Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:In the news

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kees08 (talk | contribs) at 17:14, 27 April 2020 (→‎(Ready) RD: Gunnar Seijbold). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Click here to nominate an item for In the news. In the news toolbox
Shortcut

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

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

Anura Kumara Dissanayake
Anura Kumara Dissanayake

view — page history — related changes — edit

Glossary

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

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

Nomination steps

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

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

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

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

Voicing an opinion on an item

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

Please do...

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

Please do not...

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

Suggesting updates

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

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

Archives

April 27

April 27, 2020 (2020-04-27) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

RD: Ramon Jimenez Jr.

Article: Ramon Jimenez Jr. (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN, Manila Bulletin
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Filipino businessman & politician. - Indefensible (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 26

April 26, 2020 (2020-04-26) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

Law and crime

(Ready) RD: Erin Babcock

Article: Erin Babcock (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Edmonton Journal
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Canadian politician. - Indefensible (talk) 04:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 25

April 25, 2020 (2020-04-25) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

International relations

Sports

RD: Marino Casem

Article: Marino Casem (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Advocate, Mississippi Today
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American sports coach. - Indefensible (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Ready) RD: Zarina Hashmi

Article: Zarina (artist) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Scroll.in, The Daily Star, Hindustan Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Indian American artist. - Indefensible (talk) 04:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Ready) RD: Yevgeny Yuryev

Article: Yevgeny Yuryev (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Tolyatti News (Russian)
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Russian military officer & politician. New article, but seems to meet the quality requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Gunnar Seijbold

Article: Gunnar Seijbold (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [1], [2]
Credits:

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

 BabbaQ (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support fairly well sourced if it is long enough for RD Joseywales1961 (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 1240 bytes of prose, criteria I usually see for non-stub status is >1500 bytes. The article was created the 26th, and I am unfamiliar with the notability requirements for photographers (I know GNG, but the citations do not have published dates, so I do not know if they are all obituaries which may mean article does not meet notability requirements; I don't have the time to go through them all right now). Removing ready tag, would like an article expansion and someone that has more time to analyze to comment on notability. Kees08 (Talk) 17:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Per Olov Enquist

Article: Per Olov Enquist (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Dagens Nyheter
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Awarded and recognized Swedish author. Gumruch (talk) 11:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: James M. Beggs

Article: James M. Beggs (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NASA Release, Washington Post
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Former NASA Administrator. Death happened on April 23, announced by NASA on April 25. This is my first nomination, feel free to move it to April 23 if it is more appropriate. The article is in quite a state right now, I will do major improvements. (UPDATE: The article is now adequate, IMO.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ricardo Brennand

Article: Ricardo Brennand (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Correio Braziliense
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Businessman and art collector who founded the Ricardo Brennand Institute museum in Recife. Died today from COVID-19. —NoMoreHeroes (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Reported death of Kim Jong-un

Closed per Sca. We can post confirmed deaths, not speculation. Suggest a new nom on confirmation. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: Kim Jong-un (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un dies after a failed heart surgery. (Post)
News source(s): New York Post, TMZ
Credits:
Nominator's comments: This can be closed (or I will withdraw) if it turns out to be untrue, but this would certainly be newsworthy if it is indeed correct. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

April 24

April 24, 2020 (2020-04-24) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Grandma Lee

Article: Grandma Lee (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): People
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Comedian who began career in her 60s, gained acclaim on America's Got Talent. —Bagumba (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) COVID-19 deaths in the US surpass 50,000

WP:SNOW. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ More than 50,000 people have now died in the United States from COVID-19, according to data from Johns Hopkins University. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ According to data from Johns Hopkins University, more than 50,000 people have now died in the United States from COVID-19.
Alternative blurb II: ​ More than 50,000 people have now died in the United States from COVID-19, according to data from Johns Hopkins University, representing more than a quarter of total worldwide deaths.
News source(s): BBC, Washington Post, The Guardian, USA Today, TheHill, El País (in Spanish), RTVE (in Spanish), Berliner Morgenpost (in German), Stern (in German), Le Figaro (in French), Europe1 (in French)
Credits:
 Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb as the target article is not present in either. Additionally, I don't think a "total deaths" blurb will be necessary unless we are looking at worldwide numbers, as Wikipedia is not US-centered. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose good faith nom. This is an arbitrary milestone and people are dying all over the world. These developments are adequately covered in the various links within our COVID-19 template. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ad Orientem: worth noting this is front page news around the world currently, because the death toll is so much greater than every other country (maybe this should be included in the blurb in fairness) - I'm a Brit and saw it initially on the BBC, but it's being covered as well on the front page of RTVE's website as well as El País etc. It's not just a US news story by any means, otherwise I wouldn't have seen it at all - though I appreciate your point. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose posting such a benchmark for any single country; perhaps a worldwide figure. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Yes, it's a worldwide phenomenon, but the U.S. is also the first country to hit this number of deaths, and accounts for a quarter of deaths worldwide. BD2412 T 21:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added altblurb2 here with a worldwide contextualisation of just how significant this figure is in international terms. As mentioned above, the figure is being reported on the front pages internationally - I wouldn't have heard about it at all otherwise. Here in Europe, we're used to hearing about how bad the situation is in Italy and Spain, so these figures are really quite shocking. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Country with bigger population has more deaths. You could equally make a case for blurbing Belgium, with the highest death toll per capita of any heavily populated country (four times higher than the USA). Black Kite (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Black Kite: The US population makes up under 5% of the global population, yet accounts for more than 25% of all COVID-19 deaths worldwide now. I don't think this argument really fits. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but the reason for that particular statistic is not really because the US figures are ridiculously high per capita, but because there are many heavily populated countries (i.e. most of South America, India) with very small death tolls, plus dubious (at best) data from China. Black Kite (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Black Kite: An argument against the validity of the statistics is a question for somewhere other than Wikipedia; reliable sources show the statistics to be what they are. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, but you could equally say that the UK has 1% of the world's population, but 10% of the deaths - a far higher death rate. Is one statistic more notable than the other? Plus we're here for the long run - do we post to ITN every time a country gets to an artibrary figure? - the UK will probably get to 20K tomorrow, and that will be covered in plenty of reliable sources too. Black Kite (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Tragic, but why pick out an arbitrary threshold in one particular country? There have been almost 200,000 deaths worldwide. Modest Genius talk 22:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the highest death toll of any country brings notability, but it's an arbitrary threshold and we have the huge infobox already. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a worldwide event, focusing on any single country for ITN is completely inappropriate. I would be willing to support - if it got there - a worldwide death toll hitting 1M (based on WHO numbers). --Masem (t) 23:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose we posted the Olympics postponement, but for pretty much everything else there's the infobox. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for a worldwide figure - has the global total hit 100k? RIP. Kingsif (talk) 05:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is like posting the half time score in a football match as it happens. Sure, the US is doing tremendously, but it's just the overtaking of an arbitrary number. HiLo48 (talk) 05:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Lynn Faulds Wood

Article: Lynn Faulds Wood (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Needs work. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 23

April 23, 2020 (2020-04-23) (Thursday)
Business and economy

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) RD: Kumiko Okae

Article: Kumiko Okae (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Japan Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Japanese actress, voice actress and television presenter. Article is on short side, but just past stub. COVID-19 related. TJMSmith (talk) 04:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Fred the Godson

Article: Fred the Godson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Billboard
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American DJ and rapper from the Bronx. COVID-19 related. TJMSmith (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Norbert Blüm

Article: Norbert Blüm (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Berlin Spectator, Medium
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: German politician. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fknisel should also be mentioned. Grimes2 (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 22

April 22, 2020 (2020-04-22) (Wednesday)
Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Jimmy Goodfellow

Article: Jimmy Goodfellow (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: English footballer and football manager. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 21

April 21, 2020 (2020-04-21) (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Donald Kennedy

Article: Donald Kennedy (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Stanford
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: FDA Commissioner, Stanford University President, Science Editor-in-Chief. COVID. - Indefensible (talk) 05:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Sir John Houghton

Stale. Stephen 00:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: John T. Houghton (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Noted climate scientist, co-chair of IPCC which received Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. 2A00:23C5:5082:6101:3DAA:1C90:914B:87E5 (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

April 20

April 20, 2020 (2020-04-20) (Monday)
Arts and culture

Business and economy

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

(Posted) RD: Rudratej Singh

Article: Rudratej Singh (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): India.com, The Telegraph
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Indian businessman. - Indefensible (talk) 02:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Tom Lester

Stale. SpencerT•C 20:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Tom Lester (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): People, Variety
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American actor. - Indefensible (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Noureddine Diwa

Article: Noureddine Diwa (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [3]
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Death announced on this date. Short article, but uses all the online sources available. French Wiki article has more content, but not well sourced which is why I haven't added it Joseph2302 (talk) 09:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Ronan O'Rahilly

Stale. SpencerT•C 20:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Ronan O'Rahilly (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Radio Caroline founder The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Ramos v. Louisiana

Good faith nomination... however, consensus to post in not going to develop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Ramos v. Louisiana (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Ramos v. Louisiana, the United States Supreme Court rules 6-3 that criminal convictions require a unanimous decision by the jury. (Post)
News source(s): (Reuters), LA Times
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Article might need some improvement, but it is a big court case in the US. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It doesn’t seem earth-shattering to me; it just requires two states to follow what the other 48 are already doing. P-K3 (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability, I think the effects on criminal law are significant as it's enshrining a fundamental principle as opposed to merely "yeah, it's the law of the land in almost all of America, except when it isn't." However, given the messy verdict the article needs to be expanded to explain why the justices !voted the way they did. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Having expanded the article, the decision affects all of 2 states (Oregon and Louisiana), and even then, only will cause review of OR's and a portion of Louisiana before 2019 (LA had amended its constitution for unanimous jury convictions now). All other states had cases of unanimous convictions on the books long before this. It is a landmark case in US law, as it is another incorporated Bill of Rights against the states, but its impact is minor relative to the big picture that it is not ITN appropriate as it mostly affirms the status quo. --Masem (t) 00:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Milestone court case that has everlasting effects on the United States' entire criminal justice system. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 00:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Masem, and not seeing this "in the news". --LaserLegs (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's definitely in the news, its not hard to find coverage, just that its net effect has little change on most of the US , much less the rest of the world. --Masem (t) 01:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose as someone who's personally interested in this, this is nominally a big deal that overturns a precedent from the 1970s, the "two states" thing notwithstanding. Having said that, I'm not sure if this reaches the level for a blurb that is expected of court cases that aren't directly notable due to the persons involved. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support This case is a rare one, because it makes formal changes to criminal cases; but I take the point most states had already moved in this direction. Nonetheless, it prevents states from exercising their own discretion as to proceedings in their own territory, and it prevents a (granted small) amount of venue shopping. Added LA Times source to the nomination.130.233.3.157 (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose hyperlocalised minor amendment. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A key decision in the question of states' rights vs federal rights, which strikes at the heart of constitutional law as it applies to the criminal law system. (It might be difficult to appreciate its scope from within countries which have a stronger federal system of government -- which the U.S. emphatically does not. The best way currently to appreciate the differences is to look at the vast differences in COVID-19 governmental response between states -- inconceivable in most European and N/S American countries -- and to look at how reviled Obama was for centralizing response to swine flu and Ebola a few years earlier. The battle cry of "states' rights" has not tempered much since the U.S. Civil War.) Essentially, this decision tackles the question of the extent to which states have the ability to interpret the U.S. constitution (see Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution). It is in that sense specifically that the wider ramifications make this decision notable, by changing common practice to federal dictum. Although this does fall within the wider spectrum of Supreme Court cases (after the state courts were given the right to hold jury trials) which have generally determined that Bill of Rights amendments (ie. federal constitutional rights) apply to state trials, very few decisions in this millennium have had comparable weight. (Most of this was ironed out in the 1970s civil rights trials or earlier). Certainly none have had equivalent weight in both the legal sphere and public perception. The right to trial by jury is dear to American hearts. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 09:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Some non-US interest I think. Where I'm from (England) 10-2 is sufficient and I wasn't aware of the US situation. Nigej (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Local issue with no clear significance.– Ammarpad (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Too local, too minor. - SchroCat (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Minor import in the context of general U.S. jurisprudence. – Sca (talk) 12:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - A handful of judges make a decision that affects a subsection of a subsection of one nation's population. Definitively parochial.--WaltCip (talk) 12:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is prime for a DYK which I plan to sumbit (if no one else does). --Masem (t) 15:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as this changes an obscure legal point in only state-level courts in Oregon, and historical cases in Louisiana. Whilst some convictions will now be overturned or require a re-trial, that does not seem significant enough to merit an ITN blurb. The article has nothing on implications. I agree it would make a good DYK entry and is new enough. Modest Genius talk 15:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Price of oil is negative

No consensus to post. SpencerT•C 12:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Price of oil (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The price of oil becomes negative in the US. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The price of oil in the US becomes negative for the first time in history
News source(s): CNN, NYT
Credits:

Article updated

Price of oil just became negative in the US. That's a giant abnormality, as instead of a commodity, "black gold" is a liability/toxic asset. CNN, NYT. 2601:602:9200:1310:31C4:B759:FF29:594C (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As with the previous stories on the market turndown, we should wait for a trend. If this lasts for a few days, that might be an issue to post, but a daily blip in a financial market should not be an ITN as proven out from before. --Masem (t) 22:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But NEGATIVE prices is an extreme aberration. It's like having news of a large asteroid with uncertain orbit being predicted to hit Earth, even though later orbit measurements proves "just miss" status. Difference is that this has not happened on the NY Mercantile Exchange since its inception in 1983. 2601:602:9200:1310:31C4:B759:FF29:594C (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We tend to judge blurbs here, which means you have to have one first. Most of the ideas I have would be greeted with either "trivial!" or "Coronovirus 'impacts' cover this." GreatCaesarsGhost 22:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there's blips in markets. The media jumps at those, we are looking at the larger picutre. A sustained negative price would be something. But even with that, I would expect a more narrow focus article on why it got to negative like this (is this an extension of the russia-opec price war earlier? is this COVID related? etc.) --Masem (t) 00:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose this is one specific type of oil (West Texas Intermediate) for a specific futures contract (May delivery in Oklahoma, and today was the last day trading was allowed for this contract). All the other major oil indices are still positive. Juxlos (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change to Weak Support based on media coverage. Juxlos (talk) 05:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support big deal in business news today, article is decent. Weak because of the one sentence update and because the target it "proseline-y" --LaserLegs (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability, this is far crazier than a big one-day drop in stock indices which we routinely post. Needs expansion though. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A huge deal and a milestone on the way towards severe economic downturn. It's not just the government anymore; private companies are willing to pay their customers to stay in business. Contra Juxlos above, this did not just impact WTI; the majority of US-domestic crude went negative. WTI is just the "benchmark" which is reported in the popular press; TX sour was even more negative at ca. -50USD/bbl.130.233.3.157 (talk) 06:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Arguably, a negative price on a core commodity rather undermines the entire concept of industry development, challenging a few other dearly held economic beliefs in the process. (And the prize for the best-timed single commodity trade war ever goes to ... Russia and Saudi Arabia!) No question that the issue has been exacerbated by a sudden sharp drop both in discretionary spending and in demand due to COVID-19 (both possibly ongoing: no job or perma-home job leads to a sharp reduction in travel and industry electricity use, and there are already fewer heating days each year) , but that should not make a difference to its ITN notability. As one political cartoonist put it: such cheap gas prices ... and nowhere to drive. That kind of death spiral can be hard to escape, to the point that the phrase "economic black hole" comes to mind. Time to review some of the patterns of the Great Depression; it took a rather large war to fully lift us out of that one, and the emergence of the military industrial complex to maintain a new western pattern of war = prosperity. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 09:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the price of oil per se that's gone negative, but the price of contracts for delivery in the near future. Basically, traders are saying "I'll pay you to figure out where the heck to store this stuff". What you're describing would be the spot price, not the futures price going negative. --Carnildo (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment perhaps a superlative would highlight imptact better. Added altblurb.130.233.3.157 (talk) 11:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - We can safely say this has never happened before in the history of global economics.--WaltCip (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait – Sensational spot coverage internationally April 20, but suggest waiting a few days to ascertain extent, longevity of this possible watershed development. – Sca (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to wait. The news is all around you.--WaltCip (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The price is positive again now. "Yesterday's price action is best understood as a quirk or peculiarity of futures trading," said analyst James Trafford of Fidelity International." (BBC). Also, just one line mentioning it in the target article. Black Kite (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In NY Tuesday, crude futures were in positive territory but showed volatile fluctuation up & down. – Sca (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The newsworthiness is not diminished simply because oil futures are currently back in positive territory (after OPEC rapidly cut yields). It is not even in the aberration that, at the end of one market day as May futures were expiring, some oil prices dipped below zero. It is simply in the fact that, for the first time ever since oil became something useful, no one wanted oil. Did you ever think anyone would ever say that as fact? At this point, there is so much oil in storage that there is literally no place left to store it! (Some countries have been using the tankers themselves as extra storage.) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's many many footnotes to explain why oil was negative, that it is too simply to say "because no one wanted it". The cost of oil accounts for what people will pay (revenue) against the costs of production, processing, transportation, and storage (costs). There are so many levers on this calculation that a temporary drop into the negatives in one area is just a blip, and any statistician will tell you is something you routinely would ignore if it doesn't sustain a negative value. --Masem (t) 15:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose based on this Guardian article, which makes it clear this applies only to one oil market and is expected to rebound quickly. That makes our blurb misleading, and the article has only a single sentence on this topic, providing no more information. Modest Genius talk 15:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Even with the caveats, I think this is still extremely noteworthy and historic. Davey2116 (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a very notable event. It would be good for people to know.Rooves (talk) 18:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This kind of blip is fairly routine in commodities markets. The only reason the price briefly showed as negative, rather than zero, is that environmental legislation mean oil can't be dumped or stockpiled in the same way one can dump unwanted grain or leave coal piled at the minehead until the price goes up, and consequently when the May options expired the traders who'd overpurchased had to pay facilities to store it. ‑ Iridescent 18:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There isn't much to it when you look deep enough; not doing so would be a disservice. Usedtobecool ☎️ 19:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just a note that West Texas Intermediate, 2020 Russia–Saudi Arabia oil price war, Corporate debt bubble, and Financial impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic all have multi-sentence updates on this topic. Featous (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Modest Genius. And too many media outlets proceeding with the clickbait simplification when the single futures market was the one that turned negative. ITN should not sink to their level with atrocious blurbs like that. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 03:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So, I woke up today to find that oil is Asia is fast approaching 0, the June futures contract is dumping, and oil derivatives are closing. The notion that such is "fairly routine in commodity markets" is very false; what commodity has ever gone negative, let alone "routinely"? The notion that environmental regulations lead to this is also false; uranium is traded on the open market, has suffered a terrible bear market for years, and it also cannot be "dumped" - it never touched zero or below.130.233.3.91 (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose current blurb. If it becomes a worldwide phenomenon, then change the blurb to reflect this. Otherwise, not important enough for ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Iri, Black Kite and Modest Genius. An interesting little quirk, but not right for ITN at present. Should this be the start of something larger (i.e. it spreads to most markets and shows longevity, then the question could be reappraised, but not yet. - SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oil futures opened around $14 Wednesday and closed at $14.23. – Sca (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) Prime Minister of Israel

Article: Prime Minister of Israel (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ After an unprecedented three elections in one year, Netanyahu and Gantz sign a unity government agreement ending 17 months of stalemate (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The 2019–20 Israeli constitutional crisis ends with Benjamin Netanyahu as Prime Minister of Israel.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The Thirty-fifth_government_of_Israel finally approved following agreement of Benjamin Netanyahu and Benny Gantz ending a seventeen month caretaker government.
Alternative blurb III: ​ After seventeen months, the Likud and Blue and White parties reach a power-sharing agreement between Benjamin Netanyahu and Benny Gantz for the Israeli government.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ After seventeen months of stalemate, the thirty-fifth_government_of_Israel is finally approved with Benjamin Netanyahu as Prime Minister of Israel.
News source(s): JPost, NYTimes, Guardian
Credits:

 Sir Joseph (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support As was noted earlier, ITN habitually posts election results, and this is of at least comparable notability. Israeli politics have been a mess of late, in part because of changing demographics. The only western country with comparable instability is Italy; but for Italy this is a "normal" state of affairs. For Israel, it emphatically is not. Consider that if Netanyahu had been re-elected or become PM as a result of replacing a previous party leader, ITN would automatically have posted that (given adequate article quality). Sometimes such postings include the party details, but more often they do not. ITN also does not normally include the details of power-sharing in minority results. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 10:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: For whatever it is worth, I did add a fourth blurb, emphasising the amount of time involved and Netanyahu's continuance in the post. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 10:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – but only for a blurb containing the names of both men, preferably with some minimal indication of their political orientation. (How long it's taken is a side issue.) – Sca (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS: One possibility (call it Alt5): "Following the Israeli parliamentary election in March, the Benjamin Netanyahu-led Likud forms a coalition government with the Kachol Lavan led by Benny Gantz." (The introductory clause could be replaced by "In Israel," ....) – Sca (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sca, I think alt-III is fine, it has the details without getting too detaily for the blurb, it does mention names, and then the government, which is linked. I think that reads better than alt-IV. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - while the formation of a new government after 3 deadlocked elections is significant enough to warrant posting (I dare even say it's ITNR-level, if not in letter then in spirit), this hasn't happened yet. The coalition agreement between Blue&White and Likud does not automatically mean a new government - the government still needs to win a vote of confidence from the Knesset. While this is a likely outcome with the coalition parties seemingly controlling a majority, a lot can happen between now and the vote. I'd support posting a blurb only after the government is sworn in. Rami R 13:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt-3 is my first preference, with Alt-2 as my second preference. The key element of the story is the power-sharing agreement between the two men. That needs to be mentioned in the blurb. The story is in the news prominently, AND the article that is now highlighted in those blurbs is in a good state. --Jayron32 14:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt blurb 3. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: in principle, I think a new government after three elections is important enough to post. However, the nomination is a mess, all five(!) of the proposed blurbs are poor, and it's very difficult to work out what is going on from the numerous partially-overlapping articles. There needs to be an accessible top-level summary somewhere, and the blurb should keep things simple without casting judgement on either the participants or the time taken. Modest Genius talk
  • Oppose per Rami R. Once the Knesset votes to confirm the unity government (a mere formality, which I assume will be in the next couple days?) then this is ITN/R, since it establishes the final results of a general election. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 19:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think it’s ITN/R. The elections themselves are, but not the formation of a government. P-K3 (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think that formation of a government is more notable than the election since that is when the prime minister is chosen. I don't know what ITN conventions have been lately, but it makes more sense to me to post government formation rather than election results when there is no majority in a parliamentary system, if I had to choose one. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to be notable news that deserves to be posted. Another possible altblurb could be: "The 2019–20 Israeli constitutional crisis results in the Thirty-fifth_government_of_Israel after negotiations between prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Knesset speaker Benny Gantz." Does not seem to fit in the box currently though. The Prime Minister of Israel should not be the target/focus article though. Alternatively, could be posted as ongoing. - Indefensible (talk) 06:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a ("unity"-?) coalition govt. was finally formed by by avowed adversaries certainly is ITN-level news, and should be posted now or it'll seem stale. – Sca (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=953525867"