Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates: Difference between revisions
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
<!-- Insert new nominations below this line --> |
<!-- Insert new nominations below this line --> |
||
==== Hurricane Eta ==== |
==== (Closed) Hurricane Eta ==== |
||
{{atop|Already nom'd at ITNC --[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 15:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)}} |
{{atop|Already nom'd at ITNC --[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 15:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)}} |
||
{{ITN candidate |
{{ITN candidate |
Revision as of 15:39, 6 November 2020
![]() | Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here. |
![]() |
---|
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.
view — page history — related changes — edit |
Glossary
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
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.
Headers
Voicing an opinion on an itemFormat 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...
Please do not...
Suggesting updatesThere are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:
|
Archives
November 6
November 6, 2020
(Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Politics and elections
|
(Closed) Hurricane Eta
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.
Blurb: Hurricane Eta makes landfall in Nicaragua as a Category 4 hurricane and leaves more than 50 dead in Guatemala. (Post)
News source(s): (BBC)
Credits:
- Nominated by Elijahandskip (talk · give credit)
- Created by Destroyeraa (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Robloxsupersuperhappyface (talk · give credit), ChessEric (talk · give credit) and Qwerty325 (talk · give credit)
- Comment Already nominated, though I do Support.
- My Bad. We can close this. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
RD: Jim Marurai
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): RNZ
Credits:
- Nominated by Joseywales1961 (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 Prime Minister of the Cook Islands. Short article but not a stub in fairly good shape. JW 1961 Talk 14:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support Plenty of refs, though the source of death appears to be unknown currently. Gex4pls (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support The article is in good shape. Not many sources on his death yet (only 3 and 1 is a copy) at the moment for specifics, however Cook Island News promised full coverage tomorrow (it's night there), so you might want to keep an eye on that site for some more details.KittenKlub (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
RD: Geoffrey Palmer
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): (Metro)
Credits:
- Nominated by Mjroots (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Gaia Octavia Agrippa (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: Well-known British actor. Mjroots (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose based on sourcing issues. His career section only has two refs, and the usual issues on the filmography section. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose (edit conflict) "Career" section is missing citations and the "Appearances" section is largely uncited - Dumelow (talk) 14:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
November 5
November 5, 2020
(Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
November 4
November 4, 2020
(Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
(Closed) US officially withdraws from Paris Agreement
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.
Blurb: The United States formally withdraws from the Paris Agreement related to climate change mitigation. (Post)
News source(s): [1]
Credits:
- Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)
- Oppose For Now Right now we are in the elections, Biden has said that the US will rejoin the Paris Accord. Trump hates the Paris Accord and will get rid of it. If Biden wins do not post it. If Trump wins however, then sure post it. SoloGaming (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Wait Per above. Gex4pls (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Election saber-rattling at this point. Gotitbro (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I'm seriously confused as to what this had to do with an election? Albertaont (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Biden wants back in on the Paris Accord, if Biden gets elected then he will join back in. Wait until election results SoloGaming (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose absurd timing. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose no matter what the outcome of the presidential election is. This is simply not notable enough for coverage on the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose completely overshadowed by the presidential election. Banedon (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support this might be one of
the fat retardshis last gifts to America but it's still noteworthy. The United States is economically powerful and highly polluting. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)- Not sure "retard" is something we say these days, even about Trump. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Crude terms for crude people, but stricken none the less as utterly inappropriate for WP. Thanks TRM. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Not sure "retard" is something we say these days, even about Trump. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support The Paris Agreement is one of the most notable global agreements, the United States is the world's second-largest polluter, and the United States is the first defector from the agreement. NorthernFalcon (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support This is widely reported around the world. Also what happens in the elections today is irrelevant to this, which is a separate topic. There is also no requirement that ITN can only post one item from a country. Albertaont (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Wait Only if Trump wins, as Biden intends to rejoin. TheMrP (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support I can totally understand that Biden intends to rejoin. But whether or not Biden intends, or actually does rejoin would only happen months if not years later (i.e. it would need to pass the house and senate, and be signed into law...) WP:CRYSTAL should apply. This is ITN now, not post-election.104.243.98.96 (talk) 05:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose This isn't notable plus everybody already knew about this years ago. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 06:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Biden says he would rejoin immediately. [2] Nixinova T C 07:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Could be spun too much since it coincides with the election, and may not even be the end of the story. The US intention to withdraw was already posted, too. Yakikaki (talk) 07:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Already posted, widely expected, and the article is not updated in a way that makes this clear. The body of the text states that On 4 November [2019!] the US government [...] officially [withdrew] from the Paris climate accord. The lede states that they withdrew "in 2020". The imprecise use of "withdraw" is confusing and efforts to clear up my own confusion only reinforces my !vote.130.233.213.199 (talk) 09:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) Ongoing: United States elections
Blurb: Joseph Biden (or Donald Trump) is elected President of the United States, the Republican Party retains control of the Senate and the Democratic Party retains control of the House. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Vote counting continues in the United States presidential election as President Donald Trump falsely claims victory.
Alternative blurb II: Joe Biden is elected President of the United States, and the Democratic Party retains control of the House of Representatives.
Credits:
- Nominated by Jehochman (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: I'm going to place this here because the winner is expected to be announced within a few hours. We should discuss if any qualification is needed due to Trump's disputing the results, and whether this should immediately be added to ongoing due to intense news coverage. The phrases about control of the Senate and the House are optional and should only be added when confirmed. I've copied this blurb format from the 2016 election. Jehochman Talk 20:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Maybe I'm stupid, but is this supposed to be for ongoing? If so, we don't need a blurb, and if not can you change the title? Thanks. Gex4pls (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- It's a non-standard nomination because the idea would be to place it in ongoing while the vote counting continues, and then remove it in favor of a blurb once the winner is declared. I did a bit of research and Nevada will not provide any further updates until Thursday at 9 am Pacific time when they will give their final totals. This makes it unlikely that a result will be known before tomorrow. I suggest we post to ongoing until then. Jehochman Talk 20:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oh alright, thanks for the clarification.
- Comment How about posting it with a blurb as usual, and if (let's hope it's if) a whole drama evolves, the drama can be submitted to In the News when it becomes relevant, and judged by its importance. 2020 Guyanese general election was ITN on 4 August 2020 according to the talk page after that drama was finally resolved. I don't know what happened in March, because I wasn't here at the time, but that election could have been submitted twice as well. KittenKlub (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- That's a good alternative. Blurb when ready, then ongoing for the aftermath which might continue for a month, as did Bush v. Gore in 2000. Jehochman Talk 20:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- My view remains the same as the one I expressed in the nomination below—this is already "in the news" by any reasonable definition of the phrase, and the sooner we get something on the front page, the less behind the curve we'll be. The "this is U.S.-centric" objections from the nomination below fail to acknowledge the extraordinary level of international interest in the U.S. election. (For the record, I'd similarly support an ongoing blurb for other massive elections like India, but that's for another time.) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Senate and House election articles are not updated. Would suggest congressional results as a blurb once these are done as per WP:ITNR. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm listing an altblurb that we could post now. The extremely unusual and newsworthy thing is that president Donald Trump has falsely claimed victory. [3][4][5] Jehochman Talk 21:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- That would be an extremely inappropriate blurb to use for WP. While it is true (falsely claiming victory), it is highly judgmental and non-neutral, and something WP cannot speak to in Wikivoice at all. I know the bulk of most editors here want a Biden win and a Trump loss (me included) but we can't let that cloud judgment here, particularly for something that would be on the front page. --Masem (t) 21:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- I didn't invent this. I found it in every major news source I checked. They are all saying the same thing. Jehochman Talk 21:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not saying you created it, but it is an unnecessary focus on one detail of the election that is judging Trump. It absolutely should be covered in the election article (as it triggered more of Twitter's labeling and other facts), but in a Main Page blurb about the election, it stands out as a non-neutral facet of the current state of the election. Further, it is not like Trump has been tauting that all day. He said it this morning, then has been on the lawsuit-challenge since. We can't be too eager to post something and cloud our judgement here on neutrality of blurbs. --Masem (t) 21:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- I didn't invent this. I found it in every major news source I checked. They are all saying the same thing. Jehochman Talk 21:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- That would be an extremely inappropriate blurb to use for WP. While it is true (falsely claiming victory), it is highly judgmental and non-neutral, and something WP cannot speak to in Wikivoice at all. I know the bulk of most editors here want a Biden win and a Trump loss (me included) but we can't let that cloud judgment here, particularly for something that would be on the front page. --Masem (t) 21:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Alternative blurb makes sense. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- No no and no dear systemic bias. ITNR is for the results of the general election and the result of the presidential election. Aboslutely no flipping way to ongoing. Result of votes takes time to count in many elections, there is no reason why the US get a post when we would absolutely never post such for other votes. -- KTC (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Wdym, we post it for other countries as well. SoloGaming (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support Blurb Post after candidate is announced. I also stated how ongoing should go for this below. (Changed This BTW) SoloGaming (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support altblurb If there's a more delicate way to state the fact that Trump has falsely claimed victory, I'm all ears. But it'd be strange if we didn't post something soon, and altblurb is about the most we can say. A Biden victory is likely, but it won't be official without Nevada (which won't be called until at least Thursday), or perhaps Pennsylvania (at least Friday, barring court challenges). The Senate is likely to stay Republican, but right now it's possible that Senate control is decided by runoffs in Georgia on January 5. We can do additional blurbs when those two results become official. Davey2116 (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'd also support ongoing, but it'd have to be clear that the election itself is not ongoing, the counting is ongoing. Davey2116 (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- True, but if this becomes crazy then this should be posted in ongoing. SoloGaming (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. Probably in that case an article called "Aftermath of the 2020 United States presidential election" would be merited. Davey2116 (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes that would be fine, if the results are not in by... idk tomorrow morning 8AM Eastern, then yes you should. SoloGaming (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. Probably in that case an article called "Aftermath of the 2020 United States presidential election" would be merited. Davey2116 (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- True, but if this becomes crazy then this should be posted in ongoing. SoloGaming (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe prematurely or mistakenly instead of falsely? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'd also support ongoing, but it'd have to be clear that the election itself is not ongoing, the counting is ongoing. Davey2116 (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Right now, most major networks/papers have now called both WI and MI for Biden (including Fox!) leaving him a couple states that he was already leading in and unlikely to lose with additional mail in vote counts that are ongoing (AZ+NV) that gets him to 270, and both are likely to have more results in the next 4-6 hrs. So I suggest we just wait until around 04:00ish and if there are no major results coming in, toss something up, but we'll likely have a "press-called" result here really soon, and we just need a blurb that makes this clear this is a press call with legal challenges in the wings. --Masem (t) 22:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hold until reputable outlets call the election, oppose including House and Senate results in blurb. Morgan695 (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Result of a general election is ITNR. -- KTC (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Honestly, we should only wait until AP (Associated Press) says who won. AP is the most credible source. SoloGaming (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Wait until one of them gets to 270 (via AP/network calls). P-K3 (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose There is no need to treat it different than any other election. Wait until a winner is announced, the article is updated and referenced, and then post it. All this crystal ball stuff about ongoing should stop. Again update the article before posting. AIRcorn (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose We are not a breaking news ticker, please be a bit patient this is neither Ongoing material nor are ITN nominations supposed to be WP:CRYSTAL. Gotitbro (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Request To Close for now?? SoloGaming (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support ongoing only. Of course: this is going to run and run and run and it's newsworthy now it's happened. As long as we don't rush to post erroneous hooks (and after all, posting the title of the target article is relatively safe, even around these parts bearing in mind some terrible recent decision-making!!) there's nothing really to lose from an ongoing entry. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support ongoing only per The Rambling Man. Trump has already filed a lawsuit for the vote count in Michigan and, frankly speaking, we might end up with Biden winning the election and then the Supreme Court ruling in favour of Trump. There's no need for a haste and the possible righting of wrongs that no-one wants.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, four words (2020 United States elections) in the ongoing section covers all the evils. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- We should actually wait for both. Count is now 264-214. Anything could happen within the next few hours. SoloGaming (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ummmm, no, the point here is that even if Biden gets to 270, Trump will instigate recounts, legal action etc etc. No one blurb will suffice. So ONGOING is the only way to cover this. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man True, Trump is taking legal action... I see your point, especially since nothing is happening right now.SoloGaming (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ummmm, no, the point here is that even if Biden gets to 270, Trump will instigate recounts, legal action etc etc. No one blurb will suffice. So ONGOING is the only way to cover this. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- We should actually wait for both. Count is now 264-214. Anything could happen within the next few hours. SoloGaming (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ongoing the rest of the world is watching [6] [7]. Banedon (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ongoing agree (for once) with Banedon this election is making global headlines and the WP:ITN#Purpose is served by putting this into OG for a day or two until the results are finalized. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Just FYI, we're not "holding our breath". In fact, it's like a soap opera. And depressing, at that. Most intelligent Europeans (for instance) knew this was going to descend into a childish shitshow, and lo-and-behold. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Has it become childish? States ran their elections differently because of COVID-19 and results are taking longer. Biden is being calm and presidential, and Trump is being Trump. Seems status quo really. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Just FYI, we're not "holding our breath". In fact, it's like a soap opera. And depressing, at that. Most intelligent Europeans (for instance) knew this was going to descend into a childish shitshow, and lo-and-behold. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Wait until we have results GreatCaesarsGhost 23:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Wait. It seems like a fairly definitive result may come in the next few hours, so I don't see the need to put it in ongoing for now. There's no rush. Wait for for results, as we do with all the other elections around the world. — Amakuru (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Honestly, It seems like a fairly definitive result may come in the next few hours is the quote of the year. This election has weeks left before it gets announced. If we don't put it in ongoing, we'll have a month of debate over the "blurb" required to handle all the legal machinations as Trump has called it "fraud" and already placed his Supreme Court judges in place, just in case. Good grief, we should be encyclopedic about this and just chuck it as a line item into Ongoing thus avoiding any kind of spin/speculation. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 00:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ha, I guess I was being overly optimistic then. Good to get quote of the hear though! I expected to wake up this morning and read that someone was over the line. Ah well, since Ongoing has already been posted I'm not going to object to that. But let's only upgrade to a blurb if something like a result is available. — Amakuru (talk) 06:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Honestly, It seems like a fairly definitive result may come in the next few hours is the quote of the year. This election has weeks left before it gets announced. If we don't put it in ongoing, we'll have a month of debate over the "blurb" required to handle all the legal machinations as Trump has called it "fraud" and already placed his Supreme Court judges in place, just in case. Good grief, we should be encyclopedic about this and just chuck it as a line item into Ongoing thus avoiding any kind of spin/speculation. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 00:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Wait for 270. Oppose ongoing. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- At 270, what do we post? Trump launches legal action? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 00:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Assuming its for Biden: "Democratic candidate Joe Biden wins the U.S. presidential election based on preliminary vote counts amid ongoing legal challenges by incumbent Donald Trump." It's not committed (so we're not claiming Biden won, book closed) and informs readers that there's still more coming and could possibly change. --Masem (t) 00:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- At 270, what do we post? Trump launches legal action? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 00:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- That it is either a tie or trump wins. Stop acting like a child demanding everyone agrees with you. You made your point, let others make theirs, "intelligent European."2A02:2A57:173D:0:94C:8AD0:C456:3178 (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- NPA!, you don't need to attack people for their election predictions. Gex4pls (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think we ignore Trump and just post whatever the failing New York Times and other FAKE NEWS!1!! outlets publish. Jehochman Talk 00:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- No, it's much cleaner, in such uncertain times, to just push this to ongoing while the meltdown occurs and then publish an ITN blurb once Biden has managed to dismiss Trump entirely. In the meantime, we're just in for a cavalcade of biased blurbs which won't help anyone. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 00:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Only election results are posted to ITN. Not the mere existence of an election in which people can vote. If ITN were to post 'vote counting' for the US election then it should also post the same for the Palau presidential election which also took place on November 3. Chrisclear (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- No one has nominated it. Their results are ITNR too, but we need the article up to speed and a nomination to review. --Masem (t) 00:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Neutral for ongoing and wait for blurb I am neutral on adding the page to ongoing, since it is likely the results will be contested for weeks if not months. But if the Associate Press and all other major networks call the race within the next few days (or hours), I would suggest a blurb to that effect. There is no bias if all states have reached the same consensus and reported their counting as complete. It's reasonable to assume for now that large-scale voter fraud is not the case...Belugsump (talk) 01:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support ongoing - Pageviews are already spiking.[8] Our readers are looking for this, so we might as well link to it. Kaldari (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Post ongoing ballot counting process. As soon as the outcome is known, it won't be as big a news story as it is right now anymore. Count Iblis (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Wait Nothing is called yet, blurb is mostly crystal on the Senate in particular. Nixinova T C 02:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment It does make an interesting statement that a U.S. political election could even be considered for the ongoing section. I must admit, for my part, I never thought to see opposing U.S. protests over "Stop the vote" and "Count every vote". That being said, what with U.S. election laws (by state) being all over the board, maybe it is past time for WP to clarify what, *exactly*, would be acceptable parameters for a U.S. election win -- and keep them for all future elections. In the past, it was usually glossed over with network projections and concession speech, but clearly that is not going to work anymore. Is it when the networks declare it (usually when enough electoral college votes have been network-declared to reach 270 for one candidate)? Is it when all the counts have been stated officially? Is it when the electoral college votes (see Faithless electors in the 2016 United States presidential election)? Is it when all the court challenges expire? Is it when the president for the new term is actually sworn in? - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- It also happened in 2000. See Bush v. Gore. Jehochman Talk 02:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- I remember how Bush vs Gore was treated on WP. I also remember that Gore, quoting Senator Stephen Douglas' (1860) "Partisan feeling must yield to patriotism", finally abandoned the nightmare of the butterfly ballot and the hanging chad and did specifically choose to concede (Dec 13, 2000) in order "to heal the divisions of the campaign". Thus in *that* election year, the U.S. did have a presidential election concession speech, as indeed in every other U.S. presidential vote since WP was created. Incidentally, for those who are curious, a full Florida recount was eventually done the following year, the results of which were mostly drowned out by a September story later that year. (Those results btw constitute one of the memories behind "Count every vote".) This year, however, pushes us to recognise the ways in which U.S. presidential elections are significantly different from other presidential elections. For just one example, there were 10 faithless electors in 2016 (seven after state law, *where it exists*, kicked in). It is looking likely that Biden will end up, at least temporarily, with *exactly* 270 electoral college votes (based on current called and leading states). However, the president is not technically elected until all those votes are cast. If WP goes (as usual) with this reliable news agency or that, what of WP's reliability if even one of those voters (from one of the majority of states with no legislation to prevent it) proves faithless? There do exist constitutional fallbacks for this possibility, but it gets very messy, very quickly. Again taking the current called/leading house breakdown, simply put, Biden would almost certainly not be elected president in that case. It would be Trump instead. - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 03:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- One of the first edits to Wikipedia 18:08, 27 March 2001 diff hist +1,820 N Shotgun Help me! :-) I'm a country boy from Alabama, but I've been in the city for a looong time.) happened after Bush took office. Count Iblis (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- WP - launched January 15, 2001. The Bush-Gore issue, resolved only a month before, was still very, very raw. (Remember I mentioned above that a non-binding Florida recount was being pursued and did end up happening?) Although the articles did not come into existence in anything like their current form until near the end of that year, vandalism was happening almost immediately upon creation. ITN did not exist yet, of course. That came about shortly after 9/11, and was originally called "Current events and breaking news". (Yeah, I have been paying attention to this piece of pop culture for some years now.) - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- One of the first edits to Wikipedia 18:08, 27 March 2001 diff hist +1,820 N Shotgun Help me! :-) I'm a country boy from Alabama, but I've been in the city for a looong time.) happened after Bush took office. Count Iblis (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- I remember how Bush vs Gore was treated on WP. I also remember that Gore, quoting Senator Stephen Douglas' (1860) "Partisan feeling must yield to patriotism", finally abandoned the nightmare of the butterfly ballot and the hanging chad and did specifically choose to concede (Dec 13, 2000) in order "to heal the divisions of the campaign". Thus in *that* election year, the U.S. did have a presidential election concession speech, as indeed in every other U.S. presidential vote since WP was created. Incidentally, for those who are curious, a full Florida recount was eventually done the following year, the results of which were mostly drowned out by a September story later that year. (Those results btw constitute one of the memories behind "Count every vote".) This year, however, pushes us to recognise the ways in which U.S. presidential elections are significantly different from other presidential elections. For just one example, there were 10 faithless electors in 2016 (seven after state law, *where it exists*, kicked in). It is looking likely that Biden will end up, at least temporarily, with *exactly* 270 electoral college votes (based on current called and leading states). However, the president is not technically elected until all those votes are cast. If WP goes (as usual) with this reliable news agency or that, what of WP's reliability if even one of those voters (from one of the majority of states with no legislation to prevent it) proves faithless? There do exist constitutional fallbacks for this possibility, but it gets very messy, very quickly. Again taking the current called/leading house breakdown, simply put, Biden would almost certainly not be elected president in that case. It would be Trump instead. - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 03:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- It also happened in 2000. See Bush v. Gore. Jehochman Talk 02:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support ongoing News coverage around the world, probably the most visited article at the moment. Jklamo (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb (first alternative); oppose altblurb as US-centric and misleading (why highlight Trump when it's apparent that Biden won?). We routinely report the apparent result of elections according to reliable sources. By now reliable sources are starting to describe Biden as the apparent winner of the election; hence it would be entirely standard practice for Wikipedia to report the result of the election. We don't usually wait for formalities when posting the results of elections in other countries when there is an apparent winner according to reliable sources. --Tataral (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- It's not assured that Biden won. If Trump holds on in Pennsylvania and Georgia, where he's currently ahead, and then wins Nevada or Arizona, which are leaning Biden on thin margins, then Biden will not win. Arizona was called for Biden, but it looks like that was a mistake; the state is still in play according to Nate Silver. Jehochman Talk 03:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Wait - Nothing has been called yet so wait until we have a defined winner. HawkAussie (talk) 03:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Posted to ongoing - Fuzheado | Talk 05:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- PP comment – Since results in several states are being dragged into the courts by the apparent sore loser, Ongoing seems logical for now. – Sca (talk) 13:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Later today major media outlets will probably announce a winner. When that happens, because the significance has already been decided, the final step will be to make sure the article has been updated, and then it can be posted. Let's keep this discussion open, and I'll make a separate section. I believe the item should remain in ongoing after the blurb is removed so long as the result remains disputed. Jehochman Talk 13:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Pull Ongoing: the event is bound to be posted once the result is announced thus this American-centric bias is not needed when no other countries' election are ever going to get posted on Ongoing. Depressed Desi (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFF is recognized as a bad argument. If you take a look at a newspaper today, any newspaper anywhere in the world, you will find this story on the cover. What matters is whether a story is receiving widespread, ongoing coverage. If that happens with some other country's election, we will also put it in "Ongoing". Jehochman Talk 14:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- ITN is not a news ticker, we do not reflect what happens in the newspapers. Yes, the elections are likely the top story in the globe, but we are immune to that artificial elevation. --Masem (t) 14:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFF is recognized as a bad argument. If you take a look at a newspaper today, any newspaper anywhere in the world, you will find this story on the cover. What matters is whether a story is receiving widespread, ongoing coverage. If that happens with some other country's election, we will also put it in "Ongoing". Jehochman Talk 14:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Pull ongoing. Fuzheado, there is no consensus here for posting and for ongoing. When the election is called then Wikipedia should post the results, just like dozens of other countries in this world. If the Associated Press made a mistake and retracts Arizona, then we might have reason for ongoing. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Pull ongoing. I don't care how important the U.S. thinks it is. We don't do this for elections.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Whole world seems to think it's pretty damn important. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Remarkably I agree with Muboshgu here. There's no doubt at all this feeds the systemic bias, for sure (if this happened in Burkina Faso for example, it'd be laughed out of court, irrespective of what others here have hilariously claimed), but for me (the STAUNCH RACIST ANTI-YANK (TM)) it's an IAR scenario. The absurdity of it all. The complete laughing stock it's making of the American democratic system. The fact that literally a hundred million people voted for Trump second time round!!! It's headline news everywhere and because we can't do a blurb yet, ongoing is the only fit. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- No other country has the long dragged-out electoral system of the U.S. I cannot think of another western country which does not habitually know its presidential / prime ministerial election results, or close enough for victory/concession purposes, within a day -- with occasional exceptions of course, but they are exceptions, not the increasing norm. In most modern elections, the U.S. two-party system reduces the choice to a simple dichotomy, which in turn minimises the overall delay. (The occasional experiments with a third party arising from an in-party split did not survive much beyond Theodore Roosevelt, and they did not give all that good results even then. Lincoln may have been their last real success story, and I think those were circumstances we do not particularly wish to see again.) Here and now, however, support in many key locations seems very closely balanced between the two parties, with little likelihood that either side will budge much. This makes final outcomes much closer to 50:50 in many key areas, so much so that tendencies for one party to vote in a particular way will suddenly start to make a great deal of difference in battleground states. Significant delay in final results is thus increasingly inevitable, and also somewhat unique to the U.S. system. It is important to keep in mind that this is specifically designed into the U.S. system, first with its ongoing emphasis on remote/mail voting, second with its state-based approach rather than a single centralised election authority, third with its attitude toward litigation, fourth with the electoral college. (I leave discussion of per capita state representation and law-based voting suppression to -- somewhere not here -- and less volatile times.) The system originally evolved from frontier requirements and assumed a heavily rural vote away from the east coast cities, and in its essence it never substantially changed to take into account faster transportation and communication, in part because of its ongoing internal resistance to *anything* centralised ... so we cannot expect the results to ever be other than "ongoing" so long as the country remains so close to equally split. - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 01:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Remarkably I agree with Muboshgu here. There's no doubt at all this feeds the systemic bias, for sure (if this happened in Burkina Faso for example, it'd be laughed out of court, irrespective of what others here have hilariously claimed), but for me (the STAUNCH RACIST ANTI-YANK (TM)) it's an IAR scenario. The absurdity of it all. The complete laughing stock it's making of the American democratic system. The fact that literally a hundred million people voted for Trump second time round!!! It's headline news everywhere and because we can't do a blurb yet, ongoing is the only fit. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Whole world seems to think it's pretty damn important. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose pulling – Like it or not, this remains the No. 1 story (or No. 2, behind the virus), in terms of significance, worldwide. As news it's still going on. It wouldn't serve our readers to banish the topic from the Main Page just because the outcome hasn't been conclusively resolved. When the accursed Electoral College formally reports, it'll be an instant blurb. Thereafter, if court cases still drag on, it eventually will go back to Ongoing. – Sca (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- PS: – DT suits in two of three states dismissed. – Sca (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. In evaluating this, I see a consensus for ongoing, including from non-US users to boot. In any event, we may have a winner called later today if Pennsylvania and Georgia finishes counting ballots and this will be moved to a blurb. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Leave it up – while I certainly appreciate the ongoing efforts of those who make sure the main page isn't too US-centric, the whole world is watching this, and our articles on the election are informative, well-written, and worth reading. – bradv🍁 15:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- The article I see has a state results section with no results for any state, for any candidate, three days later. That seems uninformative. And cruel to pretend the Green Party (or lower) is still in this. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support keeping as ongoing I'm struggling to find ANY non-US english language news outlets that haven't had this as a top story for multiple days now. Is it unique to have a national election as an ongoing news story? Yes. But it's tough to argue it doesn't clearly meet our criteria for it, and given the clear global interest would be just silly to say it is too focused around one country's news.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support Ongoing Um, almost all media in the world right now are giving this ITN coverage. To say this is US-centric is intellectually dishonest. There is absolutely nothing in the ITN page right now that could be remotely construed as being US centric. Albertaont (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose pulling Yes this is US centric but with how popular US politics and because of the impact is this is like the #1 story worldwide at the moment. And there should be some final calls 'today', Biden just needs one state, so this (shouldn't) become an eternal Bush v. Gore situation. Nixinova T C 19:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose pulling it is certainly ongoing and probably will be for a while, getting worldwide attention (top story here in Ireland) JW 1961 Talk 20:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Pull This is a very bad precedent. The whole world is watching is a massive over generalisation and just takes the whole systemic bias to a new level. AIRcorn (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Reminder of the ITN criteria:
- To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news.
- To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events.
- To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them.
- To emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource.
- To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news.
- It ticks all the boxes. And until it's done and dusted, we can formulate a suitably apt blurb, ongoing is a great compromise. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Reminder of the ITN criteria:
- Pull Nothing approaching consensus to post. C'mon. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Post posting support This is big in the news, the article is fine, so what is all this opposition about? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sheer cussedness. – Sca (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, Muboshgu, tonight there were some good answers on the PBS Newshour. Yamiche Alcindor said that Mr. Trump's legal strategy is one he has used for years, "flooding the zone" with information, disinformation, lawsuits, and accusations. I think it was John Yang who said that strategy is doomed to failure. Alcindor or Yang said that Trump's misinformation machine has Rudy Giuliani on RT saying that Joe Biden has mental problems. Then Jeffrey Brown interviewed Richard L. Hasen of UC Irvine, who said everything he's seem so far is "small bore", i.e. nonsignificant, litigation, and that it potentially could drag out for weeks or even longer. I do not feel Wikipedia needs to give Mr. Trump another venue for ongoing complaint. William Brangham said the whole thing has personal and emotional tolls on people. When the AP calls this we should have a blurb and then the story should go away like any other country. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sheer cussedness. – Sca (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
US Election - arbitrary break
- Pull, not for cussedness, but lack of information on who's won which state's electors (except only Florida). That's important and verifiable, in context. It's purposely absent from the article, but still not there. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb as proposed, when called by AP ☆ Bri (talk) 03:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support ongoing until a president-elect is decided. It's beyond "in the news" and any statements to the contrary are utterly ignorant of the purpose of WP:ITN. Crafting a non-partisan blurb is a bit risky so going with a simple link in ongoing is the safest route for the time being imo. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Pennsylvania is going to Biden, so the race can be called for Biden. The real news is not that Biden won, but that the Trump is getting support for his bogus arguments from senior GOP members. If local legislatures support Trump, they may throw out votes and appoint Trump electors, see here: "So on Fox Gingrich advises President Trump to have Bill Barr arrest election workers in Pennsylvania and then have the state legislature throw out the results of the election.". Count Iblis (talk) 06:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- This is a unique case where the provisionary winner of the election may not become president. If this ends up in the Supreme Court, it's likely that Trump will be handed the presidency. We still don't know what will happen but should posting two blurbs with opposite conclusions be allowed?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- There is not yet an issue to bring to the Supreme Court, despite what Trump says. Even the disputed ballots in Pennsylvania(3000ish I think) may not matter if the margin is big enough. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Also Congress has certain powers here that the SCOTUS cannot overrule. E.g. if it were to come down to a vote held by Congress where each State gets one vote which would bring victory for Trump. Pelosi could then intervene and refuse to allow such a vote. There is nothing the SCOTUS can do to force Pelosi to go ahead with such a vote. Count Iblis (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- I suspect there are enough centrist Democrats to join with Republicans and force a vote, but I digress because it doesn't appear the EC will be deadlocked, one way or the other. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- We don't need to speculate. Soon the counting will be largely complete and a winner is likely to be apparent. Meanwhile, could we please get eyes on the target article? It needs updating. A "consensus" of two editors is blocking me from posting the electoral vote totals and map as they currently exist. We need more editors to weigh in to generate a clear consensus. Jehochman Talk 13:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- I suspect there are enough centrist Democrats to join with Republicans and force a vote, but I digress because it doesn't appear the EC will be deadlocked, one way or the other. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Also Congress has certain powers here that the SCOTUS cannot overrule. E.g. if it were to come down to a vote held by Congress where each State gets one vote which would bring victory for Trump. Pelosi could then intervene and refuse to allow such a vote. There is nothing the SCOTUS can do to force Pelosi to go ahead with such a vote. Count Iblis (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- There is not yet an issue to bring to the Supreme Court, despite what Trump says. Even the disputed ballots in Pennsylvania(3000ish I think) may not matter if the margin is big enough. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- This is a unique case where the provisionary winner of the election may not become president. If this ends up in the Supreme Court, it's likely that Trump will be handed the presidency. We still don't know what will happen but should posting two blurbs with opposite conclusions be allowed?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Wait – Im Moment gibts nichts neues zu berichten. – Sca (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- And now enough votes have been counted to put Biden in the lead in PA. Any moment now the networks will start calling the race in his favor. Are we ready to go? See my comment above. The target article will need an update when PA is called. Jehochman Talk 14:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Biden wins. [14] Can we please work on updating the target and get this posted? I like Altblurb2. Jehochman Talk 14:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- The Associated Press needs to call it, and as of yet, they have not done so.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- We do not rely on a single source, though I agree it would be better to have multiple sources. That will happen very soon. Jehochman Talk 14:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- The Associated Press needs to call it, and as of yet, they have not done so.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Wait at least until AP calls it for Biden (this will not stop anybody working on the target article), but preferably also until either CNN or Fox does so too (RT, which gets its data for this from AP, has been showing Biden as having won Arizona for at least 24 hours after Fox withdrew this, so I assume, perhaps mistakenly, that AP has also not withdrawn it, while CNN never called it for Biden, despite CNN being clearly pro-Biden - it might not be good for Wikipedia if we jumped the gun and thus made supposedly neutral/unbiased Wikipedia appear more pro-Biden than CNN). Tlhslobus (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Belated Post-Posting Support for Ongoing pet TRM above (pointing out it ticks all the boxes, and perhaps also because nobody who knows ITN can accuse TRM of pro-US bias). Tlhslobus (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Wait – NYT hasn't called it yet, either. We should have that in addition to AP. – Sca (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support ongoing as this has become an unusual situation and may continue to be something readers are likely to be looking for, and likely will be for some time to come. As TRM pointed out, this is a good compromise. —valereee (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
November 3
November 3, 2020
(Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
(Posted) RD: Faustas Latėnas
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): lrytas.lt
Credits:
- Created and nominated by Gerda Arendt (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: Composer of incidental music, film and tv scores, chamber music, also theatre director, vice-minister of culture in Lithuania, advisor to the Prime Minister, cultural attaché - amazing - and had no article. Sorry, I can't read the obits (lt, ru), help welcome. Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Please reduce the number of {{ill}} links in the body, looks a sore to the eye and neither are so many helpful. Gotitbro (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- There are three interlanguage links, that isn't an excessive number. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Better interlanguage link than red link or no link. They are even accepted in featured articles. I they bother you, make stubs yourself. I don't read Lithuanian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- I agree, I have had articles on RD with 3 or 4 interlanguage links before, and never heard of a problem with it until now. As they encourage article creation, interlanguage links are good, better than no link or red links. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Better interlanguage link than red link or no link. They are even accepted in featured articles. I they bother you, make stubs yourself. I don't read Lithuanian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- There are three interlanguage links, that isn't an excessive number. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support decent article, well sourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support and good to go. As an aside, for me, the interlanguage links should be encouraged, not removed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support Ҥ (talk) 12:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Posted — Amakuru (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Don Talbot
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC News
Credits:
- Nominated by CyclonicallyDeranged (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Graham87 (talk · give credit) and Aussiesportlibrarian (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: Aussie swimming coach responsible for many Olympic successes, legend. CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 11:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
OpposeSupport fully sourced now, good to go. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)OpposeSupport reference work done. Great job! - Dumelow (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)- Comment A tiny section and single award need reference otherwise looks good. @CyclonicallyDeranged: please see if you can fix these. Gotitbro (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support Looks good now, it does not feel good to oppose/not support for a few errors when most of the article is fine but that is how it goes. @Graham87: thanks for fixing the issues. Gotitbro (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment – As one of the major contributors to the article, I've gone and added the requested refs. Graham87 17:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support The article it is in good shape now. KittenKlub (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support good to go indeed.BabbaQ (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 22:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Looks like from the page history another user aussiesportlibrarian had updated the article re the RD.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) Hurricane Eta
Blurb: Hurricane Eta (satellite image pictured) makes landfall in Nicaragua as a Category 4 hurricane, killing at least 70 people. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, CNN, NPR
Credits:
- Nominated by Cyclonebiskit (talk · give credit)
- Created by Destroyeraa (talk · give credit)
- Updated by ChessEric (talk · give credit), Cyclonebiskit (talk · give credit) and Robloxsupersuperhappyface (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Might be a touch early but this is going to be a major disaster for Central America and potentially the western Caribbean as a whole. "Catastrophic" damage is expected in Nicaragua and Honduras as flash floods and mudslides increase in frequency over the next several days. Early reports show extensive damage to coastal communities in Nicaragua even before landfall. I know this is the fourth tropical cyclone put to ITN/C in one week, but unfortunately that's what nature is throwing at the world. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
WaitSupport I spend 4 hours off wikipedia and the death toll increases from 4 to 70? I thought a bullet was dodged, but I guess I was mistaken. Gex4pls (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)WaitStrong support Hold up. Now 70 dead. Death toll will keep rising sadly. Hurricane Mitch. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)- Wait, support in principle Category 4 hurricane, but it seems that the full extent of the damage remains to be evaluated. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose/Wait Needs a more holistic picture along with a clear death count. Gotitbro (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
WaitSupport Not only do we need to wait until the full extent of death and impacts from the system is revealed, but the future of Eta is still uncertain as well, as to whether or not it will bring more impacts that will be noteworthy. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (chat with me!). 19:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)HoldNow support – fortunately the hurricane has claimed a low amount of deaths in Nicaragua as of this comment. But the hurricane is not dead yet, and as the news just pointed out Florida is taking heed as the system is forecast to approach the state.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC) Right now the death toll has risen to 57! Perth Now--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)- Wait Not a very deadly storm, but it could still be worth mentioning with information about flooding and landslides. We do have potential impacts in the U.S, but I wouldn't count on them being very notable. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support Article is high quality, news media is giving this story high prominence. Checks all of the boxes for ITN. --Jayron32 18:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Most of the "wait" votes above were when the blurb read "three deaths". The death toll is currently up to 13. --Jayron32 18:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Posted --Masem (t) 15:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: H. G. Somashekar Rao
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Deccan Herald The Hindu
Credits:
- Created and nominated by Ktin (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: Kannada language actor and theatre artist. Article has shaped up to be a clean start class biography. Meets hygiene expectations of homepage /RD Ktin (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Please can I request a pair of eyes on this one. Seems to meet hygiene expectations of homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 06:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Selected 'ography sections need to include the criteria for selection. I can't remember the policy abbreviation offhand, but the relatively short list in the body clashes with the claim of 350+ in the lede.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for this one, IP Editor. The link to filmography is only a subset of films. The number itself is referenced by RS sources. Ktin (talk) 07:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Not what I meant. WP:LISTCRIT reads Selection criteria [...] should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources and Wikipedia [...] should not contain indiscriminate lists. This means, that the the template {{List criteria}} should be filled out, with an explicit reason why these particular works are listed and the other 320+ are not, else the article should be tagged with {{List missing criteria}}. "I could only find references for these works" is probably not a good inclusion criteria, so perhaps list only the works that have been nominated/awarded something. Currently, the article states that it lists the films in which Rao was an actor. Is this an exhaustive list? If so, that would be a suitable criteria.130.233.213.199 (talk) 07:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Got it. I have tagged it now. Hopefully this should be good. If this proves to be an issue, I would rather remove that entire section while we send it to homepage / RD. Article meets requirements even without that section. Ktin (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Not what I meant. WP:LISTCRIT reads Selection criteria [...] should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources and Wikipedia [...] should not contain indiscriminate lists. This means, that the the template {{List criteria}} should be filled out, with an explicit reason why these particular works are listed and the other 320+ are not, else the article should be tagged with {{List missing criteria}}. "I could only find references for these works" is probably not a good inclusion criteria, so perhaps list only the works that have been nominated/awarded something. Currently, the article states that it lists the films in which Rao was an actor. Is this an exhaustive list? If so, that would be a suitable criteria.130.233.213.199 (talk) 07:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support The article is well referenced. Personally, I think that the short list of films is appropriate. KittenKlub (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 04:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
(Wait) 2020 United States elections
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.
Blurb: Elections are held in the United States for president and numerous other national, state, and local offices. (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:
- Nominated by Sdkb (talk · give credit)
- Courtesy link: There is some further discussion at Wikipedia talk:In the news#How are we going to deal with the US presidential election?. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm relatively new to ITN so perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see what the point is of posting about the U.S. elections before polls close. There is a real chance that there will not be a winner declared on election night and may not be declared for several days, which is something we should prepare a blurb for, but just posting that elections are ongoing when results will be coming in just hours later doesn't seem noteworthy or worth posting. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 06:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose In all elections, the results are published on ITN, not the holding of the same. You can wait. Alsoriano97 (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- I've presented an argument above against a past precedent that I believe is not serving readers. There are presumably some valid arguments to be made in its defense, but those should be presented here, rather than just dismissing the nom "because that's the way it is". {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- You must normalize American elections. In the discussion you mentioned, the users, I imagine most of them must be American, they make that very clear: as blurb must be cited the victory of the candidate, whoever he may be, only this.Alsoriano97 (talk) 07:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- I've presented an argument above against a past precedent that I believe is not serving readers. There are presumably some valid arguments to be made in its defense, but those should be presented here, rather than just dismissing the nom "because that's the way it is". {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support Personally, I support this, thought I think the election for the president should be singled out in the blurb, as that is the election that is in the news across the world, not some local elections or a referendum about marijuana — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoronaOneLove (talk • contribs) 07:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support, it's likely going to be a huge news story with Trump having recruited an army of lawyers to try to stop mail-in ballots from being counted after election day. Count Iblis (talk) 07:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose until the results come in. There's no need to go against what used to be a long-standing practice in the past.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose absolutely no need to do this, just because it's the US elections. If we do it for this one, we should do it for every general election around the world. Pointless. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- But we aren't doing this just because it is the US elections. This could be the most important US election in 60 years, it is in a UNSC Permanent Member, it is in the middle of a pandemic, Trump keeps on babbling about fraud and so on! 45.251.33.20 (talk) 08:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Unlike other elections in Western countries, what will make this the most newsworthy will be the disputes about the results. Count Iblis (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- What does that have to do with this nomination? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Wait till polls open in Hawaii and Alaska
or close in Kentucky- I am inclined towards opposing the blurb due to tradition (if we can call it that) but I also support it due to the fact that this could be the most important election in 60 years and will be highly contested. So I suppose we could compromise and blurb it when all of America can vote (unless there is some Wikipedia rule against this blurb). *prays that the better candidate (not Trump) wins in a landslide* 45.251.33.20 (talk) 08:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC) Last rephrased at 08:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)- 7am in Hawaii (when polls open there) would be noon Eastern time or 5pm UTC. The close of polls in Kentucky and Indiana would be 6pm Eastern time or 11pm UTC. The former sounds like an okay enough compromise, but I don't think we should wait for the latter. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Wow, that is a 6 hour gap. In that case I also think the former would be best. I'm striking out the other proposal. 45.251.33.20 (talk) 08:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- 7am in Hawaii (when polls open there) would be noon Eastern time or 5pm UTC. The close of polls in Kentucky and Indiana would be 6pm Eastern time or 11pm UTC. The former sounds like an okay enough compromise, but I don't think we should wait for the latter. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose This proposal is absurd and a clear example of systemic bias. Chrisclear (talk) 09:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb as written. Start a new proposal with a blurb about the record turnout where several states already have received a record number of votes before Election Day. News sources are reporting this will be the highest turnout since 1908. Jehochman Talk 09:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Wait until polls close and/or the winner becomes obvious; if there's no winner tonight do not blurb it unless something else comes up related to it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 09:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Having watched the Bolivian election sit here completely ignored and untouched for 22 hours after it was ready a couple of weeks ago, all this nomination achieves is proving the insane US bias of this place. Please kill and delete this nomination immediately to give the US some hope of retaining any respect at all. HiLo48 (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Can we please stop calling this good faith proposal names like "absurd"? I wouldn't want to participate here if my ideas were called that. American here and I would actually agree only the results (or any dispute that may come up) should be posted, but this is a good faith proposal with no reason not to discuss it and no reason to suppress or delete it just because it's related to the United States. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Yes, this is giving the US Election prominence over normal procedures for elections. But there is vast global interest in the US general election that exceeds that in all other elections. I expect a lot of readers worldwide will come to the main page hoping to navigate to information about this election, and currently there is no link for these readers. I think using "Ongoing" would be a better strategy though. --LukeSurl t c 11:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. I accept that American elections have a different status but I do not think this is helpful. The real question here is not whether the election is important but whether the actual voting itself is. Even in the US, the actual date of the election has become less significant this year. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Strong wait for results, like every other election. Furthermore, the article needs to have referenced prose describing the result. We don't post elections while they're ongoing, or when the polls close - what matters is when reliable sources call the result, and updating the article. It's fine to post the House and/or Senate results if those are available before the President, then update the blurb later. But simply saying that there is an election going on isn't blurb-worthy. Modest Genius talk 12:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Wait Until we find out which of the two old guys (or Kanye) wins. Gex4pls (talk) 12:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Wait until we either have results or have (god forbid) some sort of highly unusual development. If Trump declares victory based on election night data and starts making accusations of massive mail-in voter fraud or something, we should post. If the final count is delayed so long the Proud Boys and Antifa start shooting one another, we should post. But simply that it's election day, no. I don't think this is an absurd proposal. I just think we need to treat this like any other election until (god forbid) it's not. —valereee (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose This should be closed for now. Wait until we have (at least some) results.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose until there is a clear result, as we do in other countries. Sheila1988 (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Wait per 331Dot's assessment in the Courtesy Link provided above JW 1961 Talk 13:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Wait – Until gloomsday or bloomsday dawns. There's the usual avalanche of pointless prehash stories out there that are mostly space-fillers. Yawn. – Sca (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose premature nomination. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - It's important for U.S. to be aware of the impact of systemic bias and how it can color perceptions. This is probably the biggest national story in the country, yes. But how do international audiences feel? This does not warrant an early posting. Publish it when the final results are out.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Procedural Comment Please don't re-open this mess tonight, just start a new nom with a clean slate. There is a discussion at WT:ITN if you want to speculate about possible outcomes and how to handle them. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- I agree. This was the discussion for posting the article now, while voting is still underway. We should reconvene in a new nomination after the polls have closed. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- At 15:00 Wednesday, outcome remained unclear, [15] [16] [17] [18] with nine states totalling 59 electoral votes undecided. Alas, looks like this situation could continue for quite some time. — Sca (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. Pennsylvania will need an addition 2-3 days to count mail in ballots, there will probably be recounts in some states, and everything is going to be a mess. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- AKA 'electile dysfunction.' – Sca (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. Pennsylvania will need an addition 2-3 days to count mail in ballots, there will probably be recounts in some states, and everything is going to be a mess. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Should've been a clear SNOW close. Anyway, a new discussion is better which is going to focus on the actual results and condition of the article than whether to post it or not. Gotitbro (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- At 15:00 Wednesday, outcome remained unclear, [15] [16] [17] [18] with nine states totalling 59 electoral votes undecided. Alas, looks like this situation could continue for quite some time. — Sca (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Question on Congressional elections Is that going to be posted independently of the presidential election? None of the articles for those are acceptable. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Howard the Duck: We aren’t going to post the Congressional elections, since they happen every two years and putting them next to the presidential election will make most of the ItN box US politics.~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Nope. We have historically posted midterm elections, and included Congressional results in presidential election years. There are just as many UK general elections as US ones since 2015. What I'm asking if we'd be posting Congressional elections independently of the presidential election as the latter may take some time to be decided. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- So should the blurb be something like
In the 2020 United States elections, Joe Biden/Donald Trump wins the presidency while the Democrats hold the House and the Democrats/Republicans gain/hold the Senate
? (Of course if the Democrats get both chambers, that sentence can be condensed.) Nixinova T C 19:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)- Yes, those were the suggestions from 2016, just that I don't know if those where the blurbs that were posted. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- We may not want to post the Senate yet, as the makeup is still unclear(albeit it likely to stay GOP); the Senate could come down to a January 5th runoff in Georgia(the Warnock/Loeffler race). The House will stay Democratic(though with a smaller majority). 331dot (talk) 10:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, those were the suggestions from 2016, just that I don't know if those where the blurbs that were posted. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Howard the Duck: We aren’t going to post the Congressional elections, since they happen every two years and putting them next to the presidential election will make most of the ItN box US politics.~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
November 2
November 2, 2020
(Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Enuga Sreenivasulu Reddy
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Ktin (talk · give credit)
- Created by Foodie 377 (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: Diplomat who led the anti-apartheid efforts at the United Nations. Did a good amount of rewrite. Article has shaped up to a clean C-class biography. Meets hygiene requirements for homepage / RD. RIP. Ktin (talk) 08:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support Well referenced and large enough article. Interesting person as well. KittenKlub (talk) 09:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: this is currently listed on 6 November. Shouldn't this be an earlier date, Reddy died on 1 November and I can see it was reported as early as 2 November? - Dumelow (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Dumelow you are absolutely right. In fact, I edited the talk page on 2 November, and my first impression was that the article looks a lot better now. KittenKlub (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
RD: John Sessions
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Drchriswilliams (talk · give credit)
- Created by 213.48.241.118 (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: Sessions was known for comedy improvisation in television shows, panel shows, as a character actor in numerous films Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support Looks well referenced. Good to go? Jheald (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Appearance tables need to be sourced as per any other actor. --Masem (t) 20:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Completely unsourced filmography. Gotitbro (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: T. N. Krishnan
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hindu First Post
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Ktin (talk · give credit)
- Created by Pharaoh of the Wizards (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: Carnatic music violinist. Padma Shri and Padma Bhushan awardee. Article can do with some edits. Edits done. Article meets hygiene standards for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 06:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support Nicely sourced little article, suitable for RD JW 1961 Talk 13:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Please can I request a pair of eyes on this one. Seems to meet hygiene requirements and should be good for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support looks to be all sourced. Good length. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support Good number of sources, well written. SoloGaming (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 22:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Stephen, Thanks! For those interested, here's a clip of what must have been his last performance. Leaves you teary-eyed at ~1:35 into the video. Ktin (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- That was nice. Thank you.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) 2020 Kabul University attack
Blurb: Three gunmen kill at least 22 people and wound 22 others at Kabul University's campus, Afghanistan. (Post)
News source(s): (BBC) (Al Jazeera)
Credits:
- Nominated by ArionEstar (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Someone cancel the year 2020. ArionEstar (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support Like the story below, this one is well referenced, though short it is well above stub level and does appear to faithful cover what is known at this point. News sources are covering the story. I see no reason to hold it off the main page. --Jayron32 00:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support This seems to be fully "complete" (the full extent of what happened is known) , and while still short, seems sourced and ready to go in contrast to the lingering issues over the Vienna attack at the time I'm writing this. --Masem (t) 00:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support Article is a bit on the short side but manageable. Would benefit from noting what happened to the attackers (were they killed etc), but this is about as good as it gets for a Kabul terrorist attack. Juxlos (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Mentions in the lead "The three gunmen were later killed during a fight with security forces". --Masem (t) 00:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Article is sufficient to post Sherenk1 (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose People are killed in Afghanistan all the time. Just look at the Portal/Current Events for the last few days This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support if article can be extended further (if there is more coverage) - this is a major terrorist attack in a university (which most of us would expect to be safer). 45.251.33.20 (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Attribution is murky. Infobox states clearly that this was a specific branch of ISIS. Article states that, an NGO based in Maryland states that, it was ISIS generally. Goes on to say that a member of Afghan government attributes it to the Taliban. Both ISIS and Taliban are pretty vocal with their claims. Seems odd we have to rely on second or third parties to get a claim of responsibility.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support Large loss of life in what, the 5th(?) terrorist attack in the past month. Gex4pls (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support all over the news. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support and I agree wholeheartedly with the nom. Christ almighty. --WaltCip-(talk) 14:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Posting. Jehochman Talk 16:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Post-posting support Very tragic and significant attack on an educational institution. Gotitbro (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Post-posting comment @Jehochman: There has been a red copyvio tag on Kabul University for the last 24 hours or so. This should be resolved by an admin as soon as possible since it's currently linked on the main page via this ITN. — MarkH21talk 21:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. I fixed it, or so I think. Please check. Jehochman Talk 21:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Jehochman: Thanks! I suppose since it seems that has been there since 2012 that a simple revdel can't be simply done. It could need a listing at WP:CB? — MarkH21talk 21:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think the simple fix is okay in this situation. Revdel would be overkill. Jehochman Talk 15:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Jehochman: Thanks! I suppose since it seems that has been there since 2012 that a simple revdel can't be simply done. It could need a listing at WP:CB? — MarkH21talk 21:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. I fixed it, or so I think. Please check. Jehochman Talk 21:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) 2020 Vienna attacks
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.
Blurb: Armed attacks in Vienna, Austria, leave at least four people dead. (Post)
News source(s): Times of Israel, Haaretz, Daily Express, Reuters
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Solavirum (talk · give credit)
- Overwhelming support another anti-Semitic attack, most likely another Islamist attack in Europe. Since we didn't post the previous attacks from the past month, we have to post this one. CoronaOneLove (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Austria’s Jewish community said on Twitter that it was not clear whether the synagogue or adjoining offices were targets of the shooting as they were closed at the time of the incident per Al Jazeera. So, we're not here to presume any anti-Semitic or Islamist motive. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- >Per Aljazeera Yeah, into the trash goes your source. Read up on the Qatari support of Wahhabist movements 1980s-2010s. --CoronaOneLove (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Avoid that tone. Here's a BBC coverage quoting the same guy. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- I've read most the al jazeera wiki page and agree with Solavirum that al jazeera is mostly fine as a source, not as reliable if they are talking about qatari issues however--Annemaricole (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- >Per Aljazeera Yeah, into the trash goes your source. Read up on the Qatari support of Wahhabist movements 1980s-2010s. --CoronaOneLove (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Austria’s Jewish community said on Twitter that it was not clear whether the synagogue or adjoining offices were targets of the shooting as they were closed at the time of the incident per Al Jazeera. So, we're not here to presume any anti-Semitic or Islamist motive. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment also added another blurb.
- Support, an important developement. —-(nob) (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Wait I am not seeing anywhere in sources or in the article where this is being called as an Islamist attack (though that it was centered on the Jewish synagogue is the clear leap of logic for the claim). Details are still developing, and while even if it is not terror related, this is still probably worthy of being posted as an ITN story. --Masem (t) 20:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Wait Stub. There are six references used that have the word "synagogue" in their titles, but the article does not yet contain the word. It needs to be expanded. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support Yep, big news. Another islamist (?) attack in Europe This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support A terrorist attack with multiple fatalities is the sort of news story that gets a lot of international coverage and interest. Llewee (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- I’m going to post this. Jehochman Talk 22:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Why would you do that without consensus? Are you "supervoting" because you're an admin? Genuine question. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- At the time that you posted it, the article was claiming that there were eight deaths and a suicide bombing. With all due respect, wtf were you thinking? Thank goodness it was pulled. Mlb96 (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment we don't even have an article for the brutal stabbing of two Muslim women at the Eiffel tower by demented rightists, not sure why this is important. Seems Europe has discovered racism, and the violence has become routine. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- If this is true, i will back you in creating an article--Annemaricole (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Wait Developing. TompaDompa (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Too late, routine violence in Europe posted in 90 minutes. I'm sure no one will be frothing at the mouth shrieking about "bias" or demeaning a "minimum wait" either - that honor is reserved for other countries. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Wrong, I vehemently disagree with the premature posting by an American admin. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- (and I guess you mean "demanding" rather than "demeaning", right? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC))
- What the does my nationality have to do with it. Your comment is repulsive. Jehochman Talk 04:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was on my phone. Nice catch and thanks. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- No, what was repulsive was the supervote and abuse of the main page, posting erroneous material with no consensus to do so. Get a grip. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Too late, routine violence in Europe posted in 90 minutes. I'm sure no one will be frothing at the mouth shrieking about "bias" or demeaning a "minimum wait" either - that honor is reserved for other countries. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- I am pulling this for the time being, the sources are too conflicting to have an accurate blurb. Wait an hour or so until things get clear. --Tone 22:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support Biggest terror attack in europe since 2015. Gex4pls (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support – Has fatalities. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 22:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support – Terror-related and fatalities. BabbaQ (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose BBC is currently reporting one confirmed death as is the article. WAIT. That this was posted nearly an hour ago is absolutely appalling. Thank goodness someone saw sense and pulled it until we have the facts. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support but wait. Tone was correct to pull since the information from various sources at the moment is too confusing and contradictory, and it's not even entirely clear if the event itself has concluded or is still in progress. Hopefully in a few hours a more definitive picture will emerge. However, this was a major coordinated pre-planned terrorist attack involving multiple perpetrators, multiple locations and multiple fatalities. Even from what's known already, definitely blurb worthy. Nsk92 (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Conditional support major attack under large news coverage. Vienna isn't exactly known for its terrorist attacks so this is probably more covered. However if confirmed reports come in that only 1 was killed then it's best to not post. Juxlos (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, so you mean wait then? I.e. don't post this until we have the facts established? Jehochman, there you go. That's what we do at ITN. Wait until the facts are established before super-voting and posting fake news. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment It's not confirmed as a terrorist attak as of the time of this post, look at the sources on the article!
- Support Article is short, but sufficiently detailed and well referenced. Story is being covered by news sources. Checks all of the boxes. --Jayron32 00:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. Two people dead in something that may be a terrorist attack? There's no there in the confirmed information. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per LaserLegs, TRM and PowerEnWiki. It got a few headlines, and people are quick to cry "terrorism" when an attack fits a particular profile, but overall it's unclear if this is of any lasting impact right now. — Amakuru (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose another mostly peaceful terrorist attack. Water is wet. It's like the 5th one in 2 weeks in Europe, better suited for ongoing. 205.175.106.156 (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Infobox casualties are unacceptably vague (4+/15+). There's either RS support for these numbers, in which case they can be reported precisely, or they're the result of WP:OR, in which case they shouldn't be mentioned at all. Article is about the same quality as the one above. I am immediately suspicious of the initial !votes describing this as "the biggest attack since 2015" (it's not) and the immediate Anti-semitic/Islamist bickering (apparently kicked off by a Tweet). Europe's now had 4 (own recollection) terrorist attacks in the last few weeks, with casualties ranging from 0-3. This is, sadly, part and parcel of that part of the world right now. I'm completely unmoved by arguments that this should be posted for the strict rationale that they are "anti-semitic". I notice that no one describes the beheading of Paty as "anti-education" or the killing of an Orthodox priest as "Hellenophobic".130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support article is well referenced to reliable sources. More accurate information has come out and the incident is being covered in a major way internationally. (t · c) buidhe 07:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support per Buidhe above. Yakikaki (talk) 07:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment a common theme in Europe at this time, with a "terror attack" taking place roughly every other day or so. Please don't use the main page as a personal scratchpad: it's not a tabloid newspaper, it's an encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- I assume double voting is not allowed? (t · c) buidhe 08:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- That's why the above is a "comment". — Amakuru (talk) 08:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- I assume double voting is not allowed? (t · c) buidhe 08:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Whatever the exact nature of the event and the fatalities, this is clearly a hugely significant event and should merit immediate posting. It is not a question, as TRM states, of terrorism being "a common theme in Europe". This is an Austrian matter, and clearly exceptional. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Clearly is one of the two most over-used words in the English language. – Sca (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sca, if terrorism is such a big problem in Austria perhaps you would care to populate Category:Terrorist incidents in Austria. At the moment, it includes only one other incident after 1985 and that was more than a decade ago. I think "clearly" is quite reasonably used in this context, no? —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- No. – Sca (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sca, if terrorism is such a big problem in Austria perhaps you would care to populate Category:Terrorist incidents in Austria. At the moment, it includes only one other incident after 1985 and that was more than a decade ago. I think "clearly" is quite reasonably used in this context, no? —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Clearly is one of the two most over-used words in the English language. – Sca (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support Major attack on a major city, article passes quality standards. -- P-K3 (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- What's your definition of major? – Sca (talk) 14:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support per above. Article is fully referenced and isn't a stub. Major attack that is tragically happening more and more in Europe. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose – Per TRM. Another apparent 'Islamo-fascist' crime – indiscriminately savage but random and lacking broader significance. – Sca (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support, the article looks to be in good shape. -- Tavix (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support terrorist attacks are not common in Austria as some of the dishearteningly apathetic opposers are implying - this is not just "another occurrence". — Ruyter (talk • edits) 16:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- They are now extremely common in Europe generally, and as much as there haven't been so many in Austria, the lasting significance and impact of this is limited. Also, posting this when we decline to post shootings with vastly more deaths in other parts of the world reeks of double standards. This was a big story yesterday, but it is already relegated to a minor story on the front pages of UK news sites and we are not a news ticker. — Amakuru (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Current reports indicate that this was a lone gunman. Summarizing the above, it seems like there is not consensus (based on what is known now) to post this. We have a main page item about a shooting with 22 fatalities and 22 injuries. Does it make sense to close this? Jehochman Talk 16:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment – Hyped. Suggest close. Marked Needs attn. – Sca (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- At 1,900 words of futile blather, it does need attn. – Sca (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Jehochman: obviously I'm biased, because I ¡voted to Oppose this item, but if you feel there's no consensus then going ahead and closing seems sensible. As Sca says, the discussion is going around in circles at this point. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- The article does not need attention, as the article is sourced and not a stub, though this discussion is getting boring and futile. Close if you want. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 19:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Jehochman: obviously I'm biased, because I ¡voted to Oppose this item, but if you feel there's no consensus then going ahead and closing seems sensible. As Sca says, the discussion is going around in circles at this point. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- At 1,900 words of futile blather, it does need attn. – Sca (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
November 1
November 1, 2020
(Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
(Posted) RD: Dan Kohn
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): TheNewStack
Credits:
- Nominated by Joofjoof (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Galaktos (talk · give credit), Earl of Arundel (talk · give credit) and Dudek1337 (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 Chief Operating Officer of the Linux Foundation. He was a co-founder and CEO of the company that did the first e-commerce transaction (a credit card payment over the web) in 1994. Joofjoof (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Seems sourced and ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support looks okay. Ҥ (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Oppose CV masquerading as a BLP. There are only 2 sentences that deal at all with his life outside of work, one of which is arguably the "Education" bulletpoint on this CV. Infobox does not even give a location of birth. Article could reasonably be moved to Career of Dan Kohn.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)- Well, his work is what made him notable (WP:N). And I have added his birthplace and family info. Joofjoof (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support. I see IP Editor's point. However, there have been edits made by a few folks including Stephen and Joofjoof. Nothing so egregious that should prevent this article from going to homepage / RD. RIP. Ktin (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support and struct previous oppose. Biographical details are now suitable for RD.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support Article is OK, unfortunate death. Gotitbro (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Article is good for the main page. Yoninah (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 00:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) RD: Nikki McKibbin
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.
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Fox News, CNN
Credits:
- Nominated by Thechased (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.
- Oppose for now. Too much uncited info including personal medical details - Dumelow (talk) 10:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose also, while the entire "American Idol" and "Discography" sections are unreferenced (along with 3 or 4 paragraphs of "Post-Idol career") JW 1961 Talk 13:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Per above and the lead needs an overhaul. Gotitbro (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Robert Fisk
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Irish Times
Credits:
- Nominated by KittenKlub (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Philip Cross (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: English journalist known for his war correspondence in the Middle East for The Independent. KittenKlub (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support Well referenced article, looks to be ready for RD JW 1961 Talk 22:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment : not ready. The Irish Times subhead describes Fisk as "highly regarded and controversial". If our article is doing its job, a reader ought to be able to understand why the IT led its subhead with those words. At the moment, they don't get that from the article. Why was Fisk "controversial"? If we're going to link the article from the front page, it needs to present a full picture of its subject, and it needs to examine this, with balance and NPOV, even though that may be distasteful. If an article has a deliberate blind spot, or we run away from grasping the nettle, then it is not good enough to be linked from the front page. To be sure, part of what made Fisk "controversial" was that his reporting was often relentlessly critical of U.S., British, and Israeli policies and actions. But people who have expressed reservations about his journalism go beyond just the conservatives and pro-Israel columnists who coined the term "fisking" (former article) -- eg fellow Independent journalist Hugh Pope [19], as well as others critical of his more recent reporting of Syria. It's difficult to know how to weigh the criticisms, some of which certainly are politically motivated. (Though it may get easier as obituaries start to appear in the following days). But the article needs to do a better job of contextualising why Fisk became so "marmite". IMO therefore, in its current form, the article is not ready. Our reputation is not served if we promote an article that sidesteps why its subject has been presented (at least by some) as "controversial", or could be accused of whitewashing. Jheald (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support Good article quality. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support Article looks fine to me at a first glance, Jheald does raise some points that need to be looked into but I don't think they are significant enough to stop this from going to RD. Gotitbro (talk) 03:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. The points Jheald raises should be looked at first. I'm not expecting a "controversy" section, that's generally not advisible, but some mention of this is required. For example, the article is almost entirely silent on his alleged bias against the US and Israel, yet all the obituaries I've seen so far highlight this aspect of his career. — Amakuru (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support We're not doing a GA review here. I think it's clear from reading the article why he was controversial, and everything is sourced.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support Well written and referenced. SoloGaming (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose as it stands, per Jheald. Fisk certainly needs a "controversies" section to avoid being WP:POV ourselves. The NYT described him as "one of the most controversial journalists of the age", and he was banned from entering the US at one point. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support well written and referenced, no reason to delay for the haters to write a hate section. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- LaserLegs, it's not a question of "haters" but of basic WP:NPOV standards. I challenge you to find a single obituary which does not use the word "controversial" at least once. Your comment seems yet another example of WP:POINT. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm just following the guidelines you can do whatever you want, I suppose. It's strange to me that this still isn't posted. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- LaserLegs, it's not a question of "haters" but of basic WP:NPOV standards. I challenge you to find a single obituary which does not use the word "controversial" at least once. Your comment seems yet another example of WP:POINT. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support per P-K3 and LaserLegs. - AnthonyIreland (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support - ready for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support The sources of controversy are relayed in the body of the article. Links therein (eg. Douma chemical attack) describe the actual controversies of those subjects. There is an outlink to "fisking" at Wikitionary, which notes only that it's a term from "the blogosphere". Not quite the level of notability that should hold this article up. Otherwise a well written and structured BLP.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per Brigade Piron, they said it better than I could. (t · c) buidhe 07:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support per P-K3. Legendary journalist. I'm surprised this isn't posted already. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support per P-K3. NB article used to have a Criticism section, but it was rolled into a new Syrian Civil War section in this edit early this year (plus see subsequent series of edits for expansion of Syrian Civil War section). Rwendland (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Article at present has an orange tag related to above concerns. SpencerT•C 18:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Well that's how you keep an RD article off the main page it seems. No one can point to an actual guideline requiring a "controversy" section but we sure are keeping the article off the MP. Sad. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- This is simply wrong. If anything, Controversies are to be avoided in BLPs, and the "controversies" that this person was involved in happened to resolve in his favor after time. What is to be written? "Fisk was shamed and ridiculed for things that eventually turned out to be true?" WTF?130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- I removed that silly tag. A "controversies" section in a BLP is the opposite of WP:BLPBALANCE. Each relevant section covers what made Fisk controversial. If it's not stale, this needs to go up. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- @LaserLegs: if you bothered to read the talk page comments and participating in the discussion before unilaterally removing a cleanup template, then you would know that nobody is asking for a "controversies" section. Just some coverage in the existing sections of an important aspect of Fisk's life and career, with *every* obituary about him has mentioned prominently. The article is incomplete without that information, and the tag should not be removed until the issue is resolved. — Amakuru (talk) 09:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- I removed that silly tag. A "controversies" section in a BLP is the opposite of WP:BLPBALANCE. Each relevant section covers what made Fisk controversial. If it's not stale, this needs to go up. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 04:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Stephen: the article is orange tagged, and the issues raised both here and on the talk page have not yet been addressed. Please remove, as it is ineligible for ITN until this is resolved. — Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- A little disingenuous to omit that you added the orange tag after posting. Controversies are referred to in the article, such as the Syria section. But please pull it if you believe it’s the best course of action. Stephen 09:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- No, I added the orange tag yesterday, and it was removed unilaterally this morning with no response to the talk page comments or attempt to address the issues raised so I have reinstated it. Jheald has given a detailed description of the details that are missing, and it's not about the Syria thing, it's his views on the government policies of the US and Israel, and how these coloured his journalism. The article omits any mention of this at all, other than a vague "he was controversial" note towards the top. To be absolutely clear, I'm not saying we should imply that he was wrong in his views, far from it - on a personal level I think what he said made a lot of sense. But my personal opinion and those of other editors aren't what counts. For NPOV we have to represent the sources, which highlight this aspect prominently, and the fact that his views are disputed. Otherwise the article is simply incomplete. — Amakuru (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oh well, I've now added some detail on the controversy myself, in the "Views" section so I've now removed the tag again. I guess from my point of view this now makes it OK, but will also see what others say. — Amakuru (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- No, I added the orange tag yesterday, and it was removed unilaterally this morning with no response to the talk page comments or attempt to address the issues raised so I have reinstated it. Jheald has given a detailed description of the details that are missing, and it's not about the Syria thing, it's his views on the government policies of the US and Israel, and how these coloured his journalism. The article omits any mention of this at all, other than a vague "he was controversial" note towards the top. To be absolutely clear, I'm not saying we should imply that he was wrong in his views, far from it - on a personal level I think what he said made a lot of sense. But my personal opinion and those of other editors aren't what counts. For NPOV we have to represent the sources, which highlight this aspect prominently, and the fact that his views are disputed. Otherwise the article is simply incomplete. — Amakuru (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- A little disingenuous to omit that you added the orange tag after posting. Controversies are referred to in the article, such as the Syria section. But please pull it if you believe it’s the best course of action. Stephen 09:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Stephen: the article is orange tagged, and the issues raised both here and on the talk page have not yet been addressed. Please remove, as it is ineligible for ITN until this is resolved. — Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
October 31
October 31, 2020
(Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
(Posted) RD: Betty Dodson
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:
- Nominated by AleatoryPonderings (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Ktin (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.
AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Plenty of CNs and Unreffed sections, incl. 'ography. Otherwise a straighforward and well-written BLP.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- I have removed some of the content that you flagged as unreferenced. Requiring citations for a bibliography strikes me as massive overkill when {{authority control}} is transcluded on this page. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 04:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Rudolf Zahradník
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): iRozhlas
Credits:
- Nominated by Dumelow (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: Czech chemist. I've added a little to the article but it seems in reasonably good condition - Dumelow (talk) 08:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support Seems fine, well sourced enough and written well. Gex4pls (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support Well referenced article, suitable for RD JW 1961 Talk 13:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support Article is in good shape, notable scientist. Also, tutor of Angela Merkel! Yakikaki (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Weak opposeLimited depth of coverage in his career as a chemist; unclear what it means by he "studied the relationship between theoretical and experimental characteristics" (characteristics of...?) SpencerT•C 22:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Spencer, I've tried to expand a little on this but my chemistry knowledge isn't up to much more - Dumelow (talk) 06:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- WO struck. Not a support, but there is consensus for this to be posted. SpencerT•C 18:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Spencer, The lede requires to be trimmed down. Good amount of content from here should go into the body. Ktin (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Spencer -- have taken a pass at streamlining the lede. Please have a look and reintroduce content if needed. Cheers.Ktin (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Spencer, The lede requires to be trimmed down. Good amount of content from here should go into the body. Ktin (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- WO struck. Not a support, but there is consensus for this to be posted. SpencerT•C 18:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Spencer, I've tried to expand a little on this but my chemistry knowledge isn't up to much more - Dumelow (talk) 06:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support I find the professional coverage satisfactory. E.g. "He studied the relationship between chemical structure and biological activity as well as chemical reactivity and molecular spectroscopy" in the lede and others like it throughout. I find the coverage of his personal life a little lacking, but not so much that it stops being a BLP.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support Acceptable quality. (t · c) buidhe 07:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 18:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Iba Der Thiam
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Dumelow (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: Senegalese historian and politician. I've updated it with his death and the rest of the article looks reasonable - Dumelow (talk) 08:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support Small, but well referenced article.KittenKlub (talk) 10:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Article seems quite good. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support Per above. SoloGaming (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Opening sentence states that the subject was a "writer, politician and historian", yet the article devotes 1 sentence to his work as a historian and none to his work as a writer. SpencerT•C 22:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi @Spencer:. Editing from my phone so can’t do too much at the moment but I’ve tried to add a bit more on his history work - Dumelow (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- SupportReference coverage is good. The "Select academic work" looks like it covers his publications as a historian. Joofjoof (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support per Joofjoof. Ҥ (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 05:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Arturo Lona Reyes
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): La Jornada
Credits:
- Nominated by Dumelow (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: I've expanded it a little and think it meets the standard - Dumelow (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. I do not think this is far from being ITN-ready, but it certainly does need a cleanup first. The prose currently reads in a slightly unencyclopedic tone and does not fit well around the current section structure. There are a couple of areas where more citations might be helpful too. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Brigade Piron, I've hacked it around a bit so hopefully it makes more sense now. Let me know - Dumelow (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- That's much better. Many thanks for this, Dumelow! —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Brigade Piron, I've hacked it around a bit so hopefully it makes more sense now. Let me know - Dumelow (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: @Dumelow: Is there a citation for Lona Reyes' quote in the middle? It's unclear if it is from citation 1. Otherwise it's basically ready and give me a ping once that's worked out. SpencerT•C 22:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi @Spencer:. The quote was already there, I presumed it came from the book. I’ve found a source online and added it. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 02:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) Six Nations Championship
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.
Blurb: In rugby union, England wins the Six Nations Championship. (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:
- Nominated by PCN02WPS (talk · give credit)
- Created by Steven a91 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Rugby.change (talk · give credit) and Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk · give credit)
Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
- Going to need some prose on the matches and a tournament summary. Stephen 22:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose This is just regional sports and I haven't seen this at all in the newspapers. Is it really significant enough to be on the main page? Blah 22:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Blahwheel, This is a WP:ITN/R article so the significance is already established for each years event, we then judge this on the quality of the article, which as of now I would oppose per Stephens comment above JW 1961 Talk 22:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps it should be removed from the list. There are more important events than this that we can post..Blah 22:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Blahwheel, you'll need to start a discussion at WT:ITN if you want it removed. Stephen 03:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps it should be removed from the list. There are more important events than this that we can post..Blah 22:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Blahwheel, This is a WP:ITN/R article so the significance is already established for each years event, we then judge this on the quality of the article, which as of now I would oppose per Stephens comment above JW 1961 Talk 22:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose – article is just tables/lists ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Not ready. Needs referenced prose describing the course of the tournament. See the 2016 article for an example. This seems to be a perennial problem with the Six Nations - every year since then has failed to be posted in ITN because no-one wrote a prose summary. Modest Genius talk 12:19, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose needs prose. A lot more prose. Thanks. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 19:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose & Maybe Stale Now Just a bunch of tables. SoloGaming (talk) 02:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Marius Žaliūkas
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by Dumelow (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: Lithuanian footballer. I've added some missing refs, still a bit to do but it's headed the right way - Dumelow (talk) 07:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support Looks good, more about his personal life would be nice as well. Gotitbro (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support decently referenced, suitable for RD JW 1961 Talk 17:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support - sourced and ready. RD.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Posted – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) Super Typhoon Goni
Blurb: Typhoon Goni makes landfall in The Philippines as a super typhoon with winds of 195 miles per hour (314 km/h), killing at least 11 people. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Typhoon Goni makes landfall in The Philippines as a super typhoon, killing at least 11 people.
News source(s): Washington Post
Credits:
- Nominated by Destroyeraa (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Seems like very notable for ITN. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 20:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
WaitMaking landfall is not sufficient for posting, we'd want to know what type of damage it has done, which is expected to be known by Sunday (local time). --Masem (t) 20:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)- Support now with confirmed significant impact on landfall. --Masem (t) 17:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Wait Almost certain that hundreds will die, unfortunately. At least given what Haiyan did to a populated area in 2013. Let's wait and post the impact. NoahTalk 21:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
WaitSupportPer aboveMade landfall only yesterday and major impacts are already being reported, as well as ten deaths confirmed. It also set the record for highest winds at landfall, which you could include in the blurb. Gex4pls (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)- Comment why are we using 1-minute sustained winds in the blurb? Most reliable sources (e.g. AP, BBC, Reuters) use 10-minute winds from JMA/PAGASA. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- I believe it made the record for fastest one minute sustained winds at landfall, so that could be the reasoning Gex4pls (talk) 12:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Wait Per above, simply having record landfall is not ITN worthy. Gotitbro (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support now that the impact has been added to the blurb and article. Gotitbro (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Hurricane Noah, Masem, and Gotitbro: death toll now up to 10. Should be enough impact to post. Death toll will steadily rise throughout the day, which should be fixed by WP:ERRORS. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support posting now. What are we waiting for? 41 died and a million evacuated. We've been tripping ourselves to get this posted if this was two boats rowing on the Thames. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Howard the Duck: where's the 41 deaths coming from? NoahTalk 17:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Wait Per Above. SoloGaming (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support 170 kt landfaller and extremely catastrophic storm. Impacts are still coming out, but this is doubtless disastrous, at least comparable to Haiyan. Also, the name of the typhoon is just "Typhoon Goni" officially (the "super" moniker was attached by non-RSMCs like JTWC and PAGASA) so that may have to be fixed. JavaHurricane 01:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support – Destructive storm with widespread impact. Category 5 landfalls are generally posted from what I can remember. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support The typhoon had already caused significant damage. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 02:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support notable typhoon, among the strongest typhoons since 2013 Haiyan.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support, notable typhoon with strong impact and a few deaths. Latest reports show 16 dead, so blurb should be changed. Also, lowercase "T" should be used in "The Philippines", since "The" is not a part of the name. Chlod (say hi!) 09:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment marked as ready but please don't post it with a redirect to super typhoon. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Posted — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment the ITN after this posting has two typhoons, this one and Molave. Is this too many typhoons? Molave was several days ago...--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 12:13, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ordinarily I'd say this shouldn't matter. Each item rolls off the bottom in turn. However, since the World Series and the Typhoon are both labelled as October 27, I've used a bit of licence and flipped back to the sports event at the expense of Molave. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Better and more well-rounded ITN now.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Ordinarily I'd say this shouldn't matter. Each item rolls off the bottom in turn. However, since the World Series and the Typhoon are both labelled as October 27, I've used a bit of licence and flipped back to the sports event at the expense of Molave. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) Sean Connery
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.
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Oscar winning Scottish actor Sir Sean Connery dies aged 90 (Post)
Alternative blurb: Scottish actor Sir Sean Connery dies aged 90
Alternative blurb II: Scottish actor Sean Connery dies aged 90
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Sherenk1 (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.
- Support The article is good shape already. I think that Sean Connery deserves a blurb as well ... KittenKlub (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support Decent, well referenced article for RD JW 1961 Talk 12:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- also Support blurb in this case JW 1961 Talk 14:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support Article looks in good shape. Count me as support for a blurb too if one is proposed. P-K3 (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support Article in good shape and well referenced in general. RD for sure, not familiar enough with the industry to comment on blurb. Juxlos (talk) 12:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb or RD. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support once his filmography is restored, since I'm sure it was blanked in error in editing. rawmustard (talk) 13:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Disagree, I think it's fine for an actor with a prolific career to have the filmography spun off to a separate article. P-K3 (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- At the time I posted, the section had an empty filmography tag which would need to be resolved before the article could be posted to front page. Everything else appeared to have no issues. rawmustard (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, but what would go in such a filmography section? It can't include all of his films, because that would bloat the article and it's all covered in the sub-article. His most important films are already discussed in the Career section prose, so I don't think any separate Filmography is needed in the main article. — Amakuru (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- At the time I posted, the section had an empty filmography tag which would need to be resolved before the article could be posted to front page. Everything else appeared to have no issues. rawmustard (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support per all the above. First Bobby, then Nobby, now Sean. Pretty shit week. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support Blurb, per KittenKlub Yakikaki (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support Blurb Academy Award winner and acting icon. Death reported globally. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- We'd not include mention of the award in a typical death blurb. Lots of people are Academy Award winners, that is not what makes this death blurbable. --Masem (t) 14:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support RD Mjroots (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support article is class B already. Blurb would be approparite given the less notable current list, maybe a picture as well. Assem Khidhr (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. --Tone 14:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support Blurb.Global icon. RIP. Ktin (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb probably the most iconic/legendary/etc Scottish actor ever. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb. If anyone thinks I've applied false standards compared with others such as Kirk Douglas then holler, but for now I do think Connery is probably one of the few Thatchers/Mandelas in the acting world. Please just blurb as Sean Connery though (Alt 2). Per MOS:HONORIFIC the "Sir" isn't normally included in titles or other mentions except for the first mention in the lead. — Amakuru (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb. Our standard should be a Thatcher/Mandela/Connery standard, if anything. BD2412 T 14:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb. A Scottish legend. Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb. I could name several entertainers of similar stature who have died this year and did not get a blurb, so I don't see why Connery should get one. We didn't give Chadwick Boseman a blurb despite him being half Connery's age and dying suddenly in the middle of his career. Kirk Douglas, who won three Oscars and the Presidential Medal of Freedom, didn't get a blurb. Olivia de Havilland, a two-time Oscar winner, didn't get a blurb. Regis Philbin, no blurb. Ditto for Little Richard and Helen Reddy. -- Calidum 15:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- If people keep on saying that people should not have blurbs because of what has happened in the past, then nothing is going to change. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- If this starts a new trend of actually posting blurbs, I'd be happy. But I doubt it. -- Calidum 15:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- The recent trend has been towards far fewer blurbs, which is a good thing. — Amakuru (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- If this starts a new trend of actually posting blurbs, I'd be happy. But I doubt it. -- Calidum 15:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- If people keep on saying that people should not have blurbs because of what has happened in the past, then nothing is going to change. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Most of those should have been blurbed, especially Boseman, and we shouldn't be bound by past mistakes. Davey2116 (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it was ridiculous Douglas and Little Richard not being blurbed, and probably DeHavilland as well. I had (until 30 seconds ago) no clue who Regis Philbin was, though. Black Kite (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- I am fully in agreement... I would have supported a blurb for many of these if I had known they were nominated. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- No, absolutely not. You can make a case for Douglas, but Little Richard and DeHavilland are not even remotely of the calibre required. Blurbing is rare, and Connery is one of very few people in entertainment whose career and fame is so huge that they merit inclusion. In general you should assume only a handful of names in any given industry or profession would make the grade. — Amakuru (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- But why? -- Calidum 03:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- No, absolutely not. You can make a case for Douglas, but Little Richard and DeHavilland are not even remotely of the calibre required. Blurbing is rare, and Connery is one of very few people in entertainment whose career and fame is so huge that they merit inclusion. In general you should assume only a handful of names in any given industry or profession would make the grade. — Amakuru (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Most of those should have been blurbed, especially Boseman, and we shouldn't be bound by past mistakes. Davey2116 (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb I've given this a lot of thought. The one other actor who comes to mind that we posted as a blurb is Christopher Lee. Both him and Connery have highly prolific careers that stretched on well into their advanced age. It seems appropriate to post this.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Though arguably Connery formally retired in 2006 (give or take a few minor roles), whereas Lee was still working in acting up until his death. Lee's death was "surprising" (beyond his age) where this death was a matter of time. --Masem (t) 16:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb This is a no-brainer. He was a world-class actor, global icon and influence on many future generations of actors.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb How could we not post the star of such screen classics as Zardoz and Highlander? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb A legend. RIP. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- I see enough support to post as a blurb. --Tone 17:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Tone, Thanks. Can we please bring back Cecilia Chiang on the WP:ITNRD carousel? Alternately, if there is an RD ready for publishing, we could publish that. Ktin (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb in retrospect as reliable sources such as the BBC are calling him one of the greatest actors of the 20th century. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Post-posting support blurb I can read, Trebek! Davey2116 (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb Not egregious, but most of the "opposes" at wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/February_2020#(Posted_to_RD)_RD:_Kirk_Douglas apply. Doesn't have the sentimental impact of a Carrie Fisher death. Being James Bond and non-American probably pushed this over.—Bagumba (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for saying what I didn't want to say. -- Calidum 03:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb per Bagumba. I can't help but feel that we don't really have a coherent standard for recent death blurbs. -- Veggies (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb Per the above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
October 30
October 30, 2020
(Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
(Posted) RD: Nobby Stiles
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): (Metro)
Credits:
- Nominated by Mjroots (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Egghead06 (talk · give credit) and PCN02WPS (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: One of the 1966 England World Cup winning squad. Please indicat whether you support a blurb, or RD only. Mjroots (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality as the article is poorly referenced and outright oppose for a blurb as he was clearly not a top figure in the sport of the same stature as Puskás, Pele, Cruyff or Maradona.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose on referencing - the section on his playing career, which is what makes him notable, is entirely unreferenced. Oppose blurb - not a major figure in the game. --Bcp67 (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb Nobby Stiles was one of the best English football players ever, but I don't think would be high enough on a list of the best international football players ever to merit a blurb. I suspect such a list would be limited to players on par with Pele and Maradona. NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb Not even close; not in the FIFA 100. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 18:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose based on quality of article, agree with all of the problems noted above. Oppose blurb when the article is improved because neither "the cause of death itself is a major story" nor do "the events surrounding the death merit additional explanation". RD is sufficient as nothing needs to be explained in a blurb. --Jayron32 18:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Converted to RD (non-admin closure). Consensus will not emerge to post with blurb. Changed nomination to RD alone. Conversations from below can focus on RD readiness. PS: Feel free to undo my change if there is a desire to drive to consensus. Also feel free to WP:TROUT Ktin (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Ktin: Good call, no need for a trout. Mjroots (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose I know I'm piling on, but the lack of inline citations means this will need a lot of work to get ready.(And though Nobby was a beloved figure, he's not blurb material.)-- P-K3 (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)- Sadly Oppose RD until references are improved. RIP Nobby JW 1961 Talk 18:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Kiril Simeonovski, Bcp67, NorthernFalcon, Bzweebl, Jayron32, Ktin, Pawnkingthree, and Joseywales1961: I have addressed your quality concerns and the article is now sourced. If you could look over it again that'd be appreciated. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- PCN02WPS, It's reading way better, but since you pinged there have been 9 cn's added, I will look in on this again in nthe afternoon JW 1961 Talk 08:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Joseywales1961, PCN02WPS -- Hey folks. Agree, definitely getting there. I was the one who added the [citation needed] tags. Once these are filled the article should be good to go to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 11:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- PCN02WPS, It's reading way better, but since you pinged there have been 9 cn's added, I will look in on this again in nthe afternoon JW 1961 Talk 08:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support for RD oppose for blurb RD blurbs should only be for people who the average reader (i.e. not a follower of the field) would know - e.g. Sean Connery. Also, can someone find a better picture? This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support for RD. I've fixed up the remaining cites needed, and tweaked a few things here and there, so I think this is now good to be posted. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 01:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support Good job with the sourcing. P-K3 (talk) 11:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Stephen, Tone, Spencer, John M Wolfson, and Bagumba: apologies for the intrusion, but as it has become fashionable to ping admins these days, I'll join the party! Any chance someone could see if this is ready and post it if so? Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 12:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Posted – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Clearly RD but don't see blurb relevance per above. Gotitbro (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) 2020 Aegean Sea earthquake
Blurb: An Earthquake in the Aegean Sea kills at least 8 people and injures 130 more (Post)
Alternative blurb: An Earthquake in the Aegean Sea results in at least 8 people getting killed and 130 more injured
News source(s): The Guardian, CNN, CNBC, Al Jazeera, Bloomberg, AP, BBC, Reuters
Credits:
- Nominated by Solavirum (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Seems like very notable for ITN. 8 deaths and 130 injuries (likely to increase), plus major destruction Sincerely: SolaVirum 16:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Article looks good. In the news. Sherenk1 (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Eight deaths seems like a pretty small number. Is there precedent for posting natural disasters with so few deaths? If there is, then Support. If not, then Oppose. (And yes, I am aware that we don't make posting decisions based purely on precedent, but it would definitely inform my vote in this case.) Mlb96 (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Mlb96: Eight deaths is generally enough for large disasters, such as strong earthquakes or volcano eruptions. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 22:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Wait – Although AP has put the toll up to 14, other RS sites say six or eight. Details seem likely to develop further. – Sca (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment death count reached 14, with 427 injuries. Most of which were reported in Turkey. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support - For now, the article is good. Maybe we should wait until midnight local time and announce the number of victims at that time.--WEBDuB (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support High death toll and many details, though we should wait for an official death toll. Gex4pls (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support fixed template. Enough death toll and is headline news. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 19:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support An 7.0 earthquake near a big city, Izmir (the earthquake has crushed especially Bayraklı and Bornova according to Turkish Wikipedia sources - I will add it -, where consist at least 1/5 of the city per population). I think the article is deserving a location in "In the news" section.--Ahmetlii (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Posted – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
(Removed) Ongoing removal: End SARS
Nominator's comments: The article's latest timeline entry is at End SARS § 22 October. There have been so substantive additions since 25 Oct, just copyedits. Per WP:ITN: Articles whose most recent update is older than the oldest blurb currently on ITN are usually not being updated frequently enough for ongoing status.
Oldest blurb is from 25 Oct (2020 Seychellois general election). —Bagumba (talk) 04:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support – Overplayed cause célèbre anyway. – Sca (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Remove When posted, it was an actively updated article. Seems to have fallen off. It's been over a week at this point. --Jayron32 12:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Support No longer in the news in the West This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Weak support probably still ongoing in Nigeria, though news coverage has died down considerably. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Support I agree with above. SoloGaming (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Removed. I know I voted. There's a consensus anyways, so commensurate with posting the below item, I also removed SARS. --Jayron32 15:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) Ongoing: October 2020 Polish protests
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): AP, Reuters
Credits:
- Nominated by Bagumba (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Blurb was posted on 28 Oct and cycled off on the 29th. Still ongoing though per above sources. —Bagumba (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support, would nominate by myself. Still develops, new events planned for 10/30 and later --Andrei (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support, hmm... got pushed off. Still ongoing and active. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 12:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support That got pushed off fast. I guess it's a busy week, but this is perfect for ongoing. Gex4pls (talk) 12:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support – Still going on and likely to continue for some time. – Sca (talk) 12:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support There were 410,000 protesters recently. Albertaont (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support Big news and still on-going. Almost textbook ITN/O material This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 13:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support per all above. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 13:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support per above. Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support We did push it off really fast, I agree with above. SoloGaming (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Posted Overwhelming support, also removed SARS item above, per consensus. It was also getting a bit crowded. --Jayron32 15:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Amfilohije Radović
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press, The Washington Post, RFE/RL
Credits:
- Nominated by DragonFederal (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: Cleric of the Serbian Orthodox Church. The Metropolitan Bishop of Montenegro and the Littoral from 1990 until his death. DragonFederal (talk) 08:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Support Article looks mostly OK This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support looks good to me. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 13:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- SupportJust from a quick skim, everything is sourced and whatnot. Gex4pls (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support - The article looks good. A very notable person in the Balkans. --WEBDuB (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support Looks good for RD JW 1961 Talk 20:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Support A notable figure in the Balkans and Orthodoxy. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Bibliography still seems unsourced. Also one additional skim for sourcing might be needed. Ktin (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- I see the source now, a general one. Posting. --Tone 14:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) RD: Mesut Yılmaz
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.
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): AP
Credits:
- Nominated by Demoxica (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.
- Oppose On quality. Many unsourced statements and claims, even a paragraph that goes without sources. Gex4pls (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Many paragraphs uncited. I tagged the article for sourcing issues. Yoninah (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Basic referencing issues. Gotitbro (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - But ping me asap if the improvements are made.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
- Stale SoloGaming (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
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: