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.

Lawrence Wong Protests break out in New Caledonia, a territory of France in the Pacific, over voting rights changes. Lee Hsien Loong steps down after nearly 20 years as the prime minister of Singapore, and is succeeded by Lawrence Wong (pictured). Robert Fico, the prime minister of Slovakia, is hospitalised after an assassination attempt. Switzerland, represented by Nemo with "The Code", wins the Eurovision Song Contest. A series of solar storms impact Earth, creating aurorae seen farther from the poles than usual. Ongoing: Israel–Hamas war timeline Russian invasion of Ukraine timeline War in Sudan timeline Recent deaths: Eddie Gossage Gudrun Ure Arthur Irving Alice Munro Birubala Rabha Jasper White Nominate an article

Discussions of items older than seven days are automatically archived

February–March 2005 • April 2005 • May 2005 • June 2005 • July 2005 • August 2005 • September 2005 • October 2005 • November 2005 • December 2005 • January 2006 • February 2006 • March 2006 • April 2006 • May 2006 • June 2006 • July 2006 • August 2006 • September 2006 • October 2006 • November 2006 • December 2006 • January 2007 • February 2007 • March 2007 • April 2007 • May 2007 • June 2007 • July 2007 • August 2007 • September 2007 • October 2007 • November 2007 • December 2007 • January 2008 • February 2008 • March 2008 • April 2008 • May 2008 • June 2008 • July 2008 • August 2008 • September 2008 • October 2008 • November 2008 • December 2008 • January 2009 • February 2009 • March 2009 • April 2009 • May 2009 • June 2009 • July 2009 • August 2009 • September 2009 • October 2009 • November 2009 • December 2009 • January 2010 • February 2010 • March 2010 • April 2010 • May 2010 • June 2010 • July 2010 • August 2010 • September 2010 • October 2010 • November 2010 • December 2010 • January 2011 • February 2011 • March 2011 • April 2011 • May 2011 • June 2011 • July 2011 • August 2011 • September 2011 • October 2011 • November 2011 • December 2011 • January 2012 • February 2012 • March 2012 • April 2012 • May 2012 • June 2012 • July 2012 • August 2012 • September 2012 • October 2012 • November 2012 • December 2012 • January 2013 • February 2013 • March 2013 • April 2013 • May 2013 • June 2013 • July 2013 • August 2013 • September 2013 • October 2013 • November 2013 • December 2013 • January 2014 • February 2014 • March 2014 • April 2014 • May 2014 • June 2014 • July 2014 • August 2014 • September 2014 • October 2014 • November 2014 • December 2014 • January 2015 • February 2015 • March 2015 • April 2015 • May 2015 • June 2015 • July 2015 • August 2015 • September 2015 • October 2015 • November 2015 • December 2015 • January 2016 • February 2016 • March 2016 • April 2016 • May 2016 • June 2016 • July 2016 • August 2016 • September 2016 • October 2016 • November 2016 • December 2016 • January 2017 • February 2017 • March 2017 • April 2017 • May 2017 • June 2017 • July 2017 • August 2017 • September 2017 • October 2017 • November 2017 • December 2017 • January 2018 • February 2018 • March 2018 • April 2018 • May 2018 • June 2018 • July 2018 • August 2018 • September 2018 • October 2018 • November 2018 • December 2018 • January 2019 • February 2019 • March 2019 • April 2019 • May 2019 • June 2019 • July 2019 • August 2019 • September 2019 • October 2019 • November 2019 • December 2019 • January 2020 • February 2020 • March 2020 • April 2020 • May 2020 • June 2020 • July 2020 • August 2020 • September 2020 • October 2020 • November 2020 • December 2020 • January 2021 • February 2021 • March 2021 • April 2021 • May 2021 • June 2021 • July 2021 • August 2021 • September 2021 • October 2021 • November 2021 • December 2021 • January 2022 • February 2022 • March 2022 • April 2022 • May 2022 • June 2022 • July 2022 • August 2022 • September 2022 • October 2022 • November 2022 • December 2022 • January 2023 • February 2023 • March 2023 • April 2023 • May 2023 • June 2023 • July 2023 • August 2023 • September 2023 • October 2023 • November 2023 • December 2023 • January 2024 • February 2024 • March 2024 • April 2024 • May 2024

---

---

RD: P. W. T. Simanjuntak

Nominator's comments: The antipope of the Batak Christian Protestant Church. Took over the church with the government's assistance and illegitimately led the church for six years. His leadership was disputed by S. A. E. Nababan, who died three weeks ago and was also posted here. Also a member of parliament for four years. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 06:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article is well-referenced and good to go.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good and well-cited --Vacant0 (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indianapolis 500

Nominator's comments: The Indy 500 is listed on ITNR. The race article seems to be in OK shape, but lacks a text update. -- Calidum 01:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Commenting, will support inclusion upon updating of prose - Agree that the article needs some updates, but otherwise would be an uncontroversial inclusion as part of the triple crown. The fact that Hélio tied the record for most wins and the fact that this win came 20 years after his first may be relevant? I think the longest previous gap between first and last wins was only 16 years but I may be wrong. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow up comment - I have done some initial work adding sources and a brief prose summary. Hopefully the page will expand further as America wakes up and their papers go to press. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Article has large swaths of unreferenced text and no prose update. It has long way to go before posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the article 2021_Indianapolis_500#Finish. @Calidum:, @HumanBodyPiloter5:. Minerva (talk to me) 19:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mythili Sivaraman

Nominator's comments: Indian social justice activist and trade union leader. Article should be ready for homepage / RD soon. Working on some edits. Edits done. Article has shaped into a decent C-class biography and meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Comprehensive enough, and the information in the English articles match the article. Uses x (talk • contribs) 00:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 06:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

RD: Gwen Shamblin Lara/Joe Lara

Nominator's comments: This is an odd one - a private plane with seven people crashed into a lake, with all seven dead. It is very unlikely that the plane crash will have an article, but we have two notable people (these two, wife and husband, who owned the plane). I do not think either raises to a blurb (this isn't Kobe Byrant) but they both qualify for RD so maybe this could be a "Gwen Shamblin & Joe Lara" entry on RD? I dunno. Masem (t) 04:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Gwen Shamblin RD only as her article is the only one that's long enough, as well as almost being fully cited (just an unimportant TV appearance missing). Joe Lara's is a stub so it shouldn't be posted until it's RD quality. I don't think combining them would work as it takes up the same amount of space and it'd go against the RD format, so it's better to just split them. Uses x (talk • contribs) 09:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Gewn Shambiln RD only Looks good, there's one cn tag to fix. --Vacant0 (talk) 09:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: B. J. Thomas

Nominator's comments: Needs a little sourcing work before it is ready. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Gavin MacLeod

Nominator's comments: Needs just a little sourcing work and it will be ready. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Last lift to the Lido Deck.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CoatCheck (talk • contribs) 03:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - References have been added, unsourced material removed, and poor quality sources have been replaced with reliable sources.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks alright --Vacant0 (talk) 09:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Filmography missing Is it the new norm to split off an existing unsourced filmography to seemingly fast track an ITN nom? Is this in the reader's best interest?—Bagumba (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Aside from the filmography discussion, the first paragraph's first sentences are now tagged, as they were not supported by the lone citation at the end of that paragraph. I'm also wary of the large paragraph beginning "MacLeod's breakout role as Murray Slaughter ..." which also has only one citation at the end, itself a dead url.—Bagumba (talk) 11:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Splitting off a completely unsourced filmography to create a completely unsourced new article, purely to push an ITN nomination is not acceptable. It should be merged back and sourced. Black Kite (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Obvious WP:GAMING attempt, to the detriment of readers. Put the filmography back. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Filmography has been merged back into the article and is fully sourced. Tagged unsourced content in first paragraph of career section has been sourced as well.--Tdl1060 (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The paragraph that @Bagumba: raised as problematic has now been sourced as well. Article should be ready.--Tdl1060 (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Munirathna Anandakrishnan

Nominator's comments: Former head of Anna University Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support There's one cn tag that has to get fixed, otherwise it looks suitable --Vacant0 (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Cornelius Sim

 Bloom6132 (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support looks a very decent little article, suitably referenced JW 1961 ^Talk 23:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – everything seems to be in order: solid referencing, no prose issues, a thorough overview of the topic. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support more than good enough for RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks great --Vacant0 (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2021 UEFA Champions League Final

 PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose not sure I see a prose summary of the match. Added alt per house style. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Support a match summary is now there, and what an excellent and inspiring piece of work it is. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per lack of summary, uncited statements in several sections, and lack of a complete "Road to final" prose summary. It will need a ton of work to be ITN-ready. SounderBruce 22:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Meets the minimum standard of quality. STSC (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 00:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose No prose summary of the match. P-K3 (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one TRM! P-K3 (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support altblurb2 Proper summary with picture Sitaphul (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose no match summary. It's an article about a match, and we have almost no details on the match itself in the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have added a summary. STSC (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I have added a real summary. Pawnkingthree, Joseph2302 perhaps you could re-consider your !vote? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please consider cropping the suggested image to remove corporate logos on the uniform in the proposed pic. Don't want to give free advertising on MainPage. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 11:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That image is tiny. I ran it just to see what it looks like: File:N'Golo Kanté profile.jpg. Same issue just a few weeks ago with Mark Selby, it makes an awkward crop. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Can we keep his shoulders? --PFHLai (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Done Here's a wider shot which is better, but still about 200 x 200 px, so IDK how it will look on MP. We also just put up the Assad blurb so there's definitely photos we can use there. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, AllegedlyHuman. I think this looks fine. --PFHLai (talk) 12:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (Altblutb2) Article much improved since last evening JW 1961 ^Talk 11:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 12:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

RD: Mark Eaton

Nominator's comments: NBA player, spent his 11 year career with the Utah Jazz. May need some sourcing work. KingOfAllThings ^{(thou shalt chatter!)} 19:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I've updated it some, but referencing still needs a bit more work.—Bagumba (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Referencing now improved.—Bagumba (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Discovery of mass graves in Canada

Nominator's comments: Major and uncommon discovery at what once was the largest residential school in Canada. Article was short, but recently expanded. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 00:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There's precedent to post this from when a similar thing was discovered with the Mother and Baby Homes in Ireland. This is, again, the result of a congregation part of the Catholic Church. However, that was only posted once the investigation was completed and the final report was made, and for this the articles make it clear these results are only "preliminary", so I think it's worth waiting for a similar report so we have a more comprehensive article. Uses x (talk • contribs) 00:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems the report you are looking for was Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. The general mistreatment in schools was already known; the bodies at this particular school is the new discovery. Perhaps the main target should be Canadian Indian residential school system, which has Canadian Indian residential school system#Missing children and unmarked graves, as that page already has the necessary background missing inthe specific school page.—Bagumba (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support alt per Bagumba. The target article in that has enough information regarding the update. Uses x (talk • contribs) 06:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt blurb with FA Canadian Indian residential school system as the target. The actual school page is currently too underdeveloped to provide enough context on the bodies. Perfect opportunity to showcase FA related to news item.—Bagumba (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is an interesting story documenting a major discovery. I also prefer the alternative blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt per above Kingsif (talk) 09:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt nice article. Harrowing. Should it be in the grounds? ——Serial 10:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Culturally and historically significant. Prefer Alt2, offered above as a slightly less prolix choice. – Sca (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: – The blurry, horizontal pic. shown is subpar and doesn't really illustrate the story. – Sca (talk) 12:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the cropped version with less of the ground works ok for tablets and laptops, and have posted it.—Bagumba (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Namibia Genocide

Nominator's comments: It's a lengthy article, but for such a long article it's actually fairly close to ITN quality. Hopefully this nomination and today's events will bring eyes to the article to get it fixed up. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditonal support The update needs to be much longer than the 1 line addition to the lead that isn't even expanded in the main text. Someone with knowledge about the genocide would also need to give the okay that the information is correct, as it mostly relies on book references so I can't fact-check the information. I think this can be differentiated from Joe Biden recognising the Armenian Genocide from a month ago, which didn't get posted, as Germany was at least involved in the region, and because there's a €1.1 billion reparation so it's not just politicians talking. Uses x (talk • contribs) 16:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – in principle, pending expansion of update. Widely covered, historically significant. – Sca (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment article has been updated. I also altered the blurb slightly. NorthernFalcon (talk) 04:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Significant recognition and reparation by a nation culpable in a colonial genocide. Major event. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support This is an important event & the article looks good for the most part, but it has a “verification needed” tag, a “citation needed” tag & a “dubious” tag that need to be taken care of. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Nigeria boat accident

---

RD: Lois Ehlert

Nominator's comments: Death announced on this date. Author of children's books. Article requires some work. If someone wants to get working on the edits before me, please go ahead. Else, I will pick this up later in the day. Ktin (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nigeria boat accident

Nominator's comments: The previous nomination was rejection only the basis of no article created. I have created an article; however it may require expansion and referencing clean-up, help very welcome. Abcmaxx (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The article needs lots of work, but tentative support if fixed. Nevertheless, this nom should be moved to the day it happened. --Tone 17:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Robbie McCauley

Nominator's comments: African-American playwright. Substantial entry, working on making sure it’s fully referenced. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Referenced and reorganized. It’s not GA-quality but it surveys her career and works in, I hope, readable fashion. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: John Hodge (engineer)

Nominator's comments: Death announced on this date. Uses x (talk • contribs) 20:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nice article, assuming good faith on book citations JW 1961 ^Talk 11:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Kees de Jager

Nominator's comments: Dutch astronomer, recently turned 100. Some citation work needed, which I will get on to today, but broadly looks OK.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I've added sources and reworked the article for a bit, it looks good now --Vacant0 (talk) 11:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait There are problems with referencing. For example, the sole reference in "Sun-climate relations" is an obscure book written by a climate skeptic with only a B.A. degree in social sciences. Typical. I'll work on it. Uses x (talk • contribs) 18:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't think I can get rid of that bad citation as it's a decent synthesis of the actual method de Jager used, but I've added reliable citations for the factual things instead. That's the most that can probably be done. Otherwise, fully referenced. Uses x (talk • contribs) 19:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted—Bagumba (talk) 10:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Foster Friess

Nominator's comments: Prominent donor to the Republican Party in the US. Looks like a comprehensive and well-cited article already, so probably not much work needed on this one.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – refs 7–14 are bare links. Also, refs 5, 6, and 35 are sourced to his personal website without qualifying the info in the prose (contrast with ref 8). —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bloom6132: I've replaced or filled in the bare URLs, and also either provided better sources, clarified or removed some stuff cited to his personal site. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – corrected one minor chronological inaccuracy as to his cancer diagnosis, but other than that, it looks like it meets the minimum requirements. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks alright! --Vacant0 (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted—Bagumba (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Carla Fracci

Nominator's comments: One of the leading ballerinas of the 20th century. There was some article, especially a gorgeous image, and since yesterday, we have worked on it. I just ran into an edit conflict so have time to nominate. More detail will come I bet, and please help. Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good! --Vacant0 (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Harvey Schlossberg

Nominator's comments: Only reported today (May 27); died on May 21. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support more than good enough for RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support well-cited --Vacant0 (talk) 11:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Llew Smith

Nominator's comments: Former Wales MP, already expanded significantly by me in April 2020. PotentPotables (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks fully sourced and ready.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Only one unsourced sentence, which I just added citations for. Looks good otherwise. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 22:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 01:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

(New) RD: Murray Dowey

 Bloom6132 (talk) 10:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Syrian presidential election

Nominator's comments: Narrow victory after a hard-fought campaign. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ITN/R and the article is satisfactory. Mlb96 (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The article looks ready.--Sakiv (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nomination but strong oppose blurb: blurb make it sound like an ordinary election rather than an attempt to legitimise a dictatorship with very few standard electoral procedures. I would propose adding; "disputed", "contentious", "un-accepted", or "widely discredited". Abcmaxx (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's ITN/R and the article is fine. The blurb on Vladimir Putin's 2018 re-election is an example that commentary about the legitimacy of the election shouldn't be put in the blurb. There are 2 citation needed tags, but it's just a list of countries so it's not vital information. Uses x (talk • contribs) 00:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting comment: We should not unquestionably report the results of sham "elections" put on by autocracies in our voice. What about "In Syria, Bashar al-Assad (pictured) is announced to have won re-election as president. Sandstein 12:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about "is re-erected as president" – ?? ... ;-) — Sca (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on the comments above I am going to adjust the blurb to try to accurately summarize the content of the article and not create a misimpression (as the current blurb clearly does). Jehochman ^Talk 14:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "that is denounced as illegitimate" seems rather too strong for our own voice, leaving us open to POV criticism. Suggest "that is discredited by critics." – Sca (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can fix that by saying who the critics are. The reader can decide for themselves what to believe. The article cites a source using the word "denounced" with regard to the US, so let's stick with that. I changed "illegitimate" to "undemocratic" to more closely hew to the source for the EU's statement. Jehochman ^Talk 16:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The new language, that is denounced as undemocratic by the United States and the European Union, works for me. TNX. – Sca (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sca, Jehochman, PFHLai, and Sandstein: Shouldn't we add that the Syrian actual opposition thinks its undemocratic too? After all their voice is probably more important than that of an outsider.Abcmaxx (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The present blurb seems forceful enough – altho perhaps there's still something to be said for the more generalized "that is discredited by critics" – maybe expanded a bit as "that is discredited by domestic and foreign critics" – ?? You tell me. – Sca (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can we keep the ITN blurbs short, please? I'd rather people click the link on MainPage and read the article for details. Just a short one indicating that Bashar is back for another "term" is long enough. --PFHLai (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment we don't editorialize on elections in blurbs unless we want to include Egypt and Russia as well. Just put it back. He doesn't "claim victory" either. Readers can dig in on the target article and make their own decision. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree: while it is a true statement it is inappropriate editorializing for an ITN item and reflects a very specific world view that ITN should not necessarily be promoting. If the news was some international court case to challenge the election, that would be appropriate, but to add this when we haven't it for, say, Russia's elections is extremely hypocritical and unnecessary. --Masem (t) 22:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is also editorializing to just say he won the election without further comment. We are not here to whitewash dictators who stage fraudulent elections. The article documents what each country has said. The blurb doesn't have space to list all of them, so we highlight a few of the most significant critics. This is better than an anonymous, "some say the election was undemocratic." That's my reading of the above discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 23:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not WP's place to classify elections as fair or unfair unless it's determined through evidence and appropriate review processes that an election was deemed unfair. While there's certainly numerous questions about Syria's election process here and the US + EU are absolutely morally right to put these questions forth, that's not WP's issue to try to take a stand on. This is not an issue we should be taken a position on in a brief statement. The article should absolutely cover it, but out of Wikivoice and without comment. --Masem (t) 23:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        I have restored the original blurb. As noted, It is not our place to editorialise.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        • To me, it seems like the original blurb editorializes that the election was a normal election that was free and fair. It’s misleading. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is a grave error. It is not our job to serve up propaganda put out by the Syrian government. It is very important to report, according to the reliable sources that appear in the article itself, that it is seriously disputed that this was a democratic election. Jehochman ^Talk 02:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is disputed by some governments, but WP is not the mouthpiece of these governments. Other governments support the elections. The article should absolutely cover that the election is disputed by some governments, but we should not be pretend that the US or aligned governments are necessarily "right" here. --Masem (t) 02:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Why are we a mouthpeace for Syria? They claim to have had an election. Anyone who cares about democracy is laughing at this sham election. Why are we spreading the propaganda of Syria, Iran, Russia, China and North Korea? Jehochman ^Talk 02:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ah yes, the "axis of evil." To avoid being a mouthpiece for them, let's instead be a mouthpiece for the CIA, that solves the problem entirely. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • What the hell are you talking about? Are you suggesting that the EU, France, and Germany are mouthpieces of the CIA? Your comment is very strange indeed. Jehochman ^Talk 03:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • If there was complete worldwide rebuttal against the elections as rigged with only Syria acting as if they were legit, then yes, we may have room to speak against them. But all we have at least documented in the article is what appears to be five or six countries in the entire world that are speaking against it, far from anywhere close this to even consider it a fact that the elections were rigged. WP cannot make that assumption in Wikivoice, period, this is a fundamental NPOV issue. Now, I'm not saying the blurb as modified made that assumption in Wikivoice, but it stressed a point that made it clearly non-neutral. It would be like saying, back in 2016 "President Trump won the US election by a out-of-date electoral college system according to many experts." as the blurb. Fact and sourcable, but its editorializing that we cannot do. --Masem (t) 04:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • We don't give North Korea a veto. You are being patently absurd. All reliable sources are reporting that this is a sham election. We must say so or we are seriously deceiving the reader. Jehochman ^Talk 05:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a simple and neutral "is re-elected president". It only links to the article which does a good job. It does not say the election was democratic, or free, or fair, either. People unfamiliar will find out from the article; those familiar will know something's up anyway. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If the election is rigged, then he isn't "re-elected." He's declared president in a rigged election. Syria reported 95% support for Al-Assad with 78% turnout. More people voted for him, allegedly, than the total population of the parts of Syria under government control. This is painfully obvious fraud. Lying can take the form of stating something that's untrue, but there is also lying by omission, failing to include highly relevant facts. Wikipedia shouldn't do either. I know this is hard, but we should do the work needed to get this right. Jehochman ^Talk 04:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This is world politics. If there is demonstrable consensus among world countries or world academia that the election was rigged, we could do that. But we can't put out a blurb that claims more than our article can. "Assad is declared winner in an election that had more voters than the population in the territories which could possibly hold an election,^{[according to whom?]}" and was condemned by the United States and its allies but welcomed by Russia and its allies" is too long. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There is universal consensus among reliable sources that the election is a sham. Read the article. We are not judging what countries think. We follow what reliable sources say. Jehochman ^Talk 12:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb Egregious case of false balance. --RaiderAspect (talk) 04:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  How about the alternative blurb? Jehochman ^Talk 05:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added a less sensationalist blurb as altblurb2. I personally don't think it should be added as, again, people can read the article and make a decision for themselves, but that is strictly factual so I wouldn't have a problem with it. Uses x (talk • contribs) 05:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Introducing "disputed" seems like a slippery slope to me. We'll have to decide in future which to label as disputed and which not - after all, plenty of elections are disputed including the most recent US election. Far better to just state the raw fact that there was an election, and person X won it, without attempting to editorialise in the blurb, then leave the detailed analysis to the article.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn’t seem like a slippery slope to me because it’s what reliable sources are calling this election. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Pull – This bland simple sentence does not summarize the story in a balanced and accurate way. There's been ample RS reporting to show that Bashar wasn't (re-) "elected" in the normal sense of the term. If we can't agree on "disputed" or something similar, the blurb should be pulled. It's misleading, thus an error – Sca (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore that other countries/the EU consider it unfair. It's not us judging it unfair(which we shouldn't do) but merely reporting what others say about the fairness of the election. This is a significant aspect of the reporting. I agree that just saying "sham" or "disputed" should not be done because that would be us judging it. 331dot (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason you're saying "restore" when it hasn't yet been pulled? – Sca (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I call for restoring the part of the blurb that was removed. 331dot (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's only a small subset of the rest of the world calling it unfair, it's not like the rest of the world is. Its a decidedly pro-Western democracy stance, which we should avoid trying to focus on even if we generally agree with it. --Masem (t) 13:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absent a supranational body to make binding legal determinations about the fairness of elections, that's all we have. 331dot (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the article cites other countries giving congratulations to him without questioning the elections (albeit those countries having their own questionable politics under Western demographic standards), no, that's not the only bar, and that's the issue. WP can't take a moral stance here. --Masem (t) 13:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reporting does not focus on the countries that say it was fair and as you point out most of those conduct unfair elections themselves. That's not our moral judgment, but that of RS. 331dot (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-posting support Fine as is, let's follow precedent (e.g. Russia) and try to not go beyond that. Gotitbro (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull If we can’t accurately summarize the article then let’s be silent. The article says this election was a sham. It also says the results are not accepted by the US and the EU. I’m fine with sham, disputed or saying who disputes it. I am not fine with suggesting this was a legitimate election as we are currently doing. Jehochman ^Talk 13:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The US and EU are irrelevant, because the election took place in Syria. And it should not be pulled, because elections are ITN/R. But what recurs is that we post the result of the election and its impact on who will lead the nation going forward. All things which are unambiguous in this case. What we don't include in the one-line blurb is value judgements on whether the election was "legitimate" or not. This is not rocket science.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Headlines we never saw: "Brezhnev elected president of U.S.S.R." – Sca (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If a head of state was appointed to the position, that's what the blurb says. See: Miguel Díaz-Canel's blurb just over a month ago. Uses x (talk • contribs) 13:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Maybe this should be discussed in general on the talk page, though it still might remain necessary to decide on case-by-case basis. Looking back at two controversial elections, the 2019 Bolivian general election and the 2021 Ugandan general election: For the former, we posted a blurb pointing out some aspects of the controversy, for the latter, we did not. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The final blurb was "Amid days of protests in Bolivia, incumbent president Evo Morales is re-elected to office." - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:In_the_news&oldid=923291336 Uses x (talk • contribs) 14:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, Uses x! I also tried to find what we'd posted after the 2020 Belarusian presidential election, but it appears that the focus then was on the protests: "Pro-democracy protests intensify in Belarus after the contested reelection of incumbent President Alexander Lukashenko (pictured)"] [2] (btw, if anyone knows a better way of navigating through what we've posted other than clicking through diffs of the template, please let me know). I still think it might be worth having a discussion outside this thread, since there doesn't seem to be agreement in this instance. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if we're going to use the blurb to highlight that the election was disputed by the US and EU then we need to include Egypt and Russias more supportive position. Or maybe just leave it alone, and not editorialize in the blurb? Y'all act like somehow a blurb on the front page of Wikipedia "legitimizes" al-Assad as if we included the word "disputed" then suddenly all our WP:READERS would unite and help overthrow the regime. Get ahold of yourselves. It's easy to be "neutral" when everyone agrees, it's much harder to set emotions and POV aside when the outcome is undesirable. Also, unless we seriously expect the outcome to change, I think this has run it's course. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull The current blurb is very misleading & it doesn’t reflect that reliable sources are calling it a disputed election. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Kay Lahusen

Nominator's comments: Lesbian activist and photographer. Needs a few refs which obits should supply, will work on this today. Innisfree987 (talk) 12:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The entry is now thoroughly referenced. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks well-cited now --Vacant0 (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looking ready for RD JW 1961 ^Talk 21:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 09:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) San Jose shooting

RD: Mufti Abdul Razzaq

Nominator's comments: Article updated. Subject was a notable scholar, Mufti and an activist of Indian freedom struggle. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 17:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment / oppose for now. The subject is being lauded as a freedom fighter for India, yet there is no coverage of this in the article. The narrative doesn't really begin until 1952.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Amakuru, addressed with a related fact. I'd surely update it further whenever I've access to more information ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 14:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Owais ^Talk 15:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Amakuru: do you still have any objection? I've not heard from you since two days. @Stephen:, may this be posted now? ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 16:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @TheAafi: I still feel this is light on detail. Surely if sources are describing him as a leading freedom fighter, there must be more to say than just "he was involved in a fight"?  — Amakuru (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Amakuru, it happens that if someone takes even a little part in any good effort, he is lauded very much. I skimmed through the whole 600+ p. book on him and his works; and the best I could get was the fact that I've added in the article. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 17:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I also see that he was 22 at the time of India's independence. It doesn't make sense that he would have been a leading figure; unless he was born some years earlier (or started any movement etc). I often see exaggeration while Indian freedom fighters are venerated. The best I can think that he might've participated after he was "18 yo" until 1947 when he was "22" because he was close to Hussain Ahmad Madani - but the major source on his life and works omits all of these and mentions in light detail his little participation. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 18:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support However I believe that the "Literary works" section needs some expansion. There should be a short introduction about his writings. --Gazal world (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Eric Carle

Nominator's comments: American designer and children's book writer, author of The Very Hungry Caterpillar, dies at age 91. Davey2116 (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD, maybe blurb I am open to a blurb for him, a major author -TenorTwelve (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality I would 100% support a blurb seeing how his book became the best selling children's book of all time. However, the article is in bad shape and needs to be beefed up with sources. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please consider holding off on the blurb debate until the quality is addressed. 75.188.224.208 (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Drawing attention: If someone has existing newspapers.com access through the Wikipedia library it'd be helpful for citing his early life. I'm hitting a paywall. Uses x (talk • contribs) 00:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  working on cites... will work thru more tomorrow. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Selected works might need to be renamed. Judging by the pace of output and timeframe, this might well be an exhaustive list (thus strike "Selected"). They're all books published in the US (save the doodle) so a search through Library of Congress should give both ISBNs and reveal whether anything is missing. If the list in indeed "selected" then there needs to be clear criteria for selection or else tagged with {{list missing criteria}}.130.233.213.199 (talk) 05:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb. Many people have heard of and read this book, but that doesn't make its author automatically transformative.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• RD only – Per Amakuru. A charming kids' book, but at most a literary footnote. – Sca (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, maybe blurb Major author who died at a very old age; I think the general consensus is that he 100% needs an RD nomination, but the blurb is optional. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD only Looks like the article is now of a sufficient quality to post to RD.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD It's now fully cited and it's long enough for RD, but not blurb-quality. Uses x (talk • contribs) 19:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)″[reply]

Support he was a very influential author, also wrote "Brown Bear, Brown Bear, what do you see?"

• RD only He was influential but not enough for a blurb. KingOfAllThings ^{(thou shalt chatter!)} 22:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Still a few unsourced claims. Stephen 01:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Should be all resolved now unless I've missed anything Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted Stephen 02:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb Appears on virtually every list of the most read children's authors, most of whom are long dead. We posted Sendak, and would have posted Seuss, Lewis, Alcott. This is the peer group. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb whilst The Very Hungry Caterpillar is a household name, Eric Carle is not. Until seeing this RD nom, I didn't know the author's name. His name is much less well known than other people who have been refused blurbs for their deaths here previously. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That's specious reasoning. He is extremely prominent in his field, so if you don't know who he is, that means you have very little knowledge of that field. So how can you weigh his relative importance? GreatCaesarsGhost 13:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I know exactly who Sendak, Lewis, Seuss and Alcott are, without having to be told their most famous work(s). That simply isn't the case for Carle. Just because lots of people know the book, that doesn't mean they know the author. Which is why I'm disputing the fact that his death is notable enough for a blurb, which is something we reserve for extremely rare cases for super-important people. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, Carle is not famous for a single book. If you exclude his top seller, he's still outsold Lewis Carroll, ER Burroughs, Ian Fleming, etc. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb, blurbs should be reserved for individuals whose death and/or funeral could have a stand-alone article. Abductive (reasoning) 13:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Observation - not even 12 hours after posting and he's off RD, despite receiving numerous blurb supports, in favour of several very non-prominent people that received singular supports for their RD on May 27. This system is very broken. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes we have lots of RD noms, sometimes we have fewer. Can we restore under-exposed ones on lull days? Or shall we set a minimum time for MainPage appearances? --PFHLai (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This may be a non-starter and might lead to disputes, but is it possible we could have two tiers of RDs - those that have strong blurb support could be tier 2 and therefore retained on RD for longer than the run-of-the-mill entries? Personally I think it was right not to blurb Eric Carle, but then again it is legitimate to say that some people were looking for his article after he died and that it might be good to keep him up for at least a couple of days.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    There is on-going discussion on this issue at Wikipedia talk:In the news#Brainstorm on fixing the broken system. Please join. --PFHLai (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: H. S. Doreswamy

Nominator's comments: Indian civil rights activist. News just breaking. Article is almost ready for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks ok, I can't see any referencing problems.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Milieudefensie et al v Royal Dutch Shell

• Comment: This is the first time a big oil company is ordered by a court to cut its carbon emissions. The Guardian calls it a landmark ruling and the Wall Street Journal argues it could set a precedent for other jurisdictions. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments This does seem like a case that could set a major precedent, and I'm seeing coverage in plenty of major outlets (Bloomberg, NPR, CNN, etc.), but it's also a three-sentence article. I understand nominating things at ITN/C to help get the article developed, but this one needs a lot of development; based on importance, I would be inclined to support based on what I've seen of the story if the article is greatly expanded.. Also, I would take "compared to 2019 levels" out of the blurb; I get that it's theoretically notable, but IMO, not enough to take up space on the main page. -- Kicking222 (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have expanded it to the point that it would be minimum size for main page. --Masem (t) 18:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you very much, Masem! And I agree with you, Kicking222, to leave "compared to 2019 levels" out of the blurb. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose It's great news and thanks to Masem it has enough information, but Royal Dutch Shell have said they're likely to appeal the decision, so ultimately it's a district court ordering something which might end up just being overturned. [Irish Independent] Uses x (talk • contribs) 19:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The court declared the verdict immediately enforceable. Shell must uphold the verdict until the verdict is overturned. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Not familiar with Dutch law but doesn't every civil law system have a mechanism that allows the appeals court to suspend immediate enforcement until the appeal is decided? Regards SoWhy 20:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • We also generally post on the conviction of a major trial even though we know that appeals are usually 100% assured. --Masem (t) 20:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article is up to date, sufficiently detailed and referenced (though a bit short), and the story is in reliable news sources now. Since the story is in the news now, it is most appropriate to post it now. What may or may not happen at future times regarding appeals and overturning is irrelevant as news sources are covering the verdict now. --Jayron32 19:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I am pretty sure that this will be overturned on appeal but it is being reported on in a lot of media, including here in Germany, making it ITN worthy. I did tag one statement as needing a secondary source though. Regards SoWhy 20:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Provided the secondary source--a German secondary source even :-). Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The article is in good quality, and it's an interesting precedent which has received plenty of coverage. Of course, this case will drag on for years, but that's a different story. KittenKlub (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this is an encyclopedic article, not a trash overhyped piece of pulp. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose misleading. The claim "contributing about 1% to global emissions" is cited to the Guardian which itself cites nothing but "court claims". Here is an actual fact: Shell is the 9th largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions when you factor in Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions which factors in other parties burning oil produced by shell. That's right. [3] KLM burning oil? That's counted against shell. Dutch energy burning oil? That's counted against shell. Climate change is real, it is a serious threat to human health and food security, but this lawsuit is bullshit and the target article is propaganda. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the article notes, this decide applies to all of Shell's buyers and suppliers too, so absolutely not BS. --Masem (t) 22:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Interesting article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As someone who has recently published two peer-reviewed manuscripts on topics from energy economics, I consider this verdict of strategic significance in relation to efficient energy consumption. This doesn't set merely a precedent that may be followed by other judiciaries but it impacts the way energy consumption will be optimised in the future.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support an important case, not least because it includes all of their suppliers in this. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting. --Tone 09:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose post-posting: I understand the political significance highlighted by the support votes above. However, there is virtually no legal significance to this at all. As Judiciary of the Netherlands explains, this is a first-instance decision which is already under appeal. Given the issues and money involved, it's almost certain to end up in the Supreme Court of the Netherlands and probably also the European Court of Human Rights. It'll be literally years before we can tell whether this is genuinely significant. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind that the same Dutch judicial system upheld similar action taken against the country's gov't in State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation a few years back to undertake actions to meet climate change goals, so there's a strong chance it will survive a challenge. I would agree that if this was a case originating out of a US federal district court, where there was little higher level action at SCOTUS, it probably would not have had similar news-shattering events. --Masem (t) 13:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • All that may be true, but it is also irrelevant. It is in the news now, which is why we post it now. Everyone has reasons why they find a story significant or important to themselves, but we rely on reliable sources at Wikipedia, not personal feelings or preferences. Sources are covering this story now, and it doesn't really matter what the story is, just that reliable sources are treating it as a big deal, which is why it is appropriate to post. --Jayron32 13:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-post support Not every blurb is limited to eradicating cancer ... or completely solving global warming. Quality new page that's prominently in the news works for me (not to be confused with a WP:NOTDIARY update of a celebrity).—Bagumba (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• PP Comment – The complexity of this issue, and its possible transitoriness, make it quite dubious as a blurb. – Sca (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed. I suspect it's nowhere near as significant as this discussion seems to think it is, but hey ho...  — Amakuru (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's life in the big city. (But hey, I learned that transitoriness is actually a word.) – Sca (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Another comment - why is there a picture of Shell's headquarters attached to this story? I thought images were included to assist readers in understanding a story, but that picture of a building has very little to do with the court ruling or its ramifications. We'd rather just stick with the pic of the Samoan PM-elect, which at least is relevant to its story.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the royal we? ;-) – Sca (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Swapped. The building is uninvolved.—Bagumba (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

X-Press Pearl

• Comment The article implies that the crew safely evacuated with no deaths, and doesn't say anything about an oil spill. Mlb96 (talk) 06:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As no deaths occured, specific information about the environmental impact is needed before it can be considered. Uses x (talk • contribs) 06:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – More information from more sources needed. – Sca (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support once more information comes out This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose/Wait Article needs to be more developed, per WP:WEIGHT, the article is likely at the wrong title. It should be about the event, something like X-Press Pearl fire, as the article isn't about the ship, it is about the fire onboard the ship. If you want the article to be about the ship, you'll need a LOT more information about the ship before the fire. I'm not entirely sure we need an article about this ship, and since this fire is all we really care about, it should probably be moved. Furthermore, the article itself needs some expansion before it is main page ready. --Jayron32 20:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Based on the lead and the page title, it seems like the page is about the ship itself, but it's dominated by the fire. It the ship is notable, more background text is needed. If it's the fire, name it as such, so it's notability can be judged against Wikipedia:Notability (events).—Bagumba (talk) 04:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Samuel E. Wright

Nominator's comments: Aged 74. Voiced Sebastian the crab in The Little Mermaid. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 10:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Needs some work - it's currently orange tagged, and sparse in coverage.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Yaas

  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  11:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait While it has caused a large number of evacuations, if there are minimal deaths, this likely will not be appropriate to post for ITN. --Masem (t) 12:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Around 10 deaths (7 before and 3 today, as of now). And coastal villages and towns flooded. (Aljazeera)  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  13:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not saying that number of deaths won't make it, but it is this time of year that storms will threaten several parts of the world and will do damage, but we simply don't have room to post all landfall-making, damage-dealing storms with few-to-no death counts, even if it causes temporary displace of millions of people. I'm only saying wait here because the landfall was this morning so full impact is not yet known. --Masem (t) 13:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I understand that everything can't be included in the ITN. But, the degree of damage is very high, as the areas got flooded (it didn't even happen during the Super cyclone last year) due to high tide at the time of landfall.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  14:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very high impact, potential/likely further impact, number of deaths already. Article is decent. Melmann 13:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I did my best to find all the reported deaths from Yaas and I got 7. When did you get the three more, @ArnabSaha:? You are welcome to edit the article to reflect the latest informations about the impact of Yaas. I'm currently on my wikibreak, but I'll do my best to update the article. Thanks and stay safe, 🌀HurricaneParrot🐦 13:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @HurricaneParrot: 2 more deaths in Odisha [5]  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  14:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait – storm surge looks bad but death toll is relatively low at this time. Will revisit in ~12h and see if the death toll jumps after sunrise. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moving to oppose. Death toll hasn't risen since yesterday, evacuations, mangroves, and numerous rescue operations by emergency services seem to have done their bit. Coverage by news outlets outside of India is fading quickly. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait – We need to wait until more death/damage reports come in and things stabilise in India a little bit.Jason Rees (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article quality is excellent and while it might be nice to wait for damage reports, the reality is that it's in the news now, not so much later. Only thing that might be nice is a current fatality/injury count in the sidebar, but it's ultimately trivial given the article quality. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not enough deaths... appears to be an average storm thus far. Noah^Talk 19:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait – We need to know the full scale of impact first, it isn't enough right now for ITN. codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 20:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Per KN2731. Nothing much has changed overnight, I don't think much more impact will come from this storm... codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 19:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now. Come on, evacuations aren't going to be enough to make this storm notable. --WaltCip-(talk) 20:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt blurb II is just pure trivia. More fitting for DYK than ITN. --WaltCip-(talk) 20:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait pending the article being updated with impact information. --Jayron32 20:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Yaas is notable enough for many ways: it triggered a mass evacuation in Odisha and West Bengal in India and Bangladesh. Second, it caused a wide swath of destruction, as seen in media reports, an example is flooding. Third, it already caused 9 deaths and the reason the fatalities were low is due to the immediate action of the authorities from Yaas; the evacuations. But we have to wait a little for more impacts about Yaas, as the system is still active and the reports of impacts are not that fast to transmit to different media services, newspapers and articles. 🌀HurricaneParrot🐦 09:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @HurricaneParrot: Btw, another tornado outbreak in Ashoknagar Kalyangarh [6]  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  09:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @ArnabSaha:, Okay, added. Is there any more? 🌀HurricaneParrot🐦 02:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @HurricaneParrot: no...  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  07:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @ArnabSaha:, last-minute request: can you change the blurb of the article? I don't know how, I'm new here. And, the article itself is updated. Over $2 billion in damages and 20 deaths. Thank you so much. 🌀HurricaneParrot🐦 06:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @HurricaneParrot: did some modifications.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  09:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment blurb should probably be updated, as it's now affected places in India, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh- possibly change the places to Indian subcontinent, or list the countries? Joseph2302 (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait – Per Masem, Jayron, Walt. Australian AP says six fatalities "reported." This, in a country of 1.4 billion, seems of questionable import. Developing. – Sca (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Nothing exceptional about this, the seasonal monsoon is more notable. Given India's massive population and the population density of Bangladesh, evacuations of more than a million people in this region are normal. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Per Cyclonebiskit. Honestly, this fits more for DYK more than ITN, since the blurb is mainly trivial. ~~ 🌀𝚂𝙲𝚂 𝙲𝙾𝚁𝙾𝙽𝙰🌀 17:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: more than 20 deaths reported and the blurb has been updated  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  08:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Even with 20 deaths, this is just an average storm, not notable enough for ITN. ~~ 🌀𝚂𝙲𝚂 𝙲𝙾𝚁𝙾𝙽𝙰🌀 15:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

(Posted) RD: Cotton Ivy

Nominator's comments: Comedian, member of the Tennessee House of Representatives, and Tennessee Commissioner of Agriculture Jon698 (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Fully referenced and comprehensive. With a spot-check of information everything checks out. Uses x (talk • contribs) 22:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Eilat Mazar

 Bloom6132 (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks to be sufficiently referenced and updated.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: John Warner

Nominator's comments: U.S. Senator from Virginia (1979–2009). There are a few things which need proper citation, but generally looks decent. rawmustard (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There are little to no citations for the Early life and education and Secretary of the Navy section. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ben Kruger

Nominator's comments: South African actor, died of COVID-19. Needs a bit of work and sourcing I would guess. Will work on it today.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Good work updating, there are just some 2006/07 awards mentioned in the career section that aren't cited, will Support when fixed. JW 1961 ^Talk 21:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Joseywales1961: it turns out the awards in question weren't wins, they were just nominations so I've updated that (and hived them off into their own sub-section). I've also added a bit more detail in what remains of the Career prose. Let me know if anything else needs doing.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Support Thanks - that looks fine for RD now JW 1961 ^Talk 22:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Posted --PFHLai (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Tarcisio Burgnich

Nominator's comments: Italian footballer. Looks in OK condition already to me.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support All looks to be cited.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Anthony Lazzaro (university administrator)

Nominator's comments: Only announced and reported today (May 25); died on May 20. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Excellent article, fully cited and comprehensive. Uses x (talk • contribs) 07:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good for RD JW 1961 ^Talk 09:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Overall it looks alright, the references only have to get fixed --Vacant0 (talk) 11:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose One-sentence lead is too short for bio with so much material.—Bagumba (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bagumba: done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bloom6132: OK. Also see comment below about the refs.—Bagumba (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strike my oppose.—Bagumba (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I noticed 7 of 16 refs are bare URLs. I tried to fix this, but then I realize that Ref.#6 is about the removal of a bust on campus, but the sentence where the footnote is found is about the installation of a globe on campus. Something is not right ... --PFHLai (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. WP:ITNCRIT advises: References should be correctly formatted and not bare URLs.—Bagumba (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bagumba and PFHLai: done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Amakuru and PFHLai: ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted.—Bagumba (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mark York

Nominator's comments: Actor Mark York also known as Marcus A. York, known for his role on the US The Office. Article was recently created since one did not exist before but coverage generated from his death have made him notable enough for a standalone article.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have a concern that of the sources present in the article only one predates his death (the People source). Otherwise, we're looking at a BLP1E issue here which is a problem both from a notability standpoint and RD posting. I'd recommend trying to find a few more sources pre-dating the death to show he was notable before this point. --Masem (t) 15:22, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Question: Are people only allowed to become notable if there is writing about them before they die? How do you square that with the existence of articles like Vincent van Gogh where, most certainly, there is not enough source text about his life written before he died. Why are reliable sources written after a person's death not suitable for citing in an article? --Jayron32 15:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Obviously for people that lived well before the existence of mass media, there's different standards (and of course, people have written at length about Van Gogh well after his death). But for an actor who's career was 100% within the realm of widespread Internet coverage, to have almost no coverage until their death indicates that they were more a minor actor, only getting attention due to death of the actor of a character from a popular show. I'd love to be proven wrong in terms of more sources that existed while the Office was being filmed, for example, but if we're just building an article off obits, even semi-lengthy ones, that's a general BLP1e issue. --Masem (t) 16:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm curious as to why you are invoking WP:BLP1E here; surely his various acting roles count as multiple events for which he is notable. Also, where can I read about this Wikipedia policy or guideline that says for people who died after the internet existed, we're not allowed to use sources written after their death. I would like to make sure I am following this from now on... --Jayron32 16:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The 1E is his death here. Acting in small roles are not significant events if they drew no coverage at the time of their broadcast and only attention at the point of death - otherwise any credited actor in any work would be immediately notable and that's not something our notability guidelines allow. --Masem (t) 17:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  But he's not notable for dying. He's notable for acting. The 1E is not his death. Furthermore, you still haven't told me where I can read about this rule that sources published after a persons death during the internet age can't be used. I would really like to read this. --Jayron32 20:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I think WP:BASIC or WP:ENT would be more appropriate, but the result is the same. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for comment, in digging around only managed to find one other RS besides the People magazine one, [7], I'll have a look to see if I can find anything in local newspapers though.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment www.google.com/search?q=%22Mark+York%22+before%3A2021 - can't find anything. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Masem: I managed to find these 3 clippings in local papers [8][9][10]. These 3 + the other 2 previously mentioned, what are your thoughts? Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Local sources would be fine, not best, but better than nothing. --Masem (t) 17:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't find anything with a DuckDuckGo search either. Site note: all the news sites are just re-writing his obituary in their own words, so they should be treated as primary sources. Uses x (talk • contribs) 15:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  For searches, the subject also was known as Marcus A. York or Mark A. York (was torn which article title to put as mostly credited as Marcus A. York but obituaries only went with "Mark York" so chose the latter) His IMdb for example is under that name [11]. Pre 2021 I have found two articles [12][13]  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I think people don’t realize that even internet-age newspaper articles will not always appear in a Google search. There’s a whole other world of material available in newspaper databases that you can access via libraries. I found one Dayton newspaper article about him from as far back as 2003. Zagalejo (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Blatant plug time: Any registered Wiki editor can apply for a |Wikipedia Library Card, and besides immediate access to other sources, you can then apply to get access via your Wikimedia account to newspapers.com. It is not full 100% access there (you can search but you can't necessarily read all but you can at least search and see a clip image (sufficient to see the ones that Spy-cicle pointed out). --Masem (t) 14:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Now at AfD, so ineligible until that is resolved. P-K3 (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The AfD was marked as speedily keep. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I've withdrawn the AFD due to the additions of the newspapers expanding his advocacy work. The article is now fully cited, and has a good amount of information. Non-primary sources would be preferable for his personal life, but there's absolutely no reason to doubt that info. Uses x (talk • contribs) 09:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Even without the recent additions, I think this would have been fine. Decent coverage before death and a broad, if short, set of credits. A well composed BLP.130.233.213.199 (talk) 13:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose York has not "received significant coverage in multiple published" sources (WP:BASIC), nor has he "had significant roles in multiple notable" works (WP:ENT). I know some like to ignore the word "significant" to force through these borderline cases, but I believe it's there for a reason. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @GreatCaesarsGhost: The AfD was speedy kept.—Bagumba (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It was withdrawn with modest comments. That doesn't mean anything. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. It's quite short, but has enough I think for ITN. Marking as ready.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia train collision

• Comment – Largely absent from English-language RS sites. No word on casualties. (Nominated by Jeromi Mikhael.) – Sca (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sca: What does the last part of your sentence mean? (the one with the <small> tag? I'm not nominating this. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake! – Sca (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this mistake isn't an indication of something else.... :) --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 18:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the nominator. (Diff of addition). Uses x (talk • contribs) 16:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now: Article is currently a stub and the chronology section needs expansion. Might change my vote if the article is improved. ColinBear (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on significance given the (fortuntately) lack of deaths, especially considering the other fatal incidents we have posted currently. And oppose on quality of the article right now - empty section, and large chunks unreferenced. -- KTC (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality; the article is lacking citations, among other quality issues. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose background section is unsourced, and chronology section is empty. The current article gives almost no details on the incident itself. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

RD: Stuart Ross Taylor

 Count Iblis (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support except for the death is sourced to Twitter, the tweet doesn't explicitly state that he has died, our article doesn't say that he has died, and the article is three sentences long. Looks good otherwise. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  So everything? Uses x (talk • contribs) 08:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Not yet ready Please expand this stubby bio. It does not mention the subject's recent death yet. --PFHLai (talk) 02:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Little amount of text, his death isn't even mentioned. It'll have to get expanded for an RD. --Vacant0 (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Rated stub class, needs expansion JW 1961 ^Talk 21:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Mali coup d'état

Nominator's comments: Mali is no stranger to political unrest but the army arresting 3 most politically important people is world news even when in the most turbulent of states. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Abcmaxx, is there an article to consider? There needs to be an updated article to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Can be viewed as Act 2 of the 2020 Malian coup d'état. No, the article have not been updated with the new developments. -- KTC (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Once the article is updated.Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What article? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support another one? This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Update created article quickly just now at 2021 Mali coup d'état. Rapidly developing news so I expect we will know much more very soon. Abcmaxx (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support once it grows beyond the current three sentences. Guettarda (talk) 02:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality, which is what the previous support votes should be taken to mean as well. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait Article is only a stub right now,but will be expanded in a few hours. So,from what I understand,the military ousted the same guy they installed a few months earlier? Does that still count as a coup? Scaramouche33 (talk) 06:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too short. Hanamanteo (talk) 10:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now expanded. Hanamanteo (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Update Article now expanded, lots of good sources Abcmaxx (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – The situation seems somewhat fluid. Wait a bit for possible developments? – Sca (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sca: given the political and journalistic climate in Mali and its difficulties the situation is likely never to be any less fluid Abcmaxx (talk) 09:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem to imply that coups of this sort are not unusual in Mali. – Sca (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on notability and quality. The article is in better shape now, and the subsections are about as long as their counterparts on the 2020 Malian coup d'état article; all that's lacking is an aftermath section, and it's obviously too early to expect one.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good now --Vacant0 (talk) 11:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Constitutional Crisis in Samoa

Nominator's comments: An update to a blurb that's rolled off, the former Prime Minister of Samoa has refused to hand over power. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There is also an article for the 2021 Samoan constitutional crisis. Joofjoof (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt1 added it because the first blurb is a bit all over the place. Changed article to 2021 Samoan constitutional crisis. --Aknell4 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Premature. Let's wait 'til the results of this imbroglio are known. – Sca (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait - I considered nominating this, but decided that Mataʻafa being sworn in outside parliament by itself isn't quite enough, especially since we only a few days ago posted the election result. If more develops, then will probably support. Basically waiting to see whose orders are being followed in the coming days -- KTC (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Had this not fallen off so quickly, I'd say update it for sure and bump it back up to the top. Since it's not on, I support waiting at least 24 hours. If after 24 hours, there's a resolution, then we post it. If not, I think ongoing would probably be better and then post a full blurb whenever there's a resolution to this. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt1 - it's significant, consequential, and adds geographic breadth. Guettarda (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is news now, no need to wait. If there's a resolution then it stands as a completed story, while if there isn't, it can roll down into Ongoing in due course. I don't see a valid reason to wait, and as noted this would have probably been "bumped" had the announcement of the election still been on the carousel. The article looks in OK shape for posting at this point, although some expansion and reorganisation in due course would be useful.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ALT III A budding crisis in the news. The Supreme Court doesn't declare a PM per se—they allowed her party to form a government—so the first and ALT blurb are out.—Bagumba (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is anyone creative enough to work in that she's the first female PM?—Bagumba (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Prior to the cancelling of the swearing in ceremony, I'd have considered it political grandstanding, but it is quite something to obstruct a swearing in ceremony ordered by the country's supreme court. I think that elevates to it being relevant and notable for ITA. I also support reworking the blurb to mention that the incoming prime minister is the first woman to be elected to the role. Melmann 14:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Notable, comprehensive, well referenced. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt3 as it's more concise. The event is in international news, and it's a notable event. The article is also good. I've added the significant contributor to the main article as a creator. Uses x (talk • contribs) 15:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ALTIII per above. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt3 per Uses x  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, major event, worthy of reposting.  Nixinova   T   C   01:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 02:28, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I tweaked the posted blurb from "former PM" to "caretaker PM", as he was not former at the time, and it avoids WP taking a stance on current PM status.—Bagumba (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Blurb corrected I removed mention of the "former" PM in the lock out, as technically the clerk kept the doors locked per the Speaker of the House, who was following the Head of State. The former PM is not directly linked. Discuss if he should be integrated back into the blurb somehow, or if mention of first female PM should be added.—Bagumba (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soon to be a major motion picture. – Sca (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best to carry on discussions of errors in the blurb at WP:ERRORS, the venue designed to discuss errors. They tend to get handled faster there. --Jayron32 20:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: The error was already fixed. The question I posed was whether the blurb needed expansion after its shortening, which is not an error, per se. But sure, there might be less eyes here for a topic already posted. Its a gray area where it belongs.—Bagumba (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Max Mosley

Nominator's comments: President of the FIA and son of Oswald Mosley  The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as it's a Good article. rawmustard (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per rawmustard. -BSMIsEditing (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Unsourced section Max Mosley#Ancestry. The section is collapsed, which begs the question per MOS:COLLAPSE of why is it even there if its trivial enough to hide.—Bagumba (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bagumba: I've added a source to it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I am not too worried by the Ancestry part of the article as that's fairly-clearly sourced in Family and early life section. Govvy (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support looks good for RD JW 1961 ^Talk 20:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good --Vacant0 (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. -- Kicking222 (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) COVID-19 pandemic in India

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

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