Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Discussion over
Line 413: Line 413:
:::::I agree, it's always mildly amusing that people think by telling us they've never heard of iconic individuals somehow ''strengthens'' their argument where all it does is undermine their commentary as being an exemplar of pure ignorance. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] <small>([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;]])</small> 22:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
:::::I agree, it's always mildly amusing that people think by telling us they've never heard of iconic individuals somehow ''strengthens'' their argument where all it does is undermine their commentary as being an exemplar of pure ignorance. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] <small>([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;]])</small> 22:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
{{abot}}
{{abot}}
:I maintain what I said before- if she were American, she'd have been on the front page 24 hours ago. Clear bias. [[User:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b>]][[User talk:Joseph2302|<b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b>]] ([[User talk:Joseph2302|talk)]] 00:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
::<small>Just like Little Richard? - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 06:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)</small>


== June 17 ==
== June 17 ==

Revision as of 07:08, 20 June 2020

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.

Daron Acemoglu in 2016
Daron Acemoglu

view — page history — related changes — edit

Glossary

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

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...

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...

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

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

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

Archives

June 20

June 20, 2020 (2020-06-20) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Closed) Trump rally

No way. Stephen 03:54, 20 June 2020 (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.

Articles: List of post-election Donald Trump rallies (talk · history · tag) and Tulsa (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Donald Trump holds a rally in Tulsa during the COVID-19 Pandemic (Post)
News source(s): [1] [2]
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Trump's first rally since start of the Covid-19 pandemic. Its controversial -- may be it is something worth noting? P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 02:09, 20 June 2020 (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.

June 19

June 19, 2020 (2020-06-19) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

RD: Vic Gilliam

Article: Vic Gilliam (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [3]
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 member of the Oregon House of Representatives and actor that died from ALS. Jon698 (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Nicolas Joel

Article: Nicolas Joel (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.francemusique.fr/actualite-musicale/disparition-de-nicolas-joel-ancien-directeurs-des-operas-de-paris-et-toulouse-85098
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: Just had to change tense and add two sources for his death, sad and easy. Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Sachy

Article: Sachy (writer) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/malayalam/movies/news/director-scriptwriter-sachy-passes-away/articleshow/76450915.cms
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: I came across it trending on Twitter news JHunterJ (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Facebook acquires Mapillary

Consensus will not emerge to post this. Black Kite (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2020 (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: Mapillary (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Facebook buys crowdsouced mapping company Mapillary. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, U.S. News
Credits:

Article updated
 EugεnS¡m¡on 13:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Source makes it seem like routine business news, and though I am not big on tech, the Wikipedia article about Mapillary makes little noise about how big and important this company is supposed to be. There's not even a price mentioned in the source. It's worth noting that the update on this is one short sentence, while there's a whole article on the Acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney, a huge and complex horizontal merger that would meet In The News notability. Wallachia Wallonia (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nowhere close to scale of something like Disney/Fox. For tech nerds, we know this is Facebook trying to complete with Google but that's not ITN level. --Masem (t) 14:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not interesting, and not mentioned in either article either, which would be a basic requirement for even considering it. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment routine sports, routine elections, routine awards shows ... almost everything we post is routine and banal. Working in private industry is how a great many people earn a living so dismissing business news automatically is a bit silly. Weak oppose for now because the Mapillary is pretty thin and there is only a one sentence update about the acquisition. Flesh it out and I'll see about supporting. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Routine" awards shows recognize achievement in a field. "Routine" elections are about choosing a government or head of state. This is just a routine business transaction. 331dot (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. 'Large company buys small startup for undisclosed amount' is uninspiring. Facebook has bought lots of other companies over the years; nothing in the article or the news sources makes me think this one is particularly significant. This transaction is getting no coverage outside the specialist business pages and many of those stories are regurgitated press releases (e.g. the US News link above is largely a copy-paste of the Reuters story). Modest Genius talk 15:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose posting a routine business transaction that does not set any sort of record(like value of the acquisition). 331dot (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Ian Holm

Article: Ian Holm (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): 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: Needs refs; BAFTA and Tony-winning actor Kingsif (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I've filled out most of the filmography using the BFI citation, there's a lot of work not on there (which is fine for now), and definitely enough films/tv shows/awards nominations to create a separate filmography article if someone is so inclined. PotentPotables (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know most of our celeb bios are in poor shape but I am really saddened by how badly Holm's is here. I don't know why actor articles get passes like this on BLP that would not fly for many politicians and just speaks of a need to stress better sourcing for them across the board. --Masem (t) 14:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this was an EC that I pasted back into the wrong section. Fixed now. --Masem (t) 14:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Carlos Ruiz Zafón

Article: Carlos Ruiz Zafón (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): (The Guardian)
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: Great Spanish novelist and the most read, worldwide appreciated. Death with relevant coverage in the news. Article needs improving. Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 18

June 18, 2020 (2020-06-18) (Thursday)
Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

(Posted) RD: Jules Sedney

Article: Jules Sedney (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): De Ware Tijd from Suriname
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: Sedney was the last surviving prime minister of Suriname from when it was a constituent country of the Netherlands (Dutch Guiana). He started initial independence negotiations, and served as head of the Central Bank of Suriname after independence. Joofjoof (talk) 11:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm not opposed to it, but the article just went from a couple of lines to a minimum article and requires some serious copy editing, and I'm not really the best person for that job. I'm not against the idea though. KittenKlub (talk) 11:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Let's nominate a pragmatic politician.KittenKlub (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) UN Security Council Elections

Article: 2020 United Nations Security Council election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Kenya, India, Mexico, Ireland, and Norway are elected to the United Nations Security Council as non-permanent members. (Post)
News source(s): BBC NYT Reuters
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: This is ITNR, and I have expanded the article to beyond the typical length for these articles. Though I have yet to write prose for the African Group results, I plan to do that later today unless somebody else wants to do it first. Though ITNR suggests that these are sometimes posted when the new terms begin on January 1 (even though that is less newsworthy) because it is during a slow news period, we are in a slow news period right now due to COVID-19 so I see no reason not to post the actual election results. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 09:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it is clear from ITNR. Here is the exact wording: "In previous years, the item has been added to ITN when the new members take their seats (1 January) rather than when the results were announced (during October). This is because the elections are not usually heavily competitive, and 1 January is in the middle of a very slow news period every year." This year there were multiple heavily competitive elections and a slow news period when the results were announced. Additionally, that note seems to be referring to a usual practice rather than a consensus-based policy. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 10:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Not all that competitive, as there were only seven candidates for five spaces. Nevertheless the article is in decent shape, much better than previous years. It would be nice to get some prose into the 'day 2' section, but that's not required. I wrote that footnote on ITNR, which was intended as a guide to convention, not a hard and fast rule. We're in the middle of a slow news period right now, without having to wait until January, so I think it's fine to post early as a one-off. Modest Genius talk 11:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for supporting, though I’d maintain that two close races with hard-fought campaigns, including one that went to a second round of voting, is “heavily competitive” by Security Council standards. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 16:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vaalserberg is a very tall mountain by Netherlands standards. Modest Genius talk 17:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Kirk R. Smith

Article: Kirk R. Smith (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): UC Berkeley
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: Died on June 15, but only reported on June 18. Shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his work on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. Bloom6132 (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Ready) RD: Astrid Gjertsen

Article: Astrid Gjertsen (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [4] and [5]
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 member of the Norwegian Parliament and Minister of Consumer Affairs and Administration. She resigned in 1986 due to fraudulent taxi receipts. Jon698 (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jean Kennedy Smith

Article: Jean Kennedy Smith (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American diplomat, U.S. ambassador to Ireland (1993–98), and last surviving sibling of John F. Kennedy, dies at age 92. Davey2116 (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted to RD, blurb discussion closed): Vera Lynn

All the usual suspects and the unusual tourists have weighed in and we are no closer to reaching a consensus. Let's move on. (non-admin) --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:35, 20 June 2020 (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: Vera Lynn (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  British singer and entertainer Vera Lynn (pictured) dies at the age of 103. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Iconic wartime entertainer and life-long military fundraiser Vera Lynn (pictured) dies at the age of 103, a month after her 1939 single "We'll Meet Again" hit the charts again.
Alternative blurb II: ​ British World War II and life-long singer Vera Lynn (pictured) dies at the age of 103.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Couple of citations needed, but apart from that, looks good to go Joseph2302 (talk) 08:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If their name is Margaret Thatcher or Nelson Mandela, they get posted as a blurb to ITN. Simple.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 14:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, Lynn got 500,000 page views yesterday. A few short of Nkurunziza's total. Then again, one day in May this year, Lynn had 100,000, so we can't compare. Kingsif (talk) 07:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite clear what the test is. It's when there's substantial coverage of the death itself, not just standard obituaries of their life, so much so that we can have a Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher article and a Death of Nelson Mandela article.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or a Death of Carrie Fisher ... no, wait. Black Kite (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which is precisely why that one was so controversial at the time and is generally regarded as a mistake now.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or rather, it shows that the "Thatcher/Mandela test" imposes far too high a bar on the coverage of the death. Under that test, the deaths of Prince and Stephen Hawking wouldn't have been posted because there's no Death of Prince or Death of Stephen Hawking article; but the coverage of those deaths, while not enough to merit separate articles, was very much on par with the non-death blurbs we normally post. That's why I think the test proposed by Andrew above is good, i.e., does the death blurb exceed the blurb it displaces. Davey2116 (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not saying there has to be a separate article, just that if the level of coverage and reaction to the death means there plausibly could be one, that’s a good indicator of the standard. P-K3 (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My reason for supporting a blurb here in Wikipedia terms is that Aretha Franklin had a blurb, and Vera Lynn easily matches her stature and success to meet the blurb criteria of industry impact. If you also consider 'wartime entertainment' as an industry or at least a field of work, Vera Lynn is undeniably the very apex of such and is still the standard for comparison to other singers in the field, like Katherine Jenkins. (In less policy-based reasoning, at least in the UK, the news has overtaken both the COVID-19 news and the 80th anniversary of the Appeal of 18 June, with Lynn's songs basically the only music played on the radio all day, and it seems obvious because it's Vera Lynn). Kingsif (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The death of Pierre Nkurunziza does not reference the Thatcher/Mandela test because the reason it was posted was that it was a change in a country's head of state. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the death of a sitting head of state was blurb-worthy as default? Kingsif (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not codified, but it's a defacto standard. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD only – Elderly singer dies of old age at 103. Historically compelling but, sorry, but I'm having trouble seeing this as widely significant after so many years. – Sca (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb (when sourced). There is no such thing as the Thatcher/Mandela test, we have posted a number of less iconic figures over the years, and Vera Lynn is iconic. Black Kite (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb as very much in the news. She at least deserves to be on RD. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • IAR support blurb if and when the sourcing issues are resolved. Under normal circumstances I'd oppose "elderly person dies of old age" in every case other than current heads of state (and yes, I'd have opposed both Thatcher and Mandela), but this is a unique case; Vera Lynn was the last person still alive who played a significant part in the Second World War, and as such is getting greatly disproportionate news coverage; at the time of writing she's the lead story on literally every UK news site (she's even the top non-financial story on the Financial Times website), and is above-the-fold on all the Aussie and Canadian news sites I've checked. (She's even on the front page—albeit not the top story—on the Irish Times website, and Ireland didn't even participate in the war.) ‑ Iridescent 15:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If a blurb is posted her role in the war should be mentioned, “singer and entertainer dies” isn’t much more information than an RD entry and doesn’t really convey the significance. If the news coverage is disproportionate, that’s a good sign a blurb may appropriate. P-K3 (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD and blurb if the discography refs get sorted JW 1961 Talk 15:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality, oppose blurb. - Indefensible (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our article does a poor job of explaining why we expect this person to be one of the five or six most significant people to die this year. The proposed blurb doesn't even try to. —Cryptic 16:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added an altblurb proposal with a bit more impact. It may be unusual to mention the fact about the single, but I don't think an artist has ever had a single re-release over 80 years after the original and hit the charts, still in the artist's lifetime. It's also a testament to her enduring popularity and success over that time, and still in her lifetime. (edit conflict) Kingsif (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now on article quality. Once referencing issues are resolved Support RD / Oppose blurb. We have turned down more significant entertainment figures for blurbs because they weren't Nelson Mandela or Margaret Thatcher (a ridiculous standard, but there we are). -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and discography should all be referenced. Kingsif (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb once up to standard. Definitely top of her profession in her time, and still making the news even last month. As others have said above, the Mandela/Thatcher test is meaningless. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 17:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb- never heard of her & not a world-transforming leader. Guy in the Mall (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb A major Second World War cultural icon who beat out the likes Bing Crosby to be the most beloved entertainer during the war. A British icon . The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb If taking the most recent Little Richard death as precedent, I don't think Vera Lynn is notable enough. Aretha made it, but more recently Little Richard didn't make it. Awsomaw (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted to RD as sourcing has been addressed. Blurb discussion should continue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb- the meaning of the “Thatcher/Mandela” standard continues to escape me as those are two individuals of drastically different importance relative to one another, but if Little Richard doesn’t qualify for a blurb then a fortiori Vera Lynn doesn’t either. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 18:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb The notion of a "Thatcher/Mandela" standard has been misconstrued here, I think, into some level of "supernotability" that doesn't really exist. As I have interpreted it, it's about the magnitude of response following the death. When Thatcher and Mandela died, there was MASSIVE response. Other deaths that have had major outpourings from society in one way or another include Prince, Bowie, and Carrie Fisher. It's not that the person who died is somehow more important than other notable people who died, but it's about the coverage. What I see for Vera Lynn right now is every publication has their own obit article for her, which are mostly the same thing just written by different people. But what is there beyond the obits? For the five deaths I've mentioned here (and a number of others that are escaping me at the moment), there was lots and lots of coverage. With Lynn, all I'm seeing beyond the obits is this one piece which is more about "We'll Meet Again" has taken on a life of its own. That to me is not a deep enough celebration or examination of Lynn's life to merit a blurb. That's how I'd codify this "standard". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Muboshgu: They literally stopped reporting on COVID-19 in the UK, and barely bothered showing Emmanuel Macron visiting London for the 80th anniversary of a turning point for France in WW2 (somewhat ironically given Lynn's own support for it). The overwhelming majority of songs on the radio were Lynn's, and she got two new reflective specials on TV the same day. The government briefing opened with a tribute, and replays of the recent Queen's Speech that referenced her abounded. Apparently, similar responses in Australia and Canada happened. In short, I think you're somehow just not seeing the lots and lots of coverage that is out there. Kingsif (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are currently six articles on the BBC website. There are even four in The Guardian. I daren't look at the tabloids. Black Kite (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Daily Mail's front cover is "Queen 'very, very sad' over Dame Vera Lynn's death: Her Majesty sends 'deepest condolences'", and I'm surprised there's not a mention of the war. Kingsif (talk) 06:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb; I don't see how she has the same global significance as most figures who get blurbs when they die of old age. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If users aren't seeing Lynn's global importance (I'm not going to be snarky about the world war thing), what about a blurb like "Iconic wartime entertainer and life-long military fundraiser Vera Lynn (pictured), the oldest person to have a charting album and single, dies at the age of 103." Guinness WR? Or the fact she was the first artist not from the US to have a #1 in the US? (In-depth tribute/career article in The Guardian) Kingsif (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb clearly someone super-notable as an entertainer whose death has been publicly mourned by the Queen, our future King, the Prime Minister, the leader of the Opposition, Sir Paul, Sir Cliff etc etc etc. I despise "long career = super notable" claims, but this is different, and the tributes are testimony to that. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb It seems the supports here are all going the IAR route, which is fine if there is consensus. She rather clearly does not meet the standards we have set. I'm seeing a strong parallel to Bob Hope. Hope was also a beloved "national treasure" sort, commanding national prime-time audiences across six decades. But he was certainly not a "transformative world leader" in his field, nor was Lynn in hers. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Good one. Bob Hope died about 18 years before we had RD. If he was nominated now, I imagine it would be blurb all the way to the bank. It's like pretending that if Larry King died, no-one would try to blurb it. Try again! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Larry King is no Nelson Mandela ... I'd oppose, even if it were pointless. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    True. I'm not sure why Larry King should have a blurb in particular. No doubt he will get one, because of reasons, but if we are to uphold the principle of blurbs for old-age deaths being very rare, then he shouldn't really get one any more than Kirk Douglas or Vera Lynn. His reach hasn't been international - I've heard of him myself, from across the pond, but don't know really anything more than that he was a talk-show host.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment thank goodness for RD. Do you remember when this was the kind of debate that happened for every single death of a person with a Wikipedia article? Wow. No applause required of course....! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb per comments by Kingsif, The Rambling Man, and Voice of Clam and others. Comparable in stature to several of the musicians posted as blurbs. --Inops (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know her through WWII, of course, just through Pink Floyd. But in a very balanced discussion like this, let's defer to the judgement of the majority of UK editors the way they occasionally defer to US editors about US icons. I trust them that this is a very big deal. Plus, we need a new picture, plus the oldest blurb is more than 10 days old. If nothing else, young editors might see it's a blurb, click, and learn something about a fast-disappearing generation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb per the unusual level of coverage highlighted by Iridescent and Kingsif. If the Prime Minister is leading the tributes, that’s a good sign it’s above the normal RD levels. I prefer the altblurb which explains her significance. P-K3 (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blurb comment if we are going with a blurb, the current altblurb is far too long + detailed for a RD. I have provided alt2 to try to capture her relevance to WWII which is what I glean as her key importance in what we can say in as few words as possible. --Masem (t) 22:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment IAR blurbing makes it essentially a number's game. US wins out for now, which isn't that big a deal since the rest of the world will have heard to some degree of whatever is huge in the US or the UK. I wonder how Europe/America will feel about it once South Asia gains the numbers to ensure everything Bollywood gets to the main page. On the other hand, if prime minister's tribute is going to be the standard, that would be almost all notable deaths in Nepal, and there are 100 other countries even smaller. Usedtobecool ☎️ 23:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be support but not consensus for blurb posting. Blurbs are supposed to be rare and given for "major figures, including transformative world leaders in their field," however it is not guaranteed even then. Compared to the other noted death of the same date, Jean Kennedy Smith, is Lynn clearly more notable in meeting that threshold? It seems Lynn was a major figure in the field of British music, but one could say that Smith was also a "major figure" in the field of the Irish peace process and similarly deserves a blurb. FWIW, Google has 47M results for "Vera Lynn" versus 60M for "Jean Kennedy Smith." There have also been other notable individuals including heads of state who have been in RD without a blurb, and it should be clear that Lynn had more encyclopedic value (i.e. notability) in order to be posted. Based on both lack of consensus and questionable order of notability, it would be better to be conservative and refrain from posting a blurb in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. We should always err on the side of not not blurbing old age deaths because that's what RD is for. There might be a slight majority in support, but with the amount of opposition it's not going to fly. Someone should put it out of its misery and close the thread. I say this as a Brit myself, and while there has been the usual tributes and coverage, that will die down fairly quickly, I just don't see this as the major all-encompassing death that would dominate the headlines for days, like Thatcher or Mandela would.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • See, I'd probably listen to blurb arguments for Kennedy Smith, but I have to say I wouldn't support them (based on the fact half her notability is 'Kennedy', which isn't really anything she did. Lynn, on the other hand, had a 97-year career all her own). Kingsif (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Floquenbeam is very diplomatic, but sort of assumes that ITN is comprised of US & UK editors. If that were the case then yeah, but Wikipedia is a global work. UK icons should not be posted per se, and neither should US icons. They need something more. Banedon (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You too are making an assumption, that Vera Lynn is purely a UK icon. Your assumption is wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Banedon - HiLo48 is correct, think more Commonwealth than UK and you get a better idea of her area of influence. Mjroots (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: You might have a narrow view of the Commonwealth. For example India is a member of the Commonwealth, and a brief look at an Indian newspaper shows no coverage. Same goes for a Nigerian newspaper, etc. Banedon (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just saw this, of course a blurb. She's Vera Lynn! Her songs helped win a war. The short blurb should do, although the alternate (by removing "and life-long military fundraiser" for brevity) is a better summary of her historical importance. Not sold on having a photograph but maybe for a day so readers everywhere can either honor or discover her. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the "test" is a "yes" answer to the question, "could an article on the person's death and/or funeral be a standalone article?" Abductive (reasoning) 05:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb per Muboshgu. I'm a yank, so feel free to rake me over the coals for this if you wish, but I'm just not seeing enough global coverage or general significance to music at large. Though I would also like to add I think "tests" that come up in these sorts of discussions should be ignored, especially not Thatcher/Mandela, which, in addition to being 7 years old, has been violated enough as to be (rightfully) meaningless. Nohomersryan (talk) 05:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lynn's fame is for far more than "just" music. HiLo48 (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb This does not rise to the level where blurb is needed, we have RD for this. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb a British icon whose deaths was covered in newspapers in many countries. If she were American, I'm sure she'd have been posted by now, but unfortunately the American-centric bias of parts of Wikipedia is one again displaying itself. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stats As usual on such occasions, our readership doesn't care what ITN thinks and has flocked to the Vera Lynn article in large numbers, so that its readership was greater than all other ITN items combined, including the pandemic and the protests. The blurb about Pierre Nkurunziza was read by comparatively few readers again. "There is nothing as stale as yesterday's news". Andrew🐉(talk) 10:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For the popularity section, please see WP:TOP25. This is WP:ITNC. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. ITN is not popular; it is routinely stale and dusty because its primary process is based on personal opinions and this tends to obstruct postings so that its productivity is now pathetic. The only part which functions at a proper pace is RD and that's because it was reformed to eliminate the peanut gallery's pontification. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realise that Vera Lynn actually was posted to the main page, don't you? Please find the popular pages at WP:TOP25. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrew is agreeing with you, TRM. I'm not sure what the argument is about.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 12:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be something to consider that a blurb for Lynn wouldn't be bumping any event out of the box, but a much less newsworthy death with a 100x less trafficked bio. Kingsif (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb An internationally well-known figure in music and politics (just because she wasn't as well-known in the US, doesn't imply the case is the same for everywhere else), was still generating important news coverage merely weeks ago (ironically for reasons related to TRM's signature), and has knocked all COVID-19 and international politics coverage off the majority of UK broadsheet press today. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    On a point of order, the point about broadsheet coverage doesn't appear to be true. Vera hasn't made the front page of the Times or the FT at all, and is featured on the Telegraph and the Guardian only with a banner and a picture. The main stories are all still about COVID-19 or politics. The tabloids have mostly dominated their front pages to her though. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A standard I've always found helpful is whether the death in question is making headlines outside the country they came from. I'm not seeing that here, and I have generally seen it when blurbs are justified. FTR I checked the Sydney Morning Herald, the NYT, Al Jazeera, and The Hindu, and this death hadn't made it to the homepage of any. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think The Rambling Man and Flo make pretty compelling cases for why this should be upgraded to a blurb even if some editors (including myself honestly) are unfamiliar with her. I would note, however, that Vera_Lynn#Death is probably too short at the moment.Calidum 15:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, oppose blurb. If Little Richard didn't get a blurb last month, I don't see why Lynn should get one now. (I would argue both should get one, but we should be consistent.) My concern about the quality of the update in Lynn's article still stands as well. Calidum 15:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to log in.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 19:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ignorance is no excuse, etc... - SchroCat (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an excuse - it is implicitly saying that she's not so well known ("household name") as other people. Also, to what does the "etc" in your comment refer? Chrisclear (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do do we only have blurbs on people you have heard of? Lynn is a fairly well known individual with, as has been seen, obits and mentions of her death in papers around the world. Just because you have not heard of her does not make her any less notable, or any more or less deserving of a blurb - and I say this as someone who has opposed a blurb. If we only !vote based on ignorance then we don't do anyone any favours. - SchroCat (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's always mildly amusing that people think by telling us they've never heard of iconic individuals somehow strengthens their argument where all it does is undermine their commentary as being an exemplar of pure ignorance. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:12, 19 June 2020 (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.

June 17

June 17, 2020 (2020-06-17) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Ready) RD: Tariq Aziz

Article: Tariq Aziz (Pakistani personality) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [8][9][10][11][12]
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.

 Ainty Painty (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Rayshard Brooks

Not going up as an RD, consensus strongly against a blurb --LaserLegs (talk) 12:07, 18 June 2020 (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: Rayshard Brooks (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  The officers involved in the Killing of Rayshard Brooks were issued warrants. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ none, would just be "recent death"
News source(s): [14][15][16][17][18]
Credits:

Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: 10 warrants were just issued in the case of Rayshard Brooks. It seems that this article has not been updated, but once it has I think it would be suited to be In the News. NOTE: AS OF WHEN I AM POSTING THIS, THIS IS STILL RELATIVELY NEW.  P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 19:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb I don't think RD is appropriate since the article is about the killing, not the individual. However, the killing, the ensuing protests, and today's charges make this notable enough for a blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2116:Yes, you are correct the article is actually entitled the Killing of Rayshard Brooks, but I think this still falls under R.D. criteria. The R.D. tag could be removed if there is enough consensus. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 20:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure exactly what you mean, but I think I agree with you. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 20:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support this too. Maybe something like
Protests break out across the United States and elsewhere following the police killings of George Floyd in Minneapolis and Rayshard Brooks in Atlanta.
If we're going with this, then it'd be good to have a section in the protests article about Rayshard Brooks. Davey2116 (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 21:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just the thing is that the George Floyd is a little too old to be in the news. I obviously would be ok with keeping the George Flyod part but what if we made it about the officers involved having warrants issued? Ex:
The officers involved in the Killing of Rayshard Brooks were issued warrants on June 6th.
P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 21:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to both! P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 21:30, 17 June 2020 (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.

(Posted) RD: Willie Thorne

Article: Willie Thorne (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC Sport
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.

 Mjroots (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cite the red links, scroll back. Sources for the yellow, green, brown, blue, pink, and black... Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Poor Willie Thorne, his hair's all gawn. Perhaps I aught to chalk it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The events all link to their own articles which are cited. Obviously not ideal, but possibly satisfactory. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This has, sadly, been a long standing issue with these particular graphs. However, as stated, they are implicitly cited to the articles themselves. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Eduardo Cojuangco Jr.

Article: Eduardo Cojuangco Jr. (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABS-CBN News; Manila Bulletin
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 chairman and CEO of San Miguel Corporation. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 00:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 16

June 16, 2020 (2020-06-16) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Mohammad Asghar

Article: Mohammad Asghar (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Wales Online, BBC, ITV
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: Welsh politician, died in office. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose While referenced, article doesn't have much about what the subject accomplished in his political career. What's there is mostly election results and controversy, so at present, it's a tad unbalanced. SpencerT•C 18:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mike McCormick (pitcher)

Article: Mike McCormick (pitcher) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press; San Francisco Chronicle; MLB.com
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: Died on June 13, but only reported on June 16. Bloom6132 (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Bombing of the Inter-Korean Liaison Office

Consensus will not develop to post the demolition of a building. Stephen 00:54, 17 June 2020 (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.

Articles: Inter-Korean Liaison Office (talk · history · tag) and Bombing of the Inter-Korean Liaison Office (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ On 16 June 2020, North Korea blows up the Inter-Korean Liaison Office which was established in association with South Korea, resulting in tensions between the two countries (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ North Korea blows up the Inter-Korean Liaison Office.
News source(s): BBC, BBC, NDTV
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Currently developing Abishe (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fundamentally flimsy crystalballery. Nothing's going to happen. Nothing ever happens. Even with the infamous Singapore summit, nothing got done, and the Hanoi summit was even more worthless. I'm waiting to see boots on the ground enter another country before we can say there's any actual global implications. --WaltCip (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No need to get scatological about it, 54129. – Sca (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2020 (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.

(Posted) RD: John Madigan

Article: John Madigan (politician) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sydney Morning Herald
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: Australian, former Senator died aged 53, complications from cancer. Looks a decently referenced candidate for RD JW 1961 Talk 10:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 15

June 15, 2020 (2020-06-15) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) Maria Ressa conviction

Article: People of the Philippines v. Santos, Ressa and Rappler (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the Philippines, Rappler CEO Maria Ressa is convicted of cyberlibel. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the Philippines, Rappler CEO Maria Ressa becomes the second person to be convicted of cyberlibel.
Alternative blurb II: ​ As part of a "pattern of intimidation" against the Philippine press, Rappler executive editor Maria Ressa is convicted of cyberlibel.
News source(s): NYT AP
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I'm a non-Filipino who has only read a couple articles about this just now and I understand it is a controversial subject so feel free to correct me if wrong, but it appears that she is the most prominent journalist in the Philippines and this outcome is a new low for press freedom under Duterte. The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines said the verdict "basically kills freedom of speech and of the press." Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 03:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bzweebl: Wow, thanks for including my article in the nom! (People of the Philippines v. Santos, Ressa and Rappler) I wish I had more time to work on it tonight... Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 04:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, thanks for creating it! Watching your Rappler interview now :) Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 05:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there is a non-zero chance I will become the third person convicted of cyberlibel and the first in absentia. Lucky me—quite the exclusive club! Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 05:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow I totally missed that part of the story, I was watching an old interview. I hope there will be change in the Philippines soon and you have the option to safely return in the future. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 06:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added background about the cyberlibel law to the beginning of the arrest section, and there already is information about the article in question in that same paragraph. I agree that the case would be a better target if expanded, but I don't know of any reason why there would be a problem with using Ressa's article as the target. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 19:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@LaserLegs: FYI, People of the Philippines v. Rappler, et al. was expanded and is now the target. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 23:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not familiar with the Filipino judicial system: is Ressa out of appeals and this is the final judgement? In the past we've posted sentencing, but I'm not sure if this is the notable event for this story. SpencerT•C 19:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The case will be appealed. I understand both positions on this, as right now is probably when the story will receive the most news coverage but if it is not a certainty the verdict will be upheld then it could make sense to wait in some cases. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 19:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a way for us to hint at the "persecution of the press" angle without BIAS? That seems to be the story here. I would support posting now rather than later, but there are a few CNs. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added an altblurb that vaguely tries to do that. Note that although this is the second conviction, the notability of the event is largely because of her fame. I fixed the CN tags. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I may be slightly overreacting, but the fact that this nomination has not received any !votes in nearly 24 hours (notwithstanding the constructive comments above) while four other nominations have been resolved is suggestive of the subtle (though unintentional) ways that systemic bias affect ITN. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bzweebl: You aren't overreacting at all. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 11:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's some bias derived from the lack of clarity for foreign editors. Speaking for myself, I would not support a short article with CNs. Separately, I also refrain from meaningless votes, such as opposing an article with no support (as in this case). This is more of a "wait" vote. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah completely agreed, I had no problem with your comment. My “notwithstanding” was meant to be interpreted as “aside from” rather than “despite.” Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Although I admittedly am not super well-versed in this subject matter, this seems to be a fairly notable event, as it's drawn articles from not only the New York Times and AP (as linked in the nomination) but also BBC, CNN, CBS, and plenty of other news sources, and "basically [killing] freedom of speech and of the press," as the nominator mentioned, seems to be notable enough for ITN to me. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose On the basis that the finality of the case still hinges on the appeals court. Will support nom if this is being brought back after the appeal is heard and decided upon. – robertsky (talk) 05:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree Robertsky. I edit in the area of Philippine law extensively. Cases drag on for years. This is when it's getting a lot of attention. There is a chance that the case will never be back in the news. For example, Duterte could lose and a new Congress could repeal the law, rendering the case moot and academic. If Duterte remains in power, this case is very unlikely to be overturned on appeal. See Disini v. Secretary of Justice, the Court approves of this law. It will first go to the Court of Appeals, where it is almost certain that Judge Estacio-Montesa's ruling will be upheld. Actually, I'm concerned the CA will find Rappler corporately liable to. Then, the SC will hear it, and they won't be sympathetic. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 11:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm satisfied with the article now. The timing issue here is a blind spot for ITNC that we must be conscious of - we often have consensus for significance, but opinions on timing are so split that no one event garners sufficient support. The way to handle this (IMO) is to consider the possible outcomes (as noted by Psiĥedelisto) and (unless the latter events are clearly preferred) error on the side of posting sooner rather than later. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am ambivalent about this but would note that neither blurb is very good. It is the effects rather than the conviction that is potentially ITN-worthy. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Brigade Piron and Bzweebl: Please take a look at ALT2. I spent all night expanding People of the Philippines v. Santos, Ressa and Rappler, and hope that this will be posted sooner rather than later. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 15:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Psiĥedelisto: The standards are different for RD and blurb nominations. RD is more or less automatic assuming that the article quality is up to scratch. A couple of supports with no opposition and the posting admins own review being positive is generally enough. However, blurbs have a higher bar and require a clear consensus that I am not seeing here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem: Oh, okay. Thank you for that explanation. Excuse my ignorance, turns out I really was missing something major about how ITN operates. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 23:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem and thank you for your contributions to the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is my first time participating in ITN, and I got here due to Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines#Discussion at WP:ITN/C#Maria Ressa conviction. I agree with the supporters above that this is notable enough to be included in ITN. As the second successful cyberlibel conviction in Philippine history, one of the convicted being a well-known journalist who is critical of Duterte, the case being covered by several local and international news outlets, and the trial finishing in a quick eight months instead of being very lengthy like 3 years, I think it passes my own standard of notability and significance. The article is also well-written and well-referenced.
I prefer Alternative blurb II to be used in the ITN, though it might be less neutral, so I'm also fine with the first Alternative blurb. It might be better anyway for the first Alternative blurb to be used, as I don't want to see another stupid social media post, this time calling Wikipedia "delawan" (Filipino for yellowtard). The main blurb is too dull and downplays the significance of this event, so I would oppose using that. --Pandakekok9 (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Alt 1. SpencerT•C 16:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose current blurb wording I think that the currently worded blurb makes this sound like a typical trial conviction, whereas most of the rest of the world sees her conviction as a violation of human rights, and that isn't represented at all in the blurb. While it is controversial content, choosing not to include the controversy in the blurb is itself biased, as we legitimize the conviction and the government by normalizing it. Perhaps a neutral way to reference the controversy would be to add "In a Philippine court case about the freedom of the press," but perhaps another editor could word that better. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems Stephen changed it to match with the main blurb, instead of alt 1 which is the consensus formed here. Can't blame him though, because he based it on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Errors with In the news (permalink). But it would have been better if they had consulted us first. Pandakekok9 (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2020 China–India skirmishes

Article: 2020 China–India skirmishes (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Five Chinese and three Indian soldiers die in hand to hand combat during an ongoing border dispute in Ladakh. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Five Chinese soldiers and three Indian soldiers are killed in hand to hand combat during border skirmishes in Ladakh which started on 5 May 2020.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Three Indian, and five Chinese soldiers are killed in a border skirmish.
Alternative blurb III: ​ Skirmishes along the Line of Actual Control between China and India result in multiple deaths.
News source(s): BBC, NDTV, Washington Post
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: "The deaths are believed to be the first in decades in a confrontation between the two powers"BBC, "not a single shot has been fired between the two countries along the border for over 50 years" (SCMP) DTM (talk) 08:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) SCOTUS rules on Title VII for gays/transgender

Posted and consensus will remain as such. No need for further commentary. Stephen 02:53, 16 June 2020 (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: Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In a landmark case, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that Title VII employment protections of the 1964 Civil Rights Act include protections for gay and transgender individuals. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The U.S. Supreme Court rules that gay and transgender people are protected from employment discrimination.
News source(s): CNN, BBC, AP, NYT, WX Post, L.A. Times, Reuters, AFP
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: I know that US is by far not the first country /region with LBGT/Trans rights for employees, and we don't want to be going to track every country w/ employment rights as w/ marriage, but in the current climate (adding that it is Pride Month by coincidence) this is a extremely surprising and important decision. I am waiting for some more analysis from 3rd parties on the salient points on the decision to flesh out that but its all updated (I've been tending to this and the two related cases). Masem (t) 15:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those 21 states represent at least 2/3 of the population. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But half of all LQBTQ people in the US live in states with no employment protection. Whichever way you try and spin it this is a significant ruling.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support How many people live in Burundi? Maybe we should make a rule that editors shouldn't oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country. This argument applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Ad Orientem. Not of international impact, and only affects a minority of people in the US. Susprised this was posted within three hours of nomination too. That's normally too little time for consensus to form, except in very obvious cases.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support Would normally oppose internal politics from a single country, but this is on the front page of most news sources over here as well, and we have posted such issues before (i.e. Brexit vote). Issues over and above a simple ruling that lead back to items such as supposed right-wing loading of the Supreme Court. It is unlikely to have major ramifications outside the US but given the influence over world politics, especially in an election year as it related to DT's authority, I think this is worth posting. Black Kite (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support! – Very major. This "add the words" debate has been going on for decades. (I speak as one who formerly worked for a U.S. state's Human Rights Commission.) The ramifications transcend U.S. borders, as this long overdue decision may spur change elsewhere, though alas not everywhere. (At least it will nullify various incomplete state human rights statutes.) – Sca (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting oppose per AO. No international significance. It's hardly on the front page of most news sources either - that is still dominated by the coronavirus. Banedon (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support per above supports. Notable decision that is in major news outlets. ZettaComposer (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting oppose as per AO. Not of international significance, violates WP:CSB. --Varavour (talk) 01:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting that WP:CSB states, “this project concentrates upon remedying omissions...rather than protesting against inappropriate inclusions.” P-K3 (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting confusion Americans supporting this might know, but as a non-American, I still have no idea what this is about. I'm not opposing the posting, again because I still have no idea what this is about. (Maybe I would if I did.) The US-centrism here is in using local political and other language that is not clear to the rest of the world. HiLo48 (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Workers can no longer be fired simply for being gay or transgender. That’s basically it. I concede there’s some jargon in the original blurb but I don’t see what is confusing about the altblurb.P-K3 (talk) 02:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting oppose. Surprising ruling, yes, but has little to no relevance outside of American law. — Goszei (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support. This is a catastrophe for anti-homosexuals around the world, who rely on financial, "moral", and legal support from US politicians and religious leaders. Abductive (reasoning) 02:20, 16 June 2020 (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.

June 14

June 14, 2020 (2020-06-14) (Sunday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

  • At least 19 people are killed and more than 172 injured Saturday after a liquefied gas tanker exploded on a Chinese highway near the city of Wenling. Close to 100 fire trucks responded. Some people are still missing. (UPI)

Health and environment

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Pierre Lumbi

Article: Pierre Lumbi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Congolese politician. COVID. - Indefensible (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Noel Kelly (rugby league)

Article: Noel Kelly (rugby league) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Sydney Morning Herald; National Rugby League
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.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Sushant Singh Rajput

Proposed image
Article: Sushant Singh Rajput (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): indiatoday
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.

 Actor Sushant Singh Rajput Commits Suicide Mr.Mani Raj Paul - talk 09:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 13

June 13, 2020 (2020-06-13) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Closed) Polish invasion of Czech Republic

Consensus will not develop to post. Stephen 02:56, 16 June 2020 (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: Polish invasion of Czech Republic (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Polish Defence ministry admitted the accidental invasion of the Czech Republic. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Poland accidentally invades the Czech Republic.
News source(s): [19][20]
Credits:
 Chuka Chief (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Ongoing Removal: 2019–20 Hong Kong protests

No consensus to remove at this time. Stephen 01:26, 17 June 2020 (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: 2019–20 Hong Kong protests (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)
Nominator's comments: Main article stale. June timeline "sub-article" is orange tagged for refs and the only update since June 6th is a one-liner on the 12th "Police detained dozens of protesters as crowds gathered to mark the anniversary of the start of the protests.". Stale. Not being regularly updated with new, pertinent information as stipulated in Wikipedia:In_the_news#Ongoing_section. LaserLegs (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I've been updating the Hong Kong national security law article, which is related and in the protests navbox. In today's news: the British accuse the Chinese of torturing their diplomat. Announcement that the HK police are going to start 're-educating' residents. BBC expects law to come in this month. I don't think it's gone stale. Kingsif (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and wait, per Kingsif. In addition to the national security law being enacted later this month, July 1 is just around the corner and the 2020 Hong Kong legislative election is scheduled for September. This issue isn't going to die away anytime soon. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose An update on the 12 is not stale, and that's only one sub-article of a massive topic that is clearly in the news. This repeated attempt to remove this is getting tiresome. --Masem (t) 06:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • June 6: wall of unsourced text. June 7: Nothing. June 8: Nothing. June 9: Nothing. June 10: Nothing. June 11: Nothing. June 12: A one liner about "dozens of people". This is the exact opposite of "regular updates". I'm just following the guidelines supporters ignoring them has become most tiresome. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose very much still in the news, very much still of interest to our readers. If lack of content is a problem, WP:SOFIXIT. Main page exposure apparently is used to update and maintain articles so the quality is somewhat secondary to the "in the news"-ness and "what our readers are looking for"-ness. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WP:SOFIXIT. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A) Quality is king; what is in the news or of interest to readers is secondary. B) When we show a very long term event in Ongoing, we need to quickly show why the item is STILL listed. If it's difficult to do that in the main article because of WP:BALASP or WP:RECENT, the sub-article makes sense. But then the sub-article needs to be maintained. C) I don't understand how we can argue the article is fine and still demand that LaserLegs FIXIT. D) Main page exposure can help keep articles evergreen, but is not used to showcase articles that need help. Quite the opposite. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A) when deciding to post, sure, but seldom after posting. B) It's obvious why it's listed, it's in the news still and people want to find it. C) Only Laserlegs is saying it's NOT fine, so SOFIXIT is perfectly apt D) I'm afraid that argument is somewhat out of touch. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Still going on, still significant, still in the news. – Sca (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - valid item to keep in Ongoing as protests are still happening AFAIK. The main article linked, 2019–20 Hong Kong protests, seems pretty good in terms of referencing. - Indefensible (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The current bold link is only good for a general background of the event in the broadest sense. It is receiving updates, but the particular ones discussed here are not found in the article (or if they refer to Cheng, that happened last year). The in-article links to various timelines are poor, and a single inconsequential sentence on the 12th cannot carry the entire Ongoing entry. This is preceded by 15 paragraphs without any references whatsoever. Using such an article as a basis for keeping an entirely different article on the MP is rubbish. Either the bold-linked article is timely or it's not; Or the daughter articles are referenced or they're not. It can't be a bit of both. The article for the Security Law is better, in that it is the catalyst for the current protests, and includes timely and referenced updates. Perhaps that's enough to keep this in Ongoing, but this is becoming a game of whack-a-mole. How are we supposed to make sure readers see the daughter article that they are "supposed" to see and not the utter trash that we wouldn't post in a million years?130.233.3.8 (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2020 (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.

References

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=963519775"