Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates: Difference between revisions

Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here.

In the news toolbox
Error reports Nominations History (Posts · Nominations) Discussion General criteria Death criteria Recurring items Admin guide Image protection Current events portal
v t e

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.

Olaf Scholz A suicide bombing by the Balochistan Liberation Army at the Quetta railway station, Pakistan, kills 27 people. The German ruling coalition (Chancellor Olaf Scholz pictured) collapses over disagreements on economic policies. Donald Trump wins the United States presidential election. Maia Sandu is re-elected President of Moldova. In baseball, the Yokohama DeNA BayStars defeat the Fukuoka SoftBank Hawks to win the Japan Series. Ongoing: Israel–Hamas war Israel–Hezbollah conflict Russian invasion of Ukraine timeline Sudanese civil war timeline Recent deaths: Judith Jamison June Spencer John Nott Ram Narayan Elwood Edwards Anna Lo Nominate an article view — page history — related changes — edit

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

American fashion designer. The "High Priestess of Fashion" according to Vogue. Thriley (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

German politician. Grimes2 (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Prose is 1,572 character, barely over a stub. This man was leader of Germany's third party for six years and was leader of the opposition, albeit for six months. What did he propose in his many election campaigns and how did he act in opposition to Merkel? My knowledge of German language and politics is far too low to expand this, however. Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Irrelevant. Please read the bottom line in the yellow box containing the nomination. Black Kite (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural support meets minimum requirements This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huge loss to world of ballet. Life and career covered extensively in reliable secondary sources. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait As yet, there don't seem to be any details of the death and, as she was just 29, a more substantial update will be expected. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Does it really matter if we know more details of the death for the article update to be "substantial" enough to pass muster for RD? We know she's recently died, reliable sources have reported on it, and the article has been updated to reflect as such. RachelTensions (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it matters. As I understand it, this based on an Instagram post repeated by People magazine which doesn't strike me as especially reliable. This is breaking news based on primary sources and, as an encyclopedia with a strict BLP policy, we should use these with care. WP:ITNUPDATE says that a "a one-sentence update is highly questionable" and one sentence is still all that we've got. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Now reported by Reuters and in the Guardian. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Her family issued a statement as well. Also cited in the People magazine article. Anyway I just added a citation needed tag that I can't resolve right now as I'm going offline and also what is up with licensing for that Teen Vogue video in the infobox? Cielquiparle (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Have resolved my own citation-needed tag now. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, the article is ready. I don't think that lacking the cause of death should retain its posting. Alexcalamaro (talk) 09:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support article is ready now. There is enough information about her untimely death. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 11:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: the gaps in the article reflect the sources, so should be no impediment to posting. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, everything looks sourced. Suonii180 (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Article appears to be well-sourced. Funcrunch (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a major humanitarian crisis and it has been described as the region's worst flooding in 30 years. Scaramouche33 (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative support: article isn't great (one sentence on the causes, and no mention of what was wrong with the dam?), but it does seem to be fully cited, and the event is certainly significant in my view (nearly half a million people displaced). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I expanded the Causes section a little bit by adding more details about the dam collapse.Scaramouche33 (talk) 04:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The dam broke on the 10th, that doesn't make it stale yet, but these type of details are clearly missing in the article. --Masem (t) 19:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I added the date(which I had included in the initial version of the article but apparently it was not included in the second version). Scaramouche33 (talk) 04:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle ; major disaster, but article is not up to scuff This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Twice former fin min of africa's then-largest economy.Sportsnut24 (talk) 08:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional oppose: significance is granted by having an article, but there are CN tags needing to be addressed. Would support once fully sourced. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I added citations to the article and I think it should now be acceptable for RD. Scaramouche33 (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support all the issues have been resolved, I think it is ready to be posted. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 11:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Troubled ex-NHLer was struck by a car two weeks ago. Succumbed to his injuries today. Have spent the afternoon buffing up the article and making sure everything important is cited. — GhostRiver 21:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well-buffed, GhostRiver. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: article looks in good shape. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support article is in a good shape. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 11:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Great improvements with sourcing. Article in good shape. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Black Kite (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article: Polaris Dawn (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Jared Isaacman and Sarah Gillis conduct the first commercial spacewalk during the Polaris Dawn private space mission. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ During the Polaris Dawn space mission, astronauts Jared Isaacman and Sarah Gillis orbit the Earth at a record distance of 1,400 kilometers, breaking the previous record set by Gemini 11.
News source(s): NYT, Guardian
Credits:

• Nominated by Sandstein (talk · give credit)

No strong feelings either way, but we normally post space firsts, right? Sandstein 15:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: data in the table of launch attempts seems only sparsely cited. Do we feel that this qualifies as a "first", given that spacewalks themselves are routine -- the difference here is who has organised/funded it? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly up for debate, although the media do treat this as a "first", reflecting the increasing commercialization and privatization of spaceflight. Sandstein 16:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a first for space exploration. Scuba 16:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - In The News, major milestone in human spaceflight PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - It's not a major milestone in human spaceflight. It's a small milestone in the organisational backing of human spaceflight. Operationally, a spacewalk is a spacewalk. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess every major news outlet is just lying in saying that the first commercial spacewalk is a major milestone. Scuba 16:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's hype. News outlets frequently produce hype. Of more interest on the operational front is that this was a spacewalk without airlocks. To my mind 'first commercial spacewalk' is one of those excessively-specific superlatives, like 'tallest actor' or 'first Frenchman to cycle around the world'. I don't see the operational activity's dependence on the commercial organisation supporting it as especially remarkable. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the point you're trying to make, the superlatives that you listed exist and aren't that ridiculous. It being commercial is the whole point, the commercial space race has been proof that the age of big bloated government agencies dominating every aspect of space travel is over. SpaceX doesn't get 0.48% of the US budget every year to only make one rocket every 4 years like NASA with SLS. Scuba 03:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with GenevieveDEon. This is just a hyped up news story because of SpaceX, and because of a billionaire who is part of the team. What is fundamentally different from this and other spacewalks, which have been done numerous times by NASA or Roscosmos astronauts? We have already posted other "firsts" for commercial spaceflight, but this to me is an insignificant "first". Natg 19 (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it isn't being done by NASA or Roscosmos or any governmental agency, it's being done by a private company. Scuba 03:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - This is still a big deal; it really doesn't matter if a billionaire was involved. Inspiration4 was blurbed as it was the first all-civilian spaceflight, I feel like the first ever commercial spacewalk should get the same treatment. qw3rty 17:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - in addition to the big media coverage for the first commercial spacewalk, also of significance is that the earth orbit achieved an altitude of over 1,400 kilometres - breaking the 1,370 km crewed record set in 1966 by Gemini 11/Agena. (of course the moonshot orbits were technically higher, so technically the Apollo missions were further away while trans-lunar or in lunar orbit. There's also been a new record set of 19 people in earth orbit simultaneously (on two space stations, with 5 capsules - Polaris Dawn, Soyuz MS-25, Soyuz MS-26, SpaceX Crew-8, and Shenzhou 18. Arguably, each of these three records should be blurbed. Combining into one seems more than reasonable. Nfitz (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of those should be blurbed. They're all just 'mosts' of things we don't normally pay attention to measuring at all. And if we're talking about the achievements of private space flight, one of the things it has done is to raise the number of people currently in Earth orbit by stranding two people on the ISS for six months. I also don't think that an altitude record that arbitrarily excludes the Apollo astronauts is a record at all. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Apparently also the most people in vacuum at once, per the article. Sandstein 18:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well - other than Columbia, which was in near vacuum when it broke up. :( Nfitz (talk) 05:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment per our article it wasn't a space walk... The cabin was open to space, and both persons stood at the opening but dud not leave the ship. It's a progressive step but not really a full space walk. ETA - those lines in the article have been removed, and given nearly no reliable sources puts doubt about this being a spacewalk that those lines give, then that removes that concern. Masem (t) 18:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And yet the couple in the part of the unpressurized Mir station (coming from a pressurized Soyuz after the Progress M-34 collision) are called spacewalks. And what about Apollo 9? Nfitz (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Both of those cases have crew moving between two vessels, even if the distance was short. — Masem (t) 20:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  the crew moved here too. Isaacman stuck himself out the hatch, and then went back in. How is that any different? Scuba 03:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And yet those are classified as space walks. I don't see the issue here ... he was only touching the tether at points, just like any other space walk outside the space station. But yes, his legs were dandling down into the hatch. I feel this is splitting hairs, and ignores the three other firsts in relation to orbit height, number of people in orbit total, and also the first exposure of 4 people to the vacuum of space at once (assuming the Columbia explosion doesn't count). Nfitz (talk) 05:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I feel like this is an arbitrary distinction to be made. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per GDE above, especially then finding out that it wasn't actually even a full space walk, per Masem. Slidinghorn (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Billionaire does spacewalk. Nothing incredible. Tofusaurus (talk) 06:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't see what makes a commercial spacewalk so special compared to something like a routine one done at the ISS where they actually leave the spacecraft. Hungry403 (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It's in the news, unlike the stale stuff that we're currently blurbing. And when reliable and respectable sources such as the NYT describe it as a milestone, that beats the OR/POV above.

As for the spacewalk, our article tells us that this mode is called a "stand-up EVA (SEVA)". Me, I'm more impressed that they've chosen to fly through the Van Allen belt to see how bad the radiation is.

Note also that we have pictures of the crew and so can use and rotate them.

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Me, I'm more impressed that they've chosen to fly through the Van Allen belt to see how bad the radiation is. Same here, that seems like an awfully foolish endeavor to put a civilian crew through. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like the teams of thousands of highly qualified engineers and physicists know what they're doing PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More dangerous: if any of them moved into the ISS for a 6-mo. tour of duty, where they would get about 70 mSv over that period. Or, venturing outside the Earth's protective magnetosphere fully. The Apollo crews which took the full trip "next door" and back, round-tripped through both belts; there are two and I'm not sure but is Polaris just doing the inner belt? Anyway, the Apollo crews got mission doses maxing out a bit over 10 mSv. And, most of that was not the belts, but all the rads our Sun is blasting out everywhere all the time! (Yes I got a headache trying to make sense of those confusing different units. This is why the SI is good, folks.)

Other slightly dangerous pastimes rad-wise (see helpful images here): spending a year in Winnipeg: 4 mSv; a body CT scan: around 6–8 mSv; a coronary angiogram: 12 mSv (yes, more than most Apollo crews); working as an aviation crew member: varies widely and unpredictably, but estimated upper bound at or potentially more than 5 mSv/year. The dose makes the poison. (Fascinatingly, astronauts frequently report perceiving flashes of light caused by cosmic rays crashing through their bodies and triggering them! Mir got hit by a solar storm once and a crew member said the flashes were so bright and numerous they interfered with his sleep!) --Slowking Man (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm saying is there's a reason the Royal Aviation Museum of Western Canada, Boeing Winnipeg and the Winnipeg Jets keep to the traditionally "commercial" altitudes they do. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - it being the first commercial spacewalk is very different than being the first spacewalk. Posting the former is closer to advertising, the latter an actual first. nableezy - 11:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Andrew, significant milestone that has garnered considerable media attention globally. See sources cited at Extravehicular_activity#By_SpaceX. Majority Oppose votes are POV/OR, essentially, "Wealthy SpaceMan Bad". Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Sadly, this would only have been notable if the spacewalk had gone wrong. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Notable achievement in commercial space flight, as well as other firsts per Nfitz, Rockview13 (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose current blurb Disagree that there is anything particularly notable or groundbreaking about the first "commercialized" spaceflight - do we do a separate post for commercial versus non-commercial "firsts" with any other achievements? IMHO if we did post, what makes it notable is that it achieved a record-high orbit, as per the title of this other NYT article. If we do blurb, that is probably what the blurb should highlight. When the NYT calls it "groundbreaking" or a "record", that is the record they are referring to - the highest orbit ever reached which was not part of a mission to the moon. Flip^andFlopped ツ 20:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Alt Blurb I think it is a very notable achievement and deserves to be posted, the article's quality is also sufficient. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 11:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article: Sitaram Yechury (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Indian communist leader Sitaram Yechury dies at the age of 72. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Sitaram Yechury General Secretary of Communist Party of India (India National party), dies at the age of 72.
News source(s): BBC,Indianexpress
Credits:

• Nominated by Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk · give credit)
• Updated by SerChevalerie (talk · give credit), Pachu Kannan (talk · give credit) and Spworld2 (talk · give credit)

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: Indian communist leader Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait - The 'Books' section of his article is entirely unsourced. Would support once this is fixed. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk | contribs) 11:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD Added sources in the "Books" section. Pachu Kannan (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Communist Indian leader (Major figures) (WP:ITNRDBLURB) ~ Spworld2 (talk) 9:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support RD, oppose blurb : Not notable enough to warrant a blurb. Tofusaurus (talk) 06:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• RD only, not notable like a world leader to warrant a blurb. 31.44.224.222 (talk) 10:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• RD only support, not notable enough for a blurb. Sharrdx (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD only but only after cn tags have been resolved. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 11:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added more sources. Pachu Kannan (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD only Lacks notability for a blurb, had no national importance in the executive government Varoon2542

Nominator's comments: Missing exact date of death, announced today; otherwise good article. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article looks in good enough shape, though could use a bit of expansion (I'll try to do that if I have the time). Kiwichris (talk) 10:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Adequately sourced and overall in good shape. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk | contribs) 11:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Structure looks good enough and no problems found. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 21:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elli: can I get an ITN nomination recognition on my talk page please? Abcmaxx (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC) [reply]

 Done Black Kite (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hall of Fame Detroit Lions linebacker and two-time NFL champion. 240F:7A:6253:1:7C78:E248:64B1:15 (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support meets basic ITNC criteria of citations, format, etc. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 00:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support article is okay enough though I am not sure about the bullet points in the Rebuilding section. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 11:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles: Alberto Fujimori (talk · history · tag) and Death of Alberto Fujimori (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Former President of Peru Alberto Fujimori dies at the age of 86. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Former President of Peru Alberto Fujimori dies at the age of 86.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Former dictator and President of Peru Alberto Fujimori dies at the age of 86.
News source(s): AP
Credits:

• Nominated by Sunshineisles2 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Namealreadytak (talk · give credit), Jkaharper (talk · give credit) and Moscow Mule (talk · give credit)

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 Peruvian dictator. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Ready Multiple tags and issues including serious gaps in referencing. This one is going to need some work before it can be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support because he was a former head of state who assumed power in a self-coup, and has exceptional notability for RD. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 03:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Per ITNRD, posting is automatic subject only to article quality. The question here is whether or not the article's overall quality meets the customary standards for posting on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this was in relation to the blurb, given the quality isn't up to scratch Abcmaxx (talk) 06:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on principle I could make a number of connections, but for ITNC, I think that if AF could be improved by the end of this week, it would merit a blurb. Not ready because we need to debate dictatorship, controversy, etc. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 04:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: nearly there If not for the deletion tag, I think that Fujimori's article is just about ready to go. If necessary, we could drop the death fork of Fujimori and add it when it's caught up. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 00:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• support blurb. Former head of state.Sportsnut24 (talk) 05:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Almost there -- would support for RD if remaining CN tags were addressed. Weak support for blurb: do we normally post blurbs for any former head of state? If not, would need some convincing. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Quality issues have been addressed in terms of sourcing from what I can see. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb. We should not be venerating dictators, and his death in itself is not significant, he has been very ill and in prison for a long time and was 86. Abcmaxx (talk) 06:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no strong opinion on the posting, but I want to make it absolutely clear that posting a blurb to ITN is not 'veneration'. If Vladimir Putin drops dead tomorrow (or at any other time, in fact), I would absolutely !vote for a blurb; I would certainly not regard that !vote, or the subsequent appearance of such a blurb at ITN as 'veneration'. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @GenevieveDEon: But Putin is currently in power and would certainly die suddenly and not as an imprisoned, terminally ill 86 year old man who hasn't had political power for a long time. Huge difference. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abcmaxx: Right - which is why I would vote for Putin, and I'm not voting either way on Fujimori. But you used the word 'venerating', and I think that's not at all a fair characterisation of what ITN does. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly are ITN blurbs venerating? All the blurbs follow WP:NPOV. 31.44.224.222 (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb OLDMANDIES This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb in principle, with no comment on article quality or sourcing. Alberto Fujimori was, for better or for worse, a major figure in modern Peruvian history. He was a consequential enough figure to merit a blurb. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb He was definitely a very notable leader in Latin America who made drastic changes in the politics of his country, so he's certainly more notable than routine leaders that simply adapt to the system as given. The fact his presidency is considered "dictatorship" is irrelevant. There are other "dictators" in the world whose deaths were given a blurb (e.g. Fidel Castro, Robert Mugabe, Jiang Zemin etc.).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe it should at least be acknowledged in the blurb. President for life is not what someone thinks when reading the title "president". Added altblurb2 Abcmaxx (talk) 07:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know where did you get that information from. He wasn't president for life as his presidency ended in 2000 when he resigned.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah but his actions indicated he sure wanted to be. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Needs work Lots of work. I started today by reading the NYT's account. That read quite well and it was certainly an interesting life. Then I read through our article and it came across as much more unpolished for which "never mind the quality, feel the width" seems appropriate.

Note that the Spanish language article has a much larger readership and seems influential as the leads of the English and Spanish versions are remarkably similar. It's not clear which language is the original and which the translation or whether there's two-way traffic. There's a similar issue with the man himself – whether he was the master of his fate or just a figurehead controlled by others.

Andrew🐉(talk) 07:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quality issues have been addressed in terms of sourcing. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot more to it than that. What matters is what the article actually says rather than how many footnotes it has. Adding lots of footnotes that no-one reads just adds to the "never mind the quality, feel the width" vibe. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb: An extremely polarising figure that has been made notable around the world. Article does need a lot of work but will support in principle. Tofusaurus (talk) 11:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb This one should be a no-brainer. A former head of state who was a notorious political figure in his region, convicted of human rights abuses and was a consequential political figure in Peru and possibly in his respective continent. Article does need quality work though. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality, far too many CNs and unsourced paragraphs throughout. I am glad to see a legacy section which helps towards supporting a blurb though I'm not sure its written in the way to make sure it presents him as, as TDKR Chicago says, "a notorious political figure", and should be retouched to try to strength that approach if we are going to post as a blurb. --Masem (t) 12:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Quality issues have been addressed in terms of sourcing. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, just looked through and see one "needs context" but that's not a show stopper. Can't easily edit my vote above right now but that's a support for RD, weak support on blurb (don't think we need the separate death article, and like to see that "criticism" section titled something else buy don't know what) — Masem (t) 22:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on Quality per concerns mentioned previously. However, I really think Fujimori is the sort of person worthy of a death blurb at ITN. Impactful and controversial politician that had a heavy hand in shaping modern Peruvian politics and it's discord. The human rights abuse charges obviously stand as the massive events of his tenure as president, as well as the coup that got him in power. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Quality issues have been addressed in terms of sourcing from what I can see TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb Man has an entire political ideology named after him and was the longtime president of a country. If that doesn't warrant a blurb for an RD than nothing should ever warrant a blurb for an RD. Scuba 16:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb I would say that alternative blurb 2 should be posted Egg470 (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using loaded terms is not for articles, let alone the main page.Sportsnut24 (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb Head of state of 30 million people for a full decade. Judicial issues about his presidency lasted for the rest of his life, so he hardly died quietly and remotely. See Fujimorism for how many parties claim his ideology or have had it attributed to them. Comments about whether his rule was democratic or pleasant are neither here nor there. Nobody can doubt that Putin and Assad have influenced the 21st century, for what many people would say was for the worse. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• A Life Story As with the voice of Darth Vader, the body of Darth Vader or Big Van Vader himself, these are also past accomplishments. When most people think of "news", they think "current events". What's recently happened to Fujimori (the blurb you're voting on) is what happens to all of us, sooner or later. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's why ITN is about featuring quality articles that are in the news, not about featuring the news. That a (likely) great figure died, as reported in the news, and we have an article that is nearly there for quality and demonstrating the great figure-Ness, is exactly the reason to post. It just still has some quality issues to resolve first — Masem (t) 20:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  By the time this article's quality is even good enough to post, it won't be much in the news anymore. Then there's the two weeks or so it'll sit even staler on the Main Page after most editors figure there's no reason to improve it beyond passable. It might make his fandom happy for a day. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The article appears to be well sourced now. With a quick look, there's no orange tags or cn tags/unsourced statements from what I can see. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As a nonfan (nor love-to-hater), that's happiness enough for one day for me; still can't support blurbing it on account of the two weeks or so it'll seem staler later; I'll Support Normal or Photo RD, though, on your word. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  [ideally a good it item that is due to an existing topic now being in the news (like RD blurbs) show already be close to high quality for posting and just needs a bit of intense polish withon 24hr to post it more timely. We've had RD blurbs before that were so far off the quality mark that posed a problem. Not the case here — Masem (t) 22:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Whatever you said, it doesn't sway me. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb He's a household name. Even in my native Mauritius, everybody knows who he is. His rule has left quite a mark
• Support blurb article seems ready. A democratically elected president, who becomes dictator after a self-coup, who is overthrown by Congress, is exiled in the country of his parents' origin, is convicted of crimes against humanity, is the patriarch of a nysaga of politicians and his pardon brings a lot of controversy is, without a doubt, a perfect candidate for his death to have blurb. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb A notorious former president of a country. ArionStar (talk) 03:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Blurb, if consensus on quality now exists. But not the alt blurbs: the "Death of..." article isn't fit for the main page. Moscow Mule (talk) 06:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Alberto Fujimori is open. —Bagumba (talk) 07:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is clearlu on the side of keeping it. It should be closed now as the article has been greatly expanded since my first comment on the discussion.Sportsnut24 (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD boat has sailed, but don't go calling main-page attention to the article. Not when it contains gibberish like [B]ut the former President of Colombia Álvaro Uribe Vélez, expresses his condolences, adding to this said that "Fujimori recover to Peru". Moscow Mule (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. No opinion on AfD or whether the death article should be linked or not. Natg 19 (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Alt blurb 2, notable world leader that has left a quite a mark on Peru's history. 31.44.224.222 (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt blurb 2 He had many human rights violations including sterilizing Indigenous women. TenorTwelve (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt 2 A quiet notable former head of state and the article is good enough to be posted. Alt blurb 2 because he was convicted of the human rights violation. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 11:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The main target article look good to go, and the second alt blurb perfectly describes Fujimori. However, the "Death of Alberto Fujimori" article has been nominated for deletion. I would like to see that resolved first. Vida0007 (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted with Alt2, but with the main article bolded as the "Death of" article is still under AfD. Black Kite (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: will add the image as soon as it is protected at Commons. Black Kite (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Krinklebot was speedy. Done. Black Kite (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Senate chamber stormed; constitutional amendments criticized by HRW, etc., passed. Moscow Mule (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait — I expected this to appear here. This is not law yet; a majority of state legislatures need to approve it. However, it will very likely pass. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True on both counts. But the Senate was the major hurdle to overcome: the ruling coalition controls 27 (?) of the state congresses, so it's just a matter of time. And the storming of the Senate chamber is big news this morning, although its treatment in our articles is somewhat cursory. (Not going to be that guy who replies to every comment, I promise.) Moscow Mule (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait for final passage but agree this is a major change in Mexico's govt particularly on the corruption angle. Masem (t) 18:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Needs work There's repeated reference to amparo as an issue but this Spanish word and concept is not explained. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Congrats to Mexico getting rid of it's independent judiciary, I look forward to seeing the backlash to their one-party state with an unchecked executive. Scu ba (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The personalized commentary is unnecessary. The Kip ^(contribs) 06:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - it's a long way from ratification. Rather wonky isn't it? Nfitz (talk) 02:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait per above - we don't post things prematurely, but it's objective a massive moment in Mexican politics. The Senate storming/protest received fairly widespread attention as well. The Kip ^(contribs) 06:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait until passed into law. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait until ratification. As Nfitz points out, it's still a long way from there. 31.44.224.222 (talk) 11:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: 18 of 32 states have ratified and the plan is to enact it on 15 Sept. Moscow Mule (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So we should update the hook then. Also, I'd specify at least a direction of changes, even Szmenderowiecki (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, better. Senate storming is stale news now anyway, and its exposition here never got much further than cursory. But I'd link it as _federal judiciary_ in the alt blurb. Moscow Mule (talk) 06:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fixed that Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Quiet a big event that will have major effect on the country. The article's quality is sufficient. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 11:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Died this morning, and article looks reasonable enough. Very little info on his death seems to be available right now. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Short but adequate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support meets bare minimum requirement. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 11:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: A national election that deserves to be ITN per WP:ITN/R. The article isn't in the best shape though and could use some serious work. Just putting it in ITN to get editor's attention to the article. Scuba 13:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Senator from Tennessee Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Ready. Due to the usual reason. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 21:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A big part of the article is unsourced. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 11:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of Sailor Jupiter, announced today. Page biography is sourced, but filmography will need to be sourced. ミラP@Miraclepine 01:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per the usual reason. Filmography is the only thing holding this back, though - rest looks good. The Kip ^(contribs) 06:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The missing citations have been added and the article structure looks good enough. Great work. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 21:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support article is good to go. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 11:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:10, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the people who made the the Peaceful Revolution in East Germany possible, said the German President. Don't miss the video in the source that shows some key events. - The article was mostly there but too many things were translated that were clearer in German, refs were lost, others needed expansions including finding their titles, - plenty of work, took some time. We added publications, more awards, more obits. Still room for more detail if you have time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I like people, who have done so much for peace. Grimes2 (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Article looks alright to me. Cheers. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 21:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support meets WP:ITNQUALITY. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support article is ready to be posted. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 11:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tofusaurus (talk) 03:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Ready. Quite a few sections are unsourced. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 06:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose needs a bit of work in the sourcing department. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 11:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article: James Earl Jones (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  American actor James Earl Jones (pictured) dies at the age of 93 (Post)
News source(s): Variety
Credits:

• Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Natg 19 (talk · give credit) and TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)

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.

Masem (t) 20:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for RD. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Harizotoh9: Is this a "support RD only" or a "support blurb"? Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 05:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• [2] – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Needs some more sources, but shouldn't be too far from ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There are several unreferenced paragraphs. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• note article is not yet ready for RD due to several unsourced paragraphs and a few cn's. Also I did not nominate for a blurb as though an actor with a large number of important roles, he did not have the type of impact that someone like Sidney Poitier had to the industry and doesn't met the major figure aspect. (I have a gut feeling this will draw lots of "he's famous/popular so he should be blurbed" type votes so stating my concern for this now) Masem (t) 20:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • from his lead, "one of the greatest actors in American history" but not a major figure. (eye roll) Kcmastrpc (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    From the source: Alec Baldwin and Close each praised Jones, with Baldwin calling the 80-year-old "one of the greatest actors in American history." One person's opinion is not a consensus. The article's lead should provide some attribution. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's be honest and serious, it's not only one person's opinion. "James Earl Jones doesn't get enough credit for being a path-blazer for actors like Denzel Washington who came after him"[3]

    And we will find more of this in countless obits that will follow. BilboBeggins (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed, though I was being hyperbolic, his influence and prominence both onscreen and offscreen make him suitable for Blurb nomination. Kcmastrpc (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Which right now, the article lacks any significant discussion of his importance or impact beyond a few statements in the lede. I'd be willing to support a blurb but if only a section that fully goes into that depth with multiple sources on the matter (which may originate from these obits) is included so that these factors are clearly demonstrated rather than hand-waved as "trust me". — Masem (t) 21:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I would have suggested going with, "Pray that I don't alter the deal further." However, that seems reasonable enough. Kcmastrpc (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    And of course I should add, the quality overall must be fixed. That's a show stopper right there. — Masem (t) 21:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To say Darth Vader did not have the same impact as someone most people probably don't know is an insult to James Earl Jones. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think anyone was even remotely trying to insult JEJ, and I'm struggling to see how anything written above can be construed as such. - SchroCat (talk) 07:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Darth Vader isnt JEJ, he Voice acted him but Darth Vader is not JEJ so shouldn’t be considered in that regard. 27.96.223.192 (talk) 08:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hard to tell that he was a black man under that mask. Perhaps his extensive stage acting made him more notable? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 08:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It wasn't him under the mask Varoon2542 (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Blurb The citation issues have been cleared up and the article quality improved. JEJ Death and Legacy section outline why this individual is a major figure in his field and how his work is deserving of a blurb. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Kcmastrpc: Was this a "support RD only" or "support blurb"? Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 05:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Blurb. Obvious blurb. EGOT achiever. Had theatre named after him during his lifetime. Had many iconic roles,had distinguished career on film, TV, and stage. And last but not least, he was Darth Vader, after all. BilboBeggins (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Blurb. EGOT winner and without a doubt he was at the top of his field through his iconic roles and performances beyond film such as in broadway too. Death is making international headlines. However I do believe a legacy section and/or the article needs to address how influential he was in the acting field. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not EGOT, given his Oscar was an honorary one only. - SchroCat (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-competitive EGOTs are still considered one, just not quite the same as the actual thing. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support blurb per BilboBeggins and TDKR, but I won't be unhappy if it's just an RD. The Kip ^(contribs) 21:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Was he a real actor or did he just do Darth Vader? Thank you. 86.187.239.81 (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, he was a real actor, he got Tony and Oscar. BilboBeggins (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if he hadn't performed multiple other roles (as you could see even just from the lead of the article), voice actors are (also) considered "real actors". Funcrunch (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait then Support Blurb one the most well known actors. While he is most known for Darth Vader and Mufasa’s voice, he has an incredibly long, extensive, and iconic acting career. Just needs more sourcing and expanding, specifically on his death. Kybrion (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• RD ONLY, when the article is ready. I’m sure we’ll see a Carrie Fisher rerun, with lots of fans voting for a blurb, but there’s no real call for it. - SchroCat (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Carrie Fisher is not on the scale of being transformative and not of the same level of productiveness and versatility. It is basically her only famous role. BilboBeggins (talk) 05:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And yet, just like Fisher, we see an influx of fans saying "he was famous!!", "he was Darth Vader!" and wanting a blurb for that reason. People are not given a blurb for being famous or versatile or productive. I see nothing in the article that suggests he was transformative. So we're back to the fanboy cries of "blurb because he was in Star Wars!!" line of voting. - SchroCat (talk) 07:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The main argument for him being indeed transformative is that he got a theatre named after him during his lifetime. Getting something named after a politician or actor while they are alive is rare. BilboBeggins (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thats absolutely no indication of a transformative aspect of his career. Having something named after him isn’t an indication of suitability for a blurb. - SchroCat (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, just small fry? But, looking ahead... Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How was he transformative ? He's a relatively obscure figure outside the US. The world doesn't limit itself to the US Varoon2542 (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb once the issues are fixed. I'm not a Star Wars fan, but he was Darth Vader, dammit. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Funny, I don’t remember any calls for David Prowse to have a blurb, although he was Darth Vader, dammit. - SchroCat (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Blurb He is a Black historymaker and one of the most distinguished voices to ever grace the screen and stage. He is an EGOT winner. There is a theatre named after him. He played many more characters beyond his most iconic roles. Rest in peace. -TenorTwelve (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A black history maker ?

  He's a relatively obscure figure outside the US. Even the voice acting he did was dubbed in local languages Varoon2542 (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Re: the inevitable discussion over whether Star Wars actors should be blurbed , I think the following living or recently deceased are blurbable: George Lucas, James Earl Jones, and Samuel L Jackson. Harrison Ford is debatable/possible, but not as certain. Possibly Warwick Davis for representation for people with Dwarfism. Not as much for other folks (though some are debatable). The standard I would set for blurbing Star Wars actors is 1. Are they a history-maker? 2. How much have they contributed to the acting/directing field outside of Star Wars, such as other franchises or major films. James Earl Jones fits both of these. This should be an easy decision to blurb. -TenorTwelve (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm surprised that you put Harrison Ford as "debatable/possible", but are certain about Samuel L. Jackson. Ford not only was Han Solo but was the lead roles in the Indiana Jones and Blade Runner series, not to mention starring in The Fugitive and Air Force One. Nonetheless, support blurb when ready. Natg 19 (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is zero reason to make any assumption that people that have starred in Star Wars should automatically be consdiered for blurbs. That's not a criteria at all. Having starred in Star Wars may have launched major careers (like Ford or Hamill), or may have cemented their place as an actor, but it is absolutely wrong to claim being in Star Wars is important enough. We're not TV Tropes or a pop culture musuem, we are an encyclopedia. — Masem (t) 02:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb - I may be a bit biased as a Star Was fan, but Jones had one of the most recognizable voices in cinematic history. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb There’s no legacy section that explains why he was transformative in his field (Ismail Kadare’s dismissal earlier this year raised the bar for a blurb).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  James Earl Jones § Death and legacy —Bagumba (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose blurb old man dies. Death not notable as an event. This is what the RD line is for, people This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not true. The death of major figures may merit a blurb per WP:ITNRDBLURB. Whether Jones is a "major figure" or not is debatable, but there is no blanket prohibition against death blurbs for "old people dying". Natg 19 (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb when the article is ready. Not many people are recognized all over the world by their voice alone, this makes him unique. Cart (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• RD only. Very notable actor, but not on par with a world leader. 31.44.224.222 (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb once any remaining article issues are cleaned up. Highly notable and recognizable, winner of multiple major awards across stage and screen; not just known for his unique deep voice. Funcrunch (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb, best EGOT. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb — Not significant enough. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb After cleanup. Promethean (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Blurbing support. Worldwide household name. Who doesn't know Darth Vader??? Kasperquickly (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article is of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @MtPenguinMonster: Is this a "support RD only" or a "support blurb"? Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 05:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support RD, neutral on blurb. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 06:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb per above. Very well-known roles, EGOT, household name and recognizable voice, etc. Davey2116 (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, Oppose blurb because he's notable in cinema, but not worldwide. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, Oppose blurb per WP:OLDMANDIES. Jones was not superstar level in the US and is barely known outside of the US. —  AjaxSmack  01:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Blurb I'm a bit surprised his notability is even being debated. Even discounting his roles as Darth Vader and Mufasa, the guy had a whole slew of other roles such that it was separated into its own list article. — Gestrid (talk) 01:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not in question. But he is a great figure, that's the debate. We normally do not consider aspects like fame or popularity in posting blurbs, since that is favoritism towards Western and English topics, though if that fame/popularity can be demonstrated as being part of a great figure, great. — Masem (t) 01:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Noone has ever heard of him outside the US. Yet again, americans surprised that there's a world outside the US Varoon2542 (talk) 12:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Blurb, since I would argue that his notability alone, given his various prominent, world-known roles (i.e. Darth Vader, Mufasa, etc.), would merit a blurb. The referencing issue seems to have been sorted out as well given the voters' shift from issues of referencing to issues of notability. PootisHeavy (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourcing is better than when I posted the nomination but it is still missing citations and has CN tags throughout. Its not yet ready for an RD posting, much less a blurb. — Masem (t) 02:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb, Has starred in prominent films notably Coming to America that has been a Box Office seller including voice overs in The Lion King, documentaries and Darth Vader in Star Wars.Kampolama(talk) 04:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• EGOT club member, easy choice for blurb (w/ usual conditional re article quality). WP:ITN: 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. "Front page" of CNN NYT NBC News BBC, at quick glance. --Slowking Man (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb. He is well-known outside the US and not only within it, and should be an obvious case of WP:ITNRDBLURB as a major figure (definitely not another WP:OLDMANDIES as claimed above), there are few people who wouldn't recognise his voice or characters; only 2 cn tags remaining which will likely be resolved and should not be barrier to posting. Happily888 (talk) 03:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  He's a relatively obscure figure outside the US. Even his voice acting was dubbed Varoon2542 (talk) 12:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Quite Ready A handful of CN tags. Support Blurb once up to scratch. 1 Acadamy Award, 3 Emmys, a Golden Globe, a Grammy, a SAG, and 3 Tonys plus a plethora of second tier awards. That is more than enough for a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not a serving head of state/government. Manner of death not notable. ITN items should be events in their own right This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Blurb a very widely known actor/performer even in the counties outside of the anglosphere. One of only 27 people to ever EGOT, that makes quite notable. However, there are some cn tags that needs to be resolved before posting this. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 04:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Appears that the quality issues have been addressed in terms of citation tags/unsourced statements. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb: One of the most iconic actors. Connor Behan (talk) 05:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Marking as Ready. Natg 19 (talk) 05:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for RD. Not totally convinced by the WP:ITNRDBLURB case -- his life was clearly the main story here, and while Darth Vader is universally known, I'd need more convincing that his voice actor qualifies as such a major figure. I would certainly struggle to list JEJ as (for example) one of the greatest actors of all time/the twentieth century or so on, despite being a much beloved figure. Edit: to make it formal, I would oppose blurb.UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Blurb. Per most of the above. Legendary actor with dozens of award received and as the voice actor for Darth Vader. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 06:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Blurb I think he was a high-profile actor with a commanding presence. I don’t think he was a transformative force in acting. The article does not show that he was. I think a lot of people are mentioning that he played Darth Vader, or that he had lots of film roles, but not explaining how that makes his death blurb material. I have to wonder what this discussion would look like without the Star Wars factor - Star Wars is a phenomenon bound to appeal to Wikipedians. There are a lot of top-level theatre actors who have played high profile roles in films - are we going to blurb all of them? humbledaisy 07:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)~[reply]

  Per the article, Jones has been recognised as an early pioneer in African Americans in stage and television, with his career spanning back to the prejudiced years of 1965. This take does speak to notability outside of his various roles and I don't think could be said for many actors. Promethean (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb per above. A popular actor with EGOT. LiamKorda 09:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • all EGOT winners are popular in some sense. What is it that makes James Earl Jones transformative and more deserving of a blurb than most popular actors? Humbledaisy (talk) 09:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm asking what the rationale is. What is it that lifts James Earl Jones above the likes of Kirk Douglas, another American actor who had a long career with various awards and died at a very advanced age, or Michael Gambon, another veteran who was not a consistent leading man but is world-famous for playing a central character in a genre film franchise? I haven't seen anyone make a case - people are treating this as if it's a dead cert. Humbledaisy (talk) 11:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Blurb. Not transformative. (Also not well known in UK apart from Star Wars). Martinevans123 (talk) 09:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb His article got over a million readers yesterday and that's a fairly reliable rule of thumb for whether someone has sufficient fame to get a blurb. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that, on day 2, the readership of his article has gone up and is still over a million. This will not be because of the RD posting, which will have barely made the needle twitch. It's more likely due to the impact of tributes and follow-ups across the global media which tend to follow the death of a major figure. You don't usually see this pattern for ordinary deaths which typically have an initial spike and then a steep decline.

And note that these numbers are huge compared to everything else on Wikipedia. If you look at the top read articles, then Jones is way out in front with 1.35 million while the #2 is Cecilia Hart with just 197K. And why is she #2? That's because she was Jones' wife! You have to go to #3 to find a different topic and that just got 166K views.

Andrew🐉(talk) 07:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• RD posted Blurb discussion can continue.—Bagumba (talk) 11:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb Decent actor? Yes. Transformative? No. I really don't like to criticise other editor's reasoning, but let's be clear here - Kirk Douglas didn't get a blurb because "old man dies". Is Jones on a higher level? I really don't want to mention the Carrie Fisher effect here, but - oops, sorry. But really, how many non-Star Wars fans outside the US would even know who he was? Black Kite (talk) 12:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd agree, except for the fact that his career stems back to 1965 and, per the article, he's been recognised as a pioneer for African Americans in stage and film. Promethean (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  He lived a long life and continued to work into his dotage. I don't think that's all that unusual when it comes to notable film actors. There are hundreds of notable screen stars working right now whose careers span 50+ years. Donald Sutherland's career stretched back to the 1960s too but it didn't make him blurb-worthy. James Earl Jones' screen career did start during the civil rights era in the United States, but I don't think it's enough. In contrast to Sidney Poitier (whose death we blurbed), he was not a notable star at that time, he wasn't closely associated with activism and he isn't known for any major firsts as an African-American actor. Humbledaisy (talk) 12:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  He was a second Black actor go get nominated for Oscar. BilboBeggins (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well yes, that's my point exactly - not a first. Humbledaisy (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The changes do not happen immediately, he can be regarded as first Black actor to have achieved that much success on stage. And he was active at the same time as Poitier, so they both contributed. BilboBeggins (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Loads of actors have careers of many decades, I'm not seeing that as something blurb-worthy. And "being a pioneer for African Americans" is sourced to an obituary. I'd be far more likely to take that seriously if I could see RS saying that from when he was still alive. Black Kite (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In a 1998 interview, [Denzel] Washington said, “There weren’t a lot of serious Black actors for us to emulate, to follow, to admire. There was Sidney [Poitier]; it was James Earl Jones on stage. That’s what I remember.”[5]

  Washington said this in 1998, long before 2024. BilboBeggins (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Alain Delon didn't even get an RD. This is just american cultural imperialism Varoon2542 (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The thing is that, Star Wars is worlwide phenomenon, and the set of Non-Star Wars fans is not large, even outside of US. And the set of people who don't know about Star Wars is even smaller. There will be few people who don't know who Dart Vader is. BilboBeggins (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  He was dubbed. Most of us haven't heard his voice and you're over estimating Star Wars' notability outside the West Varoon2542 (talk) 12:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb EGOT recipient is a very rare achievement and signifies the pinnacle of the entertainment industry. In addition, the subject is known for portraying several iconic characters that are universally known worldwide. Blurb is warranted.
  RachelTensions (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It represents the pinnacle of the *American* entertainment industry and that alone. Humbledaisy (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• A little late to the party here, but support blurb - the man was/is a household name with several worldwide famous roles and characters under his belt. He's extremely well known not only in the acting scene, but in popular culture overall. Rest in peace. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk | contribs) 13:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can assure you that Jones was definitely not a household name, at least outside the USA. Black Kite (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think what User:Masem said earlier applies here; "We're not TV Tropes or a pop culture musuem, we are an encyclopedia". JEJ was the voice of a very well-known character in popular culture. He wasn't a transformative figure in acting and he wasn't among the best-known and most globally significant actors of his generation. Humbledaisy (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not a household name. He was dubbed Varoon2542 (talk) 12:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb he wasn't Olivier. Sheila1988 (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  He was a Shakespearean actor and won an award for playing Othello, just like Olivier. What's the difference? Andrew🐉(talk) 17:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Olivier was white? (until be blacked up, of course)... Martinevans123 (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Alain Delon didn't get an RD, most indian celebrities don't either. You are playing the race card when it's just an nth example of american cultural imperialism Varoon2542 (talk) 12:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What a trite question. Olivier was one of three who dominated British stage acting in the C20th, before moving into theatre management by setting up and running the National Theatre. That’s transformation and a good reason for a blurb, not just for being famous because he voiced Darth Vader. - SchroCat (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb. RD is more than enough here we go again. He was a very popular actor, but not transformative, he did not mark a milestone in the history of American entertainment. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the New York Times. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What does "transformative" mean? Who is an example of a "transformative" actor, or someone who marked a milestone? Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Laurence Olivier mentioned in the comment just above. —  AjaxSmack  19:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Besides the fact that we aren't supposed to be doing x vs y arguments for death blurbs, why exactly was Olivier so much more important than Jones? DarkSide830 (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, see the comments above about one being transformative and the other not. - SchroCat (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You seem to have explained why Olivier was noteworthy enough, but reducing Jones's impact to one acting credit seems to almost completely diminish his larger body of work. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have done nothing of the sort. A number of people voting for a blurb have done exactly that, ironically enough. - SchroCat (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's...exactly what you said in response to the previous vote. You said Jones was notable explicitly just because he voiced Vader. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ”You said Jones was notable explicitly just because he voiced Vader”: that’s just not true. JEJ was a notable actor because of his entire career (that’s just obvious); it’s an outright lie to say I have only said he was notable because he played Vader. - SchroCat (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1 Acadamy Award, 3 Emmys, a Golden Globe, a Grammy, a SAG, and 3 Tonys plus a plethora of second tier awards. I'd say he was in the same league as Olivier. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Then you don’t understand what Olivier’s impact was. Aside from dominating the British stage for much of the twentieth century, he was a formidable producer and director. He worked to set up the National Theatre and then ran in, and completely changed theatre in the UK. That’s what a transformative figure does. I see nothing in JEJ’s article that suggests he was transformative. - SchroCat (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Blurb. Titan in his field, long career with an EGOT to boot. You want transformative? How about the fame he got from one of the most famous VA roles ever as Vader? Probably one of the first to achieve that level of fame in an off-screen acting role. Seems pretty slam-dunk to me. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose blurb Very famous for his voice acting roles of Mufasa and Darth Vader but was not transformative in his field.

  Noah, BSBA^Talk 22:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Blurb Anyone with an EGOT merits serious consideration. Even if his "O" in the EGOT was noncompetitive, the fact that he voiced Darth Vader and had notable roles in critically acclaimed films such as Field of Dreams, The Lion King and Cry, the Beloved Country puts him over the top for me. --Pats2017 (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning support blurb. I just wanted to comment that I don't think WP:OLDMANDIES is applicable here. While the subject was indeed "old", he was not long-retired and out of the spotlight. He appeared in both live-action and voice roles in the 2020s, and his voice continues to be used by an agreement reached before his death. I also do think that his success as an American black actor beginning in the 1960s is inherently more transformative than that of non-minority actors in the same time period. BD2412 T 03:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb - This is not about his two widely-known voice acting roles. This is about a long and distinguished career on stage and screen, his role as a trailblazer for African-American actors (qv Denzel quote above), and his overall stature in the field. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb not even close to being in the same league as Alain Delon, whom we did not post. So no, definitely not blurb worthy. 2A02:8071:6362:54A0:E829:76AA:FD43:F219 (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Main reason why Alain Delon was not blurbed was due to the article quality being bad/not in good enough shape for posting to be fair. Jones's article is in better quality. Also not a fan of "x didn't get blurbed so neither should y" rationale. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There was consensus leaning to not blurbing Delon back then and there is consensus leaning to blurbing James Earl Jones now.

  It's not that I agreed with the arguments for not blurbing Delon, because there was evidence of him being transformative in the article, but the discussion on that ended and the main problem was that it couldn't even be posted to RD. BilboBeggins (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, if this is going to end up being blurbed and we are going to make the Carrie Fisher mistake a second time, does anyone want to explain the rationale? Most of the votes here are just "he was Darth Vader, duh!" or "He was very famous" and those strike me as very weak arguments. I've seen very little genuine rationale for a blurb in this discussion aside from the Denzel Washington quote. That doesn't seem enough - it could be said of several other actors, more strongly Sidney Poitier who we previously blurbed - and, as I mentioned before, JEJ was not a notable star during the Civil Rights era, he wasn't closely associated with civil rights or activism and he isn't known for any major firsts as an African-American actor. Humbledaisy (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There's a similar Denzel quote already in the article. Not sure which is the more notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The mistake will be not to blurb him.

  Could you give rationale why Poitier was bigger than Janes Earl Jone? In last twenty years of his life Poitier was not active except for occasional Oscar ceremony appearances. And before that his only significant, or blockbuster role in another twenty years or so was being third-billed role in Jackal.

  One of the rationale was that he got theatre named during his lifetime. BilboBeggins (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  “If you were an actor or aspired to be an actor, if you pounded the payment in these streets looks for jobs, one of the standards we always had was to be a James Earl Jones," — this is from no other than Samuel L. Jackson.

  “The first play that I saw was ‘Fences,’” said Tony-winning director Kenny Leon of Jones’ performance in Wilson’s seminal American play. “I was a country boy from Tallahassee, Florida, came here as a National Endowment for the Arts fellow, and I saw ‘Fences.’ It changed the directory of my professional life.”

  "Of the theater luminaries in attendance, including Brian Stokes Mitchell, LaChanze, Norm Lewis and playwright Suzan-Lori Parks, many reflected on Jones’ indelible influence on their careers" — from Variety on opening of the theatre [6]. BilboBeggins (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• After bringing this up with Tone, who previously closed it, I'm BOLDly re-opening this nom. Just believe it was closed a tad early and do believe we may have been close to consensus with a little more debate. [Admins, feel free to smite me for doing this as an involved editor, but I really believe more dicsussion is worthwhile. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-reopening support + blurb Globally known voice. Obviously, we would prefer not to be in touch with the rest of the world, but we can't always get it our own navel-gazing way. SerialNumber54129 16:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb: Any EGOT-winning actor who has married two women who played Desdemona to his Othello deserves a blurb. This could be an ITN/R rule. :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 17:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb His roles in Star Wars, Field of Dreams & The Lion King, his awards & what’s written in the “Death and legacy” section make me think he merits a blurb. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb His voice is recognisable in the English speaking world but he was dubbed in local languages albeit in his style. Otherwise, his name and identity are relatively obscur. This is not a fan page— Preceding unsigned comment added by Varoon2542 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• First of all, I'm happy to see this discussion was reopened. I think it was a very poor decision to close it.

Going through the discussion, I see many reasons to blurb, including:

1) Major/iconic figure in the field. 2) EGOT recipient (even though one of his awards was noncompetitive, such recipients are still generally recognized as having an EGOT). 3) Pioneer for the Black community in acting. 4) Death is making international headlines. 5) Internationally recognizable voice 6) He was Darth Vader

I don't see the last two arguments as valid; they hinge on one or two roles (Vader & CNN bumper voice) so I'm discounting their weight

Reasons opposed to blurbing:

1) Not significant/transformative enough 2) Poitier was an earlier pioneer--I can see a case for these. 3) He's not worldwide--somewhat of a stretch considering the reach of the Star Wars franchise & CNN but I'll concede it. 4) Not on par with a world leader 5) We're an encyclopedia, not The New York Times 6) We're not a fan page These are weak rationales. We've always blurbed the occasional entertainer, all encyclopedias include articles on cultural/entertainment figures, and despite what some people seem to think we've never limited death blurbs to world leaders. 7) He's only known for Vader. Not true, he won many awards for other roles. 8) If we didn't blurb X, then we shouldn't blurb James Earl Jones. Not necessarily true. We've made poor decisions not to blurb someone in the past; doesn't mean we should repeat the mistake.

Either way, whether counting all !votes (by my count 36-18 in favor of blurbing) or just the votes that are more compelling arguments (33-10 for a blurb), there's a supermajority of at least 2-1 to blurb James Earl Jones. While I know there's no "hard number" for making a determination, this certainly seems to me like a consensus to blurb. --Pats2017 (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A few opposers seem to have argued contrary to WP:ITNRDBLURB's we didn't post Bill Jones, so we cannot post Susie Johnson examples to avoid.—Bagumba (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Also a few !votes counter to WP:ITNCDONT's Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country ...—Bagumba (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb. Clearly a massively significant and well-known figure. Whether we like it or not, this subject is many times more 'in the news' than an attempted jailbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb: Stale. Happened five days ago; has already had its run on the RD ticker. Moscow Mule (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The oldest current blurb is older. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but in terms of RDs, this is now clearly stale and now making it a blurb would be stretching the point of the ITN box. Outside of a few articles talking about his voice and AI within Star Wars, I'm not seeing any more recent articles related strictly to his death more than two days old. Masem (t) 17:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not stale, but people are determined to Carrie Fisher it into a blurb. There does seem to be a massive over-inflation of his influence, for an actor who was not well-known (apart from being DV's voice) outside the US. But that's demographics for you. Black Kite (talk) 17:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course, every 4th of July for the past decade or so, you could watch him on DN! reading Frederick Douglass ... -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Incorrect. Per WP:ITN:

  Any event that is older than the oldest entry in the current "In the News" box is considered stale.

  The last blurb is currently from 31 August, while Jones died on 9 Sept. —Bagumba (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think the author had RDs already posted for four days in mind there. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But this denotes a 4-gone conclusion: Tis a shrewd doubt, though it be a dream. (Othello 3:3) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 17:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Nerds, birds and Shakespeare were meant to be misunderstood. But as some relatively modern bard helpfully clarified, Recent Deaths are considered separate from standard blurbs for this purpose. "This purpose" being that one (forsooth). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  'Tis what thou Forefathers wrote. —Bagumba (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]