In the news toolbox
Error reports Nominations (Archives) Discussion General criteria Death criteria Recurring items Admin guide Image protection Current events portal

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.

Ariel Henry Acting prime minister of Haiti Ariel Henry (pictured) resigns, and is replaced by Michel Patrick Boisvert while the Transitional Presidential Council is sworn in. The Ownership, Unity and Responsibility Party, led by Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare, wins the most seats in the Solomon Islands general election but falls short of a majority. NASA announces that the Voyager 1 space probe is sending readable data for the first time in five months. The HDZ-led coalition wins the most seats in the Croatian parliamentary election but falls short of a majority. Ich­thy­o­titan, the largest known marine reptile, is formally described. Ongoing: Israel–Hamas war Myanmar civil war Russian invasion of Ukraine timeline War in Sudan timeline Recent deaths: Vincent O'Sullivan Peter Ingham Korey Cunningham Donald Payne Jr. Helen Vendler Bob Cole Nominate an article

2023 Afghanistan Winter Storm

Nominator's comments: This is gaining significant coverage In The News. More people have died than in the North American storm last year, which was blurbed. I think we could even make an argument this qualifies for ongoing. I do think an article is urgently needed if this is to be posted, but the subject is definitely notable and we should get this up as soon as possible. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Reading up on some news reports, this is a lot more severe than the winter storm that happened a little while ago in the US, which was blurbed. Though, the article... yeah, that needs a ton of work, but it's early days in the nomination, there's still plenty of time for someone to go in and solve that issue. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Target is a stub, would support when expanded. nableezy - 19:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Also would support when it's not a stub. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Same. Levivich (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This does not belong on the mainpage in this state. Support in principle if expanded.

Noah^Talk 21:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Titewhai Harawira

Nominator's comments: Not missing too many citations, but the sources needed to be checked Mooonswimmer 17:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Victor Navasky

Nominator's comments: Article requires some work Mooonswimmer 17:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Dark chocolate

LET THEM EAT CHOCOLATE

Consensus will not develop to post this item.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:08, 24 January 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: Health effects of chocolate (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Dark chocolate (pictured) may contain high levels of cadmium and lead (Post)
News source(s): Reuters; BBC
Credits:

• Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: This gave me a shock when I read about it just now as I have a deadly brick of 85% right here. There's work to do, of course, but that's what we're here for, right? Andrew🐉(talk) 16:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh. This is the type of high-engagement, low-impact stuff you find in the "health and science" sections of newspapers. Can't really see any evidence this is major news; it certainly isn't a top-flight story on any of the major services. --Jayron32 16:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Health and science being of minor significance compared to the important stuff like shootings and sport, right? Andrew🐉(talk) 16:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This makes it sound like this is a WP:POINT nomination. I was actually just looking for science articles to post today to try and create some balance among news topics, but I decided that little things like this aren't sufficient. It would need to be something like a new element being discovered, the extinction of a well-known animal, a cure for a major disease, etc. Some sort of major breakthrough or discovery. I wonder if a new major iceberg is significant enough, but it currently doesn't have its own article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This is much bigger news than any sports event AFAIC and there are so few nominations of any sort that it seemed better than than nothing. See the talk page for discussions of the general state of ITN and what might be done about. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The news that a food "may" have lead is certainly not a bigger news story than sport event. This story is barely even in news outlets let alone notable for a blurb. Jbvann05 17:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• According to Consumer Reports, there's no may about it as they tested 28 brands and found cadmium and lead in all of them. Of course, you then get into the weeds about the exact levels. But this reminds me of lead in petrol which was quite scandalous before the vested interests were faced down. There was an ITN nomination about the last country to use leaded gas/petrol -- Algeria iirc. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The only mention of this in the article seems to have been there for some time, and is linked to a 2014 paper - there are no edits for months, other than a bot. Did you link the correct article? Nfitz (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this is not "breaking news" it's not a big scientific discovery, we've known that chocolate has had lead in it for a long time. TomMasterReal^TALK 16:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose sorry? _-_Alsor (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose respectfully. This is ITN. Significant current news coverage is generally required for nominations. Also note the article has not been substantially updated in quite some time. This might be better suited for DYK if there is enough for a major update. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - one of the sources is from Dec 30, the other is nowhere on the front page of Reuters, it is not even in the top ten stories in its section of Retail News. That is not something many people are likely to have read in the news and to be looking for more information here. nableezy - 17:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. "may" DarkSide830 (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Potatoes may contain Uranium. Actually, they most certainly do. But do they contain hazardous amounts? No. Same thing here. —Wasell^(T) 🌻🇺🇦 17:48, 24 January 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.

Comet C/2022 E3

Article: C/2022 E3 (ZTF) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A green comet (pictured) makes its closest approach to the Earth (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Comet C/2022 E3 (ZTF) makes its closet approach to Earth
News source(s): The Guardian; NYT; BBC
Credits:

• Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
• Created by C messier (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Drbogdan (talk · give credit) and Kheider (talk · give credit)

Article updated
The nominated event is 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: This is borderline ITN/R which is fuzzy about naked-eye comets. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Interesting news, ITN/R PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and Support Altblurb PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait – The closest approach will be on February 1. It seems like a good plan to post it on that day and not too much earlier. I hope in the meantime, the article will see some more expanding. It feels alright for blurbing, but a bit short. (I have to say that it being nearly 0.3 AU away from us is quite far. Will this be visible without a telescope?) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait - The article says Feb 1 is when this happens, so we shouldn't be in a rush. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 12:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - yes - worthwhile news to me as well - if interested, my related Comments re this "Green Comet" (aka "C/2022 E3 (ZTF)") were published earlier in the "NYT" (1/21/2023)^[1] at the following => " https://www.nytimes.com/article/green-comet-watch.html#permid=122707240 " - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Your "related comment" is compliment to the NYT writer and a link back to Wikipedia? Not particularly relevant for our discussion here. Moreover, a comment on an online newspaper article is not usually considered "being published in" that newspaper. Glad you're excited though :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Maplestrip: Thank You for your reply - yes - *entirely* agree - not relevant to the current ITN issue - although related to the "ITN subject" - also yes - the comment may not be published in the "NYT" newspaper - although such comments are published (or perhaps, alternatively, posted?) on the "NYT" internet website - at least, afaik atm - iac - Thanks again for your reply - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait until February 1, the actual date of the closest approach. -- Azpineapple (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait until Feb 1 as suggested above. That would make this ITNC more useful then to remind readers that have the ability to see it to take the opportunity. The "Outbound" section has one unsourced statement but otherwise the article seems to be at quality for that point.
• Wait per above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "Don't look up" The people advising everyone to wait don't seem to have read the sources which indicate that the time to view this has already started. The NYT, for example, recommended viewing last weekend as there was a new moon, which makes for darker skies. Viewing windows, in any case, are tricky because cloud cover often gets in the way. So, it's best to give people plenty of notice, which is what the MSM is doing. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This ^ - I'm an amateur astronomer, and you can never really be certain when seeing conditions will allow observation of objects like these. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The comet "might get brighter than magnitude 6". It's not visible to the naked eye, except maybe under the most perfect conditions. —Wasell^(T) 🌻🇺🇦 17:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Magnitude six objects aren't that hard to see. Sure, you won't see any in light polluted skies, but even moderately dark conditions can allow you to observe them. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, it is expected to be brighter than magnitude 6, I believe PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It is already brighter than magnitude 6 and visible from dark skies with naked eye. C messier (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait for reasons just stated. The date of the approach is the 1st of February, let this wait a bit. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I only just read Andrew's comment about everyone who is saying to wait on it, so changing to Support. If it is currently viewable, then it should be on ITN. Sorry about that. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: B. V. Doshi

Nominator's comments: Indian architect. News just coming-in. Article requires some work before it can be ready for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 07:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Lloyd Morrisett

Nominator's comments: Co-creator of Sesame Street. Article looks mostly passable. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 20:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Álvaro Colom

Nominator's comments: Former president of Guatemala. Working on his article. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Half Moon Bay shootings

Nominator's comments: Second mass shooting in California in three days. Front page on multiple news agencies worldwide.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 05:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose this, as unlike the Monterey Park shootings, this does not appear to have any racial or hate angle too it (the shooter appears to have been a worker at the site, making it a domestic crime). Also, just because a news story appears on multiple front pages of newspapers does not make it suitable for posting at ITN. Masem (t) 05:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What racial/hate side is there to the Monterey shooting? I thought that went away when it turned out the shooter wasn't white. Nfitz (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being a member of a group doesn't automatically rule it out as a hate crime. And it's not limited to whites either. But I agree, it's been ruled out for the Monterey Park one (last I checked).—Bagumba (talk) 06:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had not seen (at the time I posted the above) that the MPark one was dismissed as a hate crime (just being non-white doesn't mean it couldn't be a hate crime). As such I would also consider the MPark shooting a domestic violence case that shouldn't be posted either. Masem (t) 13:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying it could only have been white. I was commenting that the claims it was a hate crime vanished at that time. I was subtly and ironically critiquing those who keep jumping to "hate crime". In both cases though, the shooters were closely associated with the places they attacked. In neither case was it terrorism, hate, random, ... Nfitz (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Interpersonal crimes are typically not significant or even notable. Would need to see evidence that there could be sustained national or regional effect. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - like the Monterey Park it isn't notable - both are interpersonal crimes, with a relatively low death toll. Nfitz (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support combined blurb "Eighteen people are killed in two mass shootings three days apart in Monterey Park and Half Moon Bay, California" or something like that. Levivich (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Only if reliable sources are doing the math and reporting on the overall situation as such. —Bagumba (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The Guardian links it with a recent mass-shooting in Goshen too, "The shooting followed the killing of 11 people over the weekend at a ballroom dance hall in the southern California city of Monterey Park, near Los Angeles. It also comes on the heels of a shooting in California’s Central Valley last week, where six people, including an infant, were killed in the small town of Goshen." There's then some commentary about the frequency of such events, "Other public figures spoke out in shock at the killings, which also mark the nation’s sixth mass shooting just 23 days into the new year. ..." Andrew🐉(talk) 09:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Not as notable as it's aforementioned predecessor, which in and of itself is borderline at best notability-wise. DarkSide830 (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing my vote to Oppose Combined Blurb. We should not be posting combined blurbs for events without a specific relationship. This follows for something like "killing of x causes y protests" or "x resigns and is replaced by y". This is not such a situation. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Page is too stubby at this point. In the meantime, notability for ITN seems premature to determine.—Bagumba (talk) 07:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a combined blurb -- exactly like we did in 2019 with the 2019 Dayton shooting and the 2019 El Paso shooting. (see archive) --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 08:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It was first a standalone blub for El Paso; Dayton was piggybacked later. —Bagumba (talk) 09:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right, but there's no reason we can't do the same thing here. Well, other than the fact that a bunch of people are going to complain about it. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 09:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No problem with combining. Just saying I think it's usually done only after one was already posted first. —Bagumba (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This demonstrates that, if we start posting such shootings, we'll have a steady stream of them. ITN deals with such general and routine news by having a link to Portal:Current events. But this is obscured by hiding it under the title for the Ongoing line. It should be made clearer to the reader so that they see where to go for more current news stories. The ITN section used to have three such links at the end of the section "Wikinews – Recent deaths – More current events..." That was much clearer in showing that the blurbs were just the tip of the iceberg. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No we won't. These shootings tend to occur in clusters. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 09:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose yet another mass shooting in America. Going to hit 50 before the end of January. Not newsworthy, not surprising, should really just be a single line in the List of mass shootings in the United States in 2023 article. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support combined blurb alright, it’s more unusual now I suppose. Propose wording the hook in a way to make it easier to edit it once a 3rd one pops up in a couple days, though. Juxlos (talk) 09:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I would be interested in such a combined blurb if our two articles describe the relationship between the two shootings. The Moterey Park article currently doesn't mention this new shooting at all, or vice versa. Oppose blurbing Half Moon Bay shooting at all due to quality. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no causality between the events. It's just humans grouping them by time and place at this point. —Bagumba (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose solo blurb. Does not have any particulars that would justify posting compared to larger mass shootings that we do post (e.g. ideology, location, target, etc.). Possible support for a combined blurb since they are in the same state and reliable sources do seem to make the connection, but that would require waiting for the articles to develop in that respect. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 11:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, Personal hostility, not notable. Alex-h (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose solo blub, support combined blurb (alt), changing my !vote on the story below accordingly. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 12:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - At best, it's a copycat crime. At worst, it's an attempt by humans to try to look for patterns in order to explain bizarre or unusual occurrences.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose no, really not. This is getting out of control. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support combined blurb this is an interesting turn of events - Azpineapple (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - workplace violence, this actually is relatively common. That it extended to a second crime scene is less common, but not so much that it makes ITN. nableezy - 15:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support combined blurb Evidence is clear that major news sources are treating this as a major story. The articles are in OK shape (the Monterey Park on is better, but both contain enough extra information beyond the blurb to be worth linking to). Many of the "oppose" votes don't cite any evidence or discuss article quality, they all amount to "I wish that major news sources didn't treat US mass shootings like they were a major story"; and yet, the news sources do treat them as such, people ARE hearing this story across the news sources, so directing people to the Wikipedia articles on the topic seems like a good idea. Remember, we don't make the story go away by not linking to it, but we do provide readers with a less useful front page. --Jayron32 16:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that between the time of nomination and this message, two more mass shootings happened in the US, killing another 4 people. Juxlos (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 1) Those news items are not nominated, so they are not relevant to this discussion. 2) There is no number 2. Bringing up irrelevant information distracts from the current discussion. --Jayron32 18:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support combined blurb Both shootings are getting news extensive coverage. Same state within an unusual brief time period. I also wouldn't oppose including the even more recent shooting in Yakima, Washington in the total death count. All very tragic. Estar8806 (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support combined blurb (Alternative blurb I) Both shootings were committed by elderly Asian men, which is extremely rare. It is definitely a connected shooting, because the latter was inspired by the prior. I think this blurb should replace the Antiguan general election blurb, because that country is relatively unknown and it has been up for a couple days now. Alexysun (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't choose what rolls off the list when. What rolls off is the oldest blurb, which is the Benin one. Curbon7 (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support combined blurb This makes the most logical sense, as it includes both tragedies which took place in the same state just days apart and affecting the Asian community. Curbon7 (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose combined blurb for the avoidance of doubt. There's no causal link between these events other than the frequency with which these events occur. Linking the two events is in no way encyclopedic, quite the opposite in fact. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose combined blurb Neither event is connected, with the exception of both having gunmen that were old Asian men, and were both committed in the state of California. Unless it comes out that the Half Moon Bay shooter was connected to the Monterey Park shooter, either in some kind of ideology, personally, or Half Moon Bay shooter was inspired by the Monterey shooter, then we can consider it. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose combined blurb. Nothing to do with each other. You might as well connect the sacking of Frank Lampard and the delivery of Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine because both sort of begin with L. Ericoides (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• comment: the onion has republished its 'No Way To Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens article, suggesting that this may not be a run-of-the-mill event. dying (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Lin Brehmer

Nominator's comments: Long-time Chicago radio personality KConWiki (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment one cn tag. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be addressed now. KConWiki (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - CN tag has since been removed. Article is good enough. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 14:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article looks good to go.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Sam Walton (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Agustí Villaronga

Nominator's comments: Spanish film director, known for Black Bread. He was also a screenwriter, actor and documentary director. Article needs some work. Alexcalamaro (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait. Some of the paragraphs in the article are unsourced and others are only partially sourced. I think these issues should be fixed first. Silent-Rains (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Monterey Park shooting

 – Muboshgu (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but the article is a bit thin at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It is, I just expanded it past 1500 characters of prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Change blurb. A mass shooting can not kill people. The shooter is what killed people. Silent-Rains (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the blurb.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I want to preemptively ask that users conduct themselves with civility when discussing this particular news item. Yes, this is a mass shooting. Yes, it occurred in the United States. Yes, the death toll might be on that precipice of just barely being significant or not significant. Whatever the case may be, I do ask that we avoid hurling invective around regarding how shootings are treated on WP:ITN, or how Americans vs non-Americans view this event, etc.. I hope this is not too large of an ask, particularly for an area which seems to bring out the most toxic of discussions here at ITN/C.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  +1. Curbon7 (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @WaltCip: well, that didn't last long, sadly. See below. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  100%. Ayyydoc (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait This may be a racially-driven shooting, which would elevate it for posting, but right now, it is a typical unfortunate mass shooting in the US, which we typically don't post. Last I read the suspect is still at large so motive will be a ways off from being known. --Masem (t) 16:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Counterpoint: this was one of the deadliest mass shootings the U.S. has ever had, happening in the middle of holiday celebrations, and is properly newsworthy for ITN regardless of motive. Further, it's comments like typical unfortunate mass shooting that minimize the impact of U.S. mass shootings, making them sound way more common than they are. These comments infuriate me and I will make no further responses in this section other than regarding article quality in the hopes of keeping this thread civil, per WaltCip's above comment. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually at present this doesn't rank in the top twenty deadliest shootings. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't say how high it ranked. Tied for 26th, it was deadly enough to be added to {{Mass shootings in the United States by deaths}}. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Changing to Oppose as any racial hate crime appears to have been dismissed as a reason for this shooting, making it a purely domestic violence case that we don't generally cover on ITN. --Masem (t) 13:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Muboshgu's counterpoint. Rockin (Talk) 17:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unfortunately this sort of thing really is far too commonplace. Last year there were 14 mass shootings in the US with combined casualties in the double-digit range.1 Will reconsider if this turns out to be some sort of terrorist related event. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Two of those mass shootings had a double-digit death rate. Don't equate injuries to deaths. Silent-Rains (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am pretty sure I wrote "combined casualties." Yep. Just double checked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Please do not act childish. My point is that injuries and deaths are not comparable to each other. A mass shooting where 10 people were killed is worse than a mass shooting where ten people were injured. Silent-Rains (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thoughts and prayers. 33rd mass shooting of 2023. Barely scrapes into the top 20 mass shootings in the US of all time. Hardly relevant, and a common disease. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately this sort of thing really is far too commonplace: And some might call all these national leader changes and sports championships "commonplace" (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) —Bagumba (talk) 04:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Added Altblurb: The WP page and its sources refer to it as "Lunar New Year". Many there would be American, and many not of Chinese descent.—Bagumba (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support altblurb Oft-mentioned ITN topics are global impact and stagnant blurb content. This tragedy affects the Asian diaspora on a major cultural holiday, Lunar New Year, in a city whose majority population is Asian American. A timely page on an ongoing news item at the tops of most international versions of English news sites (I VPNed and browsed in private mode). Oh, and this should meet standards for WP:MINIMUMDEATHS, for those who subscribe to the theory.—Bagumba (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose 33rd mass shooting in the United States already this year. Not encyclopaedically newsworthy in any sense at this time. Another day, another mass shooting. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yet, no one proposed posting the 32 other mass shootings. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 18:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We keeping blocking these nominations. Ericoides (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't seen any proposed in ITN this year. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 18:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Who said this year? Last year, the year before, the year before that, usw. Ericoides (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• TRM did. Look above. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Am I TRM? Ericoides (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You did ask "Who said...", not "Did I say..."—Bagumba (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair point. Ericoides (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What a bizarre argument. To act like any "mass shooting" (which is a loosely defined word as is) is similar in notability is insane. I live near Philadelphia and basically every day on the morning news is another report of a shooting in the city, many of which involve multiple fatalities. I would not think these events blurb-able, but it's hard to argue such events are even close to as notable as this one. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't mean to, but you reinforced my argument perfectly. Thank you so much. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every year has a lot of natural disasters and elections. Should we then chose to post none of these? DarkSide830 (talk) 01:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Muboshgu's counterpoint. Evaxooooof25 (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Random crime that has yet to demonstrate any lasting significance. Not convinced that it even meets notability requirements for an article per WP:EVENT. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak support As terrible as this is, unfortunately the US has many, many ass shootings a week, but with the amount of people, this may be ITN worthy. Vriend1917 (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - mass shootings that kill 10 people are uncommon in the US, and this is indeed ITN. This should be posted. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 18:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Another US mass shooting. Ericoides (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "Another X" applies to just about every nomination. What is your point? —Bagumba (talk) 04:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  See TRM, 23:09. ("Once again we have yet another shooting in the US which amounts to nothing, will come to nothing, achieves nothing, "thoughts and prayers" and all that kind of crap, yet because we're 60% yank, we feel obliged to post this kind of crap non-story, week in, week out. Boring, useless, not even encyclopaedic.") That's my/his point. Ericoides (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  not even encyclopaedic would be more credible if these pages were regularly deleted, or even respected if one actually nominatated it for WP:AFD, instead of adding mere innuendo. —Bagumba (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The article and news reports seem quite uncertain about the details. If we can wait for the future of the NZ PM to become clear then we can wait on the outcome of this mayhem. But that's then likely to turn into an arrest/trial and so we will have to wait upon a conviction. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The article and news reports seem quite uncertain about the details: No, the deaths and injuries are quite certain, as is everything else stated in the blurb. Sounds like a WP:POINTy rationale to propose a wait based on an unrelated future resignation announcement. —Bagumba (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The article is full of vague terms like "suspect", "did not specify", "estimated", "possible scene", "reportedly", "appeared to be". I just took another look at the NYT which has a live feed of the current SWAT team assault/siege so this is clearly an ongoing situation. We're an encyclopedia not a live news feed and so there's no rush. Let the news media do their job and we can get to it when the details and verdict is clear. Per WP:NEWSEVENT, "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths... – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Andrew🐉(talk) 22:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Mass shootings resulting in multiple deaths are inherently notable. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  These happen every day and so we need something more. For an example of enduring notability, see the Tottenham Outrage which is in the OTD section today. That passes my personal test for enduring notability -- is there a book or movie about it? Andrew🐉(talk) 08:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I don't see how yet another mass shooting in the USA is notable, without any indication that there will long-term notability, like that occurred at Sandy Hook or Kent State. It's almost as if, that if a shooting is notable enough to get it's own article, that a nomination ends up here. In any other country, an event like this would lead to massive changes in gun law. If this finally happens in the USA because of this, then perhaps it would be ITN - but I don't see any indication that it would for this LA shooting. About the same number were killed in a shooting in Utah a couple of weeks ago, and there's been no ongoing coverage. Nfitz (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If you don't think it's notable, nominate it for deletion. If you think it needs "long-term notability" on par with Sandy Hook or Kent State, which can't possibly be determined this early, that shows how off base people's thresholds for posting are. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If you think that if something isn't quite notable enough for ITN, then it's not notable enough for Wikipedia at all, then you shouldn't be here. Nfitz (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You're the one who said you don't see how it's notable. I tend to think that articles on subjects that are "in the news" are appropriate for "In The News", but that's just me. The Kent State shootings had four deaths, and I bet many here would have opposed posting it for not meeting their WP:MINIMUMDEATHS criteria. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's clear from the context that I'm discussing ITN, and not something else. And beyond context, I actually used the ITN acronym in my comment. Not that I support MINIMUMDEATHS, but presumably it would be quantified differently back then. There were only 3 incidents in the preceding decade in that country where more victims were murdered at Kent State. Heck, there were only 3 incidents in the preceding TWO decades! Heck, you have to go back to the 1920s, to find a significantly higher number of incidents - and most of those were white Americans massacring blacks, or labour unrest. So I disagree that there'd be many opposing it for not meeting Minimum Deaths; also it was particularly noteworthy, as it's the first time in that nation that the military was used to murder peaceful white protesters. Similarly the 1985 aerial bombing by police in Philadelphia didn't have a particularly high death toll (9), but the way that police mass murdered the victims would have made that noteworthy. Nfitz (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In terms of anything in the news being appropriate for ITN, looking at the local state broadcaster, things that rank higher than this currently are Tik-tok cybersecurity concerns, ChatGPT, AI Chatbot, vehicular impaired driver restrictions, and the invasive species Phragmites australis subsp. australis. Which ones should I nominate User:Muboshgu? Nfitz (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Nominate what you want, as OTHERSTUFF arguments are unhelpful and each nomination should be considered on its own merits. And what the U.S. was like 100 years ago isn't relevant to how it is now, either. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not an OTHERSTUFF argument. It's an indication of just how insignificant this event is, even in neighbouring countries, that media coverage is already vanishing. Yeah, it will be in the national papers here tomorrow, but there'd unlikely be ever a mention of it afterwards, unless there are some unexpected developments. Nfitz (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's bygones already. No-one cares about it, it's not encyclopedically significant. Yet another mass shooting in Amurica, nobody, not even most Americans, care. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "The mass shooting, one of California’s worst in recent memory, has left Angelenos — and the nation — struggling to make sense of the violence."—Los Angeles Times. —Bagumba (talk) 07:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose unless it was motivated by an ideology. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Bagumba. Seems callous to skip this when a darts competition gets a rubber stamp. Zagalejo (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That speaks more to the lacking notability of the darts than the notability of this event, and either way that's a discussion for the ITN criteria talk page, not here. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Awwww we replaced the boat race with darts in regards to this argument? Forget 10+ Americans dying due to gun violence, 50+ brown people dying on disasters is still enough enough while we allow darts to get a free pass. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You seem to have me incorrectly measured. I support an ITN sports cleanup and darts would be one of the items most clearly on the chopping block. Again though, this is not the place to discuss this though. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the sheer ignorance of people attempting to compare this commmonplace event in the good ol' US of A (33rd mass shooting of 2023) with a sports event which is on the ITNR listings is a clear demonstration that we should probably seek a minimum threshold of WP:CIR for people who "vote" here. Ridiculous. Once again we have yet another shooting in the US which amounts to nothing, will come to nothing, achieves nothing, "thoughts and prayers" and all that kind of crap, yet because we're 60% yank, we feel obliged to post this kind of crap non-story, week in, week out. Boring, useless, not even encyclopaedic. "Man in country full of guns uses gun to kill to kill other people with loads of guns". Derisory. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, I see you took WaltCip's admonition to heart. (sarcasm) Don't be rude or insult people by saying they're not competent to vote here. This was exactly what WaltCip was warning all of us about. Anyway, no, mass shootings that kill 10+ people are not "commonplace" in the US, even if they do take place far more often than they should. The last mass shooting that took place in the US that was posted here was Uvalde, and the last mass shooting that killed more than 10 people in the US was also Uvalde. That there were 32 other mass shootings in the US this year is irrelevant, we didn't post them and no one proposed to post them, because they were not notable enough for ITN. This isn't a "non-story", and I'm tired of these false comparisons. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest you take a break. The very fact you're telling me "the last mass shooting that killed X" is the very reason it's a non-story. Get a grip Rockstone, you need to grow up and stop trying to convert this Wikipedia to US-shooting-events-pedia. It's grim reading every time some nutbar in the States uses his second amendment rights to shoot up a load of people. Thank goodness this time it wasn't kids. But all we do when we publicise this crap is encourage more stupidity from gun-wielding maniacs who have the blessing you lot. Weird, but not encyclopedic, not enduring, just sadly tragic. One day you'll realise that. The rest of the world looks on in total abject pity for your situation. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Whatever the Olde Englishe means it doesn't include murder. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No, you have GOP "elected representatives" in Amurica saying "If you hear Democrats fantasizing about banning a specific type of firearm, run to your nearest gun show and buy one to find out what they don’t want you to own." That's enough. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe WP:NOTFORUM applies to this page, kindly stop abusing the purpose of Wikipedia. Thanks in advance. nableezy - 00:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed, so stop trying to justify this kind of non-story. So a few more people have been shot to death in America, it's not encyclopedic in any sense. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No your opinions on American politics are of no relevance to literally anything about this page, and of interest to likely nobody else on this page. Your dismissal of ten people being killed would, in any sane administration, get the same treatment something like this eventually got. But youre too popular here for that to ever happen, at least among a cohort of old-timers, and you know that, so you abuse this page with impunity. Toodles, nableezy - 00:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @TRM Comments like this are what make it obvious to most people that you have only a thin veneer of actual sympathy for victims of gun violence, and mostly just seem to enjoy using our tragedy as a fun little bludgeon against your wiki-enemies. So fuck clean off with your fake fucking sympathy and 'outrage', from the people who actually have to live with the horror of having loved ones die to this, and do their best to stop it from happening again. I've read too many of these snide little comments to let this one slide. The deaths of our family members might be a fun little game to you to hit back at all the people who annoy you here, but they're real to us. Parabolist (talk) 07:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  So much for civility. Also try WP:AGF. Effy Midwinter (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Frankly, we entered into WP:PACT territory somewhere in the last dozen times he made these sort of snide, gross "Oh, are the little Amurricans shooting each other again? Yawn. It's your own fault, you know." whenever a tragedy like this occurs. I'm done. Parabolist (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I acknowledge that I did send out a plea for civility, although I also realize that perhaps TRM has some reason to be gruff given the goings-on at the ITN talk page. I'd say just let it be for now and not try to escalate a further argument. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 23:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Wee bit childish, innit. nableezy - 00:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Nothing to do with the talk page. The constant claims for mass shootings in America are even more tedious than the constant claims to dismiss the Boat Race. Grow up. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Eventually, someone is going to bring your behavior to WP:ANI. You should stop being verbally abusive. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the second altblurb I just added because it sounds easier to read, in my opinion. Nythar (💬-❄️) 23:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• is 10 deaths the new threshold because you don’t post 10 deaths massacres in other countries — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.163.242.226 (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Name a ten death massacre from another country that wasn't posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To be a devil's advocate, I think we have not posted suicide bombings that have killed 10 people from countries where they are common. Although that's not because of notability, but because the articles are too stubby. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you mean "name a ten death massacre from another country that wasn't posted", User:Muboshgu. We've discussed in detail previously that there's a lot of 100-person massacres that aren't being posted. That you are suggesting that all 10-death massacres in other countries are posted just demonstrates how out-of-touch many Americans are with the world outside their borders! Here's some examples from last year - May 2022 Madjoari massacre (50 dead in Mali), 2022 Bankass massacres (132 dead in Mali), Gimbi massacre (over 500 in Ethiopia), Hpakant massacre (over 80 dead in Mynanmar), Celaya massacre (11 people in Mexico), Las Tinajas massacre (20 people in Mexico), 2022 Soweto shooting (16 people in South Africa), 2022 Seytenga massacre (over 100 in Burkina Faso), May 2022 Anambra State killings (14 people in Nigeria), Aïgbado massacre over 65 people in Central African Republic, Akwaya massacre 25 people in the Cameroons, Nogolait shooting 11 people in Indonesia. And that's just 2022! I could go on and on and on. Though, I'm hard pressed to find any examples from mostly English-speaking countries - perhaps that's what you are thinking User:Muboshgu? Sure, some are stubby, but some are very good, and even got nominated. I'm not sure why you are trying to push a false narrative. Nfitz (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ...just demonstrates how out-of-touch many Americans are with the world outside their borders! Is ITN about nationalism? —Bagumba (talk) 04:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't speak to the reasons that Americans make so many nominations for regular events. Nfitz (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems presumptuous to assume that it's only Americans. —Bagumba (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per above. While my country does have a serious issue with gun violence, I don't buy the argument that just because mass shootings are commonplace that means the most deadly ones aren't notable enough for ITN. This shooting had a casualty count equal to the second-deadliest shooting of 2022. Davey2116 (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And yet we don't post shootings for some countries where hundreds are dead. Nfitz (talk) 04:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Celaya massacre and Vila Cruzeiro shootout for 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.163.242.208 (talk) 01:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Celaya massacre would have had trouble getting posted as it is a stub. Vila Cruzeiro shootout could have been posted based on length and quality (based on a quick glance). The problem is that I see that neither of them were nominated. This is a problem related to systemic bias and I do not know if they would have been posted if they were nominated (and in Celaya massacre's case, nominated and expanded). But I probably would have supported them both. We need more nominations for articles like these. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I don't see why being commonplace or routine is a reason not to post mass shootings. Sporting events are also routine, yet we post many of them on a recurring basis, some of them annually such as the Super Bowl, NBA Finals, and Premier League. Sure, the result might not be known ahead of time, but the location and time of a mass shooting is also not known ahead of time. Mass shootings that kill 10+ people happen on average once or twice a year; if we think that the topic of mass shootings in general is as important and newsworthy as 1-2 domestic sports leagues, then we should be posting routine mass shootings. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There were shootings last year where over 100 were shot - and not all were even ITN. Let alone small shootings like this, User:King of Hearts. I'm not sure why you claim that shootings that kill 10+ only happen once or twice a year! Once again, this nomination is highly centred around a single country. Nfitz (talk) 04:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because 1) Shootings that kill 10+ in the US DO only happen once or twice a year. 2)"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!} 04:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two in 2022, two in 2021 (6 over 7!), three in 2019 (18 over 5!) - some of which got posted, 4 in 2018. Not surprisingly, 2020 was down because of the Covid restrictions, etc. I really don't think two to four postings a year from a single country is necessary. The issue isn't me, the issue is that frequent, and expected, events shouldn't be here, unless there's some other factor (such as a hate crime). And it's really not about 10, per se, we've posted a lot lower than that, for that country. Nfitz (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through last year's ITN/C archives, and could not find any nomination of a shooting with 100+ deaths. I did find Izhevsk school shooting (18 deaths) and Las Tinajas massacre (20 deaths), which failed to be posted due to quality and then staleness. But failing to get posted for reasons other than significance does not say anything about our threshold for significance; I don't see any opposition on those two candidates on the basis of significance. We did, however, post 2022 Buffalo shooting (10 deaths); I think 10 is a good cutoff since otherwise we're just randomly crystal-balling about "lasting impact" when often that is not apparent in the week immediately following the event. As for as my aggregate statistics, I could not find a global list of mass shootings, so I was going off of List of mass shootings in the United States. But I think it is fair to compare a single-country mass shooting list to the domestic leagues of that country (especially for a sport played almost exclusively in that one country). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even worse that some of the 100+ weren't nominated! Surely that goes even further to my position that nominations are unnecessarily American-centric.But hang on User:King of Hearts, the 400+ person [[WP:In the news/Candidates/June 2022#Gimbi massacre] was nominated - there was ZERO support, and little interest (admittedly it was only 200+ at the time); it's not like it was a stub! The 130+ 2022 Bankass massacres weren't nominated, but were mentioned in opposition to WP:In_the_news/Candidates/June_2022#(Posted) 2022 Oslo shootings, where a killing of TWO white people people was posted! We have huge WP:BIAS issues here. Nfitz (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no one opposed over significance. Why did you not support the Gimbi massacre / nominate the Bankass massacres when you had the chance? In any case, while we definitely have a Western bias from a global perspective, we also have an anti-American bias from a Western perspective. There's no chance a shooting of 2 people in the US could possibly be posted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is that an appropriate question, User:King of Hearts? If you must know, if you look at my editing history, there's a 10-day or so gap during the time Gimbi was posted. I had Covid, which caused a blood clot in my leg, and wasn't doing much of anything! Also, I don't do nominations ... it's just not my thing. Though I'll certainly add to a deficient article. Nfitz (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Per Muboshgu above, article of adequate quality. Spencer^T•C 04:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Lasting significance has of this event has not been established here or in the article and unless this turns out to be a racially motivated crime, so it will remain. This is not a place to compare such unexpected events with ITNR items, appropriate forums for which exist. Gotitbro (talk) 04:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What would make a racially-motivated crime more significant than say, for example, one that is tied to mental illness? —Bagumba (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We have somewhat of a precedent with that in the posting of the Buffalo shooting last year and such events being treated as terrorist events does raise their notability further. Gotitbro (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I respect if hate-motivated would make it more significant for you. However, there's no general rule to not post non-hate crime related shootings though. —Bagumba (talk) 09:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Shootings in domestic violence (such as the Louisiana bar gun fight from this weekend that injured ten) are things that are routine news items that WP should not be covering under WP:NOTNEWS (its why Wikinews exusts). I am not saying this one is similarly a routine shooting (motive yet determined) but it could possibly be such. Lately we kas a whole not just ITN) have become sloppy with understanding the line between encyclopedia content and simply news coverage. Masem (t) 20:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I respect your opinion. Just don't cite WP:NOTNEWS, which applies to pages, not blurbs in a section literally titled "In the news". —Bagumba (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: This has made front page on the BBC, The New York Times, RTÉ, Rappler, Al Jazeera, The Globe and Mail, Reuters, Associated Press, CNN, The Straits Times, El País, The Guardian (UK edition), The Guardian (International edition).  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 05:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Does not seem to be a major enough news item in the US. A grim-ish indicator if this is significant enough to warrant attention could be whether it has been included in The Onion's "No Way to Prevent This", Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens repeating article, and this has not even been included. Juxlos (talk) 05:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Couldn't we just add List of mass shootings in the United States to ongoing? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No for the same reason we don't add Crime in Brazil or Mexican drug war. Juxlos (talk) 06:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Or Crime in Chicago. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Just link ITN solely to Life. —Bagumba (talk) 07:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Human nature, specifically, we ignore "things". InedibleHulk (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  For lots of routine violent deaths, you want the list of ongoing armed conflicts. This incident is quite minor by comparison. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  With 45,000 deaths a year, it qualifies as a major ongoing armed conflict. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Are we going to see a support from you now? The Onion  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 18:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: If this happened in a country where mass shootings are rare, would it be an ITN? If so, then what makes it an ITN? Was it "a coincidence that it happened during Chinese New Year when people were celebrating the holiday, but it was marked by a mass shooting incident" or "a shocking incident in the country that rarely happened before?" If reason 1, I support, if reason 2, this event does not qualify.--(Sorry, I use google translate)--Rang Djambak (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As a data point, 5 killed at a Christmas market in France got posted. —Bagumba (talk) 10:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It would be a pity if someone had to kill 20-30 people in a US mass shooting before ITN was interested in covering it. Insisting on a hate motive also creates an unrealistic barrier.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support altblurb2. I have seen no sourcing/citation issues and the article looks well-written too. Although mass shootings have become (sadly) commonplace in the U.S., I do think this is still ITN worthy, not [only] because of the death toll and the potential motive/s but mainly because it is in the news and has been covered by a lot of major news sources (to name a few: BBC, CNN, The Guardian, ABC News, TIME, and Al Jazeera). The event looks to be pretty significant as well; the President has already ordered flags at federal government properties to be flown at half-staff. I know that some would say that this is too American-centric; however, I think most, if not all of the ITN blurbs right now are focused on their respective countries, instead of being an international issue/news. Thus, I think that this is okay to be posted: after all, none of the current ITN entries are from the U.S. (aside from some that are in the RD section). For the blurb, I prefer altblurb2 as that looks to be the one that is easiest to read. Vida0007 (talk) 10:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. This discussion and the nominations on gun violence in the U.S. are truly exhausting. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  per above: There's numerically more support's than oppose's. Anyhow, see WP:PERX.—Bagumba (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Yet another mass shooting in the US. Sad and deplorable, but not really news. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 12:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Changed !vote to support combined blurb with Half Moon Bay (see below). The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 12:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Article looks solid and detailed for this type of subject matter. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Continuing to support this. Article looks really good and nicely put together. Good representation of our quick encyclopedic coverage of mass shootings. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support What's really sad and deplorable is when something that is by itself obviously newsworthy somehow no longer becomes news just because it comes on the heels of many other similar instances. That's just bonkers and if you think about it, applies just as much to Sportsman X wins yet another competition in Sports Y, or Politician X wins yet another election in Country Y, or just about 99% of the "news"... Let's do away with the tedious objections, please. Why can't we assess this article/incident according to its own merits? KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 14:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Most mass shootings in the US don't attract much media coverage and never get Wikipedia articles or get nominated at ITN. This however is clearly in the news due to the number of deaths and the fact that it occurred at a Lunar New Year festival. Article quality is fine. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC
• Weak Support - While noting that WP:MINIMUMDEATHS does not exist, prior precedence in terms of posting U.S. mass shootings finds that although a death toll of 10 is usually insufficient for posting, an item in that range is more likely to be posted in that range if there are specific surrounding circumstances that make it noteworthy. The 2022 Buffalo shooting was cited as a prime example of that. So if we went off of past consensus, this story barely falls within that discretionary range which would make it postable. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per above Editor 5426387 (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Error I just took another look at the article and noticed an immediate WP:REDFLAG, "It is the deadliest mass shooting in the history of Los Angeles County". It then took little time to find a counter-example: the Los Angeles Chinese massacre of 1871 in which 11+ Chinese were shot to death and then lynched. I'm not planning to join the scrum of editors jostling over the article but give it here as an example of the quality issues you can expect with breaking news based on journalism. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's been removed. And old pages have errors too, and likely even new pages that you've supported. Yes, surprising. —Bagumba (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I say this every time, I am utterly saddened by the loss of life here and the trauma for friends and family that follow that. But that doesn't mask the fact that shootings in the US are routine, and will seemingly remain so until someone gets a proper hold of the gun issues. There are too many of these per year to post them all, and this one is only really separated from others by a slightly higher death count.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I really have to push back on this routine argument. Some deadly shootings in the United States are routine. Indiscriminate mass killings are very much not routine in the United States. Mass shootings involving gangs and families, yes, that happens on such a regular basis that it would overwhelm ITN to post them. But mass indiscriminate killings by guns are not routine in the United States. And the mantra that they are is false. nableezy - 17:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This shooting was not indiscriminate as it seems that the culprit had a long history of attending this place and was known for his hostile attitude to others there. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I just mean the person shooting did not know his victims. Most shootings in the US are carried out by family and acquaintances. These public mass shootings of strangers are not routine. And that is why they are so widely covered when they happen. nableezy - 17:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  They are widely covered because, well of course they are. And such shootings are routine when compared to the rest of the world, bar possibly a few countries involved in serious political violence. There were eight such events with a death toll of 5 or more where the shooter did not know their victims in 2022, for example. Black Kite (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Take out the gang violence ones as well, those never get this wall to wall coverage. But the others, Buffalo, Uvalde, Highland Park, and Colorado Springs all merited posting IMO. Sure, routine compared to the rest of the world, but I didnt know that was the yardstick to measure by. We have users saying this is the 30th this year, and that is just not true. 4 in a year is not routine IMO, and the argument that by including four blurbs about mass killings would turn ITN in to a crime blotter for a gun obsessed nation is likewise not true. nableezy - 19:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't say that 30 is correct or not, but the problem is the "mass" part of a "mass shooting" is nebulous in definition. I'm guessing that the low bar being used here is 2, but either way there is an issue with a sentiment that seems to be present that because some number of people are killed in shootings with frequency that any number of deaths in one does not matter. I can understand one desiring a number beyond 11 to consider the shooting ITN-worthy, but it seems like some have chosen to unilaterally oppose any such nom. DarkSide830 (talk) 06:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Its correct for all shootings that have more than 3 injuries and/or deaths. But the overwhelming majority of those are cases where the shooter knows their victims, either family, friends, co-workers, and gang violence. Those are absolutely common. Chicago, a city I love deeply, had 24 mass shootings in the first 7 months of 2022. Twelve people were killed in those 24 shootings. Mostly as a result of gang violence on the south and west sides of the city. Those are unfortunately extremely common. A little less than once a week in a single city is definitely routine. Highland Park had one. And one person killed eight strangers at a July 4th parade there. Uvalde had one, a school massacre of 22 people. That is not common. It is not common anywhere in the United States for multiple random people to be shot and killed by a stranger. Even in Chicago. nableezy - 15:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very significant due to the loss of life and the time and place in which it happened - a state holiday in California. Might as well replace the plane crash article with this, that happened a week ago now and there's been no new developments. Flyingfishee (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose per Nfitz. I was previously of the mindset of avoiding a direct vote on this one as I prefer to with events like this, but Nfitz did raise an important point about inconsistency in posting certain loss-of-life events (in particular ones that could roughly be described as "killings"). 10 deaths in a shooting is far from "routine" in a shooting even in the US, but it seems this event is dwarfed by countless other such events that happen elsewhere in the world. If we want to counter bias in ITN, recognizing this is a good way to start. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - it looks like there is consensus to post --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 19:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - it looks like there is no consensus to post. Ericoides (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support altblurb 2 per Vida0007. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - was on the fence about this, and if there had been some evidence of a hate crime then I would have supported, but from what the mayor has said I dont see it here. I dont think the opposes that resemble "boo hoo another American gun killing" should be taken into account here, but I dont think this goes past somewhat notable crime to ITN blurb worthy. nableezy - 20:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The 2023 Beninese parliamentary election has been on ITN for a while & is starting to get crusty. This can replace that. Silent-Rains (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as this is a result of a systemic deficiency. In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally protected, with only Mexico and Guatemala being in the same boat, so the criteria applied for shootings anywhere else don’t apply to this case. Yes, it’s sad to read that human lives were lost in such incidents, but there’s no excuse when the authorities pave the way for that to happen. Some may argue that it’s difficult to exert constitutional changes, but that shouldn’t be a problem for a country that pretends to be a democracy. Those that could change the constitution are people voted by the electorate in a fair and free election. The indolence of those people to make a change that would save human lives indicates that: 1) most of the people are fine with the status quo, 2) most representatives weigh human lives below the profitability of gun-producing companies, or 3) there is a clear lack of democratic capacity in the country’s institutions to solve a basic problem. However vocal a bunch of Wikipedians may be that all this is tragic and something must be done, they don’t seem to form a representative sample.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the exact type of comment that should be dismissed with prejudice. Nobody cares about your view on if the United States pretends to be a democracy, or your view on if the profitability of gun companies is given greater weight than human lives. The vocal bunch of Wikipedians are the Europeans (no strangers to violence lol) tut-tutting with their air of superiority. I might as well oppose the Ukraine War being in ongoing because European nations slaughtering each other's civilians is routine. nableezy - 20:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If you think this is a real problem, you should try hard to find a solution. Seeing this posted on the English Wikipedia’s main page will hardly make any difference. In most European countries, if you’re caught possessing a gun without a licence, you’ll most likely get imprisoned, not to speak about protecting that right by constitution. That’s the reason why such incidents are rare. You can try to make this notable as much as you want, but this isn’t a natural disaster that comes totally unexpectedly with huge casualties. It’s merely a consequence of a repeated human error.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You have no earthly idea what I do in my life, and you have the purpose of Wikipedia severely misconstrued in your head. This is not a project to promote whatever cause, be it pro-choice or pro-life, gun control vs a freedom to bear arms, or any other topic you can dream up. Your comments here are a blatant violation of WP:NOTFORUM and should be ignored by any closer, and if they continue you should be brought to ANI and be blocked from this page. Of all the things I do not care about about, your views on American politics is at the top of the list. nableezy - 21:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. If you feel so inclined, report me and block me, but please don’t threaten me. At least, this is a civil society.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This violates WP:NOTFORUM. It should be struck and ignored by whomever determines consensus. Kiril: no one cares about your opinion, it's irrelevant to whether this should be blurbed. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rockstone35: I’ve stricken the part that seemed to violate WP:NOTFORUM. The remainder is a clear fact used as an argument to support my vote.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Kiril Simeonovski: Thank you! Now that argument (though I disagree with it) no longer is just a polemic. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose This is a sad event that should be condemned, and as an Indonesian of Chinese descent, or Chinese-Indonesian, this is a black mark in what should have been a time for celebration. Personally, I found out about this event just after the end of celebrations with my family in Indonesia, and I was shocked to hear the news. Despite this, I concur with DarkSide830 regarding mass shootings outside US, which would be a good start. MarioJump83 (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• comment: the onion has republished its 'No Way To Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens article, suggesting that this may not be a run-of-the-mill event. dying (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Juxlos: FYI. You were asking about this earlier. —Bagumba (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Aware, see the other shooting subsection. Juxlos (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Eleven people dead in a shooting not related to gang violence or war-like conditions merits posting, no matter the country and no matter the politics of that country. Khuft (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support US mass shootings with a two-digit death toll happen roughly 1-3 times a year per List of mass shootings in the United States. While it is sick, for ITN purpose I do not consider this too frequent, even 3 times a year - they are typically several months apart and receive enough editor attention for postable shape. Another thing is that by underreporting US mass shootings we're effectively playing into hands of US gun lobby. It is by consistent reporting of such high-casualty shootings that we as an encyclopedia can show the true nature of this problem and perhaps contribute to its solution in the future. Brandmeister^talk 21:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't worrying about playing into the US gun lobby be bias? It's not our job to the morality police. Nfitz (talk)

• That’s an interesting reasoning. I’ve always held the view that the media heed these incidents for two reasons: 1) human lives are equal everywhere no matter the circumstances, and 2) to raise awareness about the shooting problem in the US and ashame the authorities for doing very little to prevent it. Yet, the main problem is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and shouldn’t be used as such to promote a cause.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:ADVOCACY problems aside, we need to keep mind the mass shooting contagion as well, which is more likely than any other action being hoped for by these postings. Gotitbro (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd say we would promote a cause if we consistently sweep such shootings under the rug and not report them. By reporting it we are complete, WP:BALANCED and honest rather than by not reporting it. But enough has been written here already... Brandmeister^talk 22:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No one is "sweeping" anything under the rug. Neither ITN nor Wikipedia as a whole are nor pretend to be a newspaper or any other such reporter of news. DarkSide830 (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ...more likely than any other action being hoped for by these postings: No, "thoughts and prayers" are at the top. —Bagumba (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I'm lazy to go find the diff but I wrote a long thing around here somewhere once about the difference between "mass" shootings and rampage shootings such as this one, and how rare rampage shootings with double-digit deaths are in the US. The most-recent one was in May 2022. Though even once is too often for something like this, these high-death rampage shootings are decidedly, demonstrably not routine. It's significant, it's in the news, article meets quality requirements, post it. Also, would an admin please issue block/warnings for what some people are writing above. Please. Levivich (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  this is the diff I think. nableezy - 21:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes thank you very much! Levivich (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- it definitely seems like there is consensus at this point. Will an admin kindly post this? Thanks. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This thread seems to me like a textbook example of no consensus. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, there are more supports and they have the stronger argument. I imagine a neutral admin would agree. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I'm pretty sure we haven't posted US random mass shootings previously unless (a) the death toll is huge, or (b) there has been some sort of terrorist (including race/gender/sexuality-related) issue. At the moment, this doesn't appear to be either of those. It's simply another random mass shooting. Black Kite (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you consider a big enough death toll?  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 01:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What? We have never *not* posted a mass shooting that killed 10+ (now 11) people. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Wrong; see Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/November 2018#(Closed) 2018 Thousand Oaks Shooting 23.242.176.139 (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A couple of supports, a couple of opposes due only to article quality at the time. The nominator withdrew the nomination after only a few hours, which wouldn't be advised if we follow the WP:WITHDRAWN guideline principles for deletion. —Bagumba (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Alas, it was not Gregorian New Year or a Western holiday. —Bagumba (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Honestly, someone checking ITN not familiar with the fact that it's a dumpster fire might reasonably suspect that the reason we are not posting this is anti-Asian racism. I'm not saying that this is why (we all know that it's because ITN/C is fundamentally toxic and broken), but a random person aware of the mass shooting expecting to see some mention of it on Wikipedia may well think this. It's outrageous that this has not been posted. In particular, it's outrageous that we are allowing the types of comments that are being made in opposition to posting this which violate both NOTFORUM and WaltCip's admonition to be civil above; and finally it's outrageous that there's a double standard here, where we even (inexplicably) posted a mass shooting (if you could call it that) last year that only killed two people in Norway. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't believe opposition is generally based on "anti-Asian racism", but perhaps one being more (naturally) familiar with their own background and culture. —Bagumba (talk) 02:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, 100%, it is not at all racism. I'm just looking at it from the perspective of someone who doesn't use Wikipedia or is not familiar about the way ITN works. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Anyone expecting anything to be posted is best advised to volunteer to participate and WP:!VOTE. Newbies are welcome. —Bagumba (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to clarify, I'm not a newbie, just trying to put myself in the shoes of one. :-) --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Did not mean to imply that you were, as you have been !voting. —Bagumba (talk) 05:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not to sound callous, but as much as the Lunar New Year might be a culturally significant event, I feel like timing really shouldn't make a shooting more significant. I mean, it's not like gun deaths never happen on holidays. DarkSide830 (talk) 06:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps. But we did previously blurb 3 deaths at "a Christmas market" as opposed just writing "a market" or just listing the city alone.—Bagumba (talk) 07:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Which I daresay was a mistake. There were only six votes at the time of posting, and factoring in post-posting opposes the margain was only 5-3 without a lot of real meaty discussion (One support not noting notability at all, one by a now-banned editor who amended a previous oppose with "Weak Support on second thought, WTF, why not?", and another support per the prior) even for the low number of votes. DarkSide830 (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a lower bar if it's not in the US, and one might speculate even moreso if it involves a (Western) holiday like Xmas (and the event was on 11 Dec, not even eve)—Bagumba (talk) 08:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well quite frankly that's an absurd precedent. This is exactly why I opposed this. We shouldn't be weighting less deaths in a country more than more deaths in another, especially when circumstances are comparable. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Death toll >10 is very significant and these are typically posted, as well as this happening on Lunar New Year. Just because large shootings like this are much more common in the US than elsewhere doesn't mean it has less merit of being posted. It is still an evil and outrageous disaster. -Azpineapple (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment re: "too many" There about over a handful of !votes basically opposing only becuase there are too many U.S. shootings. Yes, there are a lot. But we are not discussing to post all of them, only this one. The others were generally not posted. And this one has unique circumstances: 11 deaths around Lunar New Year. It's irrelevant that there are other non-ITN worthy shootings. It's not in the blurb. A lot of people die. But we still have occasional death blurbs. We are discussing the merits of this shooting—only. Barring more support, unless a closer sees fit to discount those !votes, this will go as "no consensus".—Bagumba (talk) 05:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• A lot of these votes (like the one below me) don't actually add anything useful to the discussion, either. Whoever is going to close this, I really hope you will discount the !opposes who don't add anything useful to the conversation (or even worse, make the environment here in ITN even more inhospitable). --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 06:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, WP:PERX has been mentioned before:

  Comments adding nothing but a statement of support to a prior comment add little to the discussion (and are a form of § I like it, just directed at someone's vote instead of the article itself). Participants are always encouraged to provide evidence or arguments that are grounded in policy, practice, or simple good sense to support their positions.

  —Bagumba (talk) 07:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the "unique circumstances" have got to do with anything. There are always going to be unique circumstances with any event. The next US massacre, the 2023 Half Moon Bay shootings, took place at a mushroom farm. That's unique too, as far as I know. Ericoides (talk) 07:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Judge each one on its own merits. Someone saying it's the 33rd mass shooting doesn't say anything about this specific one, and hints of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Bagumba (talk) 08:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as per The Rambling Man. TheScrubby (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I would support this article being mentioned for ITN on the grounds that the article get expanded which means waiting until new information gets out over a day or two. Given that there was another mass shooting within two days. I'd suggest mentioning both incidents.

--Birdienest81talk 09:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Tone gave me permission to revert the closure. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 09:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Why not let things take their course? You seem determined to insist there is a consensus for support when as I and others have pointed out, no such thing exists. Half of your comments on here at least are of the form, "What I want to happen simply has got to happen"! Ericoides (talk) 10:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not like they went and directly filed at Wikipedia:Administrator review. They asked the closer, and they agreed. This is running its course. —Bagumba (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. 12 deaths is well-within the so-called "WP:MINIMUMDEATHS" discretionary zone. The circumstances here (Lunar New Year, multiple locations, public reaction, international reaction) would push it over the edge in my opinion. There's also the possiblity of having a combined blurb with the Half Moon Bay shooting in the same state since reliable sources are making that connection. The oppose !votes about this just being another mass shooting are missing the difference in scale between this and most mass shootings. Per List of mass shootings in the United States,1-2 occur daily, but since 2000 there have only been 26 shootings with 10+ fatalities, (21 if excluding perpetrators), or about 1-2 a year. The oppose !votes that mention how similar or worse events in other countries dont't get blurbed, do have a point, but the issue there typically isn't a different standard, but systemic issues around a lack of nominations, familiarity with non-English sources, and prompt updates, not with ITN !voters. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 10:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The above discussion on the Half Moon Bay shooting has developed into a situation where most (more like all) !voters oppose the posting of that event on its own, but some are willing to support a blurb which combines that shooting and this one. Accordingly, I move my above oppose !vote into the support combined blurb column. I suggest re-closing this discussion, as it's pretty clear that consensus seems currently difficult to develop, and users who supported this nomination, or would support a combined blurb, would be able to express their opinion on the above discussion. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 12:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unfortunately the shooting nominated above seems to defeat the argument made by some that these kinds of shootings really aren't that common at all in the U.S. YD407OTZ (talk) 16:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're in a desert and it rains two days in a row, would you conclude that it's not a desert? Levivich (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Arguably the most misguided attempt to post mass shooting blurbs I've ever seen. American mass shootings is not equivalent to rain in a desert, and the likelihood of people owning guns and shooting other people in America is known to be off the charts high since hundreds of mass shootings occur in that country every year. Levivich, you've destroyed any kind of standing you had here with such a stupid comparison. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The difference is that this desert is not so desert. Nor jungle, but people have an umbrella in their house. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you get 1-2 hurricanes per year and a steady drizzle ever single day, then yeah. YD407OTZ (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The shooting nominated above is nothing like this. You only get these ignorant arguments about commonality if you ignore what actually happened. The shooting above is a case of workplace violence. That is common. That is not the same as this one. nableezy - 19:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing much difference between shooting up the place you work, compared to shooting up the place you frequently dance, User:Nableezy. Both are non-random. Both are personal. Both would be mental illness (surely). Both involved guns. Both were in the same state. What are you seeing as the big difference? Nfitz (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Gwen Knapp

Nominator's comments: Award-winning American sports columnist, frequently cited by peers at other media outlets, ~40-year career as journalist Cielquiparle (talk) 10:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support some minor concerns of balance, but nothing worth holding up the post. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Stella Chiweshe

Nominator's comments: Chiweshe is an internationally known Zimbabwean mbira player. Also this is my first ITN nomination, so apologies if I have done it not quite right. Lajmmoore (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• welcome to itn/c, Lajmmoore! i believe editors here generally require discography entries to be reliably sourced. (also, i assume the quotation mark used in one of the discography entries is misplaced.) i'd also recommend mentioning only the longest alias in the introductory parenthetical, and moving the other two to a footnote, but that's just a personal preference. article looks pretty good otherwise, especially compared to how it was before you updated it. dying (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks very much @Dying I've referenced the discopgraphy now. However, I don't usually work on musicians so another pair of eyes to the reliability of the sources would be wonderful. Lajmmoore (talk) 10:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  MusicBrainz is a WP:USERGENERATED source, but the other discography sources look good. Joofjoof (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  support. i'm admittedly also not very familiar with reliable music sources, but will trust Joofjoof's judgement. dying (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for nominating this. I learned about the mbira when I visited Zimbabwe! The article is good, too (I think). -TenorTwelve (talk) 07:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - long enough. Recent death. Sources looks ok.BabbaQ (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article seems long enough, adequately/sufficiently sourced. Sources seem ok too. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support College and worldbeat radio staple in the 1990s (when I was tuned in to that world), probably beyond as well, no notability concerns, and article is a good introduction to her life and work. Penny Richards (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 04:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Sal Bando

Nominator's comments: Just announced, so not ready yet, but I'll get it ready this weekend. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It's better now. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well-cited and holistic. As usual, excellent work. Curbon7 (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 04:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Nano Riantiarno

Nominator's comments: Indonesian actor, director, and playwright Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 01:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Sourced. And long enough. Good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The documentary about his life "Gesturing Notations (Catatan Tanpa Selesai)" is mentioned in the lede but not elsewhere in the article. Spencer^T•C 03:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Harunata

Nominator's comments: Former head of Lahat and bureaucrat in the ministry of home affairs. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 00:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Recent death. Sourced. Long enough. Looks good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted—Bagumba (talk) 11:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing removal: Peruvian protests

Brahim Ghali re-elected

Article: 16th Congress of the POLISARIO Front (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The 16th Congress of the POLISARIO Front concludes with the re-election of Brahim Ghali as Secretary-General of the POLISARIO Front and President of the SADR in the first competitive race in the history of the SADR. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the 16th Congress of the POLISARIO Front, Brahim Ghali is re-elected as Secretary General of the POLISARIO Front and President of the SADR in the first competitive race in the history of the SADR.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Brahim Ghali is re-elected as Secretary General of the POLISARIO Front and President of the SADR in the first competitive election in the history of the SADR.
News source(s): Sahrawi Press Service, RTVE, El País
Credits:

• Nominated by Tidjani Saleh (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Updated blurb as the Congress has finished, I consider that it's relevant enough for Wikipedia to have in its main as its the re-election in a competitive race of the President of the SADR, a state recognised by 45 country (including two of its neighbours) and with the POLISARIO Front considered as the legitimate representative of the Sahrawi people as per UN resolutions. Tidjani Saleh (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tidjani Saleh (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC) (updated)[reply]

• Oppose: no significance even in the region this territory is situated. We need to stop prioritizing political articles over all other classes of articles. Colipon+(Talk) 02:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  How does it not have significance in the region the territory is situated in? Tidjani Saleh (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This has some significance in Western Sahara itself, but this was not even a top-10 news story in, say, Tunisia, when it happened. It has very limited impact. Colipon+(Talk) 15:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The Congress didn't happen in Tunisia, but in the Sahrawi refugee camps in Algeria, where they've been the top story in Sahrawi press (see ECSaharaui or the Sahrawi Press Service. As linked, it was mentioned and covered by the press of other neighbouring countries.

  I think that POLISARIO getting a competitive race in the middle of a war and it having a mandate to further escalate the war is relevant enough. Maybe not in your home region, but it does affect the Maghreb region and recently Morocco-EU relations. Tidjani Saleh (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as said by @Colipon Vriend1917 (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose That Polisario Front is something I've never heard exists. As such, it might be important for others in my boat to read. But the lack of citations could mean we're all learning a bunch of bullshit. Fix those up and we'll see. But it's not going to be easy. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You not hearing about it doesn't mean it's less important. Wikipedia is currently showing elections in Antigua and Barbuda and Benin, why not one in Western Sahara especially when it has done a significant change for the political situation of said country? Tidjani Saleh (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't say it was less important than anything, I said it seemed interesting and needs more citations for verification. Antigua and Barbuda's elections made for the most boring story I've ever read, but the article didn't have an orange tag. Orange means bad, so far as educational values go. Anyway, can you elaborate on this "significant change for the political situation"? It seems vague. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. What do you exactly mean by orange tag in this context?

  2. The Congress has given a mandate to the newly-elected president to "intensify the armed struggle" (unprecedented language since 1991) in the first Congress after the ceasefire was broken in Western Sahara in 2020, apart from being a competitive race for the first time ever in the country (the president also got the lowest score ever obtained by a winner).

  3. The Congress has got decent coverage in Western Sahara, Morocco (which is far from friendly towards Polisario), Algeria, Spain and Mauritania. It has also been covered by big-sized African media such as Jeune Afrique or Africanews and bigger international one such as RFI or EFE. Tidjani Saleh (talk) 04:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll need some time to wrap my head around that. Meanwhile, the orange tag is the box before the article starts, saying "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." It's not a good sign. It's also not technically the target article, which seems to work as a loophole sometimes. Good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that orange box in this article, and I've got it for others ^^ Tidjani Saleh (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd linked the article I'm talking about above, but it was easy to miss. Polisario Front. Can't miss it. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, the article I want to be nominated isn't Polisario Front (which will never get rid of that due to the constant Moroccan vs Sahrawi edit wars), but the 16th Congress of the POLISARIO Front. Polisario has enough literature to write books about it (I already have some in my shelves) and it's a national liberation movement that's recognised by the UN. Tidjani Saleh (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, intentionally or not, you've proposed two blurbs containing a link to that article. If it wasn't central to understanding what Brahim Ghali did here, I'd say just unlink it. But people who don't know the bookshelves you do are probably going to want that for background first. This nom is doomed, I think, though it was nice meeting you and opening my eyes to a world I've mostly just thought of as sand till now. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, fair enough, POLISARIO Front being linked isn't necessary for the blurb. I get the "Western Sahara is just empty sand", but if it was only that then it wouldn't be at the centre of who knows how many diplomatic crisis between Morocco and X countries. Tidjani Saleh (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Since the SADR is a state that’s recognized by 45 UN members & is a member of the African Union, would this fall under ITN/R? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I'm very conflicted on this story. On one hand, I think an election for a head of state is notable, but on the other hand, this is a partially recognised state which doesn't get too much coverage. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has got decent coverage in Sahrawi, Spanish, Moroccan, Algerian, Mauritanian and pan-African media, apart from being carried by press agencies such as RFI. I do think it's a bit more relevant than the Antiguan election tbf ^^ Tidjani Saleh (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Weak Support, I guess there's a good argument for notability here. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I'm making no judgement as to whether this is ITN/R or not - it seems highly newsworthy in its own right. And if edit-warring around SADR topics means they're always flagged, and that means they can't be bold links on the homepage, doesn't that worsen our systemic bias? GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There are plenty of articles about all manner of people and things, from all walks of life, that don't let edit warring stand in the way of citing paragraphs at least once at the end. Two entirely distinct core policy issues. Since yesterday, I sympathize with these rebels' plight more than ever, but we're not about to start holding the Polisario Front's en.wiki article to a different quality standard than David Crosby or Gina Lollobrigida's simply because they've had a harder time finding acceptance in the wider Western zeitgeist. Get good, all articles what dare enter here! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose SADR/Polisario Front is an ethnic liberation movement that controls less <25% of the territory they claim - the majority of the land they claim is governed by Morocco. Additionally, SADR is a government in exile based out of Algeria, and this election took place in a refugee camp in Algeria. I do not think this counts as ITN-worthy for two reasons:

1. Whether or not Ghali is a head of state is contentious, but he is definitely the leader of a nationalist/separatist movement, and to the best of my knowledge ITN has never before posted change of leadership (or re-election) for a nationalist/separatist movement.

2. The situation in Western Sahara is far too complicated to sum up in 1-2 sentences. I don't think either of the blurbs fully cover the situation, as they both exclude SADR's status as a government in exile and the location of the voting in Algeria. The page for the 16th Congress needs significant expansion and improvement in order to provide adequate context. e.b. (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is the head of a state that's internationally recognised by at least 45 countries and the African Union. The article covers both concerns you said about the government-in-exile and the vote being held in Algeria (and it being a first provoked by the war, as they're usually held in Tifariti). Tidjani Saleh (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose For the reasons laid out by Ebacas. I think for a state like Somaliland or Abkhazia or Northern Cyprus (i.e. stable, self-governing, controls the vast majority of their claimed territory), it is generally ok to post ITN/R elections. However, the situation is so complex in Western Sahara and the SADR controls such a little portion of territory. Curbon7 (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The List of current heads of state and government does not differentiate by amount of territory controlled. It classifies Western Sahara as one of the states that "control at least part of their territory and are recognised by at least one UN member state". Joofjoof (talk) 10:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if Western Sahara was as recognized as South Africa (or pick one), this wouldn't be an ITN/R nomination. There was no change in leadership or general election. A Secretary General election isn't close enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The Constitution of the SADR stipulates that the president is whoever is elected General-Secretary by the Congress of the POLISARIO Front. The Congress includes representatives directly elected by the population of the refugee camps the SADR administers and representatives of the army, diaspora and occupied territories. I didn't add the full origin due to POLISARIO's reticency to give detailed numbers of where they come from but I will add this information to the article if that helps.

  TL;DR: This counts as a general election as it renews indirectly (and democratically) the top leadership of the SADR and it's relevant enough due to it being competitive and not consensus-driven as previous elections. Tidjani Saleh (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You may be right. Wikipedia's article on general election describes different deals from this, but is also almost exclusively focused on the US and UK. It's probably missing something very relevant to this political situation. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In this political situation it is, as the Congress determines a broad main line of action SADR politicians cannot change until the next Congress. For example, this Congress demands more military action and the SADR will have to provide that or else they won't be reelected in the next Congress due to failing to answer to the priorities set by the national liberation movement (not a party). Tidjani Saleh (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose ITNR already covers a lot of ground for elections and there is a reason states with limited recognition are not included therein and have not been posted including the recent Northern Cyprus, Hong Kong et al etlections. Gotitbro (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The way I see it, we have a real serious grey area here in regards to if partially-recognized states are eligible for the INT/R elections item. To me, I don't see any good way to fix the problem, in large part due to the status of the ROC, which is largely recognized and agreed as an item for posting by the editing base here, but from what I can see is only recognized by 13 UN member states (many of them regional allies). By contrast, the SADR is recognized by 45 UN members. Taiwan's position as an item of desire by the CPC may elevate it here in regards to international attention, but I believe it stands to reason that the SADR's elections should land in the same bin as far as notability. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Wikipedia editors dont determine what is a state, other states do that, as this is a state that has won some recognition as a state and since it does control some territory, this qualifies as ITNR and should be posted. nableezy - 03:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, without a general election or change in leader, the Polisario Front could control the entire galaxy and still be ineligible for the R boost here. If you want to support it, fine. But it needs to be because you think it's the right thing to post. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Then why did we post Xi Jinping? That was not a general election and the post did not change hands. I dont think the only thing we should be blurbing is when Western style democracies have an election, that just reeks of systemic bias. "Our" way is the only way we recognize, the end. nableezy - 17:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If I recall correctly, Xi was posted due to being the first Chinese leader to serve three terms. If it’d been his second it probably would’ve been ignored. The Kip (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In this case this is the first competitive election ever held for the office, which I deem as post-worthy. Tidjani Saleh (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This is WP:ITN/R, per elections bullet point 1, because the country appears in the List of sovereign states. ITN/R does not tell us to only consider states in the top part of the sovereign states list. And yes, it also has a clause later on about dependent territories and disputed countries, but that does not say it overrides bullet point 1, it would merely cover cases not already covered by bullet point 1. If editors wish to change what's ITN/R they should do so at the talk page, not by opposing individual noms.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support – Article looks a bit messy, but I've seen worse posted. Western Sahara is likely the country most strongly on the ITN/R edge, but in the spirit of the guideline and this quite competitive election I would definitely include this. I'm still a bit concerned about the article's quality... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, it's a bit hard to explain the very complex situations so I'm doing my best to better explain it :) Tidjani Saleh (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Edit: the very complex situation of Western Sahara and its politics* Tidjani Saleh (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose No prose summary of the election and its results. Would support if someone fixed that. --Jayron32 14:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I can add that, should I add it in results or aftermath? Tidjani Saleh (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support. It is definitely something interesting since their leader got elected by less 70% Braganza (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Theoretically support since this seems important enough to post, but weak oppose on quality due to the lack of a prose summary for the election results (the article’s quality is good enough otherwise). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you mean exactly? I'm currently expanding the article with stuff such as international delegations/reactions and results for the National Secretariat (with the vague information we're getting), so I don't mind adding more text :) Tidjani Saleh (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I largely echo the comments of Nableezy and Braganza, this seems like a significant election in the region at a point which has the potential to have major consequences. SADR is recognised by quite a large group of countries from my understanding as well. Quinby (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD:Oladipo Ogunlesi

Nominator's comments: The First Medical Professor in Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note Coverage of his career should be expanded. Joofjoof (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can the citations from the lede be moved to the article body? If stuff is already referenced in article body, why do we need extra citations in the lede? It would be better if the death section is also modified and put in a paragraph format instead of a quote-format. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

user:TheAafi what is lede? I do not understand.

That would be everything in the introduction of the article (at the top), before the section "Early life and education". In this case, this would be the first two sentences. For more information, see also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Best, Spencer^T•C 17:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Andi Rasdiyanah Amir

Nominator's comments: Indonesian Islamic scholar. First woman to lead an Islamic university in Indonesia. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Appears to be well-cited and holistic. Some parts read a little awkwardly, but overall good work! Curbon7 (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Sourced and ready. Good work indeed.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted—Bagumba (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD/Blurb: David Crosby

Nominator's comments: American singer, guitarist, and songwriter. Founding member of the Byrds and Crosby, Stills & Nash. Thriley (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Article looks good , and has a lot of citations too 𝐹𝒾𝓇𝑒 𝒰𝓃𝒾𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓈𝑒 (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Hold on - currently sourced to 'Newsdirect.com'. Need more verification first. Some on the tubes are saying this is a hoax. Jip Orlando (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose blurb, certainly a cultural figure for his time, but he wasn't Pele or Benedict XVI. Semi-major US significance, little international. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Of that time, David Crosby was internationally known. Kurnkerner (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Like the Beatles [YEAH!] he moved the music goalposts. Kurnkerner (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There is nothing in the article that supports this point. Perhaps the bands he were in did that, but he himself isn't (yet) documented as having that much significance in the musical world. Masem (t) 21:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  READ Facebook memoirage. today and yesterday. E.g., Jesse Dayton's of a day ago. Kurnkerner (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As I've said, "nothing in the article" that talks to him being important or significant. Memorials from social media mean nothing, we are looking for reliable sources. Masem (t) 21:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Social media, in toto, does mean future reliability. Kurnkerner (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yahoo article is a 404. I think this is a hoax or an error. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• comment: death now reported by variety. dying (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, guess it is true. Sad. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Not Ready Referencing is dreadful. This is going to take some work before it can be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose blurb once article is up to scratch. He was certainly a notable figure in his field. But not THAT notable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  He was VERY notable. Kurnkerner (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Not yet - This article is a mess, for such a well-known person: bloated lead, poor referencing. Needs work before it's ready for primetime. Moncrief (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb in principle to get discussion going and avenge Little Richard. On phone rn, so haven't edited template. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Proposed blurb.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Blurb is an almost but not quite there. CoatCheck (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD once updated, weak oppose Blurb I can't see Crosby being a blurb-able musician on his own. Maybe arguable if included in blurb was The Byrds and Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, with CSNY arguably being one of the first Supergroup (music) ( Cream (band) might be a first, depending on how someone sees it). However, once article is updated to a decent state for RD, I'd support based on legacy, long running career, and pop culture icon on the Vietnam War generation and early 70's music. TheCorriynial (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb no indication of being a leader of the musical community by way of legacy or impact. He was part of two influential groups, but that doesn't make him influential. --Masem (t) 00:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose blurb - Great musician. Just not blurbworthy. HiLo48 (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb Old man dies... tragic, but it's life. Noah^Talk 00:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To be the devil's advocate, we've posted the deaths of old men before, most recently Constantine II. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Spencer: @Jayron32:: this is precisely what I mean by "precedent creep". We have a duty to maintain some reasonable standard for blurbworthiness - otherwise stuff like this happens. Colipon+(Talk) 03:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• OMD Nobody gets into the business thinking, "I want to sound like David Crosby". That's not to say he wasn't involved in a lot of really good songs, bands and movements. He just didn't blow anyone's mind with this or that innovation. Fix up the usual and get him a Photo RD. A beautiful man we lost here today. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That is simply not true. It may be true nowadays, but since the mid-60's David Crosby has been a model for dozens for how one might sing. Check Jesse Dayton's homage in FB the last couple days. Kurnkerner (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose both – until article is updated. Article is currently a hot mess. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 07:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, Oppose blurb, somewhat similar level to Loretta Lynn. Hope the article can be fixed up well. RIP.. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD when ready, oppose blurb - A significant musician, but not so outstandingly so as to merit a blurb IMHO. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, Oppose blurb - Per Genevieve. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD when ready, oppose blurb - I'd be more likely to support a blurb for Neil Young (let's hope we're not discussing it any time soon, though). Anarchyte (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb as he isn't notable enough for one. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 11:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  He's notable enough in Spanish Wiki to merit blurb and a pic. Kurnkerner (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Following the Spanish wiki isn't policy on the English wiki. If I were on the Spanish wiki, I would've still opposed. Too many deaths are nominated for blurbs recently. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 12:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Most of the music career section is uncited. Needs a lot of work to be main page ready. --Jayron32 12:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "Support RD when ready" might be the dumbest 4 words on Wikipedia. Everyone, by default, supports every RD when it's ready. Anyway, oppose blurb because Crosby himself, while a stellar musician, was not hugely transformative or impactful, and the article is still far from ready for RD. -- Kicking222 (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but my hope is that providing those kinds of comments as part of a somewhat broader statement provide suitable encouragement to editors who know about the subject (and in this case I am not nearly well-enough informed) to actually go and fix it so that it can be posted. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's to contrast the opposition of a blurb. i.e., blurb is a no-go, but the standard RD will be ready soon enough. Anarchyte (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My silence is rarely an unspoken Support. I'm on record at several places on this board saying the majority has gone too far with posting literally any bio that's ready. Once more, my default preference (no matter how dumb or upon deaf ears) is to see dead famous people's articles in the "In The News" box, exclusively. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of the Byrds, both his singing [ESPECIALLY] and his ideas on arranging were HUGELY influential. Kurnkerner (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb, Support RD. This was the reason RD was created. To post deaths of old people who were famous but not quite so globally transformative. Colipon+(Talk) 02:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb [getting the hang of this]. David Crosby (as well as Jeff Beck) are both listed under the respective 'notable deaths' of several major Wiki languages. In Spanish he gets a picture, too. Besides being on the varsity bench of the musicians of his prime-time he is notable for his representation of/participation in the zeitgeist of the 60's/70's. Kurnkerner (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]