigious trophies to come, it's seen as less important. But it's still seen as a victory in a competitive match any player and manager wants to win. If, as happened here, it doesn't go the way the odds suggest, questions are immediately asked about the fitness of the favourites to win the two better trophies to come. I definitely only proposed this because it's seemingly part of a wider trend in English football where the big boys are getting beaten on a more regular basis by this group of second ranked teams. So players like the Palace defender or the Newcastle striker who have been heavily touted as Liverpool's next acquisitions, might want to think again. Albeit the transfer market seems to show players are still basically motivated by money and past glories, not their actual chances of winning a trophy with team X and manager Y in this new successful second rank group. Arsenal, City, Chelsea, all trophyless last year. The effort by UEFA to further reduce the appeal for a player who might want to join the currently flying high Palace or other second ranked teams, rather than the likes of the faded joke of a club Manchester United (and City?), chokers Arsenal, unpredictable Chelsea, or might not be all that nailed on title favourites Liverpool, only adds to the intrigue. If anything, we might never be getting a so called routine Community Shield between the likes of Chelsea/City/Arsenal/Liverpool ever again. No longer a routine glorified friendly where who wins doesn't really matter. If Liverpool are poor title defenders this season, the signs were likely first exposed here, by Palace, and in their prior Carling Cup defeat to Newcastle. A leaky defence and paying star player Mo Salah for what he's done, not what he can do in future. Because he was totally anonymous today, as he was in the Carling Cup final. And then this starts to look less like an upset given at least two Palace players, Guehe and Wharton, are being tipped for the England side at the forthcoming World Cup off the back of successes like this, which were hardly a surprise. OliversArmyWinsDaTing (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Shouldn't 2025 FA Community Shield be the target article here since it's the event/subject of the news article? Edit: added news source since nom omitted one.5.57.243.123 (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ooops! Cheers ;-) OliversArmyWinsDaTing (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. England has competitive league and cup. BilboBeggins (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose We already have many football items, and the Community Shield represents the lowest of all ‘competitive’ cups in English football. To post it would be to effectively say any and all football in England is worth posting. We should probably be limiting the football items we already regularly post, not adding a pre-season pseudo-friendly to the pile. And no, no fancruft essay on how cool this individual game was will sway this, so don’t even try. Kingsif (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn’t rank as a competition at all in that sense, it's a super cup. A standalone game. Trying to rank it alongside the 38 game Premier League, and the several games needed to win the FA Cup or League Cup, is daft. But if you tried to argue that somehow winning the FA Cup / Premier League and then this trophy, was less of an achievement than winning the League Cup, which these days sees teams play their backups or youngsters due to fixture congestion, people would think you were a sandwich short of a picnic. Certainly quite ignorant of football (and therefore, probably not English at all). It's easily the third "best" trophy in English football, for anyone who feels the need to think in these frankly extremely simplistic terms. And the third best trophy in the biggest football nation in the world, will obviously be more worthy than the top competion in pretty much all the other countries in the world. Just like the Pro Bowl (if it was still actually a real game) would outrank, in that crude sense, any SuperBowl not played by NFL teams. FletchTheWretch (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The Premier League is the de facto top domestic league in the world, and the FA Cup is the most prestigious domestic knockout competition in the world too. So why on Earth would people not be interested in the resulting super cup final? It's only fixture congestion that means it opens the season. If it was at the end, there'd be no doubt it would be hailed as the greatest football game in the world, bar the World Cup final of course. FletchTheWretch (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Close, nominator's been blocked for sockpuppetry. Also this is a Mickey Mouse cup, the result of the match doesn't stop it being a glorified friendly Kowal2701 (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Kunishige Kamamato

[edit]
Article: Kunishige Kamamoto (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NHK
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Japanese footballer and politician. 240F:7A:6253:1:3DD1:D9C0:CC4:14A0 (talk) 07:43, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 9

[edit]
August 9, 2025 (2025-08-09) (Saturday)

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

(Closed) 80th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki

[edit]
WP:SNOW, consensus to post will not develop. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:52, 12 August 2025 (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: Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Over 2,600 gather in Nagasaki to commemorate the 80th anniversary of it's atomic bombing, including foreign dignitaries, survivors of the bombings and their family (Post)
News source(s): (CBC) (Sky News)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Sky News & CBC have the best images for this but neither are free use to my knowledge which is a real shame AssanEcho (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While this blurb is aimed around the ceremony of the event (as I had suggested on talk) and not strictly the anniversary (which was covered on Aug 6th OTD), the article has no mention of the actual ceremony, outside of the update to the number of deaths attributed to the bombings. And given this seems to be done annually, its hard to see why we'd post a X0th ceremony without the ceremony being a significant event in of itself. Masem (t) 20:13, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think its notable that dignitaries from 90 different nations came, that the survivors spoke about frustration at the current state of the world regarding both war and nuclear politics and that it was noted by multiple organisations that israel dignitaries were not invited and that chinese dignitaries did not attend (Al jazeera notes that this anniversary is also the first time a russian dignitarie was invited since the russian invasion [2])
    but on the other hand i also see what you mean in regards to the article failing to be meet relevance to the blurb. this is however, the best article i could find on this honestly. i can also see counter points to what I view as notable about the event in that (asside from maybe those who didnt appear) that this generally all excepected of a being anniversary of such an event AssanEcho (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Appears stale-ish, should have covered this on the day of the bombings as this is ever more relevant now (the doomsday clock has never been more closer to midnight). Gotitbro (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you mean and even totally agree, but its just that i didnt know about this yesterday and evidently nobody else nominated this before me so its just the unfortunate nature of things. AssanEcho (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Better for an OTD. EF5 22:04, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Should be OTD. Also why not Hiroshima instead? No prejudice against relisting for the 100th anniversary of Hiroshima on August 6, 2045. Nfitz (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. The Kip (contribs) 03:49, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No notable news event is happening today, it would be better for OTD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 07:35, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose we have "Today's Featured Article" and "On this day" literally for things like this. The actual commemoration in 2025 isn't a major event. Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Stale by 80 years. Would be a good fit for Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries. –DMartin 23:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Ray Brooks

[edit]
Article: Ray Brooks (actor) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: English actor. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 17:18, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Audu Ogbeh

[edit]
Article: Audu Ogbeh (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Daily Post (Nigeria) BBC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Former Nigerian government minister. Article could use a bit of expansion but it meets the minimum for RD. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support but needs some work, updated death section.

QalasQalas (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article is well-sourced and of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 03:14, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 8

[edit]
August 8, 2025 (2025-08-08) (Friday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: William H. Webster

[edit]
Article: William H. Webster (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Bloomberg News
Credits:

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

 elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:28, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted blurb) RD/blurb: Jim Lovell

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Jim Lovell (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  American astronaut Jim Lovell (pictured) dies at the age of 97. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ American astronaut Jim Lovell (pictured), who commanded Apollo 13, dies at the age of 97.
News source(s): CBS News Reuters
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American astronaut. Article is an FA. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blurb - I’m usually against blurbs for old people who have died, but it’s a quality article and Jim Lovell is a highly-influential person in his field. One of the first three people to see the opposite side of the moon and one of only three people in history who have managed to survive a spaceflight in a heavily-damaged craft. EF5 19:19, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. Apollo 13 commander who helped turn failed moon mission into triumph of on-the-fly engineering. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - exceeds quality requirements substantially. Would support a blurb. Polyamorph (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb Featured article. A legend. Grimes2 19:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb - no article quality concerns (it's an FA). Extremely well known figure in and outside of the aerospace community; popularity further boosted by Apollo 13 (film).
    WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the blurb suggestion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb Article in good shape and article does establish how Lovell is influential in his field. In the coming hours, I wouldn't be surprised with the influx in article viewership and international obits either. Also the man was one of three people to see the opposite end of the moon. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb FA article and well known American space icon. --Engineerchange (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb I found one statement that needs a CN but one or two's is not a significant issue, and probably should be easily sourcable. Article demonstrates why he was a great figure clearly, and already high quality otherwise. Masem (t) 19:47, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - But I'd pump the brakes on a blurb, as his death was not unexpected and there have been astronauts of arguably similar caliber to Lovell who were not blurbed. While I recognize Apollo 13 was a legendary mission on account of the risks involved and the danger averted, it will be difficult to communicate that importance to readers in comparison to the other "firsts" of space flight (which admittedly he had Apollo 8 as one of them). I think a greater argument needs to be made about why Lovell in particular merits the stand-out attention compared to other highly-regarded astronauts at NASA, such as Jim McDivitt, who was not blurbed. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:53, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What immediately stands out is the lack of any type of legacy section in McDivitt's article to explain how he was a major figure (and not simply an astronaut that had some historic missions), whereas Lovell's has that. I agree that not every astronaut should merit a blurb, and also just being one on a key historic mission is not sufficient either. Masem (t) 20:05, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Lovell's article does a good job at establishing why he's at the top of his field, extending a bit further than just simply an astronaut. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You want to have a go at writing one? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:11, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD. Neutral on Blurb - I'm not too sure if he should blurbed but given how the article is an FA I feel that this should be posted to rd already or at least labelled ready. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. Augustresende (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wish those supporting a blurb here did the same for Frank Borman’s death given that Borman was a more prominent figure in the field of human spaceflight than Lovell (note that Borman’s article was also featured at the time of that nomination even though that’s not a valid criterion to support a blurb). I don’t want to be the party-pooper and the first one to oppose a blurb, but it’d not be fair for Borman and his legacy if Lovell gets a blurb. Did we really lower the criteria for a death blurb in less than two years?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel that Lovell is probably more well known outside of the aerospace community because of the movie Apollo 13. I would have supported a blurb for Borman if I was editing at the time. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apollo 13 was a failed mission as it didn’t achieve its objective, and popularity gained through a film documenting the story doesn’t make someone significant or transformative in their field. He may be more well-known outside of the aerospace community than Borman, but that doesn’t make a stronger case for a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether "fair" or not, being the subject of a film documentary which increased his fame and popularity makes him more of a "major figure" than Borman. Natg 19 (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are documentaries about mediocre people in many fields because of interesting stories, but that doesn’t mean they’re more significant than other greater figures. This is an encyclopaedia and someone’s significance should be established on the basis of their contribution within the respective field, not as a result of popularity gained through the show business.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I got into trouble last week for saying that RDs of household names are more likely to get blurbed than transformative figures that people haven't heard of. To be honest, other than Armstrong and Aldrin, the actual first people on the moon, you probably can't separate the Apollo astronauts in terms of how transformative they are. So it ends up that the few that most people have heard of are the ones we blurb. Michael Collins got a blurb in 2021, I guess his claim to fame is being the third man on Apollo 11. Lovell gets the nod because of his role on the failed mission Apollo 13 and of course we've all seen the movie where Tom Hanks plays him. Borman, on the other hand, not such a household name unless you're a space buff or were alive at the time of the missions. But he was transformative as the commander of the first mission to go around the moon. It's not necessarily a bad thing to blurb the people that readers have heard of, and I don't oppose blurbing Lovell. I imagine that's what readers expect from us. But we should probably be more explicit that that's what we do. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 06:48, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Myself, I am looking for whether we have, in the article, sources affirming the person was considered a great figure (beyond just fame), as to avoid the original research of WP editors making that claim themselves. Lowell's has it, Borman is not quite there with that. Masem (t) 12:22, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb And for the record, I did support a blurb for Frank Borman, as well as bringing both articles to Featured. Lovell was the last surviving member of NASA Astronaut Group 2. His death means that the oldest living astronaut is now NASA Astronaut Group 3 astronaut Buzz Aldrin. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb Article quality is best in standard (as it is a FA), and the notability aspect should be self explanatory. Good to go. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 22:13, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb, I did not spot any glaring issues with the article. 5.57.243.123 (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted, clear consensus for a blurb. Stephen 22:33, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support blurb. BilboBeggins (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support blurb Jim Lovell was one of the most popular astronauts in the 1970's due to their feat they made on Apollo 13. And also one of the oldest astronauts in history, does absolutely deserve a blurb for dying. EditorShane3456 (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to either of these blurbs, with preference for the longer one with "American astronaut". Natg 19 (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to either of these as well. The Kip (contribs) 03:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the words to T:ITN per the above. Ed [talk] [OMT] 06:09, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We don't editoralise blurbs in this fashion. This was discussed and rejected at Errors yesterday. Please revert back to the agreed consensus version that has been io for days.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:36, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Editorialising is expressing an opinion. But command of Apollo 13 is not an opinion – it's a basic fact and the main claim to fame of the subject. The expanded blurb is still much shorter than the blurb about the helicopter crash. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:52, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Altblurb ready) Armenia-Azerbaijan peace agreement

[edit]
Proposed image
Left to right: President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan, US President Donald Trump, and Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia signing a trilateral joint declaration
Articles: Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (talk · history · tag) and Armenia–Azerbaijan peace agreement (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Azerbaijan and Armenia sign a peace agreement to end the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, granting the United States a 99-year lease over the Zangezur corridor. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Azerbaijan and Armenia sign a declaration to formalize future peace treaty ending the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
Alternative blurb II: ​ US brokered peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
News source(s): Politico, CNN, Washington Post
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Peace agreement (to be) signed to end nearly four decades of conflict. US notably secured development rights over the sought-after Zangezur corridor, to the benefit of Turkey and dismay of Iran and Russia. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:28, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now. Signing hasn't actually occurred, target article hasn't been updated, and if this agreement actually goes through, it may make sense to have a separate article for the agreement. ForsythiaJo (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•Support Alt Blurb Possibly the end of a 37 year long conflict GodzillamanRor (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support unless Russophiles topple the government this marks the end of one of the major post-Soviet conflicts and opens a new chapter in Caucasian geopolitics. Scuba 22:35, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oppose ink on paper until anything on the ground changes over Zangezur.46.71.192.180 (talk) 08:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, um, there is ink on paper, so... DarkSide830 (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, misread. But still, what would be the criteria proving something has "changed" here exactly? DarkSide830 (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Grass Wonder

[edit]
Article: Grass Wonder (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/2025/08/08/japan-uma-musume-pretty-derby-grass-wonder-death/9741754659578/
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Japanese champion racehorse and sire, currently experiencing a surge in popularity again because of the recent English release of Uma Musume Pretty Derby. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 14:10, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 7

[edit]
August 7, 2025 (2025-08-07) (Thursday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

RD: Myint Swe

[edit]
Article: Myint Swe (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): AP
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Myanmarese politician and coup leader. Article seems almost ready. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait Two CN tags, including one for birthplace. I'd like to see verification for it before I support. Jmanlucas (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's some unsourced lines. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) US tariffs

[edit]
Good faith nom, however consensus to post will not develop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2025 (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.

Proposed image
Articles: Tariffs in the second Trump administration (talk · history · tag) and Liberation Day tariffs (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ US tariffs on its imports from many nations (pictured) take effect. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, FT, Guardian, NPR, NYT
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: The "Liberation Day reciprocal tariffs" kick in today with a complex and changing patchwork of exemptions and extras. I don't know how well we're keeping up with this but it's certainly in the news. The Guardian has a table of rates but maybe there's a more authoritative summary somewhere. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:17, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Heatrave (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • at the very least wait a little bit. The stock market isn't even open right now. We won't know the true effects until a bit later. If it crashes the stock market, or (somehow) causes it to have an enormous jump, then support in terms of notability. If nothing really comes of it (at least not immediately), then I don't know.
Gaismagorm (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the others are correct in that this was posted, but these "Liberation Day tariffs" were posted in April (not March). 18:12, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose - tariff rates for goods from various countries and categories seems to be changing on a near-daily basis in that country. I really don't think yet another change on local consumer taxes on goods (and services?) is particularly. Particularly as these are all relatively small trade partners. The rates on the 3 largest trade partners (Mexico, China, Canada) aren't even changing. Nfitz (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. IDB.S (talk) 04:34, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:ITNTRUMP. ROY is WAR Talk! 02:30, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ongoing this meets all the thresholds for ongoing- it's an ongoing event with frequent updates and articles are constantly updated. The notion that we cannot put something onto ongoing without it first being a blurb is ridiculous- this is exactly the sort of article that should be on ongoing. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2025 (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.

August 6

[edit]
August 6, 2025 (2025-08-06) (Wednesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

RD: Leonard Lopate

[edit]
Article: Leonard Lopate (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Longtime radio host at WNYC. Death reported 6 August. Thriley (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(reviews needed) RD: Salvador Chuliá Hernández

[edit]
Article: Salvador Chuliá Hernández (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Actualidad Valencia (in Spanish)
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Influential in the Valencia region as conservatoire director for decades, composer, conductor and in other music organisation functions. New article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: David Dale

[edit]
Article: David Dale (author) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [3], [4]
Credits:

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

 Happily888 (talk) 08:21, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Eddie Palmieri

[edit]
Article: Eddie Palmieri (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NPR
Credits:

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

 240F:7A:6253:1:CD2F:EC23:D3BD:F588 (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not Ready Per Alexcalamaro. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Lloyd A. Williams

[edit]
Article: Lloyd A. Williams (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): WPIX
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: New York City community leader who founded Harlem Week. Death was announced day after death. ミラP@Miraclepine 01:42, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Military Aircraft Crash in Ghana

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2025 Ghanaian Air Force Z-9 helicopter crash (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A Military Helicopter has crashed in Obuasi in Ghana, killing two current ministers of state. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In Ghana, a military helicopter crashes while carrying Defence Minister Edward Omane Boamah (pictured) and Environment Minister Ibrahim Murtala Muhammed
Alternative blurb II: ​ A helicopter (similar pictured) carrying Ghanaian Minister for Environment Ibrahim Murtala Muhammed and Minister of Defence Edward Omane Boamah crashes in Akrofuom District, Ashanti Region, killing all eight people onboard.
Alternative blurb III: ​ A helicopter crashes in Ashanti Region, Ghana, killing all 8 people, including two current ministers.
News source(s): Citinewsroom
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Dr. Omane Boamah, Minister For Defence and Dr. Murtala Mohammed, Minister for Environment in Ghana among the 8 casualties in a helicopter crash Heatrave (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

QalasQalas (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Article now exists and is in good shape, although the aftermath section could be expanded a bit (however this is not a deal breaker for me since I understand it's been a day since the accident). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support multiple famous politicians among the victims. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt 2 Ready. ArionStar (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific fraud

[edit]
Article: Scientific misconduct (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Fraudulent publishers such as research paper mills have grown to become an industry threatening the integrity of science. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A recently published study from Northwestern University shows that Fraudulent publishers such as research paper mills have grown to become an industry threatening the integrity of science.
News source(s): DW, The Economist, NYT, PNAS, Science, Times Higher Education
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Wikipedia depends upon reliable sources but it's not just government statistics that are now suspect – there's a massive industry threatening scientific publishing with a growing torrent of bogus papers. Caveat lector! Andrew🐉(talk) 12:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think that this would be a better blurb if it were referring to a specific paper mill, or to a specific collection of paper mills. Saying that paper mills in general threaten scientific integrity seems less verifiable to me. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is no clearly identifiable event here that is suitable for ITN. If some relevant article can be improved to FA status or something relevant can be nominated for DYK, that would be a more reasonable way to have a main page item on the topic. Nsk92 (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Nsk. People are constantly making studies on things, what makes this one blurbable? EF5 19:19, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, oppose on quality this is the news reporting on a just-published scientific peer reviewed paper evaluating the scope of fraud in scientific publishing. It is similar to past reports of scientific events and should be looked that through that lens. And this is an important topic because such fraud threatens the typical science publishing model. Quality is somewhat poor with some unsourced paragraphs and while I can see it uses mid paragraph cites which is normally fine in scientific writing, is not WP's style. Also likely more can be written in the update to explain the significance of the problem Masem (t) 13:24, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What do we mean when we say in Wikipedia voice that research paper mills are a "major industry"? How do we classify that and maintain that with reliable sources? Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:41, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's how the NYT puts it,

A team of researchers found evidence of shady organizations churning out fake or low-quality studies on an industrial scale. And their output is rising fast, threatening the integrity of many fields.

while Science says

For years, sleuths who study scientific fraud have been sounding the alarm about the sheer size and sophistication of the industry that churns out fake publications. Now, an extensive investigation finds evidence of a range of bad actors profiting from fraud. The study, based on an analysis of thousands of publications and their authors and editors, shows paper mills are just part of a complex, interconnected system that includes publishers, journals, and brokers. ... The paper shows that misconduct “has become an industry,” says Anna Abalkina of the Free University of Berlin, who studies corruption in science and was not involved with the research.

But, reviewing this, I think we can lose the word "major" and so I've trimmed it.
Andrew🐉(talk) 17:12, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this isn't an event. It's a trend. It's a depressing trend, but still just a trend. There isn't one specific reason why this should be posted at this moment. How would we order it in terms of chronology? I suppose the article is important, and once again it's something we all need to look out for, but it's still just a trend. Gaismagorm (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The topic is "in the news" as that's where I found it this morning. Our stated purpose includes:
  • To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news.
  • To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them.
  • To emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource.
On the latter point, note that the current blurbs are 3, 7 and 10 days old and so are no longer in the news. This item would therefore improve the current stale set.
Andrew🐉(talk) 17:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gaismagorm:I think the "event" was meant to be this study which was published on the 4th, but that wasn't clear from the blurb. I've added an alt. –DMartin 18:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I have no opinion. I was primarily concerned that it wasn't an event. Gaismagorm (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If somebody wants to strikethorugh my original Oppose comment, please do. Uh, Wikipedia is buggy and my browser crashes whenever I try to edit the source of a semi-protected/extended-protected/any other protected page. Gaismagorm (talk) 11:31, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Scientific coverage is generally not based on a discrete event but the publication of a peer reviewed paper that gets news coverage. Just like when we post the UN climate assessments, it's not the event of climate change but the publication that is the trigger. Masem (t) 13:22, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Though important, I haven't seen much coverage of this particular scientific paper. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 14:49, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as I feel the target article is too broad for the blurb compared to the width for the target articles of what's usually posted. I feel this would be a better fit for DYK. 5.57.243.123 (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose too nebulous and time-unspecific. This isn't a new discovery, more of a widely known fact and process that has been developing for decades. Would at least require an article about the study itself rather than a vast topic article, but even then this isn't groundbreaking. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until the study gets a standalone article (per Amakuru). Many studies are published each day, so a new one – especially one highlighting an existing trend – isn't especially newsworthy. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:31, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We don't need a standalone article to blurb scientific news at ITN. Though this is neither a breakthrough nor a new discovery. That the advent of the internet (and now AI tools like GPT) has exploded the market for research/diploma mills and predatory publishers is a well known fact. Though it is also a fact that academic publishers themsleves engage in predatory gatekepping (pricing/access) practices which provides an avenue/thrust for these bad actors to proliferate. Gotitbro (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=1305644243"