Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

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

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

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

Yoshinobu Yamamoto in 2024
Yoshinobu Yamamoto

view — page history — related changes — edit

Glossary

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

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

Nomination steps

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

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

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

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

Voicing an opinion on an item

[edit]

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

Please do...

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

Please do not...

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

Suggesting updates

[edit]

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

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

Archives

[edit]

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

Sections

[edit]

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

November 5

[edit]

November 4

[edit]

US Government shutdown

[edit]
Article: 2025 United States federal government shutdown (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United States federal government shutdown surpasses 35 days, making it the longest in U.S. history. (Post)
News source(s): AP
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Longest federal government shutdown in U.S. history. MtPenguinMonster (talk) 06:35, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Notable, longest ever which is interesting. American, which can be an issue. But seen it reported on internationally. Basetornado (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support while its domestic and american, longest shutdown of the government of the worlds biggest economy feels pretty notable. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 06:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose US domestic issue. No long-standing notability. Tofusaurus (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The shutdown will definitely affect the midterms results next year, which is a national election, which we almost always post.
I’m saying since this shutdown is also stopping funding for Department of State and Defense employees, at some point something might happen in regards to US foreign influence. SymphonyWizard72 (talk) 08:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Longest being a month. Beyond the fact that federal employees in the US have not received their salaries what if any sigificance does this have besides setting a "record". Gotitbro (talk) 07:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unfortunately of global relevance. Per the guy who claims it was the Dem's fault even though his party controls both houses. —Fortuna, imperatrix 07:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is the third shutdown in seven years, so it's definitely not a rare event. Moreover, being the longest doesn't make any significant difference as nothing spectacular happened today when it surpassed the previous one.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Common, domestic, not overwhelmingly notable even within the context of US politics.  Nixinova   T   C   08:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you’re underestimating how notable this event is within the US, considering that it’s a test on whether either political party will budge on negotiations including food stamps being held hostage. And since the shutdown is lasting long, it has ripple effects like a decrease in GDP, flight delays, and an increased chance of a recession that would inevitably affect the world. PrimalMustelid (talk) 09:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very unprecedented for a full shutdown (not partial) to last 35 days. Shutdown has been abundantly covered, and it wouldn’t hurt to at least have it as a blurb at all. PrimalMustelid (talk) 08:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can we discuss this once the shut down is over? ITN does not post arbitrary "milestones". Howard the Duck (talk) 11:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A prolonged American government shutdown would have global impact. Economic losses, supply chain disruptions (due to slower import checks), flight disruptions, frozen monitoring and international research, impact on foreign policy and aid, etc. With no sign of a solution, can also consider for Ongoing.

UPS Airlines Flight 2976

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: UPS Airlines Flight 2976 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ UPS Airlines Flight 2976 crashes after takeoff from Louisville, Kentucky, killing at least 7 people. (Post)
News source(s): New York Times BBC News
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Death toll is increasing and the crash has been gaining significant coverage. Tofusaurus (talk) 04:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait Based on the reports, this could get much worse (which I hope that wasn't the case), though so far the impact of the crash is not clear yet. NotKringe (talk) 04:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait still quite notable crash (first MD-11 fatal accident in 16 years since Avient Aviation Flight 324) but insufficient information for now, especially casualty amount, Rest in Peace to those poor souls SymphonyWizard72 (talk) 04:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also note I will instantly support later once there is sufficient, fixed, and reliable information about the event SymphonyWizard72 (talk) 05:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until all information is gathered, then Support
Major plane crash in the United States with at least seven casualties as of now. Should be posted once we know everything about how many people died. Djprasadian (talk) 04:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle. It is not so much the plane crash itself (being a cargo plane rather than passenger), but that how and where it crashed causing a lot of problems on the ground, an event comparable in nature (not necessarily scale of) the East Palestine, Ohio, train derailment. Article should be improved as more details come in overnight before we post this. Masem (t) 05:25, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I understands masems point, but dont think its anything near the east palestine derailment. While this is obviously in good faith, I feel putting this on the front page could be a bit of americentrism. I doubt this would be on the front page if it happened in another country. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 06:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A tragic disaster, but with a low number of fatalities and a questionable impact on US and global aviation. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support We posted a train derailment in Portugal that killed 16 people, Americentrism I smell not. A plane crashing in a residential area and killing what looks to be a dozen people is about the most in the news thing I can think of. 1brianm7 (talk) 12:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
7 is less than half of 16…not the same kind of accident. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside that two people are missing and we don't even know if there were any customers in the businesses that were crashed into, making it unfortunately likely that the death total will be matched or approached, debating death totals is pointless. I'd say that usual events with a high death total are newsworthy, and unusual events with a death total are newsworthy. A plane crashing into buildings is an incredibly unusual event, and seven is a sizable death toll. 1brianm7 (talk) 12:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Zohran Mamdani

[edit]
No consensus to post is likely to be reached. Discussion is pretty evenly divided between those who see this as local/American news and those who consider NYC to be one of the global cities, as such meriting coverage. As many mentioned, number of pageviews is not a metric usually used to define what gets posted on ITN. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 10:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: Zohran Mamdani (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Zohran Mamdani is elected mayor of New York City, becoming the city’s first Muslim mayor. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Zohran Mamdani is elected mayor of New York City.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani is elected mayor of New York City.
News source(s): [1] [2][3]
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Mamdani’s election is a notable event in New York City and U.S. politics. The race attracted significant national and international coverage and his unexpected victory over several prominent establishment candidates. Cinaroot (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the alternate blurb correct? What was the status of David Dinkins's membership in the Democratic Socialists of America when he was elected? Einsof (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed it. sorry Cinaroot (talk) 03:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I think the democratic socialist aspect of it is notable, especially since Dinkins apparently tried to keep his association lower profile. Not quite sure how to word it though. Einsof (talk) 03:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    what about ?
    Zohran Mamdani is elected mayor of New York City, becoming the city’s first Muslim mayor and the first openly self-identified democratic socialist to hold the position.
    is it too late to change it? Cinaroot (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if it's too late. I don't usually come to ITNC because I find the whole place toxic and cliquish, and there are seemingly endless reasons to disqualify a blurb from getting posted, even when there are blurbs on the front page that are left stagnating long after their subjects have moved out of the news cycle. You'd think this place was in charge of sending people into space with the amount of agonizing that goes on over every single decision. Einsof (talk) 05:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't decided on noteworthiness yet, but I added an altblurb that is a bit closer to how we normally write election blurbs. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but the closest I'd say was WB communists booted was boosted as comparison, but he's just mainstream dem party contunity.Psephguru (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Zohran_Mamdani Cinaroot (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What international repercussions? This is purely local. Even midterms are not generally for the main. Arjentina was not either. opposePsephguru (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's "Arjentina"? ~2025-31331-24 (talk) 04:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this and any union of this with any other election that happened today - This election and any of the other elections today, despite any attention they might get, just shouldn't be blurbed. At most we are seeing legislature and government changes in 2, just 2, out of 50 states. Unlike the Argentina midterms we just posted that actually effected things on a national level, this is purely local and as such I do not think this should be blurbed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a mainstream incumbent party primary winner winning. if it was the Communist Party USA, tht'd bigger.Psephguru (talk) 03:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Though a subnational election, this has received widespread attention/coverage and the article is good quality. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 03:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose - He won a mayoral race. A local election. This is not even remotely close to hitting the requirements for a blurb. ~2025-31266-25 (talk) 03:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed and good point.Psephguru (talk) 04:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bombay, Mexico City, Tokyo, Shanghai? I doubt it.Psephguru (talk) 04:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, what's wrong with those, besides Shanghai which doesn't have elections in a meaningful sense? This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bad precedence for bloating the already bloated ITN is what would be it. We already have people asking for the expansion of WP:ITNELECTIONS to cover all manner of non-general elections, to arbitrarily ["population", "important city" etc.] add mayoral elections to this should be avoided at all costs. And let us be clear here, this is about a US mayoral election, the other cities editors list in here won't even be considered for ITN. Gotitbro (talk) 04:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ITN is not bloated. Remember Lugo? Howard the Duck (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - local election, nowhere near significant enough for ITN. Boils down to "Democratic candidate elected mayor of New York", fork found in kitchen. estar8806 (talk) ★ 03:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support New York City is one of the international cities of the world, and this election has garnered absolutely massive national and international attention relative to its "importance". It is definitionally in the news, and shining lights on subnational elections certainly not harmful. BSMRD (talk) 04:09, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support a lot of people around the world is talking about his victory despite being a local election. This election has gained monumental coverage across the globe. Rynoip (talk) 04:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Subnational elections doesn't sound like a big enough deal to post imo, especially when there's the whole Anglocentric bias thing going on. This begs the question, though, that is the national election of a tiny countries (like Pacific islands) are more important compared to the major cities election or not.
NotKringe (talk) 04:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Mamdani's campaign garnered significant international attention, and his victory has major political implications. Coverage of the campaign was also nearly non-stop. RealAmericanNixonite (talk) 04:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This was brought to the ITN talk page before being nominated and I will repost what I said then "Would oppose any election at any local level in any country, regardless of whatever crystal projections analysts may have for any of them. If anything comes off from these (protests, national/federal conflict) the siginificance would hinge on that not the local election. Have opposed elections of states with limited recognition, sub-sub-national election are simply a no go." And why is it crystal one may ask? Because the significance in virtually all sources about this is not about a relatively unimportant mayoral race but what future a demsoc winning holds for the democratic party in the US. Exactly the stuff ITN should avoid. And I agree with others here about systemic bias, no other non-US mayoral election would even have been nominated here. Gotitbro (talk) 04:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said. Finally, we agree. Dr Fell (talk) 04:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The proper metric for whether this sufficiently "important" is the level and depth of coverage in reliable sources and international news outlets, not subjective personal opinions about the global importance of New York City. It has been demonstrated that those RS and global news outlets overwhelmingly treated this mayoral election as notable and covered it in depth accordingly. Many of the oppose votes boil down to something along the lines of, "I don't care if the global RS and news sources are treating this as significant, my personal political opinion is that mayoral elections in the United States are not significant". That is on its face an improper and not policy based vote rationale. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 04:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is within the bounds of policy to see the merit of a nomination under WP:ITNSIGNIFICANCE. And more than a decade worth of precedent and experience tells me why we shouldn't post city elections. The significance you speak of stems entirely from the crystal analysis of this minor mayoral election to future democratic prospects, which is treading beyond ITN and even enwiki P&G. Gotitbro (talk) 04:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Widespread coverage; in my view, "not a nation-level election" is an irrelevant rationale to use and should be completely ignored, when the point here is that it is widely covered. Tube·of·Light 04:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question: Sadiq Khan was posted? ArionStar (talk) 04:25, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ArionStar He was not, I believe. The Kip (contribs) 04:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, he was not posted. Dr Fell (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No it wasn't. STRONG OPPOSE and SNOW close. Rushtheeditor (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadiq Khan is 21 years older than Mamdani and had an established political career before becoming mayor. No one knew Mamdani 1 year ago. New York City is significantly more prominent than London, attracting roughly twice as many visitors and generating a GDP of over $2.5 trillion compared to London’s $770 billion. I could go on... Cinaroot (talk) 04:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I question how any of that is relevant to posting this blurb. The Kip (contribs) 04:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To show how its relevant to international readers as well, to show his achievement and what makes him different. if you just google zohran mamdani japan, zohran mamdani india, zohran mamdani france etc... you will see international news coverage. Cinaroot (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    also Zohran is immigrant. Cinaroot (talk) 04:41, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, irrelevant trivia. Dr Fell (talk) 04:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    London and New York City are the two Alpha ++ global cities. ArionStar (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Echoing The Kip, none of these pieces of trivia impact the blurbworthiness of this election result. Dr Fell (talk) 04:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    just google zohran mamdani japan, zohran mamdani india, zohran mamdani france, zohran mamdani china, etc.... you see international news coverage. what more do you want? Cinaroot (talk) 04:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    International news coverage is not the sole indicator of blurbworthiness, and keep in mind this may be subjected to an elevated level of coverage because it's the largest city in (arguably) the most powerful country in the world. Again, though I often find it cliched when used here, let's be careful to avoid Americentrism and/or similar. The Kip (contribs) 04:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should not be afraid to show whats trending and popular. Cinaroot (talk) 04:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not a social media site. For example, we do not post when Taylor Swift drops a new album. Djprasadian (talk) 04:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    International news coverage isn't the sole indicator. But the fact that it is being covered literally everywhere, means more than some lazy "we don't want to appear americentrist". If what is arguably the largest news story in the world currently isn't being posted. That is going to be noticeable to people coming to the front page. Basetornado (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really, most editors and readers would realize that why city elections of all things may not meet the encyclopedic threshold for main page WP coverage. If the systemic bias of even considering this for ITN isn't apparent to some editors, they should read the rationales here why this is opposed even beyond reasons of bias. Gotitbro (talk) 06:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read the rationales. They seem to boil down to "Hey this is in the news and heavily reported, but we don't report city elections, so we won't." "Systemic Bias" is a massive stretch. The bias i'm seeing is "we don't want to appear americancentric", which is just lazy. Again, ITN stands for "In the News". Not reporting something that is heavily in the news, because it doesn't fit within some parameters is a sign of something wrong with those parameters. Basetornado (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you can ask for those parameters to be changed, and a discussion for this (elections) is going on right now at Talk. But as long as those stand, the opposition is absolutely justitifed. Pointing out and countering the systemic bias is not lazy, it is exactly what enwiki and WP or any wiki project should strive against. That it in this case stretches us to discard every ITN precedent and current criteria should be all the more concerning. Gotitbro (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Countering systemic bias doesn't include ignoring stories that are heavily reported. I will go ask for just that. Because it is lazy. It's concerning that "This is in the news" means nothing for an "In the News" feature. This overly heavy reliance on protocols does not help anyone. It actively makes wikipedia a worse place. Basetornado (talk) 07:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Same with Eric Adams.
    I do not think we blurbed his election. Djprasadian (talk) 04:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really see how the opinions of editors in a single discussion that took place nearly a decade ago are particularly relevant here. Why are we eternally bound to that one decision? Loytra✨ 04:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Welcome to wiki bureaucracy Cinaroot (talk) 05:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because User:Loytra it was snow close, despite being the first election of a Muslim to a major Western capital - and a slightly larger city at that. It wasn't even close, even though Khan was well known in politics for years. Other than his being Muslim, I don't see anything different than when Adams was elected - and not a single person proposed that being posted! This is very local, and not even a first. Nfitz (talk) 07:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nfitz FWIW if that election had occurred today I would probably be in favour of an ITN entry. I think that consensus is liable to change after a decade and that the views of those in 2016 shouldn't really have much bearing on the conversation now (beyond just serving as a, "oh hey, this is what editors previously agreed on. Good to note. Anyway..."). Loytra✨ 07:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The election of a mayor of New York City is not blurbworthy. ITN only deems elections of heads of state or government blurbworthy. Djprasadian (talk) 04:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately seems to not pass WP:HOWITN, despite being in the international spotlight (Example: see UK, Israel). I will however remind people that WP:ITNGLOBAL exists, as I see some argue it's not internationally relevant. Yes I am a nerd -XCBRO172 (How could you tell?) 05:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A mayor getting elected isn't worthy of ITN. Yes, even if he's an American mayor. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 05:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support The election of a mayor of New York City is blurbworthy. Scuba 05:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: the mayor of New York City has minimal significance nationally, let alone internationally. While his election might serve as a bellwether for future elections in the United States, any such speculation is WP:CRYSTAL.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 05:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Although this is a local mayoral election, it has received a significant amount of international attention, and is thus "in the news". --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 05:08, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Similar to above. "Only" a mayoral election, but has received widespread international coverage. Certainly more than other stories that do get posted. Basetornado (talk) 05:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Altlburb Added alt blurb that shows why this is notable. The fact he ran and won as a Socialist candidate is the reason the story is so big. His religion is also part of that, but socialist is the story i've seen run more often. Basetornado (talk) 05:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose if anything, the important story is the combined wins racked up by the Democrats tonight across the US, Mamdani's win is only a small part of that (eg things like Californa Prop 50). But even to that end, that's still a far cry from national politics and not the type of story we post. This is really a systematic bias due to how much of the available English sources cover US politics, and we should not be swayed by the attention the press has given this. Masem (t) 05:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Those other stories are effectively footnotes. We absolutely should be swayed by international press coverage. What's the point of having a "In the News" feature if we ignore what's actually in the news worldwide? Basetornado (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's a local election no matter how much sensational coverage its getting. Long term significance is likely to be largely local. This is an excellent example of the sort of serious institutional bias we have to contend with. Anywhere else in the world and the press would have yawned, if they even bothered to note it at all. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Beyond ITN/R minimums, it is not our place at Wikipedia to judge elections on their importance. Mamdani's victory, even though this is a mayoral race, is the lead story on the front page on The New York Times, the BBC, Le Monde (in French), Die Welt (in German), The Hindu, Al Jazeera, Reforma (in Spanish), El Pais (also Spanish), and the Mainichi Shinbum (in Japanese), and not far below that on Haaretz. I'm curious what more international coverage editors are seeking for this event to be considered in the news. DecafPotato (talk) 05:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it's our job to judge the importance of any election that is not ITNR. That is the principle reason for why we would even consider posting any subnational election. Which I am almost invariably opposed to because it will always be American elections that get the coverage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We must certainly consider the importance of a non-ITN/R election. But Wikipedians' assertions of a broader significance one way or the other are not the metric we should use. It is reliable sources — in this case, the international media — whose judgements we follow. It is why, for instance, we just posted the non-ITN/R Argentine midterm elections (so always...American isn't right). If RSes even outside of the U.S. or English world deem Mamdani's election worthy of front-page news, so shall we. DecafPotato (talk) 05:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    well explained. ty Cinaroot (talk) 06:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The precise details of why this doesn't reach ITN significance and precedence have been detailed by different editors above. To say that the merits of this election haven't been judged is simply incorrect. The onus for non-ITNR elections is on those who want to post a blurb here. "If RSes even outside of the U.S. or English world deem Mamdani's election worthy of front-page news, so shall we." is simply not how we do things here. While editors may forget this, ITN is encyclopedic news not a news ticker.
    I find the comparision of national [midterm] elections to mayoral elections completely off-track. Gotitbro (talk) 06:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If the "In the News" feature isn't based on what's in the news, then what is it for? If it's not how we do things here, then there are clearly issues with how things are done here. If we're just going to ignore a major news story that is being heavily reported literally everywhere. What are we doing here? Basetornado (talk) 06:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked this same question several years ago and got the same kind of demotivational non-rationales that are being presented here. This place blows, and it's a shame because it could be so much better. Einsof (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to be a lot of "the protocols say this, so nothing else matters", rather than thinking "Hey no one's going to die if we post something against them, perhaps there can be notable exceptions at times." Basetornado (talk) 06:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ITN irregulars should know that if main page coverage was "the" ITN criteria we wouldn't even need this forum, but that isn't the case. There is a reason city/sub-national election are not ITNR and haven't been posted at ITN ever. To post this then against more than a decade worth of ITN precedence to the contrary would require solid arguments why a relatively minor mayoral election is significant, not just handwaving to news coverage. The only rationale that has come for that is that the candidate is a demsoc, Muslim/immigrant etc. or crystal assertions of future prospects of the democratic party. This is no way satisfies ITN significance. If this election sees immediate seismic shifts, protests, conflicts that might be worthy of consideration but on its own, no it simply isn't. Gotitbro (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again it's the "In the News" section. What are we doing by saying "This is in the news, but that doesn't matter." The winning candidate being a socialist in America is the reason for it's notability. It's not a crystal ball to argue that. Main page coverage shouldn't be the only factor, I do agree. What I don't agree with is when it's literally the front page everywhere. Precedents are great and all. But if we're only ever going to stick to them, that's just lazy. If we want to continue to be lazy and stick with old precedents, great. But change the name from "In the News" to "Things wiki editors think are important enough". Basetornado (talk) 06:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Things wiki editors think are important enough", exactly why WP:ITNSIGNIFICANCE exists. I agree the name can be changed (Encyclopedic news perhaps) but that isn't material for this blurb. Yes, Mamdani being a socialist is why this is receiving coverage but ultimately that doesn't change the fact that this has no immediate impact beyond New York City. Similarly so goes for any third-party winner in unimportant positions in the US. And unless editors here want to argue that the mayor of New York is somehow wholly influential to US politics as a whole the opposition to blurbing this is very well sustained. Gotitbro (talk) 06:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, it's in the news, it's notable. Who cares what the wider impacts are. What's the wider impacts of most things currently blurbed? The Dodgers won? There was electoral violence in an African country? Fukoaka won? Brazilian police killed a lot of people in a raid? There's little wider impact on any of them. What they are though is notable. This story is also notable. That's the point. Basetornado (talk) 07:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    700 people being killed in Tanzania, more than 100 in Brazil, the first female Japanese PM. If you don't think these are immediately notable, I don't know what to tell you. Wider significance/impact isn't the question, immediate one is. For an NYC election, there isn't any, all the significance comes from what now and entirely WP:CRYSTAL speculations. These simply won't standup for this or any similar election anywhere else.
    PS: The world series is WP:ITNR and as much as I disagree with the sports hogging going at that place, editors put in the effort to gain consensus and show why significance should be presumed for this a priori. Gotitbro (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say they weren't notable. I said they were. It's not crystal speculation, just as the first female japanese pm wouldn't be either.
    I understand the World Series is ITNR. I agree with sport being ITNR. Basetornado (talk) 07:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ITN irregulars should know This attitude is exactly the problem. Any editor should be able to come to ITN, read a minimal amount of guidelines, and weigh in on which blurbs get posted. This should not be a separate appendage of the project in which self-appointed "ITN regulars" chuck every blurb proposal into oblivion because it fails to satisfy some piece of ITN lore that the average editor doesn't care about. I well and truly do not give a shit that some group of editors decided at some point in the past that ITN won't post subnational election results. This kind of gatekeeping makes ITN suck and it makes the project worse. Einsof (talk) 06:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Gatekeeping is very anti-wikipedia. You should be able to be discussed and listened to regardless of if you have 100k edits or 100. The content of the argument, not whos making it, is what matters. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 07:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Was merely making it known that certain ITN crierias, policies, guidelines exist which go against the arguments and rationales put yet so forth. Editors being informed of this is only going to lead to better discussion and that isn't gatekeeping. If we are to WP:IGNOREALLRULES and precedent for this particular blurb the reasons should be extraordinary, so far I don't see any. If the rules are the problem, you can propose changes at the Talk page. Gotitbro (talk) 07:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think einsof was refering to the way the tone sounded. Its not a welcoming environment to new comers. I have no problem with the actual statements in your comment and think you make points (even if I think he deserves a blurb) but I found problem with the tone. If it was unintentional, I understand, I very accidentally often sound like im upset at someone when im not). Pencilceaser123 (talk) 07:08, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support major international coverage rarely seen on mayoral elections. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 05:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual for a mayoral election, but its coverage certainly warrants it for ITN Pencilceaser123 (talk) 06:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I really don't know why we are actually discussing something so local and trivial, given that the similar election of a left-wing Muslim candidate in a slightly larger English-speaking city was a snow close in only 18 hours 2016 - see WP:In the news/Candidates/May 2016#[Closed] Mayor of London election. Why is this person more notable. Sadiq Khan was the first Muslim mayor a major western capital, with worldwide media coverage - and a snow close at ITN - this isn't very significant other than locally a decade later. I do feel that there are too many here who are very US-centric, and vote for the most trivial thing, in relative ignorance of how minor it is on a world scale. Is it one of 50 stories for a few hours on the front of an English-language version news website that's providing articles based on both their geolocation and interests - Yes. Will it be on the front page of the newspaper delivered today in Beijing, Ulan-Bator, or Rio de Janeiro - no. Nfitz (talk) 06:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the UK has a long history of socialism and left wing politics. The US does not for the most part. Mamdani being muslim is notable, but it's the socialist angle that makes this notable based on location. Notability is about context. It is and will be reported internationally tomorrow. None of the blurbs on the front page currently has or had any long term international coverage. Basetornado (talk) 06:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconding this. I am certainly not americocentric and am not american. But I think this is notable enough. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 07:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    UK has a long history of socialism and left-wing politics @Basetornado? How is that a criteria. Good grief - he's a Democrat - his party is arguably more centre-right than centre-left by international standards. Let alone left-wing! And USA not socialist? With your government-owned airports and sports stadiums, and railways, and transit? This is entirely irrelevant. It's extremely local. No prejudice in relisting if ICE deports him next week. Nfitz (talk) 07:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    He ran as a Socialist. That's the story! He's technically the Democrat candidate, but he ran as a Socialist. If he simply ran as a Democrat. I agree there is no story here. I'm not American. Socialism in the US is considered a dirty word. Regardless of how things actually get run. The criteria is that if someone ran as a Socialist in the UK, that's not a story, because it's reasonably common. It's not common in the US is the point. Think about it like this, if I hit a Kangaroo on the way to work, that's not notable. If someone in Slovakia did though, it is. That's not even me making up an example. That's something that made the news in Slovakia, because it's out of the ordinary and notable. Basetornado (talk) 07:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Significant in so many ways. age, immigration status, political positions, background, nyc is more popular than london, nyc economy and budget, etc... Cinaroot (talk) 07:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your response @Cinaroot makes no sense. Immigration status? All the candidates were US citizens. That is their immigration status. NYC is more popular than London - a) what on earth has that got to do with anything. b) you are kidding right - the numbers I'm seeing show London has about double the foreign tourists than New York City, and is larger. List of cities by international visitors shows that New York City didn't even make the list this year, which would put it below more popular cities like Mecca, Antalya, and Macau - however that's also immaterial to this discussion. 07:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC) Nfitz (talk) 07:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant he is a immigrant. Cinaroot (talk) 07:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    https://www.osc.ny.gov/files/reports/pdf/report-04-2025.pdf
    New York City is a top global destination, and the tourism industry is a vital component of its economy. In 2019, the number of visitors to the City reached a record 66.6 million. However, the COVID-19 pandemic devastated this thriving industry, resulting in a 66.5 percent decline in visitors to 22.3 million in 2020. Since that sharp decline, the industry has been recovering. In 2023, the number of visitors reached 62.2 million, 6.6 percent below the 2019 level. Cinaroot (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    i think im wrong. maybe they are including domestic and international Cinaroot (talk) 07:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose since this is a local election & also per the points made by Ornithoptera. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is clearly today's top story as it's not only leading the international news media, it is also dominated the top read chart on Wikipedia with 5 of the 10 top slots. There are several big stories currently including Cheney's death, Ladd's death, the plane crash, the US government shutdown and California's proposition 50, but, on the evidence, the NYC Mayor seems the biggest of them. And one thing's for sure – Japanese baseball is not what people are wanting to read about now. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Masem Cinaroot (talk) 07:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I bet tomorrow - he will become no. 1 Cinaroot (talk) 07:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    he is no. 2 position Cinaroot (talk) 08:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per other editors comments, major international coverage. TheFellaVB (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per @Blooming.Lilith.   Jalapeño   (u t g) 08:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose A mayoral election is simply not a significant enough event for ITN, as evidenced by previous New York mayoral elections not making ITN in the past, let alone those of other sub-national offices worldwide. Other users have correctly pointed out that mayors recently elected in places such as London, Istanbul etc did not make ITN. I'd add that I don't recall seeing ITN nominations for de Blasio, Adams or any other NY mayor in recent memory; I appreciate Mamdani's win has importance in relation to the current state of American politics, but there are thousands of mayors and other sub-national leaders elected around the world every year who do not come anywhere close to making ITN. There's nothing remotely newsworthy about this mayoral election in particular for a non-American audience. Oppius Brutus 09:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Unprecedented national and international media coverage.GolsaGolsa (talk) 09:09, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose local elections are not ITNR nor ITN-worthy. Mamdani has been in the international news because he is Muslim, socialist and controversial, not because his position, his figure (and career) and the elections are globally and truly important and noteworthy. We would be setting a bad precedent that we would end up regretting. Are you willing to do that? This is an encyclopaedia. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Cool news, but it's a local election - not newsworthy enough for ITN. There are many cities around the world as big as NYC where the election makes international news (Sadiq Khan in London, for example.Turini2 (talk) 09:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support: The election of an idealistic democratic socialist is a massive contrast to the current extremely far right oligarchy in charge of the United States as a whole. David A (talk) 09:25, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Typhoon Kalmaegi

[edit]
Article: Typhoon Kalmaegi (2025) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Typhoon Kalmaegi leaves 48 people dead in the Philippines. (Post)
News source(s): [4] [5] (gives 46 deaths)
Credits:

 WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support when over Typhoon is ongoing. Let's post when we have a good idea of the scale of the loss of life and damage. Bremps... 00:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support with alt blurb when over notable enough and with enough casualties, but wait until its over and we can make a better estimate for casualties Pencilceaser123 (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Dominik Duka

[edit]
Article: Dominik Duka (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://english.radio.cz/czech-cardinal-dominik-duka-dies-82-8867773
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Influential Czech Cardinal. Article seems ok, happy to work on any issues --> Newklear007 (talk) 08:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. He's got quite a substantial article for a Cardinal.
Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 3

[edit]

RD: Valery Borshchyov

[edit]
Article: Valery Borshchyov (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Komersant (in Russian); Caucasian Knot (run by Memorial International)
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Russian dissident and human rights activist Yakikaki (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted to RD) RD/Blurb: Dick Cheney

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Dick Cheney (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Former Vice President of the United States under George W. Bush, Dick Cheney (pictured), dies at 84. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Former Vice President of the United States Dick Cheney (pictured) dies at 84.
News source(s): CNN The Guardian
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American vice president to George W. Bush. Might be upgraded to blurb if consensus wants it. ~2025-31179-29 (talk) 11:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose on quality for blurb due to a citation needed tag that needs to be fixed. support on notability, normally I wouldn't support notability for death of a vice president, but Dik Cheney held a surprising amount of power considering his position. Gaismagorm (talk) 11:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NVM, honestly support blurb looks like citation needed tag was fixed. Gaismagorm (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb crazy to me the people implying he was just any other second in command of a country like Nick Clegg, Cheney is by far the most significant and influential Vice President in history. It’s wild to me we can have Robert Redford have a blurb for a whole week yet someone who by many sources was the de-facto leader of the world’s largest country isn’t significant enough. TheFellaVB (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, Oppose Blurb I think if I saw it in RD, I'd go "Oh darn!" and look into it a little farther, but I don't find it quite interesting enough for a standalone blurb.
Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 12:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Commandant Quacks-a-lot: Currently beefed up his legacy section to demonstrate how Cheney was the most powerful VP, his impact on the role of the vice presidency/and presidency itself, the impact he had geopolitically, etc. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality far too many CNs (and that pop culture section probably needs to go unless that can better cited). Oppose blurb no indication in the article of how he was a major figure. We don't use fame, imfamy, or household name status as a reason to post, we're looking at what impact he had and the article does not have a significant amount of this in the Legacy section (despite some of the claims above, which without this documentation, are just hand-waving), just a few pieces of commentary. World leaders do not automatically qualify for an RB Blurb, much less those in line for succession. Masem (t) 12:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Masem: Currently expanding legacy section to demonstrate his impact on foreign policy and even the presidency and vice presidency itself. In its current shape, the legacy section does depict this, but I know I can do better as more obits come in. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, oppose blurb once issues raised by others are addressed wizzito | say hello! 13:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb once quality issues are resolved. Cheney was one of the most powerful VPs in American history. He played a massive role in the war on terror, including personally signing off on the "enhanced interrogation techniques". He is certainly a Kissinger-level figure in American politics and in global relations, and warrants a blurb. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose RD Clearly no where near top of his field for blurb consideration. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @GreatCaesarsGhost: Currently expanded the legacy section to depict the influence he had in politics not just in U.S. but also geopolitically as he has been called the "architect" of the Iraq War. Cited sources that say that Cheney reshaped the powers of the vice presidency and presidency itself and reinforced the claim that Cheney was the most powerful VPs in U.S. history. As more obits come in (from around the world) I'll expand the legacy further to demonstrate the impact Cheney had globally. Also read my response to Ericoides comments below. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most powerful VP is like valedictorian at summer school. In any case, blurbs should be rare; even blurbing every US President is undesirable. Now moving down to VPs is a bridge to far. GreatCaesarsGhost 02:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Opposing all RD blurbs for natural deaths till the RD reforms either take place (for enlargening RD and doing away with RD blurbs) or fail. Discussion currently active on Talk. Gotitbro (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
· Strong Support Blurb - Probably the most influential Vice President in U.S. History (who didn't later serve as President). Chief architect of the "War on Terror" which resulted in the invasion of two countries and involved a coalition of multiple countries. Clearly not a U.S.-only individual. While not a head of state, he wasn't Walter Mondale or Spiro Agnew. ~2025-31266-25 (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Multiple obits are calling him the most powerful VPs in US history. Cheney had a massive influence in regards to foreign policy of the 2000s. I’d even compare him to Kissinger in terms of the impact he had not only to an administration but to a geopolitical region. He was well known outside the US, death is being reported globally and he was definitely a household name. Cheney wasn’t just an average VP like Mondale, Quayle or even Pence. He definitely had a deep impact in his field and was highly influential. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Cheney influenced geopolitics and US foreign policy for a generation--for all the wrong reasons. He did so many things behind the scenes that are so beyond the imagination of the American people. More than notable enough for a blurb. — That Coptic Guyping me! (talk) (contribs) 14:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. Influential figure in American politics, we all know who had the real power in 2000s. There was also a film about him, Vice, which is a criterion for publication and determining if the person is blurbable. BilboBeggins (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Like it or not, Cheney was an extremely consequential figure and is a household name even outside the US (spoken as an Australian). He was also arguably the most important VP in US history; how many other government officials can be said to have debatably wielded de facto presidential authority? Regardless, Cheney's influence extends far beyond simply being second-in-command. Loytra✨ 14:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb
Although a vice president, Cheney was more globally impactful than most other vice presidents as he was the architect of the War on Terror. Many people also believe that he was the de facto President under George W. Bush. And we have blurbed the death of Henry Kissinger, who was not even a vice president but was very globally impactful, so there is precedent for blurbing the death of a politician who was not head of state or government but was very prominent geopolitically. Djprasadian (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb - simply because he had more impact than other VPs does not automatically make him worthy of blurbing. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He had as much of an effect on global politics as Henry Kissinger, whose death we blurbed. This is because he was the architect of the War on Terror. Also, most people believe that he was the de facto President when Bush was in power, so one could say that Bush's impact on the globe as President was arguably his impact. Djprasadian (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb arguably a bigger player than Bush ever was. Also article is high enough quality. Scuba 15:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support blurb per above supports shane (talk to me if you want!) 16:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very notable and impactful figure. The state of the article isnt entirely relevant to that. ←Metallurgist (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb – His significance is being a US Vice President who influenced the President a little more than the usual Vice President, but nonetheless his position isn't all that powerful. Widely-known name, but I don't see what makes him "transformative". Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb - in no way "transformative" in any shape or form. Nowhere near the Thatcher/Mandela standard. Black Kite (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to RD Blurb discussion in the gray area for posting, and can use more input.—Bagumba (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb. I agree that being US Vice President in and of itself does not merit a blurb, but Cheney had a very broad influence on the world throughout his career. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Blurb There's a lot of talk here and it looks like it's close, so I'll contribute. Not every Vice President of the US merits a blurb, at least by the standards set here, but Dick Cheney certainly does. His time as Secretary of Defense during the First Gulf War marks him as influential enough, and his time as Vice President under George W. Bush absolutely qualifies him. Arguably, no Vice President in modern times has been more influential, particularly one who did not go on to run for President. He was perceived as the one behind many of the administration's decisions, as illustrated by portrayals in films such as W. and Vice. His role had long-term consequences, both for the position of Vice President and for the world at large. He should absolutely qualify for a blurb here. No question, in my mind at least.Ryan Reeder (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thatcher/Mandela standard is not part of the criteria and !votes invoking that should be disregarded. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ITNCRIT is not the criteria we are looking at here - WP:ITNRDBLURB is the one being discussed, which does not offer a clear description of "major figure", and so some have defined it as a "Thatcher/Mandela standard". Natg 19 (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on that, the "Thatcher/Mandela standard" is "comparisons to deaths of prior persons are rarely considered sufficient to post in absence of consensus". All the more reason to have such arguments be disregarded. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed and I might argue the "Thatcher/Mandela standard" is quite outdated IMO. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Blurb Cheney had great influence over many matters such as foreign policy. He wasn't like a simple vice-president and I guess there are people out there who might know Cheney but not Bush The AP (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb due to legacy section of the article defining why he was a singular figure and goes above what most if not all VPOTUSes have accomplished in office Omnifalcon (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Oppose Blurb Really? We are into USA vice-presidents now? Shoot me now! Have we ever blurbed a vice president or Deputy PM before? Maybe if they had some other claim to fame - like inventing the Internet or something. Nfitz (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this actually an "oppose" !vote? Natg 19 (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have blurbed Henry Kissinger who was officially even lower on the pecking order (Secretary of State) than Cheney (Vice President). Djprasadian (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kissinger wasn't blurbed, User:Djprasadian because he was Secretary of State. He was blurbed because he was such a huge international story both before and after being Secretary of State. For example his Nobel Peace Prize nomination was before he became Secretary of State in 1973 (though it was announced about 3 weeks afterwards). And then there's his role in normalizing relations in China with his visits to China (some secret) starting in 1971 - and through the year of his death with his 2023 visit to Xi Yingping. Oh, and he frigging bombed Cambodia into the stone age; massively newsworthy and controversial at the time, long before he was Secretary of State. He was the chief negotiator for the USA in the 1973 treaty that ended the USA's involvement in the Viet Nam. I can't even remember what Cheney did while in office - and has he done anything since, other than publicly making nice comments about his daughter and noting that Trump is the greatest threat to the USA in it's history after Trump's coup attempt. Heck, I'm not even aware of what he did before. Kissinger was blurbable if you only include what he did before and after he served as Nixon's 4th Secretary of State. The two aren't for a moment comparable. Nfitz (talk) 06:35, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You make a great point. But you mention kissingers bombing of cambodia in making him notable. But he wasnt president and didnt order the bombing. Yet he definitely was responsible for it. Cheyney is the same. Hes widely considered the most powerful VP in history and had a major role in the Iraq war and all that. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 06:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a Deputy PM/other VP had a significant role in geopolitics or were credited for being the architect of a war which effects we still see today/have been called equally or more powerful than the president/PM they served then yes we’d blurb them as well as long as their article establish that impact/their influence TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"the architect" ... yeah and his predecessor invented the Internet, User:TDKR Chicago 101. The only thing he's remembered for is his incompetent shooting accident and his support for gay-marriage - and Kamala Harris after Trump's attempted coup. Nfitz (talk) 06:35, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? That was very rude, but the quote "architect of the iraq war" comes straight from the first paragraph of the lede to his article! iirc there was a large discussion about including that (I have a vague memory of something like that, may be confusing it with something else). But to say hes remembered that way is ridiculous, thats basically just how hes remembered among tabloids. That would like saying Bill Clinton is only notable for smoking weed and cheating on his wife. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz: Did you mean to oppose this? The comment and the support label are in complete conflict. Gotitbro (talk) 05:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:Gotitbro, not sure how I brainfarted that - maybe that's a known unknown. Nfitz (talk) 06:35, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oppose blurb he wasn't at the top of his field.Psephguru (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With the NYT calling him the most influential VP in modern US history in their obit? I think you need to reevaluate that claim. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 03:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Give the legacy section a read or the multiple obits calling him the most powerful VP in US history. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb While I understand the votes against posting, Cheney was wildly more influential than a normal VP, and there's an argument that for a solid amount of time he was the most powerful man in America, even moreso than Bush. Played a massive role in shaping a variety of (often disastrous) U.S. foreign policy decisions with global impact. The Kip (contribs) 03:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb most influential VP in history (arguably) and plenty of people of lower positions got blurbs Pencilceaser123 (talk) 06:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb Blurbing Kissinger provided a precedent for blurbing an American politician who wasn’t a president & the “Public perception and legacy” section of Cheney’s article shows why Cheney was influential enough for a blurb. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Kim Yong-nam

[edit]
Article: Kim Yong-nam (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20251104000600315
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: A former head of state of North Korea. Article needs a bit of work. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think I have heard of him, but he isnt that prominent to merit this, or impactful outside DPRK. He isnt part of the Kim dynasty. This would be like the governor general of Canada or president of Germany dying, which are notable for articles, but unless theyve had a significant world impact, they dont merit ITN. ←Metallurgist (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is only being nominated for RD, not blurb. No reason to oppose unless the quality is bad. I Support since I don't see any missing citations. SpectralIon 16:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting weak oppose. There's two unsourced lines and and there is no in-depth explanation of his political career, which is strange considering he was considered the ‘head of state of the country’ for many years. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Torre dei Conti collapse

[edit]
WP:SNOW close. Relatively minor news. (non-admin closure)   Jalapeño   (u t g) 20:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: Torre dei Conti (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Part of the thirteenth-century Torre dei Conti collapses, trapping a worker inside for several hours. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Part of the thirteenth-centure Torre dei Conti in Rome collapsed during conservation efforts, and left a worker trapped within for nearly twelve hours.
News source(s): https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce3kz7jxe0po
Credits:
Nominator's comments: ...or some combo of the two blurbs Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I note from this morning's news that the worker has died after being rescued. I've struck part of my earlier comment, but my vote stands. GenevieveDEon (talk) 06:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Soft support a somewhat major historical building collapsing AND killing a worker, I feel like that barely skirts by notability for ITN for me. Scuba 16:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Unsourced sections of prose. While it's a terrible thing, this is really only good for passing mentions on social media and not something relevant enough for ITN. I don't see this gaining the support it needs. ----The Robot Parade 16:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It collapsed? Most of it was still standing after two events yesterday. Is there a more up-to-date source? Still, looking in Streetview, this building has been fenced off with construction hoarding, roofs to support falling stones, and fences for at least 20 years - with no sign of action. The only thing I see here is "Gravity" and "Apathy"; it was inevitable. Nfitz (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nfitz, only part of the building collapsed.
    Anyway, consensus seems to be generally against it, which is fine, but it's been covered by quite a few major news sources, and the building was commissioned by Pope Innocent III, if that changes anyone's opinions. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Famine in Sudan

[edit]
Article: Famine in Sudan (2024–present) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United Nations–backed Integrated Food Security Phase Classification confirms a famine in El Fasher and Kadugli, Sudan. (Post)
News source(s): NPR, ABC, Time Magazine
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: The IPC has officially declared a famine in two Sudanese cities whose populations combine for approximately 350,000 people, with El Fasher having recently been brutalized by RSF forces following a long siege (which we recently posted about). We previously posted when the IPC declared famine in the Gaza Governorate, which is where I've copied the blurb from. However, it doesn't appear the general 2024–present famine article has been updated yet, and there's not a specific one for this famine. The Kip (contribs) 23:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose this is just the famine spreading and is covered by the ongoing. If this were the first time a famine was confirmed or if it was causing really extreme impacts I'd support but this just doesn't seem to be all that huge of news to post during an ongoing. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 23:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the first large-scale famine confirmed by the IPC themselves in Sudan during this war - prior declarations appear to be limited to a handful of refugee camps, rather than large stretches of the country. The Kip (contribs) 03:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as per Chorchapu's reasoning.
Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very important event, altho it does sound like the article needs work. ←Metallurgist (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This also should be in the parenthesis. ←Metallurgist (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per blaylock, but in the parasyntheses, similar to gaza genocide (alternatively if the proposal for renaming Masalit massacres (2023–present) to Masalit genocide goes through I would support that instead) Pencilceaser123 (talk) 06:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Diane Ladd

[edit]
Article: Diane Ladd (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC, BBC, NBC News, THe Times
Credits:

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

 wizzito | say hello! 21:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Mladen Žižović

[edit]
Article: Mladen Žižović (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Bosnia Today, The Guardian
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Tragic death during game. Needs club playing and managerial career added and expansion on the circumstances of the passing away. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I remind you that RD's are always presumed to be important enough to post (per just above) and reviews should focus on the article's quality. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Attempted to clean it up and add more information to the page, but difficult to find sources, at least in English. With majority of sources of poor quality, or effectively saying the same thing. Basetornado (talk) 09:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This is a stub. It may be a good idea to have WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina get involved to rapidly expand the page, cause otherwise I don't see a world where it gets ready in time. ----The Robot Parade 15:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan earthquake

[edit]
Article: 2025 Balkh earthquake (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A magnitude 6.3 earthquake strikes Afghanistan, killing at least 30 people and injuring hundreds. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A M 6.3 earthquake strikes Northern Afghanistan, damaging historic sites such as the Blue Mosque.
News source(s): AP
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Strong earthquake in Afghanistan. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 03:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait to see the number of casualties. The numbers are climbing fast with hundreds to thousands of fatalities possible however. The disaster could be similar to the 2025 Kunar earthquake that killed thousands in Afghanistan earlier this year which was posted. Deadly earthquakes in Afghanistan seem to be a regular occurrence. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 06:42, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If list of earthquakes in Afghanistan is correct, this (deadly destructiveness) is a recent 21st-century phenomenon. Gotitbro (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a remarkably strong earthquake for Afghanistan. Just one of the commons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_Afghanistan ApoieRacional (talk) 14:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Badghis and Badakhshan earthquakes right above and below Balkh on the table when sorted by deaths were both posted. When sorted by magnitude, Herat right underneath was posted too. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We're trying to move away from posting common natural disasters if the damage is otherwise unremarkable for that type of event. Masem (t) 15:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose tragic but not big enough for the front page Pencilceaser123 (talk) 06:41, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 2

[edit]

2025 NASCAR Cup Series

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2025 NASCAR Cup Series (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In stock car racing, Kyle Larson (pictured) wins the NASCAR Cup Series. (Post)
News source(s): The Daytona Beach News-Journal
Credits:

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: The article is in very good shape. 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗷𝗮𝘆𝗮𝟲𝟳 (talk). 01:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The rule changes and race summaries are very detailed, though a couple of them are missing references (I've added cn tags). The lead seems to have mostly been written before the season begun - it's a long list of highly technical 'firsts', but doesn't mention the actual results and only states the winner in passing. It's not strictly required, but this article would be more accessible if there was an additional short overview/summary of the season in one or two paragraphs, so readers don't have to read all 36 race summaries to understand what happened. Some reaction to the outcome would be nice too. Modest Genius talk 17:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Setti Warren

[edit]
Article: Setti Warren (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [6]
Credits:

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

 – Muboshgu (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - no major problems with the article after I removed the one citation needed tag and removed an inaccurate first fact. Jon698 (talk) 04:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Ready) RD: Bob Trumpy

[edit]
Article: Bob Trumpy (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NFL, USA Today
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: NFL tight end and influencial broadcaster, death announced today. Article has one CN tag but is overall in good shape. --The Robot Parade 00:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bona Malwal

[edit]
Article: Bona Malwal (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.radiotamazuj.org/en/news/article/veteran-south-sudanese-politician-bona-malwal-dies-at-97
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: South Sudanese politician. Article is a GA Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Women’s Cricket World Cup

[edit]
Article: 2025 Women's Cricket World Cup (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In cricket, India defeats South Africa in the final to win the Women’s Cricket World Cup (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the 2025 Women's Cricket World Cup final, India defeats South Africa to become champions.
Alternative blurb II: ​ India emerges victorious at the 2025 Women's Cricket World Cup, courtesy of a 52 run victory over South Africa in the final.
Alternative blurb III: ​ The Women's Cricket World Cup concludes with India defeating South Africa in the final.
News source(s): The Indian Express, Al Jazeera
Credits:

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 the marquee event in women’s cricket and considered as a global showpiece for women cricketers. Abishe (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That only applies to the altblurb. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ArionStar: The red link was a technical error. Fixed. Gotitbro (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ITNR. The hook should either be changed to the tournament as a whole, which is in good shape, or we can wait for finale article to be created.Gotitbro (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking my comment, the article had been created there was a technical error in the blurb which lead to a red link (fixed it). The hook (finale) looks fine to me, so support. Gotitbro (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, oppose on quality - The article is too heavily reliant on tables and has no prose about any of the matchplay. The lead also fails to mention the result. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on desktop, standard width, there is currently a massive gap between the "Qualification" heading and the rest, caused by the table not fitting next to the sidebar and the image of the qualified countries. 193.183.210.238 (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Needs some work (either the final article or the tournament article needs prose on the final). ENGVAR-compliant alt3 added. Black Kite (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not ready. The article is almost entirely tables and lists of scores, with no prose description of what happened at the tournament or in the final. There's very little prose on other aspects either, and the article is poorly organised e.g. none of the 'background' section is actual background. This needs substantial work before posting. If it does get that far, alt3 is our standard format. Modest Genius talk 14:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in principle, oppose on quality - in addition to what others wrote about quality, I do not see how improving this draft can meet the "significance" criterion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news#Significance ApoieRacional (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This event is apparently on ITNR based off of the nom, so its signifigance is already established. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 15:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Concur that this is in no way significant and should be struck from ITNR. Dr Fell (talk) 23:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both the victory itself and analysis of it have been front-page news on the BBC in the past 36 hours. On what basis do you claim it is 'in no way significant'? GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news#Significance :
"they all simply reposting the same article?"
there are other relevant criteria there too:
The length and depth of coverage itself (are the articles long and go into great detail, or are the articles short and cursory?);
The number of unique articles about the topic (does each major news source dedicate its own reporting staff to covering the story, or are they all simply reposting the same article?);
The frequency of updates about the topic (is the article posted once and forgotten about, or is it continuously updated, and are new articles related to the topic appearing all the time?);
The types of news sources reporting the story (is the topic being covered by major, national news organizations with a reputation for high-quality journalism?).
>> Hey, I am not going to say, that I will not change my mind on this ! But please provide a better support for your point of view:
1) when you wrote "front-page news on the BBC", you did not provide a link.
2) Can you get other sources besides BBC, perhaps reflecting a more diverse base of news source? Did it make front news in a non-cricket countries? Or in non-English-speaking countries. ApoieRacional (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As stated quite clearly in the nomination box above "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."
The arguments of significance then have no bearing here. Want to litigate a removal of this from ITNR? Go to Wikipedia talk:In the news. But please don't bog the discussion down otherwise. Gotitbro (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is ITNR. Arguments such as this are invalid. Propose removal at WP:ITN if you so wish. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2025 World Series

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2025 World Series (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In baseball, the Los Angeles Dodgers defeat the Toronto Blue Jays to win the World Series (MVP Yoshinobu Yamamoto pictured). (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Los Angeles Dodgers defeat the Toronto Blue Jays to win baseball's World Series.
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

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.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support once mvp is decided having an image of the MVP accompany the blurb makes sense. Once we have an alt blurb with that additional information it'll be good to go TheFellaVB (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The World Series ended with a mind-boggling, historic Game 7. In its 121-year history, only two other Game 7s have gone at least 11 innings. spintheer (talk) 04:37, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding the link, but the lead is still as clear as mud to me as a layperson. Is all that stuff about LCS actually relevant to the overall significance of the match and tournament? If so, it needs to be better justified, and if not, it needs to be shifted down to the body text (and still explained better). GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Oppose merge INT/R and the article quality is more than sufficient, merging blurbs seems like a strange and silly idea hungry (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt ←Metallurgist (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's still two paragraphs with zero citations. NorthernFalcon (talk) 07:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 1

[edit]

Reopened for blurb (posted as RD): Carlos Manzo

[edit]
Article: Carlos Manzo (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Mexican politician Carlos Manzo, mayor of Uruapan, Michoacán, is assassinated during Day of the Dead festivities. (Post)
News source(s): NYT, Guardian
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Mexican politician. Tbhotch™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 23:49, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Also, If the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb – just putting that out there. State government building trashed. Moscow Mule (talk) 03:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - This is a duplicate of an existing nomination for the correct date (Nov 1). GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:03, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Martha Layne Collins

[edit]
Article: Martha Layne Collins (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [9]
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Former governor of Kentucky and only female to have served in the position. Article is FA. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 15:32, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]


(Closed) 2025 Cambridgeshire train stabbing

[edit]
(NON-ADMIN CLOSURE)
Posted by a blocked sock with no consensus to post. BangJan1999 20:55, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: 2025 Cambridgeshire train stabbing (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Nine people are injured in a mass stabbing by two a lone attackers on a train in Cambridgeshire, England. (Post)
News source(s): https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8r007d4kk2o
Credits:
Nominator's comments: England is a much less violent place than America, and guns are illegal, so to put this into context, this is as shocking as if two assailants shot and killed nine passengers on a rush hour Philadelphia to New York express train, in a seemingly random attack. With racial tensions seemingly at an all time high in England (see Operation Raise the Colours, Grooming gangs scandal etc), the UK media has been notably quick to confirm that "Police said the 32-year-old man is a black British national and the 35-year-old is a British national of Caribbean descent." but that also there is "currently "nothing to suggest" it was a terror incident." This is decidely not normal for the UK, especially if it was just a random orgy of violence with no racial or terror motive. Predator of the badlands (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nine injuries, seriously? Frankly, I find the comparison made somewhat offensive. Also, you put this in the Oct 26 section, when it should go in the Nov 1 section. 1brianm7 (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved it. PhilKnight (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's offensive about it? The last time nine people were randomly shot in England is going to be several years ago, if not decades, and yet the same can hardly be said about the US, a much more violent and gun obsessed place. I guess I should have said nine people suffered life threatening injuries for proper context, but honestly didn't think people here would be capable of even saying something as crass as "nine injuries, seriously?", like it's nothing. Predator of the badlands (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 1brianm7 and Genevieve. English authorities have also ruled out that it was a terrorist incident. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I don't let whether something is described as 'terrorism' affect my !vote. The designation of an incident as terrorism is effectively a political judgment, not a factual one. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At no point should my comment on the terrorist nature of the stabbings be taken not as my own argument and, therefore, it should not be understood that it affects you. In any case, what matters is what the police authorities, who are the authorized and knowledgeable parties in the investigation, “officially” and “formally” indicate, and we must assume that this is true, regardless of whether or not we suspect political interference. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, given recent UK history it would have been far less shocking/susrprising if this had been a couple of Muslim asylum seekers running down the train yelling God is Great. Two black British lads just randomly knifing up a bunch of commuters for no apparent reason, is probably so unusual it might have never have even happened before. One, with mental illness as a factor, sure, but two? Predator of the badlands (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might have overplayed your hand there. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

October 31

[edit]

(Reviews needed) RD: Alvin Kass

[edit]
Article: Alvin Kass (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Brooklyn Eagle
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American rabbi who was the longest serving chaplain in the New York City Police Department. Death reported 31 October. Thriley (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Eike Wilm Schulte

[edit]
Article: Eike Wilm Schulte (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Bavarian State Opera
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Baritone who had an international career for more than 50 years. I wrote the article more than 10 years ago, needed update. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Reviews needed) RD: Pierre Dufault

[edit]
Article: Pierre Dufault (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [10][11]
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Please allow me a couple days to expand the article before listing. Thank you. Flibirigit (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Hans Jörg Stetter

[edit]
Article: Hans Jörg Stetter (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): TU Wien
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Pioneering mathematician who established computer sciences and a computing centre at the TU in Vienna --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Reviews needed) RD: Tchéky Karyo

[edit]
Article: Tchéky Karyo (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Deadline Hollywood
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Turkish-born French actor. 240F:7A:6253:1:838:FE11:E355:A439 (talk) 06:29, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Tanzanian Election Protests & Tanzanian general election

[edit]
Proposed image
Articles: 2025 Tanzanian election protests (talk · history · tag) and 2025 Tanzanian general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 10 people are confimed killed in protests against the recent general election in Tanzania. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Around 700 people are reported killed in protests against the recent general election in Tanzania.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Incumbent President of Tanzania Samia Suluhu Hassan (pictured) is declared winner of the general election amid protests and violence.
Alternative blurb III: ​ Around 700 people are reported killed in election protests as the incumbent President of Tanzania Samia Suluhu Hassan (pictured) is declared winner of the general election.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ At least 10 people are confirmed killed in election protests as the incumbent President of Tanzania Samia Suluhu Hassan (pictured) is declared winner of the general election.
News source(s): Al Jazeera, France24, ABC News, CBS News
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: The main blurbs death toll is from UN reports, while the alts is from opposition sources within Tanzania. Currently information regarding the death toll is patchy due to communications controls imposed by the government. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added Alt4, just to mirror alt3 with UN reports of death toll V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 United States federal government shutdown

[edit]
Article: 2025 United States federal government shutdown (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: I am not American and normally dislike excessive coverage of American topics, but an average person would think a prolonged American government shutdown would have significant impact on the global economy. From what I understand, this is getting close to the longest government shutdown in American history (other countries do not have government shutdowns), with no sign of a solution (the longest ended due to massive flight delays) and a few hundred thousand Americans unpaid. 121.6.18.85 (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose posting to ongoing(what would be the update? "they're still shut down"?), but support posting if and when it becomes the longest. 331dot (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Ongoing expects timely new updates to articles, infrequent additions on the same theme that it continues does not fulfill that. As for a blurb for the longest shutdown, that should be commented on if/when it happens and the merits presented for its significance then. Gotitbro (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, especially because (unlike all previous US government shutdowns) disbursement of SNAP funds to recipients will be delayed if not outright cancelled for November. --Alison (Crazytales) (talk; edits) 14:11, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If the federal government were to entirely discontinue the SNAP program outside of this shutdown, would it be blurbworthy? Almost certainly not. Dr Fell (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I believe this is the longest government shutdown in US history with no brakes being applied. I feel it is notable enough to be put on the front page. Urbanracer34 (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I think a discussion about a blurb next week would be appropriate (longest shutdown in the history of the largest economy in the world), but slapping it in ongoing without a blurb explaining why it's a big deal makes it look like a US-centric item. Perception matters. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think we're at the point where this isn't your run-of-the-mill government stoppage, and the effects to seem to be more widespread than usual. I think it's a clunky item to put in Ongoing, but we really can't do a blurb right now, and I'm oppositional to the notion that the stoppage reaching x length means anything. There's nothing particularly special that happens if it lasts a day longer than any other one has, nor does it just magically become forgettable if it gets resolved a day before. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Probably should've been a blurb when it happened, but now best suited as a blurb for if it either ends or becomes the longest. In the latter case, then it could roll off into ongoing. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:47, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb - I agree with others that it would be pretty weird for it to just be put on ongoing without being blurbed first so I'd prefer it to be blurbed once it becomes the longest. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem being that this isn't a blurb nom and the siginificance that supports for that hinge on is entirely WP:CRYSTAL as of now. Gotitbro (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm neutral on the actual proposal, but I want to observe that 'becoming the longest ever' is a fairly arbitrary milestone that has no bearing on the human impact of the shutdown. I would like to see arguments that focus on that impact, rather than on mere numerical accumulation. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's costing the US economy an estimated $7 to $14 billion and slowing GDP growth according to the Congressional Budget Office, as reported by Fortune. FallingGravity 04:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Some nonessential programs have or will be affected, but the impact has and will continue to be muted. To date, primary newsworthiness has been entirely D vs R narrative warring. ITN isn't a press office. Dr Fell (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While I also oppose with you this has way bigger impacts that "nonessential programs". ATCs are working without pay and many are calling in sick, SNAP food benefits are greatly reduced, and federal workers are being furloughed, fired, and forced to work without pay. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:59, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ongoing Regardless of the shutdown's significance, the ongoing section exists to cover events that would otherwise be nominated for ITN constantly. This isn't one of those events. Estreyeria (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a potential blurb if the current US shutdown becomes the longest by the next day, which itself is very notable. Not sure about an ongoing feature, however. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, once it becomes the longest shutdown It's clear now that this will become the longest shutdown in history, which makes it distinct from the "run of the mill" semiannual shutdowns which plague U.S. politics. WP:OR about how easily the shutdown can/should be resolved or whether the government functions impacted are 'essential' are not valid !vote rationales. Editors participating in the discussion should be focused on the quality, depth, and breadth of coverage in the global reliable sources, not offering personal political opinions through their !votes. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 03:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ongoing and possible blurb per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support This has became the longest american government shutdown in history shane (talk to me if you want!) 18:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, once it becomes the longest shutdown blurb once that happens, then neutral for if it should be in "ongoing" or not Pencilceaser123 (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Fatos Nano

[edit]
Article: Fatos Nano (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [14]
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Former Albanian Prime Minister. Matete Plays [talk] 15:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Gaza genocide from ongoing

[edit]
Article: Gaza genocide (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

Nominator's comments: Two reasons: first is that as has been mentioned in multiple discusses at WT:ITN, WP:ERRORS, and now WT:Main Page, highlighting the genocide in Gaza over the other two current conflicts (where there have definitely been claims of genocide) appears to make the ITN box biased and not NPOV. Second is more direct that while there is active editing on the page, there is not much in terms of new daily events related to that article that is not already covered by the main conflict or timeline article, and thus fails to meet the expectations for an ongoing entry. The genocide article is still available off the main conflict, but it doesn't need to be in Ongoing at this point. Masem (t) 13:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per @The C of E shane (talk to me if you want!) 16:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Israel heavily airstriked gaza something like 2 days ago killing more than 100 people, the genocide is definitely still ongoing — 🧀Cheesedealer !!!⚟ 17:56, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the caveat that it could remain if the other two conflicts also have genocide page links in a similar fashion. Zachary Klaas (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Because I continue to insist that we are not authorized to declare the actions of the Israeli government as genocidal, as I said at the time. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Masem and The C of E. I propose using Gaza peace plan instead, as it is the ongoing development in the war. Rafi Chazon (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose because Israel keeps launching airstrikes against innocent Palestinians in Gaza, as well as violating the ceasefire agreement hundreds of times. Qhairun (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose: A fragile ceasefire does not mean that the genocide has ended, as it is very clear that Israel is continuing its efforts against the people of Palestine. A basic look at any news platform covering the genocide would show that it is very much ongoing. — EarthDude (Talk) 20:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, considering the frequent breakdowns of ceasefires that have occured in the past for the Gaza war, we should wait more time until its clear that the current ceasefire is actually permanent before considering removing the Gaza genocide link from the section. CherrySoda 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Some of the sources that are relied on as factual have skewed POVs and are not balanced out by other opposing sources. Also as new information comes to light after the fog of war has been lifting, quite a bit of it does not back up earlier claims. Particularly the number of civilians versus combatants killed and reports regarding the famine. Therefore as the news changes so will the definitions.
Agnieszka653 (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is practically worthless as consensus has already been created to call the Gaza genocide article a genocide. What this discussion is for is whether or not it is ongoing. User:Easternsaharareview and this 04:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is a clear case of WP:CRYSTAL, once the ceasefire is signed then we can consider removing this. Although the last time it was signed Israel violated it quite quickly, don't see how that'll change this time. User:Easternsaharareview and this 04:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Palestinians are still getting killed [15] [16]
Israel has killed 236 people since ceasefire [17] Cinaroot (talk) 05:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If Gaza war is ongoing - so is the genocide. Cinaroot (talk) 05:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removal. Wikipedia is already targeted for a position its editors are fighting back against. Keeping the mention on the main page is our best attempt at a clear signal.Coshatiuav (talk) 05:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per @Masem. Nehushtani (talk) 08:08, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Talk:Gaza genocide. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 15:57, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It's still in the news every day that the IDF is killing Palestinians. I don't see any reason to remove this yet. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is now a fragile ceasefire, but people are still dying both directly and indirectly, starvation is ongoing, power and water are restricted, and aid shipments are limited. The article is receiving steady updates. If anyone thinks we should be featuring other genocides as well, those can be nominated and discussed; that is not an argument for removing the Gaza genocide, which remains ongoing. Modest Genius talk 16:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The military action is over, I think its time to take this off. Of course, if the ceasefire fails then we can revisit. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose very little has actually changed from the status quo. The IDF is still killing 100s of Palestinians every week. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Support Removal There was never a case for posting it to begin with. Dr Fell (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as it comes across as selective propaganda point-scoring. As this is a contentious topic per WP:PIA, we should err on the side of caution. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose- with Israel continuing to bomb Gaza, and over a hundred dead in the last few days, I'm not sure why the supports are conditional on the cease-fire holding! Nfitz (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose primarily for two reasons. Firstly, the English Wikipedia calls it genocide, so the main page doesn’t promote a POV. Secondly, it’s still ongoing as Israeli strikes on Gaza continue despite the ceasefire. The comparison to the claims of genocide in the other wars posted to ongoing is invalid as the English Wikipedia doesn’t call them genocides yet.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - there’s been numerous ceasefire violations, but on a broader scale the violence has mostly ended and the ceasefire is mostly holding. That said, wouldn’t oppose waiting another few days at least to not get ahead of ourselves. The Kip (contribs) 17:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Masem. Even after removal, there would still be two links to the Gaza War in Ongoing, so ceasefire violations will continue to be covered. But I agree with Masem that the Main Page feels oddly unbalanced/biased as the Sudanese massacres currently vastly surpass what's going on in Gaza at this moment (which, let me be clear, is also tragic). Khuft (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Modest Genius and The Cheesedealer. There is no support for the claim that the genocide ended with the "ceasefire". Regarding supposed NPOV issues, the Gaza genocide has widespread international recognition, which is reflected in both the article name and the use of Wikivoice to state genocide. That is not the case for Masalit massacres (2023–present) or Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russo-Ukrainian War. EvansHallBear (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -although it is on-going, it's subdued, and there are other places on Wikipedia, that still cover it, as many others pointed out here.ApoieRacional (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - just saw the discussion down at Talk:Main Page, seems like WP:NPOV violations in broad daylight. Ukraine and Sudan have genocides, and only showing the Gaza one seems like a pro-Palestinian viewpoint. While I do support Palestine, I believe that NPOV should be upheld as much as possible, so its either remove it or give equal status to the genocides in the Sudanese and Ukrainian conflicts. PhilDaBirdMan (Talk |WikiProject Socialism | Current Incubator Initiative) 19:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per EvansHallBear, Israel bombed another 100 or so the other day so this is far from being over and the Gaza genocide is also more "unique" than the examples of Ukraine or Sudan as it's called a genocide in wikivoice and the title Laura240406 (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On-going bombing doesn't mean on-going genocide (Russia is bombing far more in Ukraine but we don't link to a genocide article there). What we'd need to say the genocide is on-going is not our original interpretation of on-going bombing but an overwhelming preponderance of reliable source reporting that there is an on-going genocide and I don't need that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose removal – Claiming there is a POV issue by listing the Gaza genocide and not the Darfur genocide or allegations of genocide in Ukraine would be like saying there's a POV issue listing only three wars and none of the other ongoing armed conflicts. And as discussed in depth before, it is not a POV issue to call it the "Gaza genocide" per the page move that found an academic consensus describing the event as such. The article is still updated, and a shaky ceasefire has not marked the end of killings; more time is needed to determine whether this should be remove from ongoing, if anything. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The Gaza genocide is still ongoing, and the ceasefire has been very weak per reporting from the AP] about strikes that happened just this week. The military action has continued, albeit sporadically. In regards to other genocides, my issue is that the Ukrainian page is still titled as an "allegation", so it's not currently in Wiki-voice that it's a genocide. As such, it'd be inappropriate and WP:UNDUE to put it at the same level as the Gaza genocide. In regards to the Masalit massacres, I recognize that there's an ongoing discussion about whether to move the page to a title that includes the word "genocide", but until that happens, it again is not the exact same thing, though I would not opposed to listing it. AG202 (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per AG202, there hasn't been a significant change with regards to the situation that would understandably mean an end to the genocide at this point in time. Ornithoptera (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in response to multiple opposes: The problem with the genocide article is not how its titled or the like, but that it is less an event article and more about the status of what is happening in Gaza. It does document several events that led to why its being called a genocide, but after that point, and particularly reviewing the most recent edit summary, any aspect of the Gaza conflict that is about the genocide is not getting daily coverage in the news nor is the article reflecting daily updates containing those news items. Its still edited daily but its more to add sourced discussing why its called a genocide than chronologically putting the events in place. That's all being done on the Timeline article, including events that are still tied to killing Palesteins in Gaza, and nothing at the Genocide one. As such, the genocide article fails the requirements for Ongoing. That leads to why giving the Gaze conflict the space for the geneocide article and not for the other two conflicts is a non-neutral approach. We blurbed when the UN report named it a genocide (at the same time consensus agreed to move the article to the genocide page), but we have countless similar reports on the events in the other two conflicts that are not yet officially called such but detailed in much the same way, and that we don't include them is an implicit bias atop the fact that the genocide article fails to meet the ongoing criteria. To be clear this is not to deny that the genocide is still an ongoing world event, but it is not appropriate for us to have it in ongoing given our criteria and neutral standpoint. Masem (t) 20:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Genocides aren’t common events so ITN may not be ready with specific criteria to cover them. However, it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t post them to ongoing and that we cannot invoke WP:IAR to do so. In fact, Gaza genocide comes as a result of the Gaza war, and many updates on Timeline of the Gaza war (3 October 2025 – present) are associated with the genocide, so it’s practically not true that there are no recent updates of the genocide.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Any events related to the genocide are being properly updated on the timeline article. That it has been called a genocide is no longer going to change, and the genocide is a subevent of the main conflict (this is not like Israel striking other middle eastern states which are tangents). The genocide article itself is not being updated to meet the requirements of ongoing. Masem (t) 21:14, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If the issue here is that the article in question is not currently being updated frequently, it usually is updated a lot almost every day, but it is currently subject to a prolonged edit-lock which makes that impossible for most editors. David A (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked through the updates, the bulk of them are edit warring which I discount, so the legitimate additions are not related to daily events occurring in Gaza, but just further discussions why what's happening in Gaza is a genocide. Particularly compared to the main Gaza timeline activity. Masem (t) 22:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly disagree with your claim that the majority of all the edits to the page in recent months have been edit-warring. David A (talk) 06:42, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm looking at the scale of the last few weeks, because for ongoing, the expectation is near daily updates to the article. And to be clear, "edit warring" is based on the pattern I've seeing where the same block of information is being added and later removed in very slow edit wars (nothing that would trigger admin action), and ignoring those, there is no net new additions to the article that represent daily events occurring related to the genocide or the conflict. The article is being edited daily, but the edits are not based on daily events. Masem (t) 12:46, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    the genocide is a subevent of the main conflict – I disagree with this framing. The war in totality is a genocide. If anything, the war is a subcomponent of the genocide, which also includes the blockade and weaponization of aid. Finkelstein's analysis of the UN Commission report puts it much more eloquently than I can: The report thus eschewed the terminology of the laws of war. There was, for example, no mention of "disproportionate" attacks anywhere in it. A disproportionate attack presupposes that a legitimate military site was targeted but an excessive number of civilians were killed. The report found, however, that, overwhelmingly, it was Gaza’s civilian population and infrastructure that was targeted. ... It was palpably not Hamas but the entirety of Gaza’s population that was being targeted; indeed, the "war" aspect of the hostilities was, all told, a fiction. EvansHallBear (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose: As others here have stated, the genocide is still very actively ongoing, but I think that the genocide in Sudan should be featured alongside it as well. David A (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Sudan genocide article is currently called Masalit massacres (2023–present). It should be on the ITN page but unfortunately the article includes almost no mention of anything that has happened in 2025. If a tiny fraction of the energy that we put into litigating the framing of our Gaza articles was put into updating our Sudan articles we'd easily have the decent coverage of Sudan we desperately lack now. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Several important reports considering it as a genocide. ArionStar (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A support vote means it should be removed. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong oppose ArionStar (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Article describes it as "ongoing".–DMartin 01:38, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That could just mean the article is out of date... That word was added some time ago and the article hasn't had content relating to new events added to it for some time. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The Gaza genocide was listed on the basis that the balance of reliable sources had come to regard it as that, and as such it is (as stated in Wikivoice) a major ongoing world event. I've not seen evidence that reliable sources now regard it as over, notwithstanding the recent ceasefire. Like the war itself, this is not necessarily a topic that receives frequent updates, but that's the case for all long-standing events of this nature. Finally, I'm not convinced by the argument that it's non-neutral to highlight this when the Sudan and Ukraine cases aren't listed. Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, those pages should be proposed with RS evidence, considered on their own merits, and a consensus (or lack thereof) formed. Those cases shouldn't derail this one.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:46, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is still an ongoing genocide in Gaza, targeting vulnerable women, children, and journalists. If the killing of 80,000 civilians does not qualify as genocide, then what number would? QalasQalas (talk) 10:11, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If it's not being updated, it should be removed on that basis and that basis only- not based on the idea that if we link one genocide we have to link to them all just because. AFAIK posting Ukraine and Sudan hasn't been nominated to consider its merits(i.e. if an academic consensus of genocide exists for those killings/wars). 331dot (talk) 11:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The posting of this to ongoing was after one of the most lengthiest ITN discussions. I would expect to see serious policy arguments for the removal. The argument that other atrocities haven't been posted or posting only this is POV/propaganda are unserious and not based on any policy. The policy argument that the article is not receiving daily updates is evidentialy not true, whether its for adding to the increasing majority scholarly consensus or updating other things, all of this is happening at the article. The only remaining policy argument is that it is over. According to? The genocide is inextricably linked to the "war", and one would need sources to say that the latter is over (in which case the whole thing can be removed) or that the genocide is. No RS states that. Gotitbro (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ongoing was added to ITN to deal with topics that would otherwise likely bring regular ITN blurbs due to events, of which no question the Gaza conflict is. The genocide aspects of the Gaza conflict is not bringing those; what news coverage I see of the genocide is not new information on the genocide but related to the conflict and that is it just more killings of Palestine people, and those events themselves are not being added to the genocide article itself. The additions around the debate of whether it is a genocide or not are not the expectations we are looking for when we are expecting near daily updates. Masem (t) 14:28, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The same arguments can be applied for the war article, as the major substance of those updates is carried by the timeline but so is for the genocide. And it can be veritably demonstrated that these are the same entwined event and not extricable entities. As such either the whole lot of it goes if it ends or editors show through RS that either one has ended. I see no case to be made for either of these. Gotitbro (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes and no. I don’t see what other blurbs related to the FIFA World Cup would be posted other than its conclusion. There are certainly events that would result in posting multiple blurbs, so having them in the ongoing section would be beneficial to save room for blurbs documenting unrelated events, but there are other events that are posted simply because they are major current events. We introduced ongoing following the increasing need to post frequent blurbs on the Arab Spring protests back in 2011, but that’s not the first instance of posting to what is now known as ongoing as we had posted links to Olympic summaries even before it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There’s still violence and the ceasefire was violated. We should consider adding genocide in Sudan and Congo as opposed to taking this away. -TenorTwelve (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Well said. David A (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose still ongoing. (t · c) buidhe 04:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per the above, but I'm open to the idea of adding the other genocide articles as a compromise. Mount Patagonia (talk • contributions) 06:51, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Despite the ceasefire, deaths are ongoing. Jusdafax (talk) 12:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It has gotten dramatically more news coverage than the other referenced genocides; and the coverage remains ongoing. See eg. [18]. The article also has been getting extremely rapid updates; that much is clear from its history. It's currently fully-protected, but prior to that, just going back a few days finds several significant additions. --Aquillion (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It's an ongoing event with the humanitarian crisis still not being dealt with & people still being killed in Gaza every day. A ceasefire is not remotely the same as an end to a genocide - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Masem Earlier today, Jimmy Wales posted on the talk page for the Gaza "genocide" article. I will let you read his statement yourself, but his argument should be included in the discussion here as to if the homepage link should remain. Dr Fell (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem. Gotitbro (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Some of the statements in this discussion, such as that the IDF is killing Palestinians every day, are simply factual wrong and aren't backed up by any citations, let alone reliable sources. The ceasefire hasn't been absolute, but it is more often in place than not. The situation has fundamentally changed since this ITN entry was made, and we should recognize that. Coining (talk) 02:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Eleven members of a Palestinian family were killed by Israeli forces on Friday, described as the deadliest single violation of the fragile ceasefire since it took effect eight days ago". - The Guardian
    Israeli strikes kill more than 100 people in Gaza, including 46 children - The Washington Post
    "Israeli forces have killed another Palestinian in Gaza despite a United States-brokered ceasefire, bringing the toll since the truce to 236" - Al Jazeera Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Guardian article is based on the assertion of the Gaza Media Office, which is controlled by Hamas, and in any case the particular sentence quoted above is about one day, not "every day".
    - The Washington Post article, whose headline is also based on the assertion of the Gaza Media Office, is about a specific period when the ceasefire didn't hold. It's not even on its own terms intended to be indicative of the general ceasefire period.
    - Per WP:ALJAZEERA, Most editors seem to agree that Al Jazeera English and especially Al Jazeera Arabic are biased sources on the Arab–Israeli conflict. Coining (talk) 04:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think all these claims are correct: the Gaza Media Office and Al-Jazeera have generally accurately reported casualty numbers. But for us to say the genocide is on-going requires more than identifying that some hundreds have been killed since the ceasefire; it requires us to be able to cite the overwhelming preponderance of RSs reporting that a genocide is on-going. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Or maybe bring sources that the genocide ended after it began — 🧀Cheesedealer !!!⚟ 16:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From today's news. Navi Pillay on the genocide: "We are all witnesses to it. It’s happening in real time. We see it on our screens every day."
    Whereas, as Cheesedealer points out, no RS support has been provided for the claim that the genocide has ended. EvansHallBear (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full protection Because of the disputes and edit-warring, the article in question is now fully-protected. This makes it difficult to update the article and it hasn't been updated since 30 October which is four days ago. Per WP:ONGOING, "In order to be posted to ongoing, the article needs to be regularly updated..." So, such protection seems to be a show-stopping quality issue, like an orange tag. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If the Russo–Ukrainian war article was temporarily fully-protected, I don't think we would rush to unlist it per this strict interpretation of WP:ONGOING. I'm sure we as editors can understand that because this protection is temporary, we shouldn't see it as "show-stopping". The protection on the Gaza article is set to be lifted tomorrow too. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 17:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not talking about removing the main link to the war; we're talking about a third link to the same conflict which seems excessive when we're so short of space. The list of ongoing armed conflicts lists 8 major wars which, by definition, have 10,000+ deaths per year, but our ongoing only has three of them. This is not balanced or NPOV; it's cherry picking. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support With various inaccuracies in the article, and a full-protection essentially guaranteeing that inaccuracies stay put unless noted and pointed out on the talk page, keeping this article on the main page unfortunately goes against the point of ITN and leads to a NOTNEWS and RGW situation. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 13:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are free to better the article, but since you haven't pointed any concrete things in the article (I agree it could be better, but it is a similar quality of other ITN articles, not violating any ITN guidelines) this isn't a very strong point. Also you cite WP:NOTNEWS, but this is quite a significant event and with encyclopedia not news-like coverage. Also, please note that RGW only applies when reliable, secondary sources do not support what is being said. This is clearly not the cause in the Gaza genocide article as there as been an extensive RfC which made sure that it complied with scholarly consensus. More recent requested moves have also been denied, so I don't see how this is righting any great wrongs which RS don't support or how it is news (while this is an article about a contemporary topic, it does not cover the events as much as the scholarly consensus, impact, proof, and cultural aspects of the genocide). User:Easternsaharareview and this 04:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The WP article on this is one of the most fought over and contested articles in this project so not the best article to link to, especially as it's additional to the link to the article on the war. Plus while there may be a slim consensus that the war has involved a genocide, fewer sources are saying it's on-going since the latest ceasefire so it's rather contentious to claim it's on-going. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be better if editor's who claim that the genocide is over bring sources here that explicitly say so. Synthesizing the fact from the barely threading ceasefire is not it. Because from what I can tell no RS state this. Gotitbro (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to reiterate the primary reason for starter this nomination is simply on the basis the article is not getting daily updates as expected for an ongoing item. There is no question the genocide is still ongoing but checking just now, there hasn't been any significant updates on daily events as related to the genocide. I know there is protection on the article but that still means updates can be made, but just aren't. Removing the item from my ongoing does not dispute the genocide is ongoing, just that it doesn't meet the quality and updates expected to be featured on main page. Masem (t) 18:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a strawman argument. How many sources stated that the Rwandan genocide was over when the killing stopped? Or the Bosnian genocide? Etc. "End of genocide" is not typically something newspapers call. Khuft (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "End of war" is tho, and the end of the Rwandan genocide coincided with the end of the Rwandan Civil War, and that is not the case for the Gaza war (do you think the Gaza war ended?), which is a subcomponent of the genocide as shown by EvansHallBear — 🧀Cheesedealer !!!⚟ 19:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What happens when such genocidal "events"/"conflicts" (for the lack of better terms) end is that they are referred to as either having ended or mentioned in the past tense or given a time frame. None has happened here, on the contrary sources (academic and otherwise) continue to refer to the genocide as an ongoing one explicitly as shown by Evans above. The Gaza "war" goes on and so does the concomitant genocide.
    If you truly believe that this is incorrect and "strawman" and the genocide has actually ended, you should bring this to the article's talk page. Though it would be news to anyone who has been active at the article. Gotitbro (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, per your own link shared below, Jimbo himself seems to think the article is fraught with controversy. I don't think my involvement in that discussion would add any further value. In any case, the question at hand here is simply whether the link should be removed from Ongoing, and I've shared my opinion earlier in this discussion. Khuft (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's one of many child articles of the war and is also linked in the lead of the parent article. Similar to the other wars, we can reference timeline but there is no need to reference any other specifics in order to avoid favouring highlighting one conflict over another by providing more links. Also oppose Gaza peace plan that is as titled a plan and not a reality, based also on the current status of the "ceasefire" in effect. CNC (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no academic consensus that what Russia is doing in Ukraine constitutes genocide, the events in Gaza and Sudan seem more clear cut. A different RfC can be created to add Sudan to ITN but that is not relevant to this article. So clearly this is not undue and it allows more encyclopedic coverage than the timeline. So if anything, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news site, the timelines should be removed. User:Easternsaharareview and this 04:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I support much of what Masem is arguing here. And being conscious of WP:RGW, I still find it incredibly inaccurate to call the ongoing Israeli intervention in Gaza a "war." In reality, there was a terrorist attack over two years ago. In response there has been an ongoing unilateral attack against a civilian population, with only trivial militant response. The genocide link here helps balance out the extremely biased implication that a "war" is happening. I understand this is an IAR position. I wish we would have gone with something like "intervention" or "occupation" but that ship has sailed. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a "classic case" of asymmetric warfare. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion and Jimbo's intervention is itself "in the news": Wikipedia's 'Gaza Genocide' article an example of how neutrality needs to be improved, founder says (Jerusalem Post, November 3, 2025). "On Monday, the “Gaza genocide” article was still on the Wikipedia homepage’s In the News section. Notably, a discussion began on Friday about removing the event from ongoing matters, given the October 10 ceasefire that has taken root." Gotitbro (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I will point out that the Jerusalem Post is an Israeli newspaper often considered biased when reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 18:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware of that, just listed this here to let editors know that this is getting massive outside attention (concerns of canvassing et. al. withstanding). And I believe that Jimmy should not have commented at the article, as while he made those remarks in a personal (regular editorial) capacity, the media picks it up as arguments from "The Boss". Gotitbro (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal largely per Masem, who I think sums it up well: it is less an event article and more about the status of what is happening in Gaza. The relevant daily event and chronology updates are happening on the timeline article. Having the genocide article linked also creates POV and balance issues relative to Sudan. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 03:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFF, no ones stopping you from trying to get the Sudanese genocide page on ITN by means of consensus. Also, while a large portion of the page is about the actual events, many of the sections, like political discourse, genocide, impact and cultural discourse is being changed and talked about in the everyday. User:Easternsaharareview and this 04:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There appears to be at least some confusion above about whether editors, when !voting support, are supporting removal of the item from ongoing, or supporting keeping the item as ongoing. In the future, perhaps we should consider clearly !voting "Support removal" or "Oppose removal" to help address this issue. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 04:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal from ongoing. In summary - it is not ongoing (there are very few strikes/military activities taking place nowadays), but more importantly the appearance of bias that multiple others have pointed out for calling this out on ongoing while not doing the same for multiple other conflicts. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This war is at a close. The item that is ongoing is the Gaza peace plan. I think the peace plan would be a suitable replacement here since it is ongoing. At the very least, the alleged Gaza genocide, by anyone's standards, is no longer "ongoing." Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody has produced a single source saying that it ended. It's purely OR assertion. (t · c) buidhe 20:26, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Instead of being OR, it could be an application of common sense (WP:COMMON). (As @Khuft pointed out above, it's not typical for sources to contemporaneously announce the end of a genocide.) Coining (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    An essay that tells you not to invoke it this way (WP:NOCOMMON). Without reliable supporting citations, the idea that the Gaza genocide has ended, is in fact WP:OR. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03086534.2025.2578214#abstract
    November 2025 scholarly source still refers to the genocide as ongoing (t · c) buidhe 21:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    An academic article that analyses the genocide is not necessarily a proof that the genocide is ongoing. A historian can also write about the Armenian genocide and publish it today - it doesn't mean that the Armenian genocide is ongoing. I did a quick Google search - the most recent news articles referencing "Gaza genocide" are about Jimmy Wales excoriating the POV of that page... Not the best look for Wikipedia, tbh. Khuft (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (I would add that an article - even an academic one - that starts by downplaying the massacre by Hamas in Oct 2023 as Hamas "attacking the Gaza envelope" hardly bodes well for the NPOV status of that article). Khuft (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you condemn the concentration camp uprisings? Do you condemn the slave revolts? User:Easternsaharareview and this 21:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We can use sources that are biased while still being reliable, NPOV refers to the consensus of the most reliable sources and you have not yet proven that the "massacre" of settlers partying outside of the open-air concentration camp that is the Gaza strip should be given more focuses (you would show this by showing what the reliable sources do not your own opinion) User:Easternsaharareview and this 21:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. So far all suggestions that the genocide has stopped have been WP:OR, often with a touch of WP:CRYSTAL. Claims that it hasn't have generally been supported by reliable sources with references to ongoing killing of Palestinians, and while it might be argued that that's WP:SYNTH, I think it's sufficient that we can err on the side of assuming it's ongoing in much the same way we assume the war is ongoing. As for WP:NPOV, that's a legitimate concern, but I think we should wait for the outcome of the RM at Massalit massacres, which could well nullify the concerns, since it seems likely there will be consensus to move to something involving the word "genocide" and someone will then probably nominate that here. I'm aware that's also speculation, but I think it's worth waiting, and if the move doesn't happen then we can reassess. lp0 on fire () 22:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal. The article currently couldn't be updated and as Masem commented, any recent updates are more on scholarship discussion of the term than whether it's an ongoing event. If the ceasefire holds and there aren't any further updates, it's likely both the events (Gaza War and Genocide) would be removed from ITN, as what has unfortunately happened for the Myanmar Civil War despite ongoing clashes.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 00:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note that the article in question can be and is being updated again. David A (talk) 09:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal. Both due to not meeting the requirements of ONGOING due to the lack of new information and also due to NPOV concerns. Old Man Consequences (talk) 01:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal. It falls under the scope of the war, which is already listed on the ITN. Painting17 (talk) 04:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Founding of SAFCo

[edit]
(NON-ADMIN CLOSURE)
WP:SNOW closure. The Kip (contribs) 18:00, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ SAFCo, a company to help Singapore develop green fuel opportunities for flights, is formed by the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore. (Post)
News source(s): [19]
Credits:
Nominator's comments: New company formed to develop green fuel pathways for Singapore flights

1) Couldn't find "SAFCo" in the article on 2025-10-31-14-52-UTC+0. 2) its notability seems to derive from its as-yet unfulfilled potential, so posting this would run against the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL. 3) Quality is not good enough for a news of the day. ApoieRacional (talk)

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.

October 30

[edit]

RD: Maria Riva

[edit]
Article: Maria Riva (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): People
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American actress and Marlene Dietrich's daughter. HOPPIO [talk] 23:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Andrew / Andrew Mountbatten Windsor

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Prince Andrew (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Prince Andrew (pictured) is stripped of all titles by King Charles III. He will henceforth be known as Andrew Mountbatten Windsor. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Prince Andrew (pictured) is stripped of all titles by King Charles III, due to allegations of sexual abuse.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Prince Andrew (pictured) is stripped of all titles by King Charles III, due to allegations of sexual abuse and links to Jeffrey Epstein.
News source(s): BBC News Online
Credits:

Article updated

 Mjroots (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support/altblurbs Added two similarly worded altblurbs that better describe the situation and notability of the story. Widely reported, linked to a wider highly notable story. Not just tabloid news as the original blurb and commenters may say. Basetornado (talk) 12:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - My instinct was not to weigh in because I didn't quite think it cut the mustard. But this is the culmination of many, many years of pressure on a story (Epstein) which continues to have substantial impact and attention across multiple continents, for instance his connections to individuals at the highest levels of politics, business and entertainment in multiple nations. In that context I think this just about makes the grade. And while without that context I wouldn't support, the action taken is extraordinary. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh - I would oppose the original blurb btw, and I think it's worth noting that the opposes prior to the inappropriate closure were based on the original blurb. If that's what was on the table I'd have been there with them, it's the connection of the two stories that gets this over the line for me. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - article is currently the subject of a move request which appears on the borderline of a snow closure. If we're considering this story for ITN again, it might be helpful for an uninvolved admin to weigh up whether we're in snow territory or not - and if not to state that we're not so that at least there is clarity on the article's status for the lifetime of its time on the main page. Putting it on the main page with an RM open would substantially increase new opinions, which would be productive if such opinions were considered to have any chance of influencing the outcome, and decidedly unhelpful if it were just a neverendum where the result is certain. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ITN isn't a royalty ticker, the significant titles or lack thereof of the British royal family are for those directly in the line of succession, not this. If he is convicted however that might be notable but it would be a different matter altogether. Gotitbro (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (though I did find the first close of this discussion premature). Basically per nableezy; maybe I wouldn't word it quite as harshly; this story is not devoid of any significance. I'd probably vote for including a court case decision here, but not for including a loss of royal title. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:53, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - While this is the biggest sanction the royal household can bring on its own initiative, short of actually making Mr Windsor homeless, it's small beer in comparison to actual criminal proceedings. On the basis that we prefer to post convictions rather than arrests or sentences except in the most exceptional circumstances, I don't think this clears the bar. However, I want to acknowledge that it's a good-faith proposal and I do see the merits. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Little practical significance, even in the UK. --SpectralIon 22:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I get that this is rare, but it’s a ceremonial stripping of a title from a person that’s 8th in line to the throne. Apples to oranges comparison, but would we be discussing a major scandal involving the U.S. Secretary of the Interior? I doubt it. And at least that position has an actual role in government. RPH (talk) 03:49, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If we were trying to do the closest analogy possible, said secretary of the interior's highest previous rank would've been Speaker of the House. Even absent that point, to answer your direct question, if the Secretary of the Interior were to be fired for connections to Epstein, we would without doubt discuss it as an ITNC. I suspect it would on balance go the same way this appears to be going but it would be an equally legitimate discussion. And while the UK is a smaller country and people in the succession line have far less power (almost, but for the top few adults not precisely, none), he has been a notable individual from birth; most members of the US cabinet wouldn't have reached it until far into adulthood. 212.56.116.42 (talk) 04:15, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrew is still in the line of succession even if not allowed to use a princely title, so the comparison would be if a secretary was impeached and not convicted. And as a case in point, I don’t believe said impeachment of the lower ranked Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas was posted on the front page last year. Andrew’s previous higher standing in the line of succession isn’t topical at this point any more so if a former speaker became a cabinet secretary. RPH (talk) 04:32, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the reason for the stripping of titles that makes this a story. Fully expect it to not be posted. But I feel the "He's just a minor royal who got his title stripped" is missing a lot of context. It'd be like saying "100 people died" without adding "in a building collapse." etc. Basetornado (talk) 07:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, you can even peacock notability by saying that he's the king's brother or that he's the son of queen elizabeth. That in no way changes the fundamentals of what has happened here, an already sidelined UK royalty squelched of something long overdue.
    The only notable factor as multiple editor's have noted here is the Epstein connection but beyond BLP issues (this is no conviction), the status of that scandal remains that all allegedly involved including Andrew have mostly avoided any substantial criminal action. And unless that happens, the Epstein scandal will be avoided by ITN. Gotitbro (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A conviction is unlikely to occur. But again spinning it as largely just a royal being stripped of titles is underselling things pretty heavily. Basetornado (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the stripping is the efective action (which hasn't even taken place yet [no official gazetted publication]), the links with Epstein absent legal action would be quite an affront to BLP if featured as such on the main page. And though as credible as they likely are, the fallout being limited to a stripping of titles and move to another lavish residence for the accused is uttimately a stunning nothingburger. Gotitbro (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And it is all of these that lead to the closure before, and will lead to its closure soon. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 11:41, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It was unnecessary to reopen the discussion. This is not a tabloid. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb II This is not a tabloid story, but is a significant development in the Epstein scandal. Khuft (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment to be stripped off vice-admiral and possibly succession too (but not happened yet, afaict).Psephguru (talk) 03:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support im surprised by all the opposition to this, whilst I understand it, its gotten front page coverage across most commonwealth countries. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 06:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2025 Japan Series

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2025 Japan Series (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In baseball, the Fukuoka SoftBank Hawks defeat the Hanshin Tigers to win the Japan Series (Series MVP Hotaka Yamakawa pictured). (Post)
News source(s): Japan Times
Credits:

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.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Trump-Xi meeting at APEC

[edit]
SNOW close. Only minor concrete agreements came from Trump-Xi meeting, and APEC summits are only posted on conclusion, per WP:ITN/R. (non-admin closure) V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 12:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Articles: 2025 Trump-Xi Summit (talk · history · tag) and APEC South Korea 2025 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Busan, South Korea, on the sidelines of the 2025 APEC summit, Donald Trump and Xi Jinping met in-person for the first time in 6 years. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ South Korea hosts a meeting of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) attended by Donald Trump, Xi Jinping and the leaders of other member nations.
News source(s): Independent
Credits:
 Kknnkj (talk) 08:48, 30 October 2025
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.

October 29

[edit]

(Reviews needed) RD: Gladys Stone Wright

[edit]
Article: Gladys Stone Wright (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): purdue.edu
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American band leader. 13:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

(Reviews needed) RD: Lise Bacon

[edit]
Article: Lise Bacon (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): le journal de montreal
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Canadian politician, Deputy Premier of Quebec from 1985 to 1994. 13:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

RD: Pierre Robert (radio personality)

[edit]
Article: Pierre Robert (radio personality) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NBC Philadelphia
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Radio DJ. Article seems in OK shape but probably needs work wizzito | say hello! 15:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on quality multiple orange tags.   Jalapeño   (u t g) 17:19, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Needs work orange tagged and about half the article is unsourced. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(DECISION NEEDED ON BLURB; ARTICLE READY) 2025 Dutch general election

[edit]
Article: 2025 Dutch general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the Netherlands, the PVV and D66 tie for the most seats in the general election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ D66, led by Rob Jetten, and the PVV, tie for the most seats in the Dutch general election.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The PVV and D66 tie for most seats, at 26, in the Dutch general election.
Alternative blurb III: ​ The social-liberal Democrats 66 win a plurality of the vote in the Dutch general election, tying with the far-right Party for Freedom at 26 seats.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ D66 wins a plurality of the vote in the Dutch general election, tying with the PVV at 26 seats.
Alternative blurb V: ​ The political party D66 wins a plurality of the vote in the Dutch general election, tying with the PVV at 26 seats in the Dutch House of Representatives for first place.
Alternative blurb VI: ​ D66 and the PVV tie for the most seats in the Dutch general election.
News source(s): The Guardian, France24, EuroNews, CNN, NOS
Credits:

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: Result not fully in yet, but looks like D66 got most seats. Psephguru (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with altblurb? Dont mind if you replace mine with that.Psephguru (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need, just keep it there to avoid confusion :) Haers6120 (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support According to BBC, the information is correct. It came out less than an hour before the time of this nomination. However, I prefer altblurb5 due to its neutral and factual tone. (talk) 08:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment PVV has just now overtaken D66 in votes - they're tied for the amount of seats.[1] All blurbs are currently incorrect. I would highly suggest waiting until the results are 100% in. However, it is likely that the votes that remain will be benefitting D66. D66 is back on top after winning Bonaire and Saba. Hilversum and Amsterdam have also come in fully, both of them giving D66 more votes.   Jalapeño   (u t g) 08:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've updated the first two blurbs to reflect them tying, however the current lead of the PVV is only a few thousand votes, and could go either way for the latter three blurbs. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 10:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Even with D66 winning Bonaire (which currently isn't showing on the NOS website) margins are so thin vote counts really shouldn't be mentioned V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 11:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment We can always post govt formation later too and put the result now.
Further, now that my blurb is updated, support that again.Psephguru (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The results are NOT solid yet and the margin is still small enough for there to possibly be a flip. Wait until the results are official, or at the very least solid enough to call a winner.   Jalapeño   (u t g) 19:16, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that should not post the results yet. NB: There's a single municipality (Venray) that has not reported results. PVV is almost certain to win the most votes there, but the extremely narrow national margin won't flip when these results are counted nor will it shift a seat from D66 to PVV. The only question is if D66 will have won a plurality by 0.2% or 0.1% of the vote nationally. Immediate challenge: There are six blurbs at the moment, and most don't read well. Dr Fell (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My point was coalition talks will take some time, the result should be known this week.Psephguru (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final comment Mail-in votes have been counted and D66 will most likely NOT be getting an extra seat. Added altblurb 6, btw.  Jalapeño   (u t g) 19:27, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is the same as the edited original (someone else edited nine).Psephguru (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support with preference for the original blurb and alt blurb IV. Let's get this posted already. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alternative blurb IV Pencilceaser123 (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

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

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

  1. ^ "Live verkiezingen: PVV gaat D66 voorbij als grootste partij, piepklein verschil" (in Dutch). Retrieved 30 October 2025.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=1320557437"