Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates: Difference between revisions
Plasma Twa 2 (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 121: | Line 121: | ||
*'''Support blurb''' The sitting mayor of one of the most important cities on Earth dying suddenly and under mysterious circumstances is huge news, which is supported by the lengthy articles in major publications. -- [[User:Kicking222|Kicking222]] ([[User talk:Kicking222|talk]]) 21:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC) |
*'''Support blurb''' The sitting mayor of one of the most important cities on Earth dying suddenly and under mysterious circumstances is huge news, which is supported by the lengthy articles in major publications. -- [[User:Kicking222|Kicking222]] ([[User talk:Kicking222|talk]]) 21:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC) |
||
:*{{u|Kicking222}}, please explain to me how Seoul is one of the most important cities on Earth. Probably if you are an American or some Westerner or person of Korean descent, sure, this city is probably important to you. However, do you seriously think anybody in Africa, South America, or most of Europe care or known much about Seoul? This has got to be one of the most subjective statements I've seen in a while. [[User:Dantheanimator|Dantheanimator]] ([[User talk:Dantheanimator|talk]]) 01:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC) |
:*{{u|Kicking222}}, please explain to me how Seoul is one of the most important cities on Earth. Probably if you are an American or some Westerner or person of Korean descent, sure, this city is probably important to you. However, do you seriously think anybody in Africa, South America, or most of Europe care or known much about Seoul? This has got to be one of the most subjective statements I've seen in a while. [[User:Dantheanimator|Dantheanimator]] ([[User talk:Dantheanimator|talk]]) 01:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC) |
||
::*There's always going to be subjectivity in such a statement unless you're talking about London or New York. For the sake of supporting the statement, however, I will point out that Seoul is seventh on the [[Global_city#Global_Power_City_Index|Global Power City Index]], the [[Global_city#The_World's_Most_Talked_About_Cities|ninth most talked about city]] in the world, and is fourth on the [[list of cities by GDP|list of cities by nominal GDP]], ahead of Paris and London. It is without question an important city. -[[User:Plasma Twa 2|<font color="#FF0000">Plasma</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Plasma Twa 2|<font color="#FF4500">Twa</font>]][[User talk:Plasma Twa 2|<font color="#FF0000">2</font>]] 07:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment'''. I posted this because of the unusual and likely unnatural death of a prominent official. Seoul itself has a population of almost 10 million, more than some countries. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 21:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC) |
*'''Comment'''. I posted this because of the unusual and likely unnatural death of a prominent official. Seoul itself has a population of almost 10 million, more than some countries. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 21:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC) |
||
*:Nope. I hear this "population" argument all the time (e.g. "California has a higher GDP than 90% of the countries in the world" etc). Nope. To equate the "mayor of Seoul" to Thatcher/Mandela etc is a total joke. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] <small>([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!]])</small> 21:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC) |
*:Nope. I hear this "population" argument all the time (e.g. "California has a higher GDP than 90% of the countries in the world" etc). Nope. To equate the "mayor of Seoul" to Thatcher/Mandela etc is a total joke. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] <small>([[User talk:The Rambling Man|Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!]])</small> 21:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:32, 10 July 2020
Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here. |
In the news toolbox |
---|
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
July 10
July 10, 2020
(Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Vikas Dubey
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
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.
Nominator's comments: Indian gangseter. Article looks good. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support in principle, oppose on quality - article is too short, but this guy has been in the news for quite a while, first in 2001, then now. 45.251.33.227 (talk) 06:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
July 9
July 9, 2020
(Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Trần Ngọc Châu
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Washington Post
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (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: Died on June 17, but only reported on July 9. Bloom6132 (talk) 07:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
McGirt v. Oklahoma
Blurb: The Supreme Court of the United States rules that about half of Oklahoma is Native American tribal land. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The Supreme Court of the United States rules that half of Oklahoma was never disestablished as Native American tribal land with respect to criminal prosecution.
Alternative blurb II: The Supreme Court of the United States rules that half of Oklahoma falls under the criminal jurisdiction of Native American tribal land.
News source(s): Reuters, The New York Times, NPR
Credits:
- Nominated by SusanLesch (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Masem (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Oklahoma is an FA and has been updated minimally. - SusanLesch (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose, for now. No (bold) article that refers to this decision at this time. El_C 17:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
*Oppose per above. The article being nominated should be the court case, not the Oklahoma or Indian reservation articles, which include info on a lot of other things as well. Dantheanimator (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Neutral I have a very strong COI with this so I cannot make a proper, non-baised decision on this. The article is good though. Dantheanimator (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment this is interesting (though it's about to go down in flames) but as I read it SCOTUS didn't say the tribe "owns" the land just that it's in their jurisdiction. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Not yet Sets the stage for some big changes, but the state figured out a way to create a state out of two federally-designated Indian Territories before, it might reasonably wiggle its way out of this, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I've added the case article that I had been working on before and after the decision and with altblurb. --Masem (t) 19:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, Masem. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Seems like domestic politics. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose All rulings from the US Supreme Court are going to be presented as candidates to the ITN? Tiring.Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Please do not ... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- That's not the point being made. The point being made is why would every US Supreme Court judgement need to go through ITNC? Some of them simply aren't sufficiently notable. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks LaserLegs for replying, but I didn't said that. I'm trying to say that it seems that every rulings from SCOTUS have to be able to be published in ITN without a previous reflexion. I support some, but lately the less important are posted here as candidates. The Rambling Man seems that he has spoken for me! Greetings.Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- The US upholding its word with Native Americans has got to be news. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks LaserLegs for replying, but I didn't said that. I'm trying to say that it seems that every rulings from SCOTUS have to be able to be published in ITN without a previous reflexion. I support some, but lately the less important are posted here as candidates. The Rambling Man seems that he has spoken for me! Greetings.Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- That's not the point being made. The point being made is why would every US Supreme Court judgement need to go through ITNC? Some of them simply aren't sufficiently notable. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Please do not ... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose I would not expect to see this in an almanac of the top 1000 news stories of the year, let alone the top 100. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose internal to the US, and even then, only part of the US. Banedon (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Banedon, not a valid reason to oppose this. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Strictly, no, but then there's a conflict of "don't oppose on a minor parochial political issue" and "ITN should feature stuff people are actually looking for", right? This is "minor parochial political issue" which "few people will be looking for". The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Banedon, not a valid reason to oppose this. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose even in the states this is not getting significant, in-depth news coverage. It got buried by the other major supreme court decisions regarding Trump's finances (which I also wouldn't support for ITN). ZettaComposer (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support This is probably going to be remembered as one of the most important SCOTUS decisions relating to indigenous peoples in US history. Unfortunately, it is getting buried by the press/media who are obsessed by all things Trump and the pandemic. It's significance outside of the US is likely to be minimal. But historians and lawyers will be studying this decision and its ramifications, which could impact most of the states, long after a lot of the stuff we post here is relegated to a footnote in the history books. Sometimes (not often) court decisions really are that important. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- To stress, Congress in 1908 metaphorically forgot to dot an "i" (explicitly writing "disestablished the reservations") in the Ok. Enabling Act, which is why we're here today. No other state is impacted by this. It is important in terms of tribal rights but only because Congress screwed up back then, and (as I've read in legal opinions) Gorsuch a supporter of Tribal right saw the door open to support this solution. --Masem (t) 00:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support in principle but oppose because of uncited claims. This decision has far reaching implications across the United States. It sets a precedent for challenging 100s of disestablished native american nations. Also, millions of Americans could find out that they are living on a reservation. Nearly half a million people in Tulsa just found out they are not governed by Oklahoma laws. The land is so large that the supreme court essentially created a U.S. territory with no established laws. @The Rambling Man: yes we are getting a lot of SCOTUS nominations right now, but it is just the season. It won't happen all year. SCOTUS has a habit of releasing opinions in batches, twice a year. This would only be the second opinion we posted for this season. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Er, no? They have been putting out between 2-3 opinions weekly since about March. Today were the last ones for this term. Just that at ITN we tend to avoid highlighting anything that doesn't tend to have major worldwide impact. The LGBTQ employment discrimination one was probably the one case that would resonate at this in terms of world interest ("welcome to the rest of the world, US" type logic). --Masem (t) 00:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, but they tend to release more landmark decisions at the end of the season. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Er, no? They have been putting out between 2-3 opinions weekly since about March. Today were the last ones for this term. Just that at ITN we tend to avoid highlighting anything that doesn't tend to have major worldwide impact. The LGBTQ employment discrimination one was probably the one case that would resonate at this in terms of world interest ("welcome to the rest of the world, US" type logic). --Masem (t) 00:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Speaking as one having worked on both this and the case last year Sharp v. Murphy that ended in a deadlock necessitating this one, this is one of those that borders between ITN and DYK. ITN that, wow, half of OK is really under tribal land oversight , but that really is in practice, per the ruling, mostly limited to anything involving criminal acts (roughly 8000 prisoners in the system), and as the ruling stated, SCOTUS fully expects the states and tribes to work out any conflicts in the future. Hence I feel it is better as a DYK-type fact. --Masem (t) 00:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- What is the point of suggesting DYK when it does not qualify at this time? Are you going to take it to GAN? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Weak support Yes it's domestic politics, but it is also part of the global issue of indigenous rights. No one says "domestic politics" whenever another country legalizes same-sex marriage or legalizes marijuana. NorthernFalcon (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support per Ad Orientem and Coffeeandcrumbs. Proposing alt blurb 2. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 02:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
(Posted as blurb) RD: Park Won-soon
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: In Seoul, South Korea, incumbent mayor Park Won-soon is found dead at age 64. (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:
- Nominated by Davey2116 (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: South Korean politician and incumbent mayor of Seoul found dead at age 64. Article is in good shape. Possible blurb? It's not every day that the mayor of one of the largest cities in the world (population 10,000,000) dies suddenly in office. Davey2116 (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support - looks good to go for RD.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support - source calls him the second-most powerful politician in South Korea. Death is well-sourced, and blurb can be updated as more facts emerge. --WMSR (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support article definitely good enough for RD, and looks important enough for ITN too. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Blurb Non-retired transformative figure, death will affect a currently powerful city, not just get a lot of tweets. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- InedibleHulk could you describe how he was a "transformative figure"? His article certainly doesn't give me that impression. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- InedibleHulk mis-typed your name.... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb, unexpected death of non-natural causes of a sitting politician in powerful office. --LukeSurl t c 17:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support per the above comments. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support High quality article. This is ready. Dantheanimator (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Posted. 331dot (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb This the type of "unusual death" we'd consider , given that he was under accusations of sexual misconduct - they haven't ruled out either suicide or foul play but the death doesn't appear natural (despite being 64). --Masem (t) 19:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oops I see this was posted as blurb :P --Masem (t) 19:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oops indeed, what a mistake. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oops I see this was posted as blurb :P --Masem (t) 19:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Blurb not even close to notability for a blurb --LaserLegs (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose blurb ??? Hardly near the threshold for a blurb. Banedon (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)- Switch to Weak support blurb on the depth of coverage in South Korea, even if it's not very prominent elsewhere in the world. Banedon (talk) 06:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb the mayor of Seoul is now equivalent to Mandela/Thatcher/&c? Wow. Just wow. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb The sitting mayor of one of the most important cities on Earth dying suddenly and under mysterious circumstances is huge news, which is supported by the lengthy articles in major publications. -- Kicking222 (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Kicking222, please explain to me how Seoul is one of the most important cities on Earth. Probably if you are an American or some Westerner or person of Korean descent, sure, this city is probably important to you. However, do you seriously think anybody in Africa, South America, or most of Europe care or known much about Seoul? This has got to be one of the most subjective statements I've seen in a while. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- There's always going to be subjectivity in such a statement unless you're talking about London or New York. For the sake of supporting the statement, however, I will point out that Seoul is seventh on the Global Power City Index, the ninth most talked about city in the world, and is fourth on the list of cities by nominal GDP, ahead of Paris and London. It is without question an important city. -PlasmaTwa2 07:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. I posted this because of the unusual and likely unnatural death of a prominent official. Seoul itself has a population of almost 10 million, more than some countries. 331dot (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Nope. I hear this "population" argument all the time (e.g. "California has a higher GDP than 90% of the countries in the world" etc). Nope. To equate the "mayor of Seoul" to Thatcher/Mandela etc is a total joke. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- As I stated, I posted him because of the unusual death, not due to equating him with Thatcher. 331dot (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- I will add that WP:ITNRD states "Death as the main story: For deaths where the cause of death itself is a major story (such as the unexpected death of a prominent figure by homicide, suicide, or accident) ". 331dot (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- A lot people die unusually, doesn't mean they get a blurb on the main page of Wikipedia. The mayor of Seoul!! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Are a lot of people mayors of large, global cities? I've cited the relevant policy above. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- This is simply not blurb-worthy. If the mayor of London died, I'd expect RD. Terrible decision. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- @331dot: - not criticising your decision to post because there was solid support at the time, but I think there's enough doubt about this now that it should be moved to RD for the time being. You've mentioned the rule regarding "death as the main story", but that doesn't give us any clue as to what calibre of individual would warrant inclusion under that. The mayor of a city, albeit a major one, does not constitute the level required. So this is certainly far from clear cut. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Amakuru The mayor died under mysterious circumstances(that I won't go into here due to BLP) that are unusual for a prominent politician that is the leader of a large, globally influential city. I appreciate your opinion, but I disagree. If you want to develop specific criteria(which IMO would be instruction creep), that is your option. Thanks 331dot (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree that would be instruction creep, but as has already been said several times this blurb is not clear cut under the present wording of the "rules" either. And the lack of consensus right now means it should be pulled. You say his death was "under mysterious circumstances" but the blurb says nothing about that, and as you also say it is a BLP and we should be avoiding assigning more intrigue to this than is currently reliably known. To add insult to injury I notice below that the second in command of the Ivory Coast, who also died in office unexpectedly, has not been blurbed. Which is also IMHO correct, that's an RD too, but to blurb the Korean guy and not the African seems dubious to me. — Amakuru (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- The man you speak of died of a health problem, not circumstances similar to those in this case. 331dot (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- In neither case would there be any objective measure to suggest the individuals were "transformative". After the strawman arguments, and failure to see the questions being asked, this can be declared as the worst RD blurb decision since Carrie Fisher. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- The man you speak of died of a health problem, not circumstances similar to those in this case. 331dot (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree that would be instruction creep, but as has already been said several times this blurb is not clear cut under the present wording of the "rules" either. And the lack of consensus right now means it should be pulled. You say his death was "under mysterious circumstances" but the blurb says nothing about that, and as you also say it is a BLP and we should be avoiding assigning more intrigue to this than is currently reliably known. To add insult to injury I notice below that the second in command of the Ivory Coast, who also died in office unexpectedly, has not been blurbed. Which is also IMHO correct, that's an RD too, but to blurb the Korean guy and not the African seems dubious to me. — Amakuru (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Amakuru The mayor died under mysterious circumstances(that I won't go into here due to BLP) that are unusual for a prominent politician that is the leader of a large, globally influential city. I appreciate your opinion, but I disagree. If you want to develop specific criteria(which IMO would be instruction creep), that is your option. Thanks 331dot (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- @331dot: - not criticising your decision to post because there was solid support at the time, but I think there's enough doubt about this now that it should be moved to RD for the time being. You've mentioned the rule regarding "death as the main story", but that doesn't give us any clue as to what calibre of individual would warrant inclusion under that. The mayor of a city, albeit a major one, does not constitute the level required. So this is certainly far from clear cut. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- This is simply not blurb-worthy. If the mayor of London died, I'd expect RD. Terrible decision. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Are a lot of people mayors of large, global cities? I've cited the relevant policy above. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- A lot people die unusually, doesn't mean they get a blurb on the main page of Wikipedia. The mayor of Seoul!! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe @331dot:, a seasoned ITN regular, could have waited a bit longer before posting a blurb here, but at the time there was a consensus for it. I'm opposed to the consensus, not the admin who recognized it. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- No, there was a consensus for RD. The blurb came along after some supports for RD. Bad call. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 23:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Nope. I hear this "population" argument all the time (e.g. "California has a higher GDP than 90% of the countries in the world" etc). Nope. To equate the "mayor of Seoul" to Thatcher/Mandela etc is a total joke. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Support blurb - This is not a clearcut case, but he is the leader of a highly-populated area in a large country, so has control over a large budget/population etc, who died in controversial circumstances while under investigation for a scandal. So the notability is also due to the scandal. He is not being put in per Thatcher/Mandela as that is for intergenerational statesmen/women who died of old age long after retiring; it is clear that he wouldn't be in here if he died of old age at 80, 20 years after leaving office, even if he was impeached Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb and move to RD only per above. Was surprised to see this just now, and given there's probably nothing very remarkable about his death and he wasn't a head of state, I don't think there's a very good reason to blurb it. — Amakuru (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment we've hit an all-time low bar with this being a blurb now. A mayor, not a head of state, of a city in South Korea killing himself is not what our blurbs should be about. Perhaps this is the new Carrie Fisher. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- If you want to limit blurbs of unusual deaths to heads of state, you are free to propose that. 331dot (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- That's clearly not what I'm saying. This individual does not rise to the level of "transformative figure". If he does, please explain how. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- I have responded to this point already and don't think it productive to repeat myself. Thanks 331dot (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- No, you've not mentioned anywhere that I'm aware of as to how this individual could be considered "transformative". You've said he was in a position of political power (not a big one) and he died in unusual circumstances (suicide after accusations of sexual impropriety) but you certainly haven't expressed how he was a "transformative figure". The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- There is an "or" between "unusual deaths" and "transformative figures" though obviously, we're not posting non-notable Darwin award winners. I fully agree on 331dot's reasoning that a sitting major of a major ~10M city, embroiled in a scandal, and found dead by non-natural causes, easily meets the "unusual death" bar. If he had died of natural causes even as the sitting major, I would definitely agree only an RD was necessary (64 and natural death is far less unusual). --Masem (t) 22:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- It was posted as a blurb when most votes in support were cast when the nomination was for RD. This is an admin super-vote (as evidenced by 331dot's attempted defence of the posting), as the point being, if we had a clear consensus for a blurb, it would be non-controversial. As it stands, we don't, and we never did, but an individual admin interpreted it as we needed a blurb. Error. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- So I shouldn't defend and justify my actions? 331dot (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- You absolutely should be accountable for them, as you suggest, no-one said otherwise. The problem is you posted a blurb for an RD, and now you're doubling down by using personal thoughts on it rather than just using the community consensus which is what you're charged with doing. Never mind, but this is (as I've said) a new low for ITN. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 23:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- So I shouldn't defend and justify my actions? 331dot (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- It was posted as a blurb when most votes in support were cast when the nomination was for RD. This is an admin super-vote (as evidenced by 331dot's attempted defence of the posting), as the point being, if we had a clear consensus for a blurb, it would be non-controversial. As it stands, we don't, and we never did, but an individual admin interpreted it as we needed a blurb. Error. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- There is an "or" between "unusual deaths" and "transformative figures" though obviously, we're not posting non-notable Darwin award winners. I fully agree on 331dot's reasoning that a sitting major of a major ~10M city, embroiled in a scandal, and found dead by non-natural causes, easily meets the "unusual death" bar. If he had died of natural causes even as the sitting major, I would definitely agree only an RD was necessary (64 and natural death is far less unusual). --Masem (t) 22:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- No, you've not mentioned anywhere that I'm aware of as to how this individual could be considered "transformative". You've said he was in a position of political power (not a big one) and he died in unusual circumstances (suicide after accusations of sexual impropriety) but you certainly haven't expressed how he was a "transformative figure". The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- I have responded to this point already and don't think it productive to repeat myself. Thanks 331dot (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- That's clearly not what I'm saying. This individual does not rise to the level of "transformative figure". If he does, please explain how. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- If you want to limit blurbs of unusual deaths to heads of state, you are free to propose that. 331dot (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Remove blurbDeath blurb are contentious as a rule. To post one after just three hours debate is remarkably poor form, especially for someone as inconsequential as a mayor. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- ON second though, removing the blurb once posted is disruptive. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- That's a good point too, this was posted as a blurb after three hours. We regularly have RDs with 100% consensus sitting there for eight hours or longer. Bad call. Shouldn't be a blurb, poor decision. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Not really very disruptive. You just remove the text, flip the picture back to the previous one, and add him to RD. It happens quite often, but whatevs, your !vote is yours to cast as you wish! — Amakuru (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support Removal of this blurb in ITN and only leaving it as RD per The Rambling Man's spot on reasoning and rhetoric. Also something not mentioned earlier by anyone but, who in the world cares about the death of a random mayor of the capital of some country. No offense to Seoul but, to many readers, it is rather irrelevant and I doubt anyone even knew this guy before he died. As per Amakuru comment, the 2nd head of state of Cote'd Ivoire should have been included. It baffles me how a admin would fast-track this and post it but ignore my last 2 noms. Dantheanimator (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Dantheanimator There is no requirement that everyone in the world must care about the subject being posted. Every subject is irrelevant to someone. Very little would be posted otherwise. As I noted, the man you speak of died of a health problem, not unusual, unnatural circumstances. I did not "ignore" nominations; I am not the only one who participates here, nor is it required that I or any user comment on every single nomination. 331dot (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- True, not everyone has to care about the subject but it has to be actually significant/relevant. From what I understand, this mayor died from suicide due to some sort of scandal. I'm sure this may be interesting to some, but only a small fraction. I don't think suicide is unusual or unnatural. If it is, Sushant Singh Rajput's death should of had a blurb. His page got 13,684,142 views in June. Dantheanimator (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- 331dot, also, consider that Ennio Morricone, who had thousands of fans, made huge contributions in music and is a pop-culture icon, DID NOT get a blurb. Further, Sushant Singh Rajput's death is SIGNIFICANTLY more contentious than Park Won-soon's. There is no reason that Park Won-soon has a blurb and image but neither Ennio Morricone or Sushant Singh Rajput don't. Dantheanimator (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- I can't comment on every past nomination and explain why it isn't the same as this. I considered the nomination in front of me. Neither of those two persons died in circumstances similar to this one. 331dot (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, Rajput also died of suicide under strange circumstances. There deaths are very similar in nature. Dantheanimator (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- My opinion, of course, differs. I don't really have anything else to add. 331dot (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- 331dot, so will you consider re-posting him as RD instead of ITN? So far, there has been some consensus on the removal of him from ITN. As a admin, you should consider this consensus. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- I posted this per the guideline I indicated above with consensus at the time(and additional support has come in since). I stand by my decision. 331dot (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Alright then, I concede defeat. I just want to say though, as somewhat previously mentioned by The Rambling Man, this posting does severe injustice to many, many people who died recently. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Dantheanimator If there have been other notable officeholders of large, globally influential cities who have been found dead after being charged with a crime, possibly by their own hand, please point those out. 331dot (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- 331dot Well not an officeholder, but Sushant Singh Rajput death was just as notable and his page recieved A LOT of views, a lot more than this one will ever. Both deaths are so similar in nature, as I said earlier, that it is surprising that they each received different treatment. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Dantheanimator If there have been other notable officeholders of large, globally influential cities who have been found dead after being charged with a crime, possibly by their own hand, please point those out. 331dot (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Alright then, I concede defeat. I just want to say though, as somewhat previously mentioned by The Rambling Man, this posting does severe injustice to many, many people who died recently. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- My opinion, of course, differs. I don't really have anything else to add. 331dot (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- True, not everyone has to care about the subject but it has to be actually significant/relevant. From what I understand, this mayor died from suicide due to some sort of scandal. I'm sure this may be interesting to some, but only a small fraction. I don't think suicide is unusual or unnatural. If it is, Sushant Singh Rajput's death should of had a blurb. His page got 13,684,142 views in June. Dantheanimator (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- ON second though, removing the blurb once posted is disruptive. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb. Per 331dot. And I would advocate the same for London and New York. I don't think the RD Blurb fight will ever have a real clear-cut consensus until we more specific rules are established, given the recent discussions on Little Richard, Vera Lynn, and Ennio Morricone. I'd support a stricter measure. But until then, I support this. Awsomaw (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Awsomaw, why would you support this if you think this is a contentious issue? All the people you listed did NOT get a ITN blurb. It seems to me that until now, all the commotion was about posting a blurb for someones death, not removing a posted blurb of someones death. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Also, if no clear consensus on blurbs like this can develop or there is a debate regarding it, then it shouldn't be posted. It seems to me that we are doing injustice to all the significant people who were nominated for a blurb but only got RD. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Dantheanimator Good questions. I'll try to go one at a time here. commotion. No, the past commotions were about whether or not you should post. If they were only commotion about not posting, then there wouldn't be commotion, it'd be snow. Just as reference, I voted for blurbing Richard, and then not blurbing Lynn off of precedent for Richard, and then abstaining for Morricone (because I don't know the guy). contentious. To me, it's not that it's contentious that we are blurbing stuff, it's that it is contentious because we do not have some hard guideline for posting or not posting. All the people you listed did NOT get a ITN blurb. I think that this death is quite different (maybe even qualitatively different). 1. The impact of his death is greater. Impact on people, politics, and press. 2. The cause of his death is different. It is not natural causes. I think these two reasons are valid reasons to consider blurbing Won-soon over Richard, Lynn, and Morricone, but I wouldn't be opposed to blurbing all of these if sufficient reason was given. At the same time, I see the need to have stricter rules so that we don't have these discussions all the time, so I wouldn't be opposed to a rule that would end up in all four of these people not getting blurbed.
- doing injustice. Okay now. I think that 3 hours was a bit fast. But to WP:AGF, there was no opposition at the time, and so it seems to me like 331dot saw no reason not to blurb it then and there. We can argue back and forth about whether he should've waited or not, but let's just assume good faith here; he was not trying to intentionally do anyone injustice or make an admin super-vote, and I don't think that 331dot foresaw this kind of opposition. Now that it is up and there is opposition, I think it's fair for blurb to be taken down and pulled to RD and until consensus or close. (331dot, I hope you don't mind me speaking a little for you, sorry if you'd prefer me not to.) Awsomaw (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Awsomaw, I'm not saying that 331dot posted this in bad faith. Absolutely the opposite, 331dot posted this 100% with good faith but the issue is that 331dot continues to keep it up and defend it. While yes, there was clear consensus for posting it at the time of its posting (I even supported it, only for RD though) but now, the consensus is far different than it was originally, with many including myself preferring this for RD not ITN. As such, this should not remain in ITN since the consensus has developed out of its favor. Despite this, 331dot continues to defend its continued posting. This is my issue, not that it was ever posted but that it is still posted. I don't mind you speaking for me, you said it pretty well yourself. This should be taken down and posted as RD until a true positive consensus emerges. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Dantheanimator, sorry, it seems then that I should AGF for you next time. It did seem to me like the opposition was trying to accuse 331dot, but it's not a big deal. I would like the blurb to be up, but leaving it up is unfair, as you've helpfully pointed out. I think we are on agreement on this then, though you may still disagree with me on the earlier comments. Awsomaw (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Awsomaw Yes, thank you Awsomaw for agreeing. The only issue I have with this is that it is still posted in ITN despite the change among in consensus. This can go back up on ITN but only after it develops a "clear" consensus. Until then, this should remain as an RD. I think this is the best solution for everyone. Dantheanimator (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Also, regarding the nature of the death, as I said earlier, Rajput's death is very similar to this persons death. Rajput's death had a "great" impact (his page got 13,684,142 views) and the "cause" is not natural (he died of suicide too) and debated (police investigation is ongoing). The fact that Rajput did not get a blurb while this person did is the one of the main issues with this posting. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Just because their nature of death are the same, doesn't not entail that their impacts are the same. I think that the cause and impact together makes this an unusual case that merits a blurb. Awsomaw (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Also, if no clear consensus on blurbs like this can develop or there is a debate regarding it, then it shouldn't be posted. It seems to me that we are doing injustice to all the significant people who were nominated for a blurb but only got RD. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Pull and move to RD. In no way important enough for a blurb (look at the article!!), and posted far too quickly for a blurb. Black Kite (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Black Kite Please point me to the ITN guideline or policy about an arbitrary minimum comment period. When I posted, there was no opposition at all, and at least four comments supported a blurb(with some others unclear). Opposition has come in, but so has support. 331dot (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Well then, let's have a look at the news. BBC News Front page? Thirteen major stories there. Not this one. You need to click onto "World News" and it's the 4th highest story even there. The Guardian? 12 stories. Nope, buried in "Overseas news". New York Times? Need to scroll a long way down the page. Le Monde? - 11th story. Times of India? Nope, buried in the foreign news section in small type. And so on. Blurbs for people should be worldwide top-level news. This one isn't even mid-level. We've posted something to ITN that isn't in the news. Black Kite (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Black Kite Please point me to the ITN guideline or policy about an arbitrary minimum comment period. When I posted, there was no opposition at all, and at least four comments supported a blurb(with some others unclear). Opposition has come in, but so has support. 331dot (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb and strongly oppose removal. The incumbent executive of a major global city (classified as Alpha under the GaWC scale) dying in office is huge news, especially given the circumstances. The story is on the front page of the NY Times and BBC websites, among others. This blurb also helps balance out the ITN section, which has a relatively minor story by world standards (EncroChat) that I have not seen mentioned as front-page news on American websites or TV programs. SounderBruce 01:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- SounderBruce "This blurb also helps balance out the ITN section, which has a relatively minor story by world standards (EncroChat) that I have not seen mentioned as front-page news on American websites or TV programs." HOW IN THE WORLD IS ENCROCHAT MINOR??? Encrochat lead to the arrest of over 800 people, seizure of millions in criminal cash, and much much more. It was also the hugest Euro-wide police operation in Europe in a while. SounderBruce, why does it have to be mentioned in American news? Your opposition is literally because of geographic bias. If you actually looked at international news, you would have seen it very soon. Why does your geographic bias have to affect out coverage on ITN? Dantheanimator (talk) 02:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- It's not on the BBC front page, and it's buried half way down the NYT. Someone needs to tell the media that it's "huge news", because they don't seem to agree. Black Kite (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- News websites can vary their headlines due to location. There is no requirement that something be on X number of front pages to merit posting. 331dot (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Googling "Seoul mayor dead' gives me results from numerous outlets around the world. 331dot (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Googling "Black Lives Matter painted outside Trump Tower", "Trump tax returns", "Aston Villa 0 Manchester United 3" and "Naya Rivera" (amongst others) give me even more. This is not blurb level. Black Kite (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- As I note above, WP:ITNRD gives the following criteria: ""Death as the main story: For deaths where the cause of death itself is a major story (such as the unexpected death of a prominent figure by homicide, suicide, or accident)"(my emphasis). I believe that this posting is in keeping with that criteria, though I respect differing views. 331dot (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- That's exactly my point though - it doesn't appear to be that major a story, because he wasn't a prominent worldwide figure. Even the most-criticised previous RD blurbs (i.e. Carrie Fisher) were at least people with worldwide recognition. How many people would have known this person before today? Black Kite (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- 331dot so does googling Rajput and others mentioned earlier. This is simply un-acceptable for ITN. If you want to put major news on ITN, you should reconsider the aforementioned individuals. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- He was not a mayor of a globally influential city who died after being charged with a crime, possibly by suicide in an effort to avoid that charge. 331dot (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- But he is a popular Indian actor whose page recieved more views in June than any other persons page by a long shot. I agree with you, they aren't exactly the same, but they're pretty close. Why do we keep still arguing about this. Just re-post it as RD, re-nominate it as a blurb and get a proper/up to date consensus for posting. Dantheanimator (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Whilst I agree with you about the RD, can we leave Rajput out of it? He's not really relevant to this situation at all. Black Kite (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- I believe consensus existed and still exists as support has come in since I posted it. I'd prefer there not be wheel warring on this, but I'm not going to in retaliation, so people can do what they will. And if consensus changes overnight, then it does. Good night(truly). 331dot (talk) 02:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- On a separate note, there is 4 of us (me, Black Kite (talk), The Rambling Man, and Amakuru) who oppose this ITN posting and want to see it re-posted as RD. How much longer until a clear consensus is developed? Dantheanimator (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Black Kite, According to my version of BBC.com/news, the story on mayor Park is the most-read of the day. It is in the second section of the front page, next to stories about Michael Cohen and Chinese sanctions. SounderBruce 02:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb per SounderBruce. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 02:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Pull blurb, move to RD No consensus for a blurb, posted far too quickly. I’m surprised that this was not posted as RD first, with blurb discussion continuing, as is standard practice. A mayor is not notable enough for a blurb in my opinion, even if it was not natural causes.P-K3 (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb For Christ sake this man was described as the second most powerful politician in South Korea and was the mayor of the country's capitol. For a man of his stature to presumably commit suicide is rare (as in a high ranking politician). Plus its getting global coverage. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb this was a highly unexpected death of a noteworthy politician which made headlines around the world. This certainly seems like a case where it is the death itself that is noteworthy, rather than it being noteworthy solely due to his status when alive. I can't help but feel users are applying the Mandela/Wicked Witch test incorrectly since the person's accomplishments when alive are not the sole determining factor of whether their death warrants a blurb. --PlasmaTwa2 07:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
July 8
July 8, 2020
(Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
RD: Finn Christian Jagge
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): VG
Credits:
- Nominated by Count Iblis (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.
Count Iblis (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment – Stub. – Sca (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose as of now there are no references. -- a lad insane (channel two) 22:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Unreferenced and a stub JW 1961 Talk 22:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose This article is super short.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose Missing an in-text ref, is a stub, and has no mention of the person's death. This needs a lot of work. Dantheanimator (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Weak oppose it's still a stub and the table appears to be unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 06:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Chynybaĭ Tursunbekov
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): 24KG
Credits:
- Nominated by Alsoriano97 (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 Speaker of the Kyrgyz parliament. Article seems pretty ready. Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment This article seems pretty short right now.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Comment Some citations needed, marked on article.JW 1961 Talk 22:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support now referenced JW 1961 Talk 22:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
*Oppose for now per missing in-text refs. Dantheanimator (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support looks good, although short. Sorry for the late correction. Dantheanimator (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Not fully referenced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 06:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment @Dantheanimator, The Rambling Man, AlphaBeta135, and Joseywales1961: now seems ready. Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Posted. I almost opposed this, because the article is incredibly short. But at 1562 bytes of readable prose it is I suppose *just* above the threshold of what we consider to be a stub, so meh. Maybe someone will expand it! — Amakuru (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
RD: Wayne Mixson
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [1]
Credits:
- Nominated by Jon698 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Served as Lieutenant Governor of Florida for eight years and as Governor of Florida for three days Jon698 (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. Several uncited paras need addressing first. - SchroCat (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Dantheanimator (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Weak oppose (for now) This article is currently decently sized. However, it has some unsourced pieces of information.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- I removed some Citation Needed templates to make way for sources that I added.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD/Blurb: Amadou Gon Coulibaly
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Incumbent Prime Minister of Ivory Coast Amadou Gon Coulibaly dies unexpectedly at the age of 61. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by SchroCat (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Johndavies837 (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: Needs a little work first to fill in a few gaps in the sourcing, but I'll work on this shortly. All gaps now sorted. SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support Short but well cited. This is ready. Dantheanimator (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support Article in good shape. Question, What about a blurb?. Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Seems a reasonable question, given he was the serving prime minister and possible (likely?) future president of a country of 26 million people. His death in other circumstances would not justify a blurb on his death, I suspect. Perhaps you could create a standard ITN nomination - I think this is being reported by the BBC in a way that might support that -- PaulBetteridge (talk) 07:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- @PaulBetteridge: I just added the blurb, but I'm afraid it might be too late. @The Rambling Man and Bagumba: What do you both think? Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Seems a reasonable question, given he was the serving prime minister and possible (likely?) future president of a country of 26 million people. His death in other circumstances would not justify a blurb on his death, I suspect. Perhaps you could create a standard ITN nomination - I think this is being reported by the BBC in a way that might support that -- PaulBetteridge (talk) 07:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support – looks good to go. Marking as ready. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment still ready 10 hours later. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 06:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Posted—Bagumba (talk) 09:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb as a sitting non-acting head of government. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Blurb for a non–ceremonial heads of state with limited power (e.g. Bhutan) or de facto government leaders whose offices lack de jure constitutional power (e.g. Myanmar). --LaserLegs (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- So the office of the Prime Minister would be equated with the Chief of the Cabinet of Ministers of Argentina? If so, I understand your opposition.Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Munah E. Pelham-Youngblood
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://frontpageafricaonline.com/news/liberia-a-real-tragedy-has-hit-the-cdc-rep-munah-pelham-youngblood-is-dead/
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Soman (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: Prominent personality in Liberian politics Soman (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support Shortish, but covers the main points of notability in Liberian politics, and is cited throughout. (Are we sure this time the news is true tho...?) - SchroCat (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- [2] It appears so. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support Short but well cited. This is ready. Dantheanimator (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support Marked ready. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment still ready, 8 hours later. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 06:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Posted—Bagumba (talk) 09:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Alex Pullin
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-08/queensland-olympian-alex-pullin-drowns-spearfishing-on-goldcoast/12434974
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by HiLo48 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Joseph2302 (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: Australian Olympic snowboarder. Died at the age of 32 while spearfishing. HiLo48 (talk) 05:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment The article is very much a stub, and the report looks like a click bait. (I know I just clicked)
To make matters worse the report says "may have been spear fishing," so even that part is doubt, however ABC does mention a resuscitation attempt, so the article can be expanded from just that single source. Try to develop the article to Start class first,because there's too little for somebody like me who doesn't know the first thing about Alex Pullin. KittenKlub (talk) 06:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC) Changed to a Support, it's becoming more of an article.KittenKlub (talk) 09:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC) - Weak support it's a start class article already. It is brief, but what's there appears in good order. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support I've added a couple more lines, but it does feel like this article covers all the (online) content about him. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Good enough for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 09:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support looks good. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 09:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Posting. --Tone 10:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Australia has snowboarders? Fascinating. Thanks, HiLo! InedibleHulk (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
July 7
July 7, 2020
(Tuesday)
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
(Posted) RD: Brad Pye Jr.
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Los Angeles Times
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by TomCat4680 (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: Died on July 5, but only reported in the LAT on July 7. Bloom6132 (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Slightly short, but covers the main points and fully sourced. - SchroCat (talk) 11:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support per above comment JW 1961 Talk 12:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Posting. --Tone 12:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Mary Kay Letourneau
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (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: Died on July 6, but only reported on July 7. Bloom6132 (talk) 05:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support there's a lot on the crimes, but given that's from where her main notability stems, I guess it's not therefore undue. Article is in good shape. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Good shape article.BabbaQ (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support; good-sized article that is fully sourced. - SchroCat (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support Looks good to go JW 1961 Talk 12:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Posting. --Tone 12:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) U.S. withdraws from the WHO
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 begins a one-year withdrawal process from the World Health Organization. (Post)
News source(s): Forbes, CNN
Credits:
- Nominated by Nice4What (talk · give credit)
- Comment Maybe I'm confusing this with something else but I thought this was a previous ITNC suggest back when Trump suggested he was going to do it... I wanted to find that previous ITNC to review what the consensus was for posting (at the announcement or when the dead's done, in a year from now), but as I said, thre's a lot things Trump wants the US to withdraw from so I cant' easily find it. --Masem (t) 20:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose at this point, though. The year delay is required, so there's an election between now and then, and if Trump is outed and the next President wants us to stay, that can be undone. If it should be the case that the year goes by and the US does commit to leaving then we can post. --Masem (t) 20:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose post it when they do leave, not when Trump continues to rattle his sabre/saber. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Weak oppose as per User:Masem although, given the circumstances, another shocking Kung Flu chop at the stability of world health. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Question does anyone know if this is a "Brexit" thing where they can change their minds 100 times or if this is a done deal? If the former then wait, if the latter then we can post now (assuming the article is OK) --LaserLegs (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- What? Brexit wasn't "changing minds 100 times", the government followed the result of the referendum and we're leaving the EU. The deals we're making on the way are changing, but I don't recall "a "Brexit" thing where they can change their minds 100 times". Perhaps find a bit analogy for whatever it is you're trying to say? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- After 4 or 5 delays right? Sorry if I misspoke. Anyway Wait the update is quite good but "it was unclear whether he had the authority to do so.". We'll need that sorted out first. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yep, I think a handful of internal amendments hardly equates to a hyperbolic "a "Brexit" thing where they can change their minds 100 times". And as you probably know, if Trump is shown the door in November, this probably won't happen, so it's time to put the crystal ball away and declare this as a "dead duck". Quack. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yep, I misspoke and clarified I meant delay and delay and delay and delay glad I was able to clear that up for you. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- No it was clearing it up for yourself. I think those of us living through Brexit have a clue as opposed to some bizarre foreign commentary. How odd. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Exactly, I'm glad you understand now --LaserLegs (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- No it was clearing it up for yourself. I think those of us living through Brexit have a clue as opposed to some bizarre foreign commentary. How odd. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yep, I misspoke and clarified I meant delay and delay and delay and delay glad I was able to clear that up for you. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yep, I think a handful of internal amendments hardly equates to a hyperbolic "a "Brexit" thing where they can change their minds 100 times". And as you probably know, if Trump is shown the door in November, this probably won't happen, so it's time to put the crystal ball away and declare this as a "dead duck". Quack. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- After 4 or 5 delays right? Sorry if I misspoke. Anyway Wait the update is quite good but "it was unclear whether he had the authority to do so.". We'll need that sorted out first. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- What? Brexit wasn't "changing minds 100 times", the government followed the result of the referendum and we're leaving the EU. The deals we're making on the way are changing, but I don't recall "a "Brexit" thing where they can change their minds 100 times". Perhaps find a bit analogy for whatever it is you're trying to say? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment – I realize it's not done, but I'm tempted by the irony: It's like quitting the volunteer fire dept. when your house is on fire. Unfathomable. But this won't fly here, yet. – Sca (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per just about every comment above. Kingsif (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I'm pretty sure that the US's temporary withdrawal from WHO happened a month ago. See here and look for the publication date.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: It seems the main issue is the title of the ITNC, since it was really an announcement to withdraw in a year. --Light show (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- There was a process started today, but there is a mandatory year period before the US can complete it. I'd assume this is to assure all funding commitments can be transferred w/ minimal disruption, etc. So there's an official clock running, but again, there's an election between now and then. --Masem (t) 22:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Why is everyone assuming or hinting that Trump won't get reelected in November? Every president since Bill Clinton has served 2 terms, even George W. Bush! The chances of Trump being elected are higher than everyone here is hinting/indicating. This will very likely take place. Dantheanimator (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- While the incumbent president usually has a good shot, Trump is behind in nearly all polls at the current time. He may still have a second term, but this is clearly far from assured at this point, compared to any of the last 3-4 Presidents at the relative same time. --Masem (t) 23:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- It's definitely not assured but it's more likely than your implying. Consider that Trump's election win was unexpected and against the polls, so whose to say this won't be the same? Also, consider that there will be other individuals running in the election, like Kanye West. I'm certain that Kanye West's presidental bid will take away the support of African-American southerners who usually vote for Democrats. There's also a possibility of another email scandal or of the like happening again, so Trump's reelection possibilities aren't that bad.Dantheanimator (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- While the incumbent president usually has a good shot, Trump is behind in nearly all polls at the current time. He may still have a second term, but this is clearly far from assured at this point, compared to any of the last 3-4 Presidents at the relative same time. --Masem (t) 23:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Why is everyone assuming or hinting that Trump won't get reelected in November? Every president since Bill Clinton has served 2 terms, even George W. Bush! The chances of Trump being elected are higher than everyone here is hinting/indicating. This will very likely take place. Dantheanimator (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- While it's true that this move in the "middle of a pandemic is what makes this notable," as the nom states, it might be worth considering the move in context, ie. over five months ago Trump offered to send China and the WHO help, and both have ignored the offer, up to the present. So it's hard to guess what even Biden might do differently.--Light show (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per all; we can post if/when the actual withdrawal takes place. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Good faith nom and certainly merits mention in the main article. But for ITN this is TOOSOON. Suggest speedy close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) Legality of the assassination of Qasem Soleimani
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 an unprecedented statement, Agnès Callamard publicly announces that the U.S. violated the UN charter. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Agnès Callamard, a special rapporteur for the UN, makes an unprecedented statement denouncing the US strike that killed Soleimani.
Alternative blurb II: In a unexpected turn of events, UN special rapporteur Agnès Callamard declares that the US violated international law.
News source(s): [3]
Credits:
- Nominated by Dantheanimator (talk · give credit)
- Created by FPSTurkey (talk · give credit)
- Updated by 121.167.30.218 (talk · give credit) and Selfstudier (talk · give credit)
*Support Alt blurb as NPOV. That a sitting western leader is directly implicated by the UN is notable and unprecedented. We are used to seeing cases of developing country dictators being charged, never some member of a G8. Whether or not the charges will lead to actual persecution/trial is irrelevant. 104.243.98.96 (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose at the moment. The process here is that Callamard will present the case to the Human Rights Council Thursday, and they will determine what actions should be taken. That will be the point to post when we know what will be charged. --Masem (t) 23:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable path to wait until case is presented at UNHRC on Thursday and re-evaluate then. 104.243.98.96 (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose for now per Masem. I would also note that, at least for the moment, this is receiving scant attention in the news media. While I don't require wall to wall news coverage for my support of a nomination, if it's something likely to be controversial, then we need a reasonable degree of coverage lest we run afoul of WP:RGW. This forum is for items that are In the News. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose this is like Malaysia (?) prosecuting Bush/Cheney in absentia, and without any further developments or action this seems like a bunch of posturing and saber-rattling. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- John M Wolfson, i'm going to guess you're talking about this. This Tribunal is not recognised by the United Nations with its verdicts being only symbolic. Unlike that, Agnès Callamard is the UN. Completely different situation although, it will probably turn out the same since US law has precedence over UN laws. Dantheanimator (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I still think this isn't going to go anywhere, and in the absence of a hubbub about it I'll still oppose. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- John M Wolfson, i'm going to guess you're talking about this. This Tribunal is not recognised by the United Nations with its verdicts being only symbolic. Unlike that, Agnès Callamard is the UN. Completely different situation although, it will probably turn out the same since US law has precedence over UN laws. Dantheanimator (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose until something other than a "statement" occurs. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. There is no risk of any binding prosecution of anyone here. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. Countries violate international law all the time and this is a pretty de minimis example. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's a statement, and little more. If it escalates then it would be worth further consideration. - SchroCat (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Anshun bus crash
Blurb: A bus carrying students to an exam plunges into a reservoir in Anshun, Guizhou, China, killing 21 and leaving 16 injured. (Post)
Alternative blurb: 21 are killed and 16 injured after a bus carrying students to an exam plunges into a reservoir in Anshun, Guizhou, China.
Alternative blurb II: After a bus carrying students plunges into a reservoir in Anshun, Guizhou, China, 21 are killed and 16 injured.
Alternative blurb III: A bus crash in Anshun, China kills 21 people and injures 16.
News source(s): [4]
Credits:
- Nominated by Dantheanimator (talk · give credit)
- Created by Huangdan2060 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by RuiyuShen (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: If the Kyushu floods were accepted, this should too! Dantheanimator (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose disaster stub --LaserLegs (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Weak support not a stub, but a disaster. Weak because the article is weak. It's a proper tragedy, I imagine if a Greyhound skidded off a freeway killing 21 students, it'd be a cakewalk to the main page. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- I think the consensus would be entirely transient and of almost zero encyclopedic value much like the current nomination, actually. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- LaserLegs Well, strictly speaking yes, you are correct. I actually remember that crash (I wasn't officially with wiki at the time) and didn't think much of it. However, unlike that crash, this crash led to the deaths of mostly students. Arguably, this is as notable as the Umpqua Community College school shooting. You definitely have a point though but consider that if the Kyushu floods made it, this should too, since both are as "notable". Dantheanimator (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support Short article but the content is there and sourced. Normally regular passenger traffic accidents we don't cover but this is sufficiently large to be included. --Masem (t) 23:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Very weak support The article is well-sourced but it's pretty short.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support An 8000-byte-long article is undoubtedly long enough to tell the readers all the important information.--TongcyDai (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
July 6
July 6, 2020
(Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
(Closed) Chiafalo v. Washington
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 the Chiafalo v. Washington decision, the Supreme Court unanimously sides with Chiafalo, ruling that states can get to punish faithless electors. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The U.S. Supreme Court rules that states can enforce elector pledges in the Electoral College.
News source(s): CNN, CBS News, NPR, Vox, The New York Times, etc.
Credits:
- Nominated by AlphaBeta135 (talk · give credit)
- Oppose and I did much of the contributions on the article. This was a decision everyone was predicting and it wasn't going to change the election. The number of times people have faithless-ly voted in the EC is so minor that its not a compelling issue to be ITN. There are things wrong with the electoral college, no one seriously thought the route of using faithless electors was the route to fix it. --Masem (t) 18:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose just not significant enough for ITN.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support in principle I'm going to disagree with everyone here on this one. I didn't expect this at all as per Masem's comment and I think this is significant for inclusion on ITN (as per P-K3's statement). However, there is some missing in-text citations. Once that's fixed up, I'll fully support. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Dantheanimator I follow US politics and Supreme Court rulings and yet I cannot see how a rarely used quirk of the electoral college system would be of much interest to a wider audience. Perhaps you could explain the significance?-- P-K3 (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- In my opinion, this is unexpected and interesting. I don't really follow US politics that much (except near the elections) so I never really expected this. Besides, of the Wikipedians/readers from countries other than the U.S., the fact that this quirk existed until know will be relatively surprising to them, considering most other countries don't have this type of political system. P-K3, I'm not saying this will be seen as significant by other people but that I believe it is significant. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe for those that are familiar with the Electoral College, the faithless elector concept is rare, and only has been of talk later with the last Presidential elections and was being pushed as a possible mechanism for this upcoming one. From [5] "There has been one faithless elector in each of the following elections: 1948, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1972, 1976, and 1988. A blank ballot was cast in 2000. In 2016, seven electors broke with their state on the presidential ballot and six did so on the vice presidential ballot." (In other words, 15 times for a President on well over 10,000 different elector votes in the last 100 years). That basically this decision maintains the expected status quo makes this a non-story. (If anything, the other case decided, that robocallers can't call cell phones for debt collection payments, has a more pronounced impact, but even then that's not ITN). --Masem (t) 19:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Wait a second, there were no faithless electoral votes in the 2004 election? Wow, that is really surprising. Thanks Masem for the info, its always great to get informed on things like this. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe for those that are familiar with the Electoral College, the faithless elector concept is rare, and only has been of talk later with the last Presidential elections and was being pushed as a possible mechanism for this upcoming one. From [5] "There has been one faithless elector in each of the following elections: 1948, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1972, 1976, and 1988. A blank ballot was cast in 2000. In 2016, seven electors broke with their state on the presidential ballot and six did so on the vice presidential ballot." (In other words, 15 times for a President on well over 10,000 different elector votes in the last 100 years). That basically this decision maintains the expected status quo makes this a non-story. (If anything, the other case decided, that robocallers can't call cell phones for debt collection payments, has a more pronounced impact, but even then that's not ITN). --Masem (t) 19:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- In my opinion, this is unexpected and interesting. I don't really follow US politics that much (except near the elections) so I never really expected this. Besides, of the Wikipedians/readers from countries other than the U.S., the fact that this quirk existed until know will be relatively surprising to them, considering most other countries don't have this type of political system. P-K3, I'm not saying this will be seen as significant by other people but that I believe it is significant. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per Masem. Calidum 19:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose on notability which I try to avoid, but this is pretty arcane. These electors are partisan hacks selected by the party apparatus before the popular election and the only thing SCOTUS has done is to affirm that they're partisan hacks. The entire electoral college is a disaster for democracy -- let me know when the constitution is amended to dismiss it. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- It's always fun to walk up to people and say "There is no right to vote for President in the U.S." and then hear them try to explain why there is. (There isn't.)--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 20:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- It's the right to vote for the right president that seems lacking. – Sca (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- It's always fun to walk up to people and say "There is no right to vote for President in the U.S." and then hear them try to explain why there is. (There isn't.)--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 20:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose hyper-parochial, arcane, literally of no interest to practically any of our readers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Routine court decision likely to have little practical impact in the US and none at all outside it. We don't do domestic politics and routine court cases. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Zippo effect on any national affairs in the US.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 20:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per all above.Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose – Unless they're saying that a faithless elector is one who doesn't have a religion. Clearly, such infidels should be burned at the stake. – Sca (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose -- not notable enough. Wouldn't expect a similar ruling in another country to show up ITN. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 21:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) Philippines Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 Opposition
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 new Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 in the Philippines receives criticism from two lawyer groups who file petitions to the Philippine Supreme Court. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Two lawyer groups file petitions to the Philippine Supreme Court to question the constitutionality of the recent anti-terrorism law.
Alternative blurb II: Following the recent passage of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, two lawyer groups file petitions to the Philippine Supreme Court arguing against it.
News source(s): [6]
Credits:
- Nominated by Dantheanimator (talk · give credit)
- Created by Seav (talk · give credit)
- Updated by HueMan1 (talk · give credit)
- Oppose too much WP:CRYSTAL. By a long chalk. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy close and see you once the Supreme Court rules on it.... or probably not (see nomination above). Howard the Duck (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Close This nom is ready to be closed. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Snow close -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 21:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Charlie Daniels
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post, Tennessean
Credits:
- Nominated by Spengouli (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Bloom6132 (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: Section with an orange tag, unsourced filmography. Spengouli (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
*Oppose for now As per Spengouli's comment, there is some missing in-text citations. Once these are added, this is good to go. *Support Looks good to go now, thx Bloom6132 Dantheanimator (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Dantheanimator: I've just finished adding refs to the missing in-text citations. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support. The subject's filmography is the least significant thing to be concerned about. The article is otherwise reasonably well-cited. The importance of the subject nears blurb territory. BD2412 T 18:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- He's nowhere close to blurb territory. Yes, he's in a few Hall of Fames, but has no awards or other recognition to his name (I'd be comparing to someone like Kenny Rogers who does have a massive body of awards/nominations, and who looks like we never even posted due to lack of improvement but there was opposition even there to a blurb. --Masem (t) 18:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose until the orange tagged section is fixed, and the filmography is cited.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Pawnkingthree: All cited now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)
OpposeStill needs refs, it seems. And yes, not a blurb by a country singer mile. Kingsif (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Kingsif: All referenced now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support thanks Bloom Kingsif (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Opposefar too weak. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: I've just finished referencing the filmography and the remaining "citation needed" tags. How about now? —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support thanks Bloom6132 et al, it's a job well done. G2g. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support especially considering the improvements over the past few hours. The sources are now there. Although primarily popular in North America, Daniels has a four-decade-long chart history and was something of a cultural icon in his heyday. — AjaxSmack 21:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support well referenced now JW 1961 Talk 22:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 00:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
(Posted RD) RD/Blurb: Ennio Morricone
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Italian composer Ennio Morricone dies at the age of 91. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Oscar winning Italian composer of more than 500 film and TV scores during a 50-year career, dies at age 91.
News source(s): The Independent, Hollywood Reporter, , NYT, BBC, LA Times, Italy, Vatican, Sydney Morning Herald, Independent (Ireland), Deutsche Welle (Germany), Japan Times, Tass (Russia), Rolling Stone, China.org, India
Credits:
- Nominated by Brandmeister (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Philip Cross (talk · give credit), Grimes2 (talk · give credit) and 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: More update in the article currently needed. Brandmeistertalk 07:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose a wealth of unreferenced prose, works, awards etc. Needs a LOT of work. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt:, our music editor, if she's available. Brandmeistertalk 12:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the invitation, but I'll decline. While I agree that he'd deserve a blurb, I never edited the article, and am not familiar with the topic. The last two days, I took care (unplanned) of two who recently died and who would NOT get much attention (Nikolai Kapustin on the Main page, too late for the other), while his death will be noticed anyway. I think it's a shame that our rules prohibit to do him justice, but I remember the amount of work Jessye Norman's article needed. Big difference in motivation: she was someone who changed my life, while he just composed great music. You whose life he changed, find the sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- ... adding: it's pointless to support. As long as teh rulez don't change, every fact needs a ref, or he can not appear. Time spent on supporting what can't happen would be better invested in adding references. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- By now, I added a book, a ref for his quote, and the Golden Globe obit. All could probably be useful for other facts if someone took the time. Someone is not me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for the invitation, but I'll decline. While I agree that he'd deserve a blurb, I never edited the article, and am not familiar with the topic. The last two days, I took care (unplanned) of two who recently died and who would NOT get much attention (Nikolai Kapustin on the Main page, too late for the other), while his death will be noticed anyway. I think it's a shame that our rules prohibit to do him justice, but I remember the amount of work Jessye Norman's article needed. Big difference in motivation: she was someone who changed my life, while he just composed great music. You whose life he changed, find the sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt:, our music editor, if she's available. Brandmeistertalk 12:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb in principle. He is definitely the first name of a modern composer that comes to one's mind whose prolific career has exerted lasting impact in the history of modern music and film. There are some unreferenced paragraphs but the article is very well written in general.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb- Very far from being "transformative world leader" among all composers, and if we choose to narrow his field for WP:ITNRD to specifically film score composition, which is very specific and should not have many individuals qualify for a blurb, there are at least two figures that are more notable than Morricone (Bernard Herrmann and John Williams). Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 08:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- In your opinion. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed. I don't find it necessary to clarify that things which I write are my opinion. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 08:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Well it's important because people may consider you to be an authority on such matters whereas you are simply stating a personal preference. As far as I am concerned, Morricone deserves a blurb, and I've never heard of Herrmann. Dangerous to go around declaring that some individual is "more notable" than another. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- You gotta click the link before you self-own like that. As a great Wikipedian once said, "it's always mildly amusing that people think by telling us they've never heard of iconic individuals somehow strengthens their argument where all it does is undermine their commentary as being an exemplar of pure ignorance."[7] GreatCaesarsGhost 12:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- And one day you'll understand that I was being ironic: somehow claiming with authority that "A is more notable than B" is total nonsense. That was the point here. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- I do apologise though, I have been reminded that some "cultures" don't understand irony, so please accept my deepest sympathies for any misunderstanding here. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- I hope that nobody would take me to be an authority on film score composers (which I am certainly not) simply for expressing an opinion about some. By that heuristic, everybody at ITN/C would be assumed an expert on international politics. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- It's fine, you made a mistake, we probably don't need to perpetuate the issue. Clearly "notability" is in the eye of the beholder. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- You gotta click the link before you self-own like that. As a great Wikipedian once said, "it's always mildly amusing that people think by telling us they've never heard of iconic individuals somehow strengthens their argument where all it does is undermine their commentary as being an exemplar of pure ignorance."[7] GreatCaesarsGhost 12:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Bzweebl: I don't think we should narrow his field to film score composition as he composed many other popular compositions and has greatly influenced other music artists (In this vein, the last sentence of the introduction says "Morricone has influenced many artists from film scoring to other styles and genres, including Hans Zimmer, Danger Mouse, Dire Straits, Muse, Metallica, and Radiohead."). As for Herrmann and Williams, the first one lived in another time and is very far from the significance of his contemporary Dmitri Shostakovich, while Williams is great but not as influential as Morricone.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- This would seem to support my argument, as if we are comparing him to all other
20th centurycomposers then he is not nearly as close to the top. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 18:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)- No, we're comparing him to all composers now (at the time of his death) and he's definitely on the top of the field. You can't compare people from different periods.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I meant to emphasize that I was referring to your suggestion that we consider him in the field of music composition in general rather than just film score composition. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Uh, he's probably not going to have the impact of Mozart or Beethoven, but I'm pretty sure no-one thought that was the case. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- By striking 20th-century, I intended to clarify that I agree it makes sense to only compare with other composers of the same generation. Sorry that wasn't clear. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Very cool, thanks for the clarification. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- By striking 20th-century, I intended to clarify that I agree it makes sense to only compare with other composers of the same generation. Sorry that wasn't clear. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Uh, he's probably not going to have the impact of Mozart or Beethoven, but I'm pretty sure no-one thought that was the case. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I meant to emphasize that I was referring to your suggestion that we consider him in the field of music composition in general rather than just film score composition. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- No, we're comparing him to all composers now (at the time of his death) and he's definitely on the top of the field. You can't compare people from different periods.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- This would seem to support my argument, as if we are comparing him to all other
- Well it's important because people may consider you to be an authority on such matters whereas you are simply stating a personal preference. As far as I am concerned, Morricone deserves a blurb, and I've never heard of Herrmann. Dangerous to go around declaring that some individual is "more notable" than another. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed. I don't find it necessary to clarify that things which I write are my opinion. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 08:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- In your opinion. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Actually some have called him the "Mozart of film music", while Tarantino considered him his "favorite composer," even compared to Mozart and Beethoven. --Light show (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- That's not "some", it's Richard Mowe, and Tarantino has long been reputed in the press to lack a taste for decent art (and per Google, quite a few composers are considered a "Mozart of film music"). InedibleHulk (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Actually some have called him the "Mozart of film music", while Tarantino considered him his "favorite composer," even compared to Mozart and Beethoven. --Light show (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose anything at the moment: way too much unsupported material to warrant any showing on the MP. - SchroCat (talk) 09:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC) On reflection, and only when the referencing is complete, oppose blurb; should be an RD only. - SchroCat (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support Blurb: This man was a giant in the movie world. His scores were transformative in their uniqueness and distinctiveness, and no other composer has come close to his recognizable style. Listen.--Light show (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support Blurb: The man was a legend. Easily one of the most well-known film composers in history. And for the record, both John Williams and Bernard Herrmann fit that bill, too. MetaTracker (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose not postable in either RD or blurb in current state. --Masem (t) 09:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support if/when improvements are made. Currently, the article is a mix of the good, the bad, and the ugly. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose referencing issues and oppose blurb no media circus and NOTMANDELA. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Not ready for RD and oppose blurb. There are numerous entire paragraphs with no references at all. He was certainly a notable film & TV composer, but I don't think he was sufficiently influential on music in general to merit a blurb. Blurbs are supposed to be for the top individuals in an entire field (in this case music), not specialisms within that field (film composers). Modest Genius talk 12:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Conditional Support: Very well known and critically acclaimed composer, and the people who have never heard of him will instantly recognize the music. However the article needs a lot of work, and it's a big article to boot. Support Blurb and Posting, if you can get it properly referenced.KittenKlub (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support as a bare minimum the insertion in RD. Nick Cordero has 29 references in the article and was inserted with virtually zero discussion, Ennio Morricone is by far much better known worldwide, and by the way the article has >170 citations. I am surprised it's not in RD yet. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- It's not the number of references total, it's the number of unreferenced claims. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- There are a few unreferenced claims in the body of the text, but I don't think it's enough to dismiss it completely from RD. If the lede section is fine, it can be listed in RD. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- We follow WP:BLP which says nothing about only applying to the lead. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Wow, if I had a € for every time someone said "there's no need to worry about all the unreferenced stuff, there are actually 29 references in this article!" then I'd be a Euro-millionaire by now. "It's not how big it is, it's how you use it"...... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Very funny. Now, the article has no single section that is completely unreferenced. There is only one subsection that is, I would say, largely unreferenced, in the sense that there are currently 8 "Citation needed" templates. While surely the article is not at high standards for Wikipedia, I still don't think that it's so bad that it can't be mentioned in the RD list. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- There are a few unreferenced claims in the body of the text, but I don't think it's enough to dismiss it completely from RD. If the lede section is fine, it can be listed in RD. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb It's frankly dumb that we are having this debate.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 12:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- You mean every famous person who dies should automatically get a blurb? Cos otherwise we need to have a debate.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb – Support RD only (when ready), due to comparatively minor status. – Sca (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb, Support posted as RD only due to minor status of this composer for music industry. This is not like Tchainvosky. i also support posted altblurb it needed. 36.77.93.215 (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb, you gotta be living under the rock to not know this guy. The Good the Bad and the Ugly theme anybody? 82.26.220.45 (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb Internationally known, certainly at the top of his field. Davey2116 (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support altblurb this Italian composer is well known abroad. He was a Oscar winning Italian composer of more than 500 film and TV scores by him. 114.125.251.80 (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb The vital articles list [8] is a good place to start consideration of the weight of a person within their field. If we review the section where Morricone is listed, there are 30 names. My feeling is this is too niche to post more than one. The top three is some order of Morricone, Williams and Herrmann, but I'd never put Morricone at the top. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- GreatCaesarsGhost I appreciate your use of an actually somewhat objective metric in this morass of subjectivity that death blurb discussions have become. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- To put some context around the "vital articles" claim, that microcosm of Wikipedia is governed by a handful (and I literally mean half a dozen) people. This is really important: if we as a community are starting to look to WP:VA to underpin the notability of individuals going for a blurb, we absolutely have to have that discussion via RFC because somehow relating an individual's importance to a truly minor sub-project with basically no community oversight and a couple of regular users is really contrary to what we're trying to achieve here. The stats for the project and talk page speak for themselves: here so please, until someone can substantiate that that specific pet project is actually a true reflection of notability beyond a consensus of a couple of people and practically no viewership, desist from attempting to use it as an "objective measure" here. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- GreatCaesarsGhost I appreciate your use of an actually somewhat objective metric in this morass of subjectivity that death blurb discussions have become. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- I did not know that so thank you for bringing it up, but even so it is still a better argument than most in recent death blurb discussions. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm marking this as ready for recent deaths. There may be a consensus for a blurb, but I will leave that decision to an admin. Calidum 16:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- How is it ready for RD? There are still large sections of unreferenced text, which is not up to the article quality requirements. Modest Genius talk 16:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm unmarking it, but I found a good book which solves perhaps some of the problems, and which was already in the article but cited only for the fact of his birth. I used it more for musical training, but have to go. Feel free to read and cite more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- How is it ready for RD? There are still large sections of unreferenced text, which is not up to the article quality requirements. Modest Genius talk 16:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb when ready, which it is not. I don't believe in the argument that film music is too niche of a field to be the top of, because when you look at the composers at the apex of classical music, none of them got a blurb (like Penderecki and Boulez, and we'll have to see about Philip Glass and Arvo Part when they die). The reality is that film music is the most popular form of classical music today: composers like John Williams and Ennio Morricone have significantly more name recognition than Philip Glass or Arvo Part. Popularity does bias who we choose to blurb; some might argue that popularity is an important factor to consider in selecting blurbs. Either we take steps to balance against the bias of fame or we recognize it as a blurb factor.
- Practically speaking, the RD blurbs that get voted in are transformative world leaders in their field, and Morricone meets that requirement. NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose RD on article quality. There are significant gaps in referencing which are going to need plugging before this can be seriously considered for the main page. Oppose Blurb fails the Thatcher Mandela standard. Beyond which we generally decline to blurb the deaths of elderly celebrities who die of natural causes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- There is no Thatcher Mandela standard.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 20:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb not niche, per NorthernFalcon - film music is the most popular form of classical music today.Jklamo (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support in RD in principle It is a very developed/long article which is a definitely a good start. However, there is a lot of missing in-text citations (some sections don't have any in-text citations at all). Once those in-text citations are added, I will 100% support this. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support in principle - very long impressive article that needs more refs. Support RD, doubtful about blurb: as great as he is, the first score composers I think of are Zimmer, Desplat, Williams, Elfman, and probably even Guðnadóttir. There's no single artist among the six that stands out above the rest, and we probably shouldn't blurb them all. Kingsif (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support RD, not quite blurb material. I'm likely wasting keystrokes here, but overzealous defense of the front page has created a particularly bad inherent bias that weighs heavily against artists with extensive filmographies, discographies, and bibliographies. This was a major reason why we dropped the ball on Carl Reiner. If the work is named and dated and they appear in the credits that's reference enough. Anyone who questions our report knows where to look. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb when ready (not yet). Morricone was impressive both for the quantity of his output and his influence on music and he is widely known outside of the Anglosphere. — AjaxSmack 22:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Referencing still needs improvement for posting. Weak support on blurb if article is ready. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb with extreme reluctance I love his music, and he's one of the greatest soundtrack composers of all time (probably the greatest alongside John Williams), but if Vera Lynn or Little Richard don't get blurbs neither does he. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support RD on principle (ie that he's dead). Some articles are good, some are bad, and some are ugly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support RD only, Oppose blurb due to minor contributions in global music industry. Meanwhile, the article has a good shape. 114.125.46.42 (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Currently 60 citations needed. Stephen 06:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Waking up, can't believe it: 437k views on his article, but Wikipedia too concerned about rules to mention him? What does that tell the world about us?
- We could ignore all rules.
- We could add the missing refs.
- We could split the awards to a separate article.
- We could drop facts that are not crucial.
- What we can't do is leave it as it is.
- Once done, I suggest - as done before - no blurb but an image. RIP. I will add what I can - but compare what I said yesterday: others might be better prepared. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt, I tried that with Tariq Aziz and it was postable for almost 24 hours before I got reverted but no one did. Without getting to the main page the article did get 150K+ views and those readers got, well, this. Just last week, we had Hachalu Hundessa whose death apparently caused riots that killed 200+ people in Ethiopia. We didn't post it because all we had was Hachalu Hundessa article, who is not notable enough for a blurb as a person and no one created the Hachalu Hundessa riots for the event. In case of Tariq Aziz, all it would have taken was for an admin to post it while it was ready, or an editor to back my edits to the article (it was superior even if it contained less). The more substantial the article is, unfortunately, the worse the problem is. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Digging into it: some things are tough to solve, such as in the Munich Philharmonie when such a thing doesn't exist. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- .. then finding a YouTube video which confirms there was a concert at the Gasteig, but in 2004, not 2005 as the article says. But YouTube is not a RS ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- That thing done, comes a quote "If the audience comes for my gestures, they had better stay outside". Help needed: This quote is there multiple times on the internet, but who am I to tell who copied this from whom? Most seem to copy from us. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- More help needed: source "the oldest person at the time to win a competitive Oscar", - I don't even know what it means. Commented out for the moment. Time to ignore rulez, perhaps? --Gerda Arendt
- We're down to 17 tags, and I need to go, real life, SchroCat, I can't fix more right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt, all issues that have been pointed out have been fixed I think. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- One option would be splitting the awards and works into separate articles, as is often common for prominent artists. The text itself is rather well-referenced, after a quick look. --Tone 09:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Go ahead, do it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'll see how I am with time later today. --Tone 09:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Tone, I can start right away if no one minds. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Actually: that part doesn't even have "citation needed" so may be less of a problem than I thought. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- There are two tags but, though untagged, there are also entire tables without inline citations, I can't think of a reason why those would be let slide. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- The whole section is now tagged. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- move it out fast then --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Or fix it, rather than sweep the problems under the carpet. - SchroCat (talk) 11:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- move it out fast then --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- The whole section is now tagged. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- There are two tags but, though untagged, there are also entire tables without inline citations, I can't think of a reason why those would be let slide. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'll see how I am with time later today. --Tone 09:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Go ahead, do it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Post to RD (soon), image not blurb: Clearly there has been extensive tagging of the article, but I don't think there is much doubt as to the truth of the most of the facts asserted: that he composed music for such and such a film appears in little doubt. There are statements implying judgement or analysis that might deserve attention: " Though sonically bizarre for a movie score, Morricone's music was viscerally true to Leone's vision", for example. (Although I don't really question that either.) Fundamentally, I see no reason why we should be embarrassed by this article in its current state. I also support Gerda Arendt's suggestion to use one of the images. This actually seems like something we could do in general: if someone is "blurb-worthy", there will be a choice of images to post; the image has a natural connection to the subject; and we don't have to think of a blurb. -- PaulBetteridge (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
*I am going to reinforce my oppose on this (note to closer: I have opposed further up in the discussion, this is to reinforce the position, given the citations added since yesterday). Although citations are being added, we now have c.14 refs pointing to Discogs.com and a few using IMDB. Neither of these are considered reliable for any articles, so why they are being used on a BLP is beyond me. - SchroCat (talk) 09:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Stats The numbers are in and Morricone is getting attention but not quite as much as Charlie Daniels. For an evidence-based perspective, here's the top 10 deaths in June–July. First, note that Joel Schumacher didn't quite make the cut. Most of these people peak at about half a million views but there was one death which was a different order of magnitude. It certainly wasn't Morricone but can you guess who it was ...?
Article | 01 June to 6 July 2020 (daily peak) |
---|---|
Sushant Singh Rajput | |
Chiranjeevi Sarja | |
Nick Cordero | |
Carl Reiner | |
Saroj Khan | |
Ian Holm | |
Vera Lynn | |
Steve Bing | |
Charlie Daniels | |
Ennio Morricone |
- Andrew🐉(talk) 10:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- So Hollywood was lying to us about being famous or forever. Figures. Get that man his blurb! InedibleHulk (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support RD/Ready for RD I have purged the cn tags, as well as IMDB and Discogs cites. AFAICT, it meets the standard for ITN/DYK. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Looks good now. Posting. --Tone 13:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. I added some to the credits. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Looks good now. Posting. --Tone 13:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Ronald Graham
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s):
- "The Latest: Ronald Graham, 1935–2020". American Mathematical Society. July 7, 2020. Retrieved July 7, 2020.
- "Ronald Lewis Graham, 2003-2004 MAA President". Mathematical Association of America. July 7, 2020. Retrieved July 7, 2020.
Credits:
- Nominated by AlanM1 (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.
—[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose for now with quite a fewSwitching to s, see below. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)citation needed tagsuncited paragraphs, but consider this a support when those are taken care of. Between him, Morricone, and Daniels, July 6 was a bad day for deaths. :/ – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)- @John M Wolfson: I don't see any citation needed tags. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 05:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- I thought I had fixed that before posting, good catch! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- @John M Wolfson: I don't see any citation needed tags. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 05:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support and adding to the growing number of those marked "Ready".
Oppose (although a relatively weak one). There are some uncited paras in there, but there are only a couple, so this should not be too much of an obstacle if someone wants to take the final steps to allow it to be posted.- SchroCat (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
*Oppose per above. Dantheanimator (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- I added citations. Please reconsider. User:Dantheanimator, User:SchroCat, User:John M Wolfson. 70.172.136.61 (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support Looks good now. For the record, I was not on-line when this was posted/fixed.Dantheanimator (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
although it has since then been surpassed by even larger numbers such as TREE(3).
is still uncited, but consider this a support once that's done. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)- Added. @User:John M Wolfson. 70.172.136.61 (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- I already said to consider my previous statement a support when the citation was added, so pinging me was unnecessary. That being said, I am satisfied with the current result and support it, nice job! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Added. @User:John M Wolfson. 70.172.136.61 (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Posted—Bagumba (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
July 5
July 5, 2020
(Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
(Posted) RD: Nick Cordero
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post, CBS
Credits:
- Nominated by A lad insane (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit) and Jasonbres (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: Short article but nearly everything is sourced. -- a lad insane (channel two) 02:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support Beat me to it. Short but sourcing is there. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
*Oppose for now Missing some in text-citations. Once the sources are referenced, I will support this. No other issues. *Support Looks good now. For the record though, I was still sleeping when you fixed this and when this was posted. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Dantheanimator: I've just finished adding those refs. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 06:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Bettina Gilois
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Deadline Hollywood
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by YoungForever (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.
Bloom6132 (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support Good article with no issues. This is ready. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Comment Just needs a reference to the Kevin Costner/Disney film in the biography section, will change to support once fixed JW 1961 Talk 22:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Support looks good to go now JW 1961 Talk 22:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- JW 1961, I added the missing in-text reference. It should be good now. Dantheanimator (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 02:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Cleveland Eaton
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Birmingham News
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Jazzilady (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.
Bloom6132 (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support Looks good to me. No issues. This should be ready. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support Short but well referenced throughout JW 1961 Talk 22:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 02:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) Ongoing Removal: George Floyd protests
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.
Nominator's comments: I live in Atlanta, so I'm well aware that some protests are still "ongoing" but some facts remain: 1) The size of the mass demonstrations has become much smaller; 2) the media coverage of the protests has waned (COVID-19 is again getting top billing) and 3) the target article has gotten stale (I don't buy into the "sub articles" excuse bandied about in other noms). So, for those reasons, in alignment with the ongoing criteria, it's time to take it down. LaserLegs (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Between the coverage of Trump's comments from the July 3 speech directed at the protects, the event in Seattle yesterday where a protester was run over by a driver, and more statues being pulled down, they are still ongoing. Not as major, but they are still an event. --Masem (t) 18:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah I saw that too but the driver wasn't politically motivated and it was what? 50 people on the express way? I mean.... --LaserLegs (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- There was also the removal of the Columbus statue in Baltimore, Maryland yesterday and other statues in the past few weeks. It seems to me this event is still ongoing; there's no reason to remove it. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah I saw that too but the driver wasn't politically motivated and it was what? 50 people on the express way? I mean.... --LaserLegs (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Still ongoing, still getting updates, even if more of them are to the subarticles. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose I would keep it up for now. Events related to the George Floyd protests are still occuring, though I do agree with Masem, they are smaller and less talked-about now. Also, as Masem said previously, there are still events related to the protest going on. A woman died during a protest in Seattle yesterday and a Columbus statue was removed. This should stay. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose Per above, a woman died during a protest yesterday, and the protests are still getting daily front-page coverage in North America and Europe. Maybe we can revisit in another 1-2 weeks? 104.243.98.96 (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. A Columbus statue was pulled down and pushed into Baltimore harbor. Things are still going on. 331dot (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose. I'm in Atlanta too; seems like it is quieting down. I'd think that in a few days we could nom if nothing else happens (but really, only God knows what will happen), but as for now, I think the Baltimore incident shows that it is still very much in the news. Awsomaw (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Agree this should be revisited in a week or two. Does it make sense to rename: "George Floyd protests" to
"Civil Unrest in the United States"Black Lives Matter protests since there is no blurb?104.243.98.96 (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)- I agree with this sentiment, though not the name. Calling current events the George Floyd protests is like calling the Arab Spring the Mohamed Bouazizi protests. GreatCaesarsGhost 23:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- I agree, but doesn't that entail that the article linked to to be either changed or renamed? Surely Arab Spring is not called Mohamed Bouazizi protests. Awsomaw (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with this sentiment, though not the name. Calling current events the George Floyd protests is like calling the Arab Spring the Mohamed Bouazizi protests. GreatCaesarsGhost 23:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. Agree this should be revisited in a week or two. Does it make sense to rename: "George Floyd protests" to
- Should probably be renamed to Black Lives Matter protests, as the anger now is coming from more than the catalyst of Floyd's death. Stephen 23:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with GreatCaesarsGhost, the fact that it is called the George Floyd protests still is quite arbitrary/irrelevant considering how much the protests have expanded in both scope and area. However, we can't just rename the protests simply "Black Lives Matter protests" per Stephen's suggestion, because: there have been other BLM protests in the past and naming it this creates unnecessary confusion, and naming it the BLM protests excludes many of the other protests that are often cited as part of the movement (such as the protests against Columbus/Cecil Rhodes statues). This issue needs to be further discussed on the George Floyd Protests' page. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Strongest possible oppose The notion that the media coverage of protests has "waned" is completely untrue. If anything, coverage is intensifying in most places. And the target article is stale? How? It is true that the "sub-articles" are being updated more frequently, but the idea that the target article is stale is nonsense--sorry. Zingarese talk · contribs 23:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Almost everything in the edit history from the last 5 days ago until the time I posted the nom were content tweaks and ref improvements not "new, pertinent information". Why is it so difficult for people to comprehend the difference? If you want to change the ongoing criteria to support "sub-articles" then you can contribute here until then that's a made-up concession. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, thanks. Zingarese talk · contribs 02:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Almost everything in the edit history from the last 5 days ago until the time I posted the nom were content tweaks and ref improvements not "new, pertinent information". Why is it so difficult for people to comprehend the difference? If you want to change the ongoing criteria to support "sub-articles" then you can contribute here until then that's a made-up concession. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Strong Opppose -- we kept the Hong Kong protests on for months, even as they waned. The protests are still going on, and they're still pretty big. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 03:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Davey2116 (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
(NEEDS ATTENTION) 2020 Dominican Republic general election results
Blurb: Luis Abinader of the Modern Revolutionary Party becomes the new president of the Dominican Republic. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Following yesterday's general elections, Luis Abinader becomes the new president of the Dominican Republic.
Alternative blurb II: In a historic election, Luis Abinader of the Modern Revolutionary Party wins to become the next president of the Dominican Republic.
Alternative blurb III: Luis Abinader of the Modern Revolutionary Party is elected president of the Dominican Republic.
News source(s): [9]
Credits:
- Nominated by Dantheanimator (talk · give credit)
- Created by OliverDF (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Mancalledsting (talk · give credit)
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Luis Abinader is the new president of the Dominican Republic, ending Danilo Medina's long time rule. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment We generally will post the results (once know) of the presidential part of the election per ITNR, but would be premature to mention that the election is happening. --Masem (t) 18:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Wait for the results; we don't post the mere occurrence of an election, we post the results, as general elections and head of state elections are ITNR. 331dot (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support per posting but Wait for results, which takes place in matter of time. Thus it can be revised with official results of election 36.77.93.215 (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose until the election results come in. Although, here's a question: if the election takes a week or more to decide, do we mention it ITN? I'm thinking about this November in the US, we may not know who won for more than a week. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 03:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- The results are ITNR, not the occurrence of the election. If the delay is just the natural result of the mechanics of the election, it is unlikely such a "pending result" nom would garner support here. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Changed the nomination for results, not the election itself. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- The results are ITNR; I've proposed a more neutral blurb. 331dot (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Question Should this nom be moved to July 7 or kept here? The election happened then, July 6, but the results weren't released/officiated until July 7 so wouldn't it be more appropriate to move this nom to July 7? Dantheanimator (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Moved to July 7 for this blurb because what results of election being released. This taught was originally election that are not results.36.77.93.215 (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support – Considering the locale, this will have to do. Good enough. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb II.Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
July 4
July 4, 2020
(Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
(Posted) 2020 Kyushu floods
Blurb: At least 34 die, including 14 old age home residents, in Kyushu floods. (Post)
Alternative blurb: At least 34 people are killed in floods in Kyushu, Japan.
Alternative blurb II: Floods in Kyushu, Japan kill at least 34 people and leave dozens stranded on rooftops.
News source(s): NYT, BBC, Guardian, AP
Credits:
- Created and nominated by Chuka Chief (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Major flooding, tragic deaths, global warming effect on mankind. Chuka Chief (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support High quality article with lots of information. The rainfall was also unprecedented for these prefectures. Nothing to complain about. This is ready for inclusion in ITN. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- support - ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose disaster stub but since we pretty consistently post trash like this I added an alt-blurb that doesn't single out causalities by age or gender or any other arbitrary measure. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Fixed typo of LaserLegs's alt-blurb and made alt-blurb 3. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Strong support with altblurb 1 While this is stub and needs more pending information which LaserLegs said, this is disaster management which have significant event on earth. The rainfall was unexpected for these prefectures and the country as well. 180.242.9.91 (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support altblurb 1 per nomination. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 23:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support per nom. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 04:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per LaserLegs, we post a lot of natural disaster stub articles here and yet I'm not even sure this one would meet our low threshold. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 08:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support - AP puts toll at 34. – Sca (talk) 12:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Updated blurbs to 34 (+dropped the missing because they are not reported in the 34 tally). I am OK with all the blurbs, reports have been putting a spotlight on the old age home that was a major casualty site, but it's OK either in or out.--Chuka Chief (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support altblurb I with update victims as the information can be changed in time many people killed in flood whilst still a stub this is very important natural disasters. LaserLegs and Bzweebl please don't oppose just because of stub article but see any significance of event. 114.125.234.209 (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I give much greater weight to article quality than I do to the "significance" of 34 irrelevant people killed in a spot of bad weather and I'm rather sick of these stubby disaster articles expressed to the main page and subsequently abandoned -- but rest assured the practice will continue despite my objections. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Fixed typo. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 06:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Can this be reworded? —Jonny Nixon (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Of course it can.... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Post-posting comment deaths needed to change to 37 per new BBC source.36.77.93.215 (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Image suggestion Could the Russian book be replaced with the gif of the floods? It's generally more informative, and in my opinion more interesting. Kingsif (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
- Very Strong Support for Kingsif's suggestion Yes! I support Kingsif's suggestion. The gif is so much more interesting and eye-catching than the Russian Constitution. This needs to happen. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) Lin Dan retires
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: Chinese badminton star Lin Dan retires (Post)
News source(s): [10]
Credits:
- Nominated by Banedon (talk · give credit)
- Updated by 2402:3a80:de1:7dd5:fe1b:eb16:67c0:aa0 (talk · give credit) and Aleenf1 (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
- Oppose I think it's widely acknowledged that the posting of Alex Ferguson's retirement was a poor decision overall, and this guy, at the age of 36, would double down on that error. Plus the latter stages of this BLP are very poorly referenced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose for now He'll be back. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Not the kind of story that ITN is for. P-K3 (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- FYI: [Posted_Alex_Ferguson_retires][Posted_Yao_Ming_Retires][Posted_Sachin_Tendulkar]. Banedon (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- You’ll notice that all of those were controversial. There is substantial opposition to posting any sportspeople’s retirements, for good reason. P-K3 (talk) 12:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- FYI: [Posted_Alex_Ferguson_retires][Posted_Yao_Ming_Retires][Posted_Sachin_Tendulkar]. Banedon (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose as I don't think this is getting the coverage needed; I have no large issue with posting notable retirements in general. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Straight-forward retirement like this is not ITN worthy despite the significance of the athlete; we should never have posted the previous cases as they stood. --Masem (t) 12:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose – Minor sports footnote. – Sca (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per PKiii. ——Serial # 13:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Posting of any retirement certainly needs more notability than posting a death as a blurb. And, no offense to Badminton, but it's not exactly a sport where major retirements will have much of an impact. Kingsif (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
July 3
July 3, 2020
(Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
(Posted) RD: Earl Cameron
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety
Credits:
- Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Autarch (talk · give credit), GreatCaesarsGhost (talk · give credit) and Bloom6132 (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: Only filmograph section + table needs sources. Masem (t) 20:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support No issues. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Strong Support High-quality article. This is ready. Dantheanimator (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Absolutely ready given the state it was in when I nominated it. All the -ography aspects have been properly sourced. --Masem (t) 03:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 15:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Tyson Brummett
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Philadelphia Inquirer; USA Today
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Muboshgu (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.
Bloom6132 (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
*Weak Oppose High quality article however, there is no in-text citations in the summary. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Dantheanimator: per MOS:LEADCITE:
"The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article."
Since all the info in this lead is repeated in the main text (and cited there), and it does not contain material that is challenged (or likely to be challenged) or any direct quotations, it is redundant to repeat them. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Dantheanimator: per MOS:LEADCITE:
- Support Thank you Bloom6132 for telling me. Usually in other articles I saw in-text citations in the intro so I assumed it was mandatory. I'm still new so any corrections like these are greatly appreciated. I'm not sure about this but if I change my opinion to support, do I strike out my previous opposition? Thanks. Best regards, Dantheanimator (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Dantheanimator: Thanks, and no worries! We're in the same boat – I'm still learning new things even after a decade here. Yes, striking out previous oppose votes once the issue(s) are resolved is the norm. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support Looks good to me JW 1961 Talk 20:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support no concerns. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Spencer, Stephen, and Black Kite: I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 15:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) RD: Saroj Khan
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): india tv
Credits:
- Nominated by Mr.Mani Raj Paul (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 multiple issues, tagged etc. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 06:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose As per The Rambling Man's reasons. Also is missing some in text citations. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose as a day and a half after first oppose the article still has 3 orange notices and some cn tags JW 1961 Talk 20:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) RD: Reckful
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): Forbes, Kotaku
Credits:
- Nominated by Nahnah4 (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 achievements unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 06:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Article has been updated. — Ruyter (talk • edits) 09:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- When I'm not familiar with the references used, I like to vet against WP:RSN. For the first time, I'm finding none of these sites there. While this is certainly not a requirement, it makes me wary when so much of the article is based on sources that have not been reviewed by the community. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- I wonder -- Would we not AFD in these circumstances?--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 13:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- The BBC are covering his death - he seems to be notable. P-K3 (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- I wasn't arguing notability, but rather the reliability of sources. Known bad sources are not allowed - what about unknown sources? GreatCaesarsGhost 01:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- "The BBC are covering his death", is the BBC an unknown source? I hope not. I think P-K3's comment answers your question or settles your concern GreatCaesarsGhost. Dantheanimator (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Not in the slightest. The entire article must be cited. It is not enough that some of the facts are reported by the BBC, but rather "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." GreatCaesarsGhost 14:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- "The BBC are covering his death", is the BBC an unknown source? I hope not. I think P-K3's comment answers your question or settles your concern GreatCaesarsGhost. Dantheanimator (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- I wasn't arguing notability, but rather the reliability of sources. Known bad sources are not allowed - what about unknown sources? GreatCaesarsGhost 01:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- The BBC are covering his death - he seems to be notable. P-K3 (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- I wonder -- Would we not AFD in these circumstances?--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 13:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose His death is cited by reliable sources (including the BBC), but the sources about his life are either unreliable and/or interviews and/or passing mentions. It would certainly have been a reasonable candidate for AfD before he died (and may well still be, as his death is BLP1E). Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Ángela Jeria
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Infobae, La Tercera
Credits:
- Nominated by Jamez42 (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: Chilean archaeologist and activist, detained and tortured during Augusto Pinochet's dictatorship. Mother of former Chilean president and current UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet. Jamez42 (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support - short but sufficient within Start-class. Good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose no mention in the prose (that I can see) of her death. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support Added section on her death as per The Rambling Man's opposition. No other issues with the page for what I can see. I think this is ready. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support interesting story where you can learn important events. sourcing looks good. KittenKlub (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 15:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) Narendra Modi's visit to soldiers in the Ladakh region
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: Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visits soldiers in the Ladakh region amid heightened tensions between China and India. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Following recent border skirmishes in the disputed Ladakh region, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visits soldiers stationed near the Line of Actual Control (LAC).
Alternative blurb II: Amidst a revived wave of border hostility between India and China over their disputed border, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visits soldiers in the Ladakh region.
News source(s): [11]
Credits:
- Nominated by Dantheanimator (talk · give credit)
- Created by DiplomatTesterMan (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Vaibhavafro (talk · give credit) and DiplomatTesterMan (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Suggestion If there's an appropriate China–India relations article, it could be put in ongoing. Kingsif (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Done, changed the nomination into an ongoing one. I'm not sure exactly how ongoing nominations work so if I made a mistake, please tell me. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose relations article not getting regular updates, and the skirmishes article is stale because there are no skirmishes. This really is a thing where we should blurb significant updates instead of parking some stale article in the box for two months. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Reverted my ongoing nomination back to an event nomination as per LaserLegs opposition. Also, the India-China skirmishes article receives decent updates regularly, I don't know why you think the article is "stale" LaserLegs. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose A visit by the Indian PM to the border is not sufficient for ITN. If this was for the purposes of commencing military operations or other actions it would be more appropriate. 104.243.98.96 (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment this nom was converted in place from an ongoing to blurb nom. I'm still opposed. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. A President visiting their country's troops is a normal thing, especially within the country. 331dot (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Should this discussion be closed than? It seems agreed that this shouldn't be put in the ITN. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- If you wish to withdraw your nomination, please indicate that. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- I wish to withdraw my nomination. Dantheanimator (talk) 23:30, 3 July 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: