Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates
![]() | Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here. |
![]() |
---|
This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
view — page history — related changes — edit |
Glossary
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality. Nomination steps
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
Headers
Voicing an opinion on an itemFormat your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated. Please do...
Please do not...
Suggesting updatesThere are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:
|
Archives
July 20
July 20, 2020
(Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
July 19
July 19, 2020
(Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
Emirates Mars Mission launched
Blurb: The United Arab Emirates launches its first interplanetary mission to Mars. (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Looking at List_of_Solar_System_probes UAE seems to be only the seventh entity after USA, USSR, EU, Japan, China, and India to send an interplanetary probe that is not piggybacked on someone else's spacecraft. See original post below for a few people supporting at launch, some at arrival. It is unusual for a new space agency to launch a probe leaving Earth's gravitational well. It entered orbit a few minutes ago, and should leave low Earth orbit in a few hours. 205.175.106.45 (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Wait per the nom below. Kingsif (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- "not piggybacked on someone else's spacecraft" but it did piggyback on someone else's rocket, and it was built by Americans in the US. I'll admit ignorance of the field, but this doesn't really strike me as a indigenous launch. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support & Comment There seems to have been consensus to post AFTER launch occurred, per original nom. Sorry to GCG, but it was built by emirates, albeit with help from American universities.104.243.98.96 (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Wait for landing Hardly a mission to Mars if you don't reach Mars, and right now, Dubai hasn't. Seeing a spacecraft leave Earth is mundane now, cool fifty years ago. Not sure "interplanetary" needs saying. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment The Chinese Spacecraft to Mars is supposed to launch in 3 days (orbiter/lander/rover), and then the US spacecraft is supposed to launch 1 week later. The fact that there will be 3 spacecraft from 3 countries launching towards Mars around the same time will definitely be ITN, we should do a short blurb for UAE which will then be modified for the chinese and american spacecrafts when they launch.
2020 China floods
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): AP, Reuters (via Yahoo), BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Sheila1988 (talk · give credit)
- Created by Ekem (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Huangdan2060 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: " the end of June flooding had displaced 744,000 people across 26 provinces with 81 people missing or dead.[2] In early July, the South China Morning Post reported that about 20 million residents had been affected and at least 121 people were dead or missing.[8] As of 13 July, floods have affected 37.89 million people in 27 provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities, 141 people are dead or missing, and 28,000 houses have collapsed.[5] The Ministry of Water Resources said that a total of 443 rivers nationwide have been flooded, with 33 of them swelling to the highest levels ever recorded.[9] The 2020 China floods have described as the worst since at least 1998" This is a major event affecting the world's most populous country, deserves to be in ITN. Sheila1988 (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support and the only thing on the article quality would be the excessive amount of proseline in a few sections, but otherwise sourced and ready. --Masem (t) 22:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support important and satis; proseline is suboptimal but not disqualifying. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) (Stale) Tolulope Arotile
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Tolulope Arotile, first female Nigerian combat pilot. (Post)
News source(s): Akinpelu, Yusuf (July 16, 2020). "OBITUARY: Tolulope Arotile: Nigeria's first female combat helicopter pilot dies in accident". Premium Times. Kingsley, Omonobi. "How NAF's first female combat helicopter pilot died in accident". The Vanguard. Retrieved 16 July 2020.
Credits:
- Nominated by 7&6=thirteen (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Brain7days (talk · give credit) and Nnadigoodluck (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.
- Oppose per criteria:
Articles that are subject to serious issues, as indicated by 'orange'- or 'red'-level tags at either the article level or within any section, may not be accepted for an emboldened link
. ——Serial 14:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC) - Stale, as she died on the 12th and the oldest RD at the moment is from the 15th. Also, AfD does not help, though it will likely result in keep. I suggest the DYK approach here, the article is long enough and new enough. --Tone 16:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Arguably, death was on the 14th BBC) but with reporting the day after , the 14th would be considered the post date and thus this remains stale. --Masem (t) 16:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
July 18
July 18, 2020
(Saturday)
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
(Closed) Nantes Cathedral
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: Nantes Cathedral (pictured), France, is damaged by fire in a suspected case of arson. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Arson destroys an organ in Nantes Cathedral.
News source(s): BBC News Online
Credits:
- Nominated by Mjroots (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Ghostly100 (talk · give credit) and Lumidek (talk · give credit)
- Oppose – Lacks general significance. – Sca (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Lack of general significance a fire of a cathedral and its suspected criminal origin? Come on!
- Preceding comment posted by Alsoriano97. – Sca (talk)
- Lacks broader significance; appears to be a parochial event. – Sca (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Lack of general significance a fire of a cathedral and its suspected criminal origin? Come on!
- Oppose The source provided is clear that the damage was negligible. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose fails the Notre Dame test. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose No apparent connection to the early Norwegian black metal scene (plus above reasons). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support It may not have any connection to the early Norwegian black metal scene, but it is part of a recent wave of attacks on Catholic churches [1][2][3][4]. While this cathedral may not rise to the level of notability of Notre Dame, the fact that authorities are treating this as a deliberate act does increase its significance.--Tdl1060 (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Connecting it to others ITN already ignored decreases significance by association, though. Luckily for you, the "wave" is said to exist in the US, a whole ocean away. This doesn't have to be washed out with those. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- None of these other incidents occured in a 15th century cathedral, and most were not arson, so I would never expect any of these other incidents to be considered by ITN. I'm sure none of these incidents are even connected. My comment about the recent wave was merely in response to your citing a lack of connection to the early Norwegian black metal scene as a basis for opposing.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, OK. I misread that this act gets its significance as another deliberate attack on a Catholic church. If someone commits arson in a 15th-century stone temple in North America, that would certainly be huge, regardless of denomination. But in Europe, even 300-year-old organs aren't so rare. If a representative of any musical genre opposed to church music is arrested, I'll reconsider, even someone who just prefers Anglican or Orthodox tunes. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- None of these other incidents occured in a 15th century cathedral, and most were not arson, so I would never expect any of these other incidents to be considered by ITN. I'm sure none of these incidents are even connected. My comment about the recent wave was merely in response to your citing a lack of connection to the early Norwegian black metal scene as a basis for opposing.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Connecting it to others ITN already ignored decreases significance by association, though. Luckily for you, the "wave" is said to exist in the US, a whole ocean away. This doesn't have to be washed out with those. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Not major damage, not the Notre Dame. Kingsif (talk) 05:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Anti-terrorism act of 2020
Blurb: In the Philippines, the controversial anti-terror law takes into effect. (Post)
News source(s): (Rappler)
Credits:
- Nominated by AngelesYabok (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: It was notable because of protests and condemnation, even Greta Thurnberg and Taylor Swift oppose this. AngelesYabok (talk)
- Support: This act has drawn strong condemnation, both domestically and internationally, from a wide assortment of politicians, NGOs, religious organizations, and media outlets. It is certainly consequential enough to warrant an ITN post.--Tdl1060 (talk) 08:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose both in newsworthiness and target article quality. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- The prima facie argument is this allows anyone to be detained for three weeks without charge or warrant. That seems pretty huge. Common sense and history (both in this country and others) tells us these provisions are created to abuse dissidents. What's the counter argument- that the Philippines is too far gone for further action to be noteworthy? GreatCaesarsGhost 14:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per The Rambling Man's two counts. FWIW, re.
detained for three weeks without charge or warrant. That seems pretty huge
; in which case, they're 14 years behind the Brits' 28 day-detentions. ——Serial 14:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)- The Brits have been at this game much longer than that, but agreed- this is a good example of a country that used the premise of anti-terrorist action to detain and intimidate political opposition. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - Guantanamo Bay, anyone?--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 19:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose, for reasons stated above. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
RD: Haruma Miura
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Japan Times
Credits:
- Nominated by PotentPotables (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: Japanese actor, filmography and needs refs. PotentPotables (talk) 12:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Weak oppose for now. This article has been greatly improved since nom, but there is still too much unreferenced in the filmography and accolades sections.--Tdl1060 (talk) 07:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose not good enough. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Filmography refs are a burden each RD post must carry. Kingsif (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Ekaterina Alexandrovskaya
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): TASS (in Russian), RT, Fox News, BBC, Adelaidenow
Credits:
- Nominated by Lugnuts (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: Olympian and junior world champion Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Notability: 2017 World Junior champion, 2017 Junior Grand Prix Final champion, 2016 and 2018 Australian national champion. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 09:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- The article is of good quality and has been updated to the past tense. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- UnladenSwallow Notability is not at issue for RD nominations, as every person with an article is presumed notable enough for RD. This discussion is only to evaluate article quality/updates. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- @331dot: Thank you. I have updated my comment. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 09:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Weak oppose I'm seeing a handful of unreferenced statements in the prose. Tragic death. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support Article looks fine to me. Putinism claims another victim --212.74.201.229 (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support Article is well written and there don't appear to be any remaining problems with referencing.--Tdl1060 (talk) 04:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support: Article seems in excellent shape. The second death to hit the Australian Olympic community this month adds to its notability. --Light show (talk) 06:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support: Referencing issues dealt with. MurielMary (talk) 09:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Posted to RD — Amakuru (talk) 11:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
RD: Barry Jarman
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-18/former-australian-test-cricket-captain-barry-jarman-dies/11903316?section=sport
Credits:
- Nominated by HiLo48 (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 Test cricketer and International Cricket Council (ICC) Match Referee. HiLo48 (talk) 04:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose much unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Article needs a lot of work with sections, references, etc. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - Still needs work.BabbaQ (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose For now, still too much unreferenced, might change as Australian daytime just about starting JW 1961 Talk 21:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
July 17
July 17, 2020
(Friday)
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Sports
|
(Posted) RD: Zizi Jeanmaire
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Gerda Arendt (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: Icon in ballet and revue, also Hollywood films. Can't believe there wasn't more article. Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support Good work with the article. ——Serial 15:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support Article is in good shape.--Tdl1060 (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support This article looks ready to go to me JW 1961 Talk 22:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 23:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
(Closed)(Blurb pulled) RD/blurb: John Lewis
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: American civil rights leader and congressman John Lewis dies at the age of 80. (Post)
News source(s): USA Today, Atl. J-C, NPR, BBC, Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Nohomersryan (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Jon698 (talk · give credit), JTW1998+ (talk · give credit) and Randy Kryn (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.
- Support the only problem with the article is one citation needed tag in the SNCC Chairmanship section, but that can be easily fixed. To think that only six days ago he had a false death report. - Jon698 talk 3:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support Also the obvious tense problems that come with death. --Masem (t) 03:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- However, I oppose blurb here. The death was not a surprise (he said since Dec he was on such a watch), and while an important civil rights figure, he does not carry the type of weight in the overall field of politics that would make him one of the top of the field. We may be a bit sensative to civil rights issues at the current time to think this might be important, but we to step back and recognize he was beloved, but that's not the same as top of field --Masem (t) 12:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Masem, being one of the six in the Big Six (activists) says he was at the top of his field. And that's without considering his importance to Congress. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- However, I oppose blurb here. The death was not a surprise (he said since Dec he was on such a watch), and while an important civil rights figure, he does not carry the type of weight in the overall field of politics that would make him one of the top of the field. We may be a bit sensative to civil rights issues at the current time to think this might be important, but we to step back and recognize he was beloved, but that's not the same as top of field --Masem (t) 12:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support So sad. Article is pretty good; the forthcoming obits should be able to patch the few missing cites. Would support blurb too. Davey2116 (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Question Are we sure that it is true this time? He just released a press release earlier today according to hit site https://johnlewis.house.gov/, none of the sources say where they got these reports, and he was wrongly reported dead last week. All sounds fishy to me. 131.93.247.66 (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, his office and other sources are all confirming. And yes, he just has a PR out today, which is why this was sudden. --Masem (t) 03:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- He was reportedly in hospice for quite a while, so I don't think the previous reports were pulled out of someone's behind as much as they just jumped the gun. Nohomersryan (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Right now I think the tense of his article has been updated by me and a few other people. - Jon698 talk 4:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Apparently only one updater can be listed, but great work has been done by User:JTW1998+ and User:Randy Kryn - Jon698 talk 4:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Got 'em up there now. Nohomersryan (talk) 04:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support, and he and C. T. Vivian should go on together and aside each other. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support: Multiple sources are now confirming this, including CNN, Fox, NYT, WaPo, and many others. I only see one CN tag at this time, I'm sure we can address that promptly. KConWiki (talk) 04:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose there's not doubt he's dead, but several uncited claims in the article means it's not ready for posting. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Death is confirmed, and article is "of sufficient quality". -DePiep (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- I suppose if you consider unreferenced paragraphs and quotes to be of "sufficient quality" then yes. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- None now remain. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- I suppose if you consider unreferenced paragraphs and quotes to be of "sufficient quality" then yes. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Strongly support blurb He helped found the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Commission (SNCC) and served as its chair during the height of the Civil Rights Movement. Spoke at the March on Washington, was the last of the "big six" Civil Rights Leaders alive. Is known for marching and facing a beating at Selma, activism that led to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. As a member of Congress, he was a major force responsible for the National Museum of African American History and Culture. -TenorTwelve (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Support, once fully referenced. Onlyfivetwo cn tags now remaining, none controversial. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)- Support with blurb, now fully referenced. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Strongly support blurb He was one of the "Big Six" leaders of groups who organized the 1963 March on Washington, played many key roles in the Civil Rights Movement. AbDaryaee (talk) 10:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support RD only —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support looks good. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support RD once the issues are resolved. Oppose blurb. An important figure in the civil rights movement no doubt, but not at the level of worldwide transformative that we blurb for. — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support RD only Looks ready. P-K3 (talk) 11:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support full blurb but RD is better than nothing. Something like "American civil rights movement leader Rep. John Lewis dies at the age of 80" or the like? Short and simple? SnowFire (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support full blurb Looks will referenced. KittenKlub (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb – Together with Vivian, this is worthy of a blurb. I suggest:
Congressman John Lewis and minister C. T. Vivian, Freedom Riders and leaders of the civil rights movement in the United States, die at the age of 80 and 95, respectively.
- I also created File:John Lewis and C.T. Vivian.jpg. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support this, an accurate and timely blurb. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'd support that, also. ([The US loses two icons of the civil rights movement in one day])Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- While there is a certain romanticism to the coincidence, I don't think it reflects well on us to dabble in such sentimentality (shades of Fisher/Reynolds). GreatCaesarsGhost 13:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb Understanding that Lewis' was not just someone who made his mark 50 years ago and continued to live. He was a major world leader in the field of Civil Rights advocacy for close to sixty years. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support RD only – oppose blurb. Man dies at age 80 after eight-month battle with cancer. (His notability was mainly historical.) – Sca (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- He was still in Congress when he died so "mainly historical" is inaccurate. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Although I support a blurb, even dying in office as a member of congress doesn't make someone notable enough to be on the front page. Otherwise we'd be constantly listing members of legislative assemblies who have died in office. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 02:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- He was still in Congress when he died so "mainly historical" is inaccurate. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Posted RD, the article is in a good shape. I don't yet see a consensus for a blurb. --Tone 14:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb per rationale from AbDaryaee. Subject is of importance. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Strongly support blurb this does not need further explanation. A major figure in the Civil Rights movement and a man who truly shaped American history for the better Zingarese talk · contribs 17:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb [5] – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support Blurb per Coffeeandcrumbs --Rockstone[Send me a message!] 18:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb as he ain't getting a state funeral. Invisible Lad (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment we've done very well recently, resisting the temptation to blurb deaths just because the people concerned were famous and/or involved with great things. Kirk Douglas, Vera Lynn, Daniel arap Moi, all major figures (and I initially posted Moi, a two decades leader of East Africa's largest economy, but the community decided be didn't reach the threshold which is fine but tells us clearly where the benchmark lies). Lewis was a US civil rights hero, and it's right to honour him, but for all that he's still just one hero amongst many, not the single transforming Mandela, Thatcher or indeed the Martin Luther King which we would post without hesitation. — Amakuru (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Fully agree with this comment; I didn't nominate this as a blurb for pretty much this exact reason.Nohomersryan (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- For the love of all that is holy, please stop including Thatcher in such high company. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. Although to be fair, a Western state leader whose death provoked spontaneous street parties in their own country was always going to get a blurb. Black Kite (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm not saying I liked Thatcher, or that she was the Mandela of 1980s Britain or anything. But this isn't supposed to be a popularity contest! — Amakuru (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- If we're not aiming for popularity, I'll admit that as a white Canadian child of the '80s, even Nelson Mandela has never seemed particularly amazing to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm not saying I liked Thatcher, or that she was the Mandela of 1980s Britain or anything. But this isn't supposed to be a popularity contest! — Amakuru (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. Although to be fair, a Western state leader whose death provoked spontaneous street parties in their own country was always going to get a blurb. Black Kite (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb. per Amakuru. Awsomaw (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support C&C's alt blurb. -- Tavix (talk) 02:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Upgraded to blurb. Numerically, it's close but support for a blurb is slowly but surely ahead. None of the arguments on either side have stuck out to me as particularly good or bad, so we are going with the clear numerical majority. Not enough people have commented on the double blurb with C. T. Vivian, so leaving him off for now. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- If we're doing a blurb include Vivian as well they both seem notable enough. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb He was a Freedom rider (which the blurb doesn't even mention), but this doesn't rise to the level of well, Mandela, a comparative figure. He wasn't Mandela, and is basically unknown outside of the US. Even I first thought of the founder of the department store when I first read the name. I might give a blurb weak support if it mentions Vivian and the Freedom Riders, but neither death was unusual and they weren't international figures. Kingsif (talk) 04:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb Even as guy who didn't think Mandela and Thatcher deserved blurbs (retired people always die at the end), they were both way bigger than Lewis in political change, per their articles. Nothing weird about cancer at 80. Congresspeople aren't that crucial, outside their district, so incumbency at death means little (unless one pulls a Mauril Belanger, getting work done from the grave). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- "Octogenarian whose primary notability was six decades in the past dies of natural causes" is unlikely to be one of the half-dozen or so most significant deaths of 2020. Pull. —Cryptic 06:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb per Amakuru, among others. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb Civil rights is a very broad category and this person doesn't seem to fit there very high given that the he's never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize or the Sakharov Prize. By the way, I don't know how this did get a blurb when there are more oppose votes.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb per Kingsif. Not an international figure.--Tdl1060 (talk) 07:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Blurb per Amakuru. The death did not even happen under controversial circumstances. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 07:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb per Amakuru. Come on, this is getting silly now. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Pulled. The consensus seems clear after posting(and IMO perhaps even before) that this should not be blurbed, so I am pulling it. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb per above. RD is fine. -Ad Orientem (talk) 09:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment However you feel about this particular nom, to post and then pull such a significant figure in the days after his death is unseemly. The comments in this nom are nauseating (many are dead wrong - "primary notability was six decades in the past"?!). This seems to keep happening - the best solution clearly is to just stop having blurbs. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Lewis is arguably better known today than he was 20 years ago, due to his March comics - which are widely used in classrooms. Many kids learn about Lewis in school. Zagalejo^^^ 13:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Post-pulling comment – While I opposed the blurb above (and haven't changed my opinion), I agree that pulling this now is amateurish and potentially offensive to interested readers. Gauche to say the least. – Sca (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: J. I. Packer
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ChristianityToday
Credits:
- Nominated by Awsomaw (talk · give credit)
- Created by Bugsu (talk · give credit)
- Updated by 24.84.151.95 (talk · give credit) and Awsomaw (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 Anglican evangelical theologian Awsomaw (talk) 02:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose much of it is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. I've done some work in the article. It should be good to go now.? Awsomaw (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not going to oppose this. I was just going to ignore it, but then everyone else did as well, and I must take their silence to be a choice like mine. I feel the article is too dependent on sources that do not appear to be reliable and independent of the subject. The Gospel Coalition is used for many facts and looks too close to the subject (WP:RSN has not weighed in). Many other citations are either primary or almost primary. I personally don't think it demonstrates the quality we want to show on the main page, but this is not a !vote. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- @GreatCaesarsGhost: That's an interesting point. Admittedly, some sources are closely connected (Regents College particularly). I would be helpful if I had print biographies of Packer; there's at least three of them out there. Note that TheGospelCoalition source is really just pulling from the print sources, and the ChristianityToday source is written by one of his past biographers. WORLD is an independent conservative Christian magazine. So out of the four citations that I used to clean up the article, I can concede that RegentsCollege is definitely not independent (he taught there), but confirms some of the information on the subject. The other three are sources that are within his area of notability, so you can draw some sort of connection there, but none of the three are officially affiliated with him or his church (Anglican). Let me know what you think, Awsomaw (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- I appreciate your efforts. I'll go ahead and Support and let the admin make the call. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Posting. --Tone 16:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
RD: Zenon Grocholewski
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Catholic News Agency; Vatican News
Credits:
- Nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Bmclaughlin9 (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) 23:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose I’ve done most of the updating and cleanup, but the quality remains questionable. Note especially how 15 years as prefect are covered with a poorly written paragraph about a single statement; his academic career is covered with a generic paragraph that reads like boilerplate. See also the problematic sourcing for his academic career. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 11:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: C. T. Vivian
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:
- Nominated by Muboshgu (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 some work. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Opposeas noted, plenty of unreferenced material in there. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)- The Rambling Man, everything is sourced now. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support much better, nice work Muboshgu. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 23:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man, everything is sourced now. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support, C.T. Vivian a very important activist in the Civil Rights Movement. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Looks good. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support - A notable figure in the U.S. Civil Rights Movement, and the article looks to be in good shape. Any concerns about the article's quality, let's discuss particulars and see what we can do to address those concerns. KConWiki (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support looks good. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC) (See also combo with John Lewis (civil rights leader), above. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC))
- Posted. --Tone 14:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Roshni Nadar
Blurb: Roshni Nadar becames the new HCL Tech chairperson Technologies and the first women to lead a listed IT company in India. (Post)
News source(s): Bloomberg Quint
Credits:
- Nominated by Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk · give credit)
Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Leaning toward an oppose as questioning the lasting impact of this, but if the article were expanded to show how this were notable/reactions/etc., I could be convinced otherwise. SpencerT•C 19:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment – HCL Technologies is a very sizeable enterprise, but Ms. Roshni Nadar's article at 285 words seems rather thin. Agree with Spencer re impact. – Sca (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Tentative oppose This might be better for DYK, but I might be able to be swayed if this becomes more significant, per Spencer. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Too far narrow of a "bin" here. Why an IT company and not any listed company (which I presume has long since happened)? --Masem (t) 04:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Real Madrid win La Liga
Blurb: In association football, Real Madrid win their 34th La Liga title. (Post)
News source(s): BBC Instagram
Credits:
- Nominated by 139.192.206.157 (talk · give credit)
One or both nominated events are 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.
139.192.206.157 (talk) 10:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose basically no prose summary of the season which is usually the bare minimum requirement. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose same, and because someone always says prose is not needed - WP:NOTSTATS. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose – Per TRM – and because article (& notes) at roughly 14,000 words is grossly overweight, a case of fandom gone wild. – Sca (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose for now per above as there is insufficient prose and the infobox at 2019–20 La Liga, the only article that should be in this nom IMO, indicates that it is over a month out of date. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
2020 Iranian Explosions
Blurb: A series of explosions at Iranian nuclear, military, and industrial facilities kill at least 21 people. (Post)
Alternative blurb: A series of explosions of unknown origins at Iranian nuclear, military, and industrial facilities kill at least 21 people.
Credits:
- Nominated by NorthernFalcon (talk · give credit)
- Created by IvanSidorenko1 (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Potentially interesting item for ITN. NorthernFalcon (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Wait - We need sources that link every explosion listed to one another. Otherwise, this reads like WP:SYNTH. Also, citation is needed for the amount of non-fatal injuries. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 04:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Using the NYTimes article [6] we have no idea these are tied together yet, so it would be improper to treat it that way. It is not like floods that we can directly point to weather as a cause. --Masem (t) 05:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- NYT behind fire wall. This one from CNN [7] seems to draw a connection. GreatCaesarsGhost 02:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- I once saw CNN seem to draw a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. And people who voted Republican last time to far worse things. It has also linked the same household products to both sides of the "War on Cancer", many times over. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- You're right the Bush administration did fabricate a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 and CNN did report that fabricated connection. Let me know when CNN publishes obviously doctors photos of armed militants at otherwise peaceful protests. LOL. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- I didn't mean this in a partisan or zero-sum way. All ratings-driven, ad-friendly television is built on the same fundamental capitalistic lie. And all administrations except Carter's have made the post-Hiroshima world a worse place overall; hate the game, not the players! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- You're right the Bush administration did fabricate a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 and CNN did report that fabricated connection. Let me know when CNN publishes obviously doctors photos of armed militants at otherwise peaceful protests. LOL. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- I once saw CNN seem to draw a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. And people who voted Republican last time to far worse things. It has also linked the same household products to both sides of the "War on Cancer", many times over. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- NYT behind fire wall. This one from CNN [7] seems to draw a connection. GreatCaesarsGhost 02:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose/Wait, per Masem. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. Way too much speculation, contradictory claims by anonymous sources and general SYNTH (per Nice4What & Masem) in that article for my comfort level. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
July 16
July 16, 2020
(Thursday)
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
RD: Neela Satyanarayanan
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Mumbai Mirror
Credits:
- Nominated by TJMSmith (talk · give credit)
- Created by Monsi dhanraj (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Anant347 (talk · give credit), R1988 (talk · give credit) and Editrite! (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: COVID-19 related TJMSmith (talk) 05:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
(Ready) RD: Arthur J. Samberg
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times via Legacy.com
Credits:
- Nominated by Coffeeandcrumbs (talk · give credit)
- Updated by RegentsPark (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: News of his death only appeared on July 16 --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support – just added one ref to verify his education, but other than that, looks like it meets the criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment has been ready for 12 hours. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Was searching and was unable to find news coverage for the death outside of a the (presumably self-published) obituary. Is that typical for RD? SpencerT•C 21:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Fair point, not in the news. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 23:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Looks fine. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- We need "reliably sourced confirmation of their death." I'm weak oppose on if a purchased obit fulfills this requirement. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Weak oppose per above; needs to actually be in the news. P-K3 (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Tony Taylor (baseball)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press; The Philadelphia Inquirer
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.
Bloom6132 (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. — Amakuru (talk) 08:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
New Gabonese Prime Minister
Blurb: Rose Christiane Raponda becomes Prime Minister of Gabon. (Post)
News source(s): Gabon Media Time (in French), Guardian
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Tyseria (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Nice4What (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Tyseria (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment She is the first woman to become Prime Minister of Gabon. NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- True, but it should be noted that there have only been 11 before her and the post did not even exist for 15 years of the country's post-independence history. The six who have served under the incumbent president have tended to last only about two years. The swinging-door nature of the office is all the more remarkable given that Gabon is one of the continent's last old-style dictatorships! —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose pending expansion. Article consists of about 6 lines of text. Needs some serious expansion before it's main page ready. Expand it to the depth of coverage one would expect for a national leader, and it would be fine to post. --Jayron32 17:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment. The PM of Gabon serves at the pleasure of the President, who is head of government, so I'm not sure how significant this appointment is. 331dot (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose: She is merely an appointee of Ali Bongo whose own inevitable ousting will definitely merit a WP:ITN entry. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Currently updating the article. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Weak support - The Gabonese government has seen many shuffles since the January 2019 coup attempt, but what makes this notable is her being the first woman to hold this position and that she replaced the coup-appointed PM. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment – Unsee on major RS sites except the Guardian, so this doesn't seem to be much in the news. Significance questionable. – Sca (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose not the head of government, so not particularly notable. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
July 15
July 15, 2020
(Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
(Posted) RD: Kieran O'Connor
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Irish Times; RTÉ
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Edl-irishboy (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) 11:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support Looks ok.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support Well referenced article JW 1961 Talk 13:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support
Soft oppose. One para needs sourcing, but the rest of the article is fine. - SchroCat (talk) 05:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Good to go - SchroCat (talk) 06:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- @SchroCat: just added a source for that para. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Spencer, Stephen, Black Kite, and Amakuru: Ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Posted to RD — Amakuru (talk) 08:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
(Reposted) Twitter Bitcoin scam
Blurb: Several significant Twitter accounts have been compromised to promote a Bitcoin scam. (Post)
Alternative blurb: A security breach in an administrative interface used by Twitter employees led to many prominent accounts tweeting a bitcoin scam.
Alternative blurb II: Twitter administrative tools are breached and used to compromise several significant accounts for a bitcoin scam.
News source(s): Forbes, Newsweek, CNBC, The Verge
Credits:
- Nominated by Jamez42 (talk · give credit)
- Created by Naypta (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Ongoing. Major accounts such as Elon Musk's, Bill Gate's, Barack Obama's, Joe Biden's and Apple's have been hacked and affected. Jamez42 (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support once the article has been further developed, it is a bit too short right now but is quickly being expanded. Buttons0603 (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support as article creator - being described as "the worst hack of a major social media platform yet" is clearly quite significant. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 23:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support lots of high profile people's twitter accounts being compromised to promote a bitcoin scam is something which probably should make the news. The article is being expanded quickly, so should cover most of the incident soon, if not now. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support big enough news; article covers the basics. Natureium (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose ongoing, Wait on the story but general support. I am not downplaying how big this is, but we do want to have an idea of its size, # of accounts hacked, as there have been hacks in the 100s of millions, and that's not yet apparent here, it doesn't seem as big if it was only after the most influential accounts. (eg saying "the worst hack of a major social media platform" is extreme hyperhole right now given known hacks of 3B accounts at Yahoo!) I oppose the ongoing because it appears the hack is under control for the time being, and this is certainly not like Wannacry where it is a computer virus or worm that is propagating the attack and thus would take time for it to be resolved and stop the spread; it is all at Twitter's systems, so this is a singular event, not an ongoing one. --Masem (t) 23:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- To be fair, "worst" is a value judgement; personally speaking, I'd argue it is potentially worse than a hack of 3B accounts, because whilst that might be linked to poor security precautions on the part of the people who were hacked, this looks like it's shaping up to be a platform compromise rather than an account-specific compromise. (I don't know if that was the case with Yahoo too, to be fair.) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 23:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ongoing is a non-starter, but reluctant support in principle I'm highly reluctant to post Twitter stuff here, but this seems to have crossed the social media/mainstream media barrier. I don't think any resultant investigation is ongoing-worthy, but maybe we can post convictions, if any. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support blurb as John M W says, this is not an ongoing event - but a major cybersecurity scam that appears to have compromised Obama's Twitter? Good for a blurb. Article currently looks good enough. Kingsif (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Posted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose a hack of a social media platform hardly seems so newsworthy to support its inclusion here, regardless of whose account was hacked. Ljgua124 (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Post Posting Support - You do understand that so many accounts got hacked, don't you? Former POTUS and future (hopefully) POTUS, richest guy in the world, largest tech company by value, and many other accounts! This is definitely serious. 45.251.33.179 (talk) 03:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yes I understand, it's a financial scam which made use of Twitter employee privileges, and in which posts were removed in a matter of minutes. I concur with Brigade Piron – "its real-world and long-term effects are likely to be minimal". Ljgua124 (talk) 05:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Post posting support Significant cybercrime news and good to see news other than the usual disasters, conflicts or politics. Also highlights growing cryptocurrency fraud on which Wikipedia itself has had to take significant measures, WP:GS/Crypto. Gotitbro (talk) 05:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Better blurb needed. If the story here is the hacking of the accounts, then the blurb should focus on that. Mentioning bitcoin and scams tells me nothing about what this story is. In fact I came here to oppose, because a "bitcoin scam" does not sound significant to me. But the compromising of large numbers of twitter accounts is likely a major story. — Amakuru (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- It's not so much as those high profile Twitter accounts are compromised as staff accounts/login are compromised which allow the hacker to make post appears on the high profile accounts. Current wording at least to me implies the accounts were individually and seperately hacked. -- KTC (talk) 09:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Rushing to post details of a hack in this way is debatable. The article in question is open to anyone to edit – even IP editors – and that includes the hackers, who could use it to sow further confusion. The article has, at various times, contained an image of one of the fraudulent tweets, including details of the bitcoin account. Topics of this sort should go through some security screening, rather then being broadcast indiscriminately and in haste, to make sure that we don't become part of the problem. We're supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a live feed, like Twitter. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Andrew Davidson: There's currently a discussion on the article's talk page about the inclusion of the Bitcoin wallet - there is an argument (which I advance) that keeping it is useful for academic purposes. Very little vandalism has been seen on the article, and it's consistent with our principles that unless there was a significant issue, it would be
open to anyone to edit
. "Go[ing] through some security screening" is against the fundamental principles of Wikipedia - an encyclopedia that anyone can edit with well-sourced content. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)- Our terms of use forbid "Posting or distributing content that contains any viruses, malware, worms, Trojan horses, malicious code, or other device that could harm our technical infrastructure or system or that of our users;" Redistributing fraudulent postings seems contrary to this warning. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Andrew Davidson: A Bitcoin wallet address is a number, it is not executable code. It does not fall into the criteria of
contains any viruses, malware, worms, Trojan horses, malicious code, or other device that could harm our technical infrastructure or system or that of our users
. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)- The account number is a "device" that could "harm" "our users". Presumably that's why it has been suppressed by editors like Masem. But there has been edit-warring about this. The article is still not protected in any way and so is wide open. The pandemic should have taught people something about the ease with which a virus can spread and cause chaos. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Andrew Davidson: The account number is not a "device", it's a number, and it cannot harm the
technical infrastructure or system
of Wikipedia users - again, it's a number. There isn't an opportunity to spread a virus using it. Whether it could potentially harm users in other ways is a subject for debate, but we already have policy on this, and it's WP:NOTCENSORED. To my knowledge, there has been no edit warring about this, either - just people following BRD - and there's no cause for page protection, because there is no widespread vandalism, and protection is not pre-emptive. Either way, this isn't the place for this discussion - it belongs on the talk page. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)- Anything may be expressed as a number – see Gödel numbering. Saying that it's just a number is therefore meaningless. The issue is what may be done with the information. I would have thought it was common sense that we shouldn't be broadcasting information like bank account numbers. If the article is in hands of editors who think otherwise, it should be pulled until we can be sure of its quality and safety. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Logic here, and
Anything may be expressed as a number – see Gödel numbering
seems rather flawed. If I create a function that maps every word in the dictionary to something malicious, can I now claim that Wikipedia should be taken down, as everything on here is now malicious? ProcFunc has a ring to it, I must say. A bitcoin address isn't malicious, it isn't a virus. If someone is silly enough to send money to an address listed on an article about a scam, that's on them. We document the steps for hanging, weighing the benefit of the information as more important than the risk that a small percent might use it as a guide on how to hang. We write LD50s for drugs, with the risk that some drug users might treat it as a how to guide for how far they can go and end up ODing. Censorship because an address is 'malicious' is absurd, it's just another Bitcoin address, nothing technically special about it, and we can expect editors don't send money to it. Respectfully, I can't understand your reasoning. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Logic here, and
- Anything may be expressed as a number – see Gödel numbering. Saying that it's just a number is therefore meaningless. The issue is what may be done with the information. I would have thought it was common sense that we shouldn't be broadcasting information like bank account numbers. If the article is in hands of editors who think otherwise, it should be pulled until we can be sure of its quality and safety. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Andrew Davidson: The account number is not a "device", it's a number, and it cannot harm the
- The account number is a "device" that could "harm" "our users". Presumably that's why it has been suppressed by editors like Masem. But there has been edit-warring about this. The article is still not protected in any way and so is wide open. The pandemic should have taught people something about the ease with which a virus can spread and cause chaos. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Andrew Davidson: A Bitcoin wallet address is a number, it is not executable code. It does not fall into the criteria of
- Our terms of use forbid "Posting or distributing content that contains any viruses, malware, worms, Trojan horses, malicious code, or other device that could harm our technical infrastructure or system or that of our users;" Redistributing fraudulent postings seems contrary to this warning. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Andrew Davidson: There's currently a discussion on the article's talk page about the inclusion of the Bitcoin wallet - there is an argument (which I advance) that keeping it is useful for academic purposes. Very little vandalism has been seen on the article, and it's consistent with our principles that unless there was a significant issue, it would be
- Post-posting oppose: I don't see what is particularly newsworthy about this. Yes, it is an impressively large piece of hacking but its real-world and long-term effects are likely to be minimal. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Post-posting oppose. A scam that nets $100,000 is hardly Earth-shattering news. Using celebrity Twitter accounts to spread it (rather than e.g. emails or WhatsApp) makes the event more visible, but this is hardly going to have long-term encyclopaedic value. Would make a decent DYK, but is extremely underwhelming as an ITN blurb. I also think it needed more than 90 minutes of discussion before posting. Modest Genius talk 11:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- The importance of it is not the scam, but the fact that the backend of a Silicon Valley giant was compromised. That almost never happens. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Security flaws in software or web services are not rare, even those written by large companies. The effects of this one seem less substantial than e.g. password or credit card leaks, which occur frequently. Modest Genius talk 15:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Modest Genius: If credit card information linked to one of the world's most prominent websites was breached, that would be significant, too, and I'd argue warrant an ITN post. Amazon, for instance, having credit card information breached from its users, would be of huge consequence to millions of people. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Whilst the specific combination of Amazon and millions of credit cards hasn't happened recently, see List of data breaches for the sheer number of these that occur, many involving larger companies than Twitter and far more users. Modest Genius talk 16:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Modest Genius: If credit card information linked to one of the world's most prominent websites was breached, that would be significant, too, and I'd argue warrant an ITN post. Amazon, for instance, having credit card information breached from its users, would be of huge consequence to millions of people. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Security flaws in software or web services are not rare, even those written by large companies. The effects of this one seem less substantial than e.g. password or credit card leaks, which occur frequently. Modest Genius talk 15:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- The importance of it is not the scam, but the fact that the backend of a Silicon Valley giant was compromised. That almost never happens. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Post-posting oppose wow, less than two hours from nom to post! Per Modest Genius, this is hardly worth worrying about for its long-term impact. It's tabloid fodder, WP:TOP25 would no doubt nom it up, as would another part of the main page, but it's not ITN material. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: A major security breach of one of the most popular social networking services in the world, as it has now been confirmed to be, is definitely not "tabloid fodder" - and, indeed, worldwide news organisations agree with the assessment that it is not, if you look at what the headlines are like. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 15:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Pulled for the time being as there is a substantial opposition to the posting. Let's first discuss here what is the proper way to continue. --Tone 12:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- For future reference, is there any guidance on length of time from nom to posting? I can see why the United States going to war with China could be posted in 90 minutes but it's pretty odd in any other context. It also means only users in one time-zone may get to vote which, I suspect, is what happened here. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- There is not a specific length of discussion requirement, nor a requirement that a nomination be held so users in different time zones can comment. 331dot (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- 331dot, I imagine not. It would still be nice at least to show that we care about a global perspective on Wikipedia? There are uncontroversial WP:RD nominations which have not been posted after double the number of user endorsements and days after opening. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Brigade Piron It's been discussed before(minimum discussion time) and not reached consensus, as any limitation would be arbitrary- and if there are exceptions to it(such as a major news event) that would render any limitation meaningless. Even within the same time zone, people could work third shift or otherwise be unavailable to comment when users typically comment(in a given time zone). I know I'm on Wikipedia at different hours depending on my schedule. As for postings, there has to be administrators available to do so. But I digress from this discussion. 331dot (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- 331dot, I imagine not. It would still be nice at least to show that we care about a global perspective on Wikipedia? There are uncontroversial WP:RD nominations which have not been posted after double the number of user endorsements and days after opening. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- There is not a specific length of discussion requirement, nor a requirement that a nomination be held so users in different time zones can comment. 331dot (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- For future reference, is there any guidance on length of time from nom to posting? I can see why the United States going to war with China could be posted in 90 minutes but it's pretty odd in any other context. It also means only users in one time-zone may get to vote which, I suspect, is what happened here. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support Not a typical ITN story but if it is truly the "worst hack of a major social media platform yet" as described in the article then that's significant, and I don't see any quality issues with the article.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Now that Europe is awake, post-posting oppose. Bitcoin scams happen all the time. This story picked up a lot of traction due to the profiles that happened to be targeted by the Twitter hack, but that is more of a novelty rather than anything of actual significance, such as terrorism.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 13:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Can you name a single instance in the past in which attackers gained access to the master keys of a major social networking service, allowing them to post under any account? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- That's a clever rhetorical trick there, but not an inherent demonstration of lasting newsworthiness.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 13:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Can you name a single instance in the past in which attackers gained access to the master keys of a major social networking service, allowing them to post under any account? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support pulling – Per TRM, Walt. Ephemeral, obscure. ZZZzzzz. – Sca (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- If it is "the worst hack of a major social media platform yet", as stated by Dmitri Alperovitch, then I'd support posting. The article also highlights the point that Twitter is used by many US politicians, and the platform's flaws is a major concern during a presidential election year. Also, was it right to pull this after just three oppose !votes while not considering the amount of support? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 14:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC); Edited 15:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Added altblurb2. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Propose altblurb, as I think some of the concerns here are justifiable with the currently-proposed blurb - the altblurb more clearly explains why this specifically is notable, as it's now been confirmed that Twitter itself was the target, rather than individuals. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 15:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support an altblurb. Mariah Carey's Twitter being hacked to say "Eminem can hold this pussy" - tabloid news. Over a dozen public figures being hacked to promote a scam as a major example of cybercrime - significant (in my opinion, anyway). It's not necessarily just "Twitter accounts got hacked," it's still a breach on one of the world's biggest media platforms that's been covered extensively in reliable sources. So long as the blurb clarifies why it's significant, I think it has a place on ITN. Spengouli (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support reposting as altblurb. This is very significant news. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 16:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support reposting using an altblurb per Spengouli. — Gestrid (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support altblurb as it clarifies why the incident is important (this is not just a hacking of individual prominent accounts). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Posted with a slightly less wordy version of the alt blurb that doesn't get into all the details of the administrative interface and employees. Also replaced the specialized slang of "tweeted" with "promoting." Follow up at WP:ERRORS. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Post-posting Weak Oppose. Limited lasting impact; "weak" because the article is reasonably fleshed out highlighting relevant noteworthiness, even though IMO it falls below the bar of posting to ITN. SpencerT•C 19:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Post-posting support per Naypta and Spengouli. Davey2116 (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Post-posting comment and support as nominator: as it has been noted prevously, at least 12 bitcoins have been transferred during the scam, the equivalent of over US$110,000. It might be useful to include this information in the blurb to give a perspective of the magnitude of the scam. --Jamez42 (talk) 10:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Oscar Hugh Lipscomb
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Birmingham News; WPMI-TV (NBC)
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.
Bloom6132 (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Spencer, Stephen, Black Kite, and Amakuru: Ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Posted to RD — Amakuru (talk) 07:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) A Surge of Power (Jen Reid) 2020
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 Bristol, the sculpture A Surge of Power (Jen Reid) 2020 is erected in place of the statue of Edward Colston. (Post)
News source(s): NYT, AP
Credits:
- Nominated by WaltCip (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Question - article quality is irrelevant if it doesn't meet the significance criterion, so why "give this article a closer look"? Banedon (talk) 20:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Because it's interesting and it's notable, not just as a work of art (in the objective sense), but also significant in that it's another chapter in what happened to this notable statue that has been there since the 19th century. It's rather like that statue that was put up on Wall Street of a girl standing up to a bull. Although that wasn't posted on ITN, its significance has withstood and warranted an independent article of it. I feel this is an opportunity for ITN to take a more open mind in terms of posting notable content.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 21:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose I looked at the article. The mayor says the statue will be removed. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'll be the first to say it - more suited to another area of the Main Page. P-K3 (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- It very well could be, but it's in the news right now. Where is the distinction?--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 21:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment – Muboshgu, According to the AP article, Mayor Marvin Rees said "the future of the plinth and what is installed on it must be decided by the people of Bristol" at some point in the future. – Sca (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- If the people of Bristol decide to keep this statue, that would be a less notable moment than right now, when it has already been erected and the message has been sent.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 21:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- It's still just one statue that was toppled among many during these protests, which are covered by an ongoing link. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- And Rhodes lost his head in Cape Town the other day. – Sca (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Nope, sorry. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- I think I could support this on notability if Bristolians (?) eventually voted to keep Jen Reid up there, signifying a profound cultural shift. Even as things stand now, it's drawn wide RS coverage. – Sca (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, oppose, sorry Great story but not ITN. DYK? Black Kite (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Sir Toke Talagi
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): RNZ
Credits:
- Nominated 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: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
WeakSupport the lead needs expansion but the article is remarkably well-sourced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)- Support I agree with above but the article is yes indeed overwhelmingly sourced. Besides, ruled Niue for a long time, a recognised figure. ^_^ CoryGlee (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: & @CoryGlee: Speak of the devil, while you were commenting on this I was already expanding the lead. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
-
- Sorry for the delay in responding! Great! ^_^ CoryGlee (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support Well sourced. - SchroCat (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
You learn something niue every day.
– Sca (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support Article is great.Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Posted to RD — Amakuru (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Emirates Mars Mission
Blurb: The United Arab Emirates launches its first Mars mission. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Mohammed bin Rashid Space Centre launches its first Mars mission.
Alternative blurb II: The United Arab Emirates launches its first Mars mission from Tanegashima Space Center onboard a H-IIA rocket.
News source(s): CNN
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Looking at List_of_Solar_System_probes UAE seems to be only the seventh entity after USA, USSR, EU, Japan, China, and India to send an interplanetary probe that is not piggybacked on someone else's spacecraft. Launch was delayed to two days from now, but I think when it happens, it should be posted at ITN, probably with a nicer blurb. 205.175.106.45 (talk) 00:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Wait Most certainly meets an ITNR, but the mission launch is delayed until later in the week. --Masem (t) 00:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Wait per Masem; also note that currently
If successful, it would become the first mission to Mars by any West Asian, Arab or Muslim majority country.
,The mission is timed to arrive at Mars before the 50th anniversary of the independence of the United Arab Emirates on 2 December 1971.
,with support from MBRSC.
, andand is set to arrive at Mars in February 2021.
are all uncited, with much of the "Specifications" section inadequately cited. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC) - Oppose posting the launch, wait to see if it arrives successfully at Mars. WP:ITNR explicitly states: "Arrival of spacecraft (to lunar orbit and beyond) at their destinations". That's due in February. Modest Genius talk 10:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Or arrives unsuccessfully. Did we not agree that crashes are arrivals? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 10:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- I don't remember any discussion of that, but agree that crashing into Mars would also be worth posting. I'm not so sure if it suffers a malfunction en route or fails to leave Earth orbit. Modest Genius talk 12:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- I feel like we've discussed that but can't recall off the top of my head. An arrival that crashes is still an arrival. If it didn't make it into space it would be a launch failure which would be ITNR as well. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- I've complained frequently about the vagaries of the ITNR section for Space Exploration. 1. if a launch fails, it is ITNR; if it suceeds it is not. 2. what exactly does indigenous mean in the modern world? 3. when is a rocket differnt enough to be called "new?" ITNC is perfectly capable of handling these noms - the ITNR entry just adds confusion (which is directly counter to ITNR's purpose). GreatCaesarsGhost 13:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- I think there are circumstances of space exploration that would merit being on ITNR, but the current list has been largely unchanged for years and perhaps could use a review. 331dot (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed! I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items#Revising_the_space_exploration_section. Modest Genius talk 15:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- I think there are circumstances of space exploration that would merit being on ITNR, but the current list has been largely unchanged for years and perhaps could use a review. 331dot (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- I've complained frequently about the vagaries of the ITNR section for Space Exploration. 1. if a launch fails, it is ITNR; if it suceeds it is not. 2. what exactly does indigenous mean in the modern world? 3. when is a rocket differnt enough to be called "new?" ITNC is perfectly capable of handling these noms - the ITNR entry just adds confusion (which is directly counter to ITNR's purpose). GreatCaesarsGhost 13:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- I feel like we've discussed that but can't recall off the top of my head. An arrival that crashes is still an arrival. If it didn't make it into space it would be a launch failure which would be ITNR as well. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- I don't remember any discussion of that, but agree that crashing into Mars would also be worth posting. I'm not so sure if it suffers a malfunction en route or fails to leave Earth orbit. Modest Genius talk 12:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Or arrives unsuccessfully. Did we not agree that crashes are arrivals? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 10:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Agree that the arrival will be ITNR, but this is being launched from Japan(so it isn't a country conducting its first indigenous launch). 331dot (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- @331dot: That's a valid point that needs to be properly addressed in the blurb (when NASA or Roscosmos launch similar missions, we don't use the United States or Russia in the blurb). I also see the mention of three American universities in the opening sentence.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support in principle but no problem for me to wait until it reaches the final destination.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose for now (particularly as it's been "postponed indefinitely"). - SchroCat (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Wait for actual launch. Also the role of different organizations involved should be made clear in the article, and who is actually launching this should be in the blurb. Gotitbro (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support launched. Created altblurb2 to specify launch site per the above.104.243.98.96 (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- Wait for launch, but support original blurb otherwise. Tweaked the grammar in blurb and altblurb2. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support original blurb, now that the launch has occured.
Worthy of ITN per WP:ITN/R.--Tdl1060 (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Struck ITNR justification since it isn't the country's "first successful indigenous orbital launch" since it was launched from Japan, but I still feel this merits an ITN, as the UAE's first Mars mission, a major accomplishment not many nations have achieved.--Tdl1060 (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support with blurb. Really big news. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
July 14
July 14, 2020
(Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
(Posted) RD: Daniel Lewis Lee
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:
- Nominated by Masem (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: This is related to the ITNC from July 13 on US federal executions - SCOTUS ordered through the blocking order overnight and the execution was carried out this morning. Based on the comments on that ITNC, I doubt the blurb would be going through but as a BLP/BIO, RD does apply here. Masem (t) 13:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support I see no problems with the article and the person meets the notability guidelines. - Jon698 talk 13:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support all looks ok to me with this one JW 1961 Talk 14:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support Looks good to go. (I supplied a reference for the one cite tag I saw).-- P-K3 (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support Well referenced story. No blurb, but is notable enough.KittenKlub (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Posted to RD — Amakuru (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Grant Imahara
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [8] [9]
Credits:
- Nominated by Nixinova (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: Shocking breaking news. MythBusters and White Rabbit Project star. Nixinova T C 03:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Neutral pending a few more citessupport damn, beat me to it.There's still a few unsourced things though.-- a lad insane (channel two) 04:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Cites boosted by Masem - -- a lad insane (channel two) 04:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)- Support I've finished going through to make sure all the material is cited at this point. --Masem (t) 04:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support Confirmed by his former co-stars. –DMartin 04:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 04:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
July 13
July 13, 2020
(Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
(Posted) RD: Marilyn Howard
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [10]
Credits:
- Nominated by Jon698 (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: 23rd Idaho Superintendent of Public Instruction and most recent member of the Democratic Party elected to statewide office in Idaho. Jon698 (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support neat little article that is well referenced JW 1961 Talk 19:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: Does this really meet the WP:GNG? —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- I would say it does not, but I'm usually in the minority in these conversations. Would you say the the citations listed in this article address her "directly and in detail" or mention her in trivial passing (she ran, she took office, she left)? GreatCaesarsGhost 13:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support. I think the GNG is OK, and it hasn't been tagged as such or nominated for deletion. There are non-passing-mentions in papers and books, such as [11]. — Amakuru (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- I'm unconvinced she actually meets GNG as well. Every reference, apart from the one Amakaru mentioned above, is local papers. Not wishing to be funny, but apart from Amakaru's book I could write an article on myself with that level of sourcing. Black Kite (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Black Kite, she meets WP:NPOL as someone elected to a statewide office. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Naya Rivera
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): LA Times, BBC, USA Today
Credits:
- Nominated by Kingsif (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: Ventura county captain confirms body found on July 13; refs added over the last few days so should be all good. Given the circumstances of disappearance/death, I also suggest a blurb. Kingsif (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose RD and neutral on blurb Missing some citations in filmography and other tables. Once that's fixed I will Support for RD. Everything else looks ready good. I would definitely have supported this but considering the previous debate on Won-soon and Rajput's exclusion, I'm very hesitant on RD's as blurbs. Will reconsider my position depending on other peoples points. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Dantheanimator: Anything not cited in filmography (etc.) is cited in prose, something supported by MOS. Kingsif (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Kingsif: Thanks Kingsif, I had no clue. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support RD and neutral on blurb I definitely would have supported this but considering the previous debate on Won-soon and Rajput's exclusion, I'm very hesitant on RD's as blurbs. Will reconsider my position depending on other peoples points. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support RD, flat out oppose blurb tragic, very tragic, but she was not transformative in any sense whatsoever. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Not for 'death is the story' blurb? Kingsif (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- No, this person's death, while tragic, will have precisely zero long-term impact. It was an accident, she died young, it's definitely a sad situation, but if we're now going to continue the Carrie Fisher mistake (and Carrie Fisher had much more call for a blurb than this individual, yet it was still wholly incorrect), then ITN is morer of a running joke than I thought. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: A 4/5-day disappearance that's been making headlines around the world is a story, which is what would be blurbed, not just her death. As you said, tragic as it is, she's nowhere near famous/whatever enough for a death blurb if not for the circumstances. Of course, death blurbs are a mess of inconsistencies and debate (I didn't outright nominate for blurb because I'm still not sure where we're sitting on the 'criteria') Kingsif (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- She fell off a boat. This "disappearance" thing is a red herring. It often takes days to find people in such situations. If this was Meryl Streep or Brie Larson or Renee Zellweger for instance, it'd be a reasonable call, as they have literally transformed their industry. This actress, while popular, has not. We don't need another Carrie Fisher or Paul Hunter moment. And why are all these posted individuals from the US?? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: You make some good points, I have thoughts (which I don't think will change your view, as they build on subjectivity) that would probably be better expressed in the death blurb discussion on talk than drawing this nom out. In short: public response to the disappearance story has been overwhelming internationally in a way you would expect for those much more notable actresses. As said, though, I'm not going to fight blurb views because of how messy the area is. Kingsif (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- "public response"? What, "we're sad someone young and on television has died"? I get it, and I am not suggesting this isn't getting a lot of popular traffic (just like Hamilton, see WP:TOP25) but this is no way to run the rule over who is notable enough for a blurb. We pretty much universally agreed that Carrie Fisher's posting as a blurb was a mistake, and this would just doubly double down on that: a popular yet not-transformative American actress getting a blurb? Nope. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man What happened with Carrie Fisher nom's blurb that make it so "bad"? I wasn't with wiki when she died nor when the nom was made so I have no clue what is the big deal with Carrie Fisher. I would think being a lead Star Wars actor would be notable on its own but that's just my thoughts. Dantheanimator (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Well yes, that's practically nailed it. She was big in one set of movies about 35 years before her death and then not much else. That was the problem. But even then, she had some historic movies behind her rather than this individual here who literally has been a US TV "star" for a while. Fisher shouldn't have been posted and sadly this individual pales into insignificance when compared to her. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 23:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Most celebrities die many years after what made them famous. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- But this "celebrity" was not "transformative". Popular, yes, but nothing more. While it may be considered disrespectful to say it, her death won't be long in the memory. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 23:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Most celebrities die many years after what made them famous. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Dantheanimator: With Carrie Fisher, it was seen that she had a relatively natural death and was very famous for one franchise, without leaving any other impact, and that similar actors (especially from elsewhere in the world) would not even be considered for blurbs because the 'cult fan' thing Star Wars has doesn't apply. Posting Fisher as a blurb was kind of saying 'Star Wars is more important than better films'. Kingsif (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you Kingsif and The Rambling Man for the explanation. Yeah, it makes sense. Not surprised if the debate was really long considering how many Star Wars fans there are (partially including myself). Dantheanimator (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Well yes, that's practically nailed it. She was big in one set of movies about 35 years before her death and then not much else. That was the problem. But even then, she had some historic movies behind her rather than this individual here who literally has been a US TV "star" for a while. Fisher shouldn't have been posted and sadly this individual pales into insignificance when compared to her. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 23:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Wait – Body hasn't been ID'd nor a cause of death determined. In any case, very low EV. – Sca (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Obvious blurb, but wait for confirmation. This is a 33 year old network TV star whose disappearance was widely covered. If we don't blurb this, the RD criteria have no meaning. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- GreatCaesarsGhost same with Rajput and he didn't get a blurb. The RD criteria at this point already has no meaning. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- What does this have to do with the "RD criteria"? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man "Death as the main story: ... If the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb." Also, between 01 June to 6 July 2020, Rajput's page received 13,684,142 views (with a daily peak of 7M). That's over 10M more views than the page just under it (which had only 1,988,366 and a daily peak of 593K). One more thing "For deaths where ... the events surrounding the death merit additional explanation (such as ongoing investigations, major stories about memorial services or international reactions, etc.)." There is an ongoing investigation right now. Almost everything about Rajput's death warranted a blurb but he never got a blurb. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- That's not the RD criteria then is it? That's the main ITN criteria. And you've nailed it there with "newsworthy reaction". What we're seeing herer for this individual is "sad, young actress dies in accident" but she wasn't transformative, she had not won any Academy Awards etc, in two days time this will be completely forgotten by 99.999% of people, and finally, please we all need to stop attempting to equate ITN candidates with pageviews. If that's what we really want to do, base it on popularity, not encyclopedic significance, then someone start an RFC to rework ITN to match that expectation. If not, please go to WP:TOP25 where you can find all the "popular" pages. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man don't get me wrong, I 100% agree with you and that's why I'm putting myself as neutral for the blurb. The only reason I'm equating page views with Rajput because the disparity is very, very large (I could also cite Google search trends if you like, which would also be very high). I am arguing for the same point you are (that this nom doesn't qualify for a blurb) just differently though. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- TRM, as ever, maintains that TOP25 (fun as it is) shouldn't dictate blurbs. Now, I don't think the difference between Rajput and other articles viewed that week adds much when he didn't have a notable death nor was a particularly influential actor. FWIW, Rivera was the top-viewed article last week, and dragged two other Glee actors into the top 25 with her, but this also isn't much support for the blurb case here. Kingsif (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Both, I would be more than happy that, following an RFC to confirm that pageviews should form a constituent part of the decision-making process at ITN, we then institute that approach. Kingsif, you're right, and in fact I mentioned this very news story as it was top of the WP:TOP25 fun list. I also noted that most of the remainder of the top ten was related to Hamilton (the musical). We can't just look at pageviews and equate it to notability or even newsworthiness. But, as I mentioned, if an RFC is formulated which incorporates pageviews somehow, I'd be glad to see the proposal. In the meantime, this is an encyclopedia. We blurb a handful of individuals deaths a year, and they are usually considered the deeply significant, transformative individuals. We don't (or shouldn't) post "popular" TV actresses who die, albeit far too soon. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- I am saying I agree, there's a shaky line at ITN between things that are actually in the news (which often dictates pageviews) and then things that are meaningfully in the news (rather than things reported to generate traffic, which also gets pageviews). I support ITN/C discussion taking precedence over but they have 5 million views arguments. Kingsif (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Both, I would be more than happy that, following an RFC to confirm that pageviews should form a constituent part of the decision-making process at ITN, we then institute that approach. Kingsif, you're right, and in fact I mentioned this very news story as it was top of the WP:TOP25 fun list. I also noted that most of the remainder of the top ten was related to Hamilton (the musical). We can't just look at pageviews and equate it to notability or even newsworthiness. But, as I mentioned, if an RFC is formulated which incorporates pageviews somehow, I'd be glad to see the proposal. In the meantime, this is an encyclopedia. We blurb a handful of individuals deaths a year, and they are usually considered the deeply significant, transformative individuals. We don't (or shouldn't) post "popular" TV actresses who die, albeit far too soon. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- TRM, as ever, maintains that TOP25 (fun as it is) shouldn't dictate blurbs. Now, I don't think the difference between Rajput and other articles viewed that week adds much when he didn't have a notable death nor was a particularly influential actor. FWIW, Rivera was the top-viewed article last week, and dragged two other Glee actors into the top 25 with her, but this also isn't much support for the blurb case here. Kingsif (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man don't get me wrong, I 100% agree with you and that's why I'm putting myself as neutral for the blurb. The only reason I'm equating page views with Rajput because the disparity is very, very large (I could also cite Google search trends if you like, which would also be very high). I am arguing for the same point you are (that this nom doesn't qualify for a blurb) just differently though. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- That's not the RD criteria then is it? That's the main ITN criteria. And you've nailed it there with "newsworthy reaction". What we're seeing herer for this individual is "sad, young actress dies in accident" but she wasn't transformative, she had not won any Academy Awards etc, in two days time this will be completely forgotten by 99.999% of people, and finally, please we all need to stop attempting to equate ITN candidates with pageviews. If that's what we really want to do, base it on popularity, not encyclopedic significance, then someone start an RFC to rework ITN to match that expectation. If not, please go to WP:TOP25 where you can find all the "popular" pages. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man "Death as the main story: ... If the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb." Also, between 01 June to 6 July 2020, Rajput's page received 13,684,142 views (with a daily peak of 7M). That's over 10M more views than the page just under it (which had only 1,988,366 and a daily peak of 593K). One more thing "For deaths where ... the events surrounding the death merit additional explanation (such as ongoing investigations, major stories about memorial services or international reactions, etc.)." There is an ongoing investigation right now. Almost everything about Rajput's death warranted a blurb but he never got a blurb. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- What does this have to do with the "RD criteria"? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- As a point of reference, the inauguration of Donald Trump and the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the supreme court were two events that were both the top headline in virtually all papers across the world, and dominated page views at their respective times, but did not find consensus to post. (Trump's was eventually posted, but only because the protests surrounding the inauguration became notable in themselves). So even though the main aim of ITN is to showcase articles related to topics that are in the news, that is always nuanced by convention and the way consensus is built here. There is an oft-used adage that "ITN is not a news-ticker". — Amakuru (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- GreatCaesarsGhost same with Rajput and he didn't get a blurb. The RD criteria at this point already has no meaning. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Ventura county sheriff press conference confirmed at 2pm PDT (9pm UTC). Pinging @Sca and GreatCaesarsGhost: as update to their 'wait's :) Kingsif (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support RD, weak support for blurb Though not necessarily a "transformative figure", the story of her death is an international story itself. This is not a usual passing away, but the result of a five-day search with her young son surviving. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 21:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment tagging this good to go for the RD, and suggesting blurb discussion is allowed to continue, no point in holding up RD as the article is in good order and consensus for that exists. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support RD only An unexpected death may warrant a blurb. This one doesn’t. P-K3 (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support RD, oppose blurb I don't find the argument that the disappearance itself has been a headline story for days plausible when no-one nominated it here. If that story had been nominated and halted pending conclusion before the worst happened, then this would have had a much better chance for posting as something that ended tragically. In general, people tend to overstate all preceding events before the worst happens and so seems to be the case here.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- The sensible were waiting before proposing a disappearance that would never get posted, but when the article of a not-otherwise-current/relevant actress was the top viewed on Wikipedia before she was found dead, it is entirely plausible that the disappearance was indeed a big story. Kingsif (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Kingsif: I get your point and the only chance for this to get posted is to highlight the notability of the event rather than the underlying person but the main problem is that we don't even have a separate article documenting the disappearance as something that will be included in the blurb. We posted Emiliano Sala's death last year after he had disappeared under speculative circumstances but the story was very well documented and nominated for inclusion once the disappearance was announced. In general, the existence of a separate article about the event should be conveniently considered a precondition for posting in such cases.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb, RD only. The point of the "unusual circumstances" clause is that such deaths can be considered for a blurb outside of the usual extremely high bar for blurbing if it's a regular old age death (the much-discussed "Thatcher/Mandela test"). The clause does not imply that such deaths must automatically be elevated to blurb status. The question is whether we consider the story of the death significant enough for the blurb section, applying the usual standards that we would for any other story. In this case, like others above I don't think the story of Rivera's disappeareance and death is of sufficient global and overall significance, although of course it is very tragic particularly for such a young person with small children. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support As they say on Star Trek, "She's dead Jim". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- She is. Are you supporting the RD, the blurb or both? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 23:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Filmography and below is poorly referenced. Stephen 23:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb unfortunately accidents and suicides (esp among entertainers, sportspeople etc or overdoses) or occur from time to time and there is nothing particularly notable about this accident (as opposed to suicides related to scandals and so forth). Bumbubookworm (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Stephen I think everything that lacked a citation in the table(s) is referenced inline in the prose. Can you let me know if anything is missing? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 23:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man The first two I checked - House Blend, which doesn't have an article, and The Jersey - aren't referenced in the cite for their prose mention. Stephen 23:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I perhaps assumed too much good faith here! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 23:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- A few days ago I went through and checked the filmography, I didn't think I'd missed anything but I'll add those and check the others again. And will add prose refs in the filmography, per suggestion below. Kingsif (talk) 23:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Very minor point, but the episode count for Step Up: High Water is given as 20 episodes, but I don't think that number is mentioned in the prose. Not citing those entries mentioned elsewhere does seem an odd way of doing things, personally I'd just repeat the ref in both the table and the prose, to avoid confusion and accidental removal if the text is later changed, but it is permitted anyway. — Amakuru (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- RD only As we found out last week, blurbs are not for people about whom, prior to their death, most of the world's population would have said "who?" Black Kite (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment @Stephen and The Rambling Man: refs updated. There's no unified ref for the number of Royal Family or Devious Maids episodes. For the latter, they're all on YouTube so a note with the five YT links could be added. Royal Family seems too old, but if she was in every episode then it's correct. Kingsif (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 00:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani skirmishes
Blurb: At least sixteen people are killed in border clashes between Armenian and Azerbaijani Armed Forces. (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera, AP, BBC (updated), NYT (updated)
Credits:
- Nominated by Invisible Lad (talk · give credit)
- Created by Solavirum (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Solavirum (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: More significant than a comet & to-be-Euro news. Invisible Lad (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
*Comment wow, this is a really strange day for me I guess. This is the second time I was about to nominate something but saw it was already posted in the past few minutes. Also would like to respectfully disagree with you comments on the comet and ERM II accession. Regarding the nom, I'll have to Weakly Oppose. Unless someone else brings up a good point, this feels too minor (and more or less insignificant) for ITN inclusion. For this to be posted to ITN, I would expect at least 10 soldiers killed and some injured. Dantheanimator (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support per updates I'd imagine if something like this happened at the Korean DMZ, it would have had no trouble getting on ITN. Also support per below. If anything changes, I cannot update since I will not be editing Wiki anymore (for a long while) due to my obligations. It was a privilege working with everyone. Thank you. Dantheanimator (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your contributions. Brandmeistertalk 16:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per Dantheanimator(and as a retired soldier who made it out with a pension I'm glad Dan wasn't marking my time card LOL) JW 1961 Talk 17:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Changing to Support per updates today JW 1961 Talk 14:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - per bigger picture of skirmishes and escalation of decades old disputes. BabbaQ (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
WaitSupport - Escalated to 16 deaths, including an Azeri general. (AP)104.243.98.96 (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Oppose– for now. Appears comparatively minor. – Sca (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Oppose - Similar clashes occurred in 2016 and 2018, and this appears to be an insignificant event in the broader Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. If these clashes escalate, then we should consider posting as a blurb. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 21:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support per Brandmeister. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support, partly because of notability but also because the article 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani skirmishes is actually pretty good. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support Casualties have increased today, with at least 11 on Azerbaijani side alone. And that it happened outside the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region is somewhat unusual. @Dantheanimator: @Joseywales1961: @Sca: @Nice4What: Brandmeistertalk 13:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Do we know the current amount of soldiers killed? I count a minimum 15 soldiers and a civilian if we combine Armenia and Azerbaijan's estimates of their own account. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- 14 in total per NYT source above (including one Colonel and two Majors). Brandmeistertalk 15:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Wait – This locale has seen periodic skirmishes and warfare off & on for decades. The latest flareup seems like more of the same, without notable significance ... yet. – Sca (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support - Armenia and Azerbaijan always have minor skirmishes from time to time, but these are exceptional. They are the largest skirmishes since the 2016 4 day war, and unlike in 2016, these skirmishes are directly between the international borders of the two countries rather than on the line of contact in Nagorno-Karabakh. This is unusual, and it is the biggest fighting to have occurred on the border since the 1994 war. A 2-star Azerbaijani general has been killed, and there are protests going on in Baku in support of war. Achemish (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support While significant seems like the reaction is relatively mute, compared to past instances, perhaps due to the pandemic. Not sure on long term impacts but this is clearly "in the news" material. Gotitbro (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I've updated the blurb per recent developments, could we have an admin for assessment? Brandmeistertalk 22:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment/Oppose till issues fixed The background section has no references. Other than that there is a primary sources orange tag in the reactions section. I'm less worried about that myself, as reactions are the sort of thing you can just verify with the source of the reaction itself, as long as no interpretation is made. The tag should be either removed as not valid, or the issue resolved though, prior to posting. — Amakuru (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Amakuru: Both issues fixed now (agree that secondary sources aren't needed for quotes). Brandmeistertalk 07:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Posted - the two issues I raised above have been resolved, and there is solid consensus to post otherwise. — Amakuru (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) Washington NFL team confirm name change
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 Washington American football confirm they will change their controversial name and logo. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Pawnkingthree (talk · give credit)
- Close good faith nom. Long time coming in the post-George Floyd era, but of zero importance outside of people directly concerned about this single football team.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 15:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment They haven't chosen a new name yet so it might be better to wait until it happens. As the owner promised that the name would NEVER be changed, his plans are not reliable. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose and close, per WaltCip. - SchroCat (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose we seem to be having a series of "things that might happen" stories being nominated. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment was just about to post this when I saw this. Oh well, thanks for posting this P-K3. Despite that, I'll have to Oppose due to the reasons listed above. No way near notable enough for ITN inclusion in my opinion. Dantheanimator (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- No problem. I am not a follower of the NFL but I thought it was topical, and a good quality article.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Good news, but other prominent name changes (see: several country bands) have not been posted. They're doing the basic right thing, and don't need applause for it. Kingsif (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Eleanor Sokoloff
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Philadelphia Inquirer
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Gerda Arendt (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: Unique piano teacher for 80 years and a few, wanted to return to teaching after summer vacation, at age 106. Sourcing, however, is limited. There could be tons of sources, all bios of her now famous students mentioning her name, but she taught them early, so did not actually shape their playing beyond groundwork. See Keith Jarrett, whom she had forgotten when he came to visit her with thanks. (Anecdote not yet in the article. Feel free.) Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Looks OK to me. Quite short, but not a stub and covers the basics. — Amakuru (talk) 14:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support. A decent article which, realistically, could not be any longer. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Supportok this is really short but as per above, it meets the requirements. Dantheanimator (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support It's long enough and referenced well JW 1961 Talk 17:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support it's good to go folks. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. I !voted above, but there's sufficient consensus even without that, so it was good to go. — Amakuru (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
(Reposted) RD: Zindzi Mandela
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News; Associated Press
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.
Bloom6132 (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Posted to RD — Amakuru (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose – No BLP should have a controversy section. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Where's the related policy for that? I checked WP:BLP and couldn't find anything. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Here WP:WEIGHT. Especially compared to the size of the article, there is no way the section has been given proper weight. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, the undue thing. But that doesn't equate to your initial assertion in any way at all. Cheers though. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Controversy sections lead to undue emphasis 99% of time in my experience. This always happens on BLPs. People keep adding to it, covering non-notable events in minute detail. I was just using shorthand. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- That's a different experience from my own. I just think it not wise to make non-policy-based claims like that, even if you yourself understood it to be shorthand for what you personally feel. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- I challenge you to show me a BLP with a controversy section that is not undue. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- No, thanks, I'm not interested, I have plenty of other things to do I'm afraid. But I'm glad you clarified your personal assertion. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oh christ, just admit when you're obviously wrong. You voted in support of this absolutely burning dumpster fire of a BLP. People who suffered under Apartheid criticizing the people that did it is not racist or controversial. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- No thanks. And while you're blaspheming at me, why not strike out in anger at the posting admin. After all, I was just offering my opinion, no harm there until this all started up. Perhaps if you care so much, you could address the issues you see in the article to your satisfaction. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oh christ, just admit when you're obviously wrong. You voted in support of this absolutely burning dumpster fire of a BLP. People who suffered under Apartheid criticizing the people that did it is not racist or controversial. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- No, thanks, I'm not interested, I have plenty of other things to do I'm afraid. But I'm glad you clarified your personal assertion. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- I challenge you to show me a BLP with a controversy section that is not undue. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- That's a different experience from my own. I just think it not wise to make non-policy-based claims like that, even if you yourself understood it to be shorthand for what you personally feel. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Controversy sections lead to undue emphasis 99% of time in my experience. This always happens on BLPs. People keep adding to it, covering non-notable events in minute detail. I was just using shorthand. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, the undue thing. But that doesn't equate to your initial assertion in any way at all. Cheers though. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Here WP:WEIGHT. Especially compared to the size of the article, there is no way the section has been given proper weight. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Where's the related policy for that? I checked WP:BLP and couldn't find anything. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Pulled. Given that two users object to the article on NPOV grounds, I have pulled it for the time being. If the issues are resolved, or consensus becomes clear again in favour, then it can be re-posted. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support: I think we could really fill a biography with the undoubtedly crucial duties which being South African ambassador to Denmark entails. The controversy section is well-sourced and, frankly, pertinent to a diplomat's career. I see no WP:UNDUE issue. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support. There is no UNDUE issue, and the claim that "No BLP should have a controversy section" is way beyond dubious, it's just utterly wrong: if Trump dies tomorrow, do we say he can't appear on the MP because there is something negative about him not just on his article, but several separate articles detailing the various controversies? - SchroCat (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Trump is the most controversial living person on Twitter and the article about him ... surprise, surprise... has no Twitter CSECTION. Why? Because of our policy at WP:BLPBALANCE. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Is he actually though? I'm going to take that as a subjective thought. Better not to use hyperbole/exaggeration when arguing on wiki. Dantheanimator (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Trump is the most controversial living person on Twitter and the article about him ... surprise, surprise... has no Twitter CSECTION. Why? Because of our policy at WP:BLPBALANCE. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Also Coffeeandcrumbs (talk · contribs), I looked through his page and did find a section about his use of Twitter and the controversy related to it. The section is called "Social media". Dantheanimator (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Dantheanimator, yes of course there is controversy but it is not sectioned off as controversy and highlighted. Section headings should not be inherently negative or prejudiced. The "Social media" section also includes information that is not negative like "his tweets have been considered official statements". Please read WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION. It explains everything I am saying. Of course "most controversial living person on Twitter" is an opinion. Everything I write on a talk page is my opinion and my interpretation of the guidelines on Wikipedia as I understand. There is no need for me to say IMO. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oh dear. You really do need to read the things you rely on (and avoid nonsense like "No BLP should have a controversy section"). WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION says "
"Controversy" is not necessarily part of the name of such a section
". It's not the name of the section that is the issue. Either way this article is now on the MP (as will Trump's be, despite sections about controversies and entire articles about it too), and the information is still there - there has been no change in the NPOV from when it was refused to when it was posted. - SchroCat (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oh dear. You really do need to read the things you rely on (and avoid nonsense like "No BLP should have a controversy section"). WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION says "
- Dantheanimator, yes of course there is controversy but it is not sectioned off as controversy and highlighted. Section headings should not be inherently negative or prejudiced. The "Social media" section also includes information that is not negative like "his tweets have been considered official statements". Please read WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION. It explains everything I am saying. Of course "most controversial living person on Twitter" is an opinion. Everything I write on a talk page is my opinion and my interpretation of the guidelines on Wikipedia as I understand. There is no need for me to say IMO. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Also Coffeeandcrumbs (talk · contribs), I looked through his page and did find a section about his use of Twitter and the controversy related to it. The section is called "Social media". Dantheanimator (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support The two items in the controversy section seem significant and well-sourced, I don't think they are undue weight.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I think it's clear that this is ready once more now we've gone round the buoy. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
*Support per above. Thank you Amakuru for actually paying attention to the changing consensus and pulling it after the change, which is what real, true, and proper admins should do. We need more admins like you. Dantheanimator (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC) *Oppose per Muboshgu. Dantheanimator (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Not ready I'm not posting this in the state it's in. WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION is an essay that I follow and I don't think this article is adhering to NPOV as it should. Her "ambassadorship" section is two short sentences about taking the ambassadorship, and her "Racism controversy" subjection is for some reason separate from her ambassadorship in the prose (though it relates directly to her time in Denmark). Is there really nothing else to say about her ambassadorship? Her obits don't have anything else to say? The Mayweather-Pacquiao bit is odd and incomplete. If these things are so important, they should be better integrated into the rest of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- There is consensus in favour of posting. There is consensus in favour of it being suitable, having taken those concerns into account already. You shouldn't be supervoting. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man, you know well that it's not a "supervote" for an admin to come along and say, "no, this isn't ready to post". Amakuru or any other admin can disagree with me, if they wish. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Amakuru already did disagree with you. He posted it in the first instance. He then listened to the community and pulled. And now someone should listen to the community and post, not supervote it down because they personally disagree with the content. Anyway, you know all that. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- How information is presented has large effect on NPOV. So does what information is selected. This article reads like a COATRACK for controversy. No effort has been made to represent the full extent of her life. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- You've already made your thoughts very clear above, I don't see any value in repeating them unless this is filibustering I suppose. There's a consensus to post, despite what you personally think. But you already know that. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ditto and NOTVOTE. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Who said vote?! Bizarre. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with your points Coffeeandcrumbs and Muboshgu but you both need to accept the fact: there is a decently large consensus in support of posting this so this must be posted eventually as per The Rambling Man. No use in delaying the inevitable. Dantheanimator (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Dantheanimator, admins are given the mop because it's our job to clean up the messes, like ensuring that there are no orange tags in articles that are posted to the main page. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- That's certainly not the case. Admins are usually given the mop because they are trusted to judge the wishes of the community. They do act as gatekeepers to prevent overt issues from becoming a problem, but in this case that wasn't the issue at hand. In fact, the sudden mention of orange tags below which didn't form part of any single opposition above is quite telling. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- "Orange tags" was shorthand for "NPOV problem", as that's what the orange tag there was about. I could have been clearer on that. That said, we sometimes have to judge the wishes of the community against their best interests of the project, especially the five pillars. WP:ITN#Article quality does address this. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- That's certainly not the case. Admins are usually given the mop because they are trusted to judge the wishes of the community. They do act as gatekeepers to prevent overt issues from becoming a problem, but in this case that wasn't the issue at hand. In fact, the sudden mention of orange tags below which didn't form part of any single opposition above is quite telling. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Dantheanimator, admins are given the mop because it's our job to clean up the messes, like ensuring that there are no orange tags in articles that are posted to the main page. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ditto and NOTVOTE. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- You've already made your thoughts very clear above, I don't see any value in repeating them unless this is filibustering I suppose. There's a consensus to post, despite what you personally think. But you already know that. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- How information is presented has large effect on NPOV. So does what information is selected. This article reads like a COATRACK for controversy. No effort has been made to represent the full extent of her life. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Amakuru already did disagree with you. He posted it in the first instance. He then listened to the community and pulled. And now someone should listen to the community and post, not supervote it down because they personally disagree with the content. Anyway, you know all that. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man, you know well that it's not a "supervote" for an admin to come along and say, "no, this isn't ready to post". Amakuru or any other admin can disagree with me, if they wish. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- There is consensus in favour of posting. There is consensus in favour of it being suitable, having taken those concerns into account already. You shouldn't be supervoting. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Reposted Now that there are no orange tags, we can post this article again per the consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Now that the drama is over for the time being, I wonder whether a blurb is warranted. She rather self-evidently meets the "Thatcher / Mandela test", after all
— Amakuru (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Lol, yeah she definitely passed the Thatcher/Mandela test. I'm a little wary though of supporting any RD for a blurb now after the whole Park Won-soon event and everything else that happened thus far. As such, I'm going to leave myself as Neutral for the blurb until someone else offers a convincing claim with some convincing evidence.Dantheanimator (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Suggest we post this one on odd-numbered dates only. – Sca (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Dantheanimator: my comment was just a joke! There's no way Zindzi Mandela's death would ever be considered for a blurb, unless it happened under very unusual circumstances. I wrote the line in small text, which is usually a clue that it's a less-than-serious comment, much like Sca's immediately above this one. (I believe the small text can cause problems for people with impaired vision though, so it should be used with caution). Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Sca I know it was a joke and that's why I italicized "definitely" and "Mandela" (since "obviously" she would fit the requirements because she literally is a Mandela). Sorry for the misunderstanding. In hindsight, maybe I should have bolded the words or placed them in quotes. Anyways. who cares, its just a joke. ;) Dantheanimator (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Dantheanimator: my comment was just a joke! There's no way Zindzi Mandela's death would ever be considered for a blurb, unless it happened under very unusual circumstances. I wrote the line in small text, which is usually a clue that it's a less-than-serious comment, much like Sca's immediately above this one. (I believe the small text can cause problems for people with impaired vision though, so it should be used with caution). Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Suggest we post this one on odd-numbered dates only. – Sca (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Lol, yeah she definitely passed the Thatcher/Mandela test. I'm a little wary though of supporting any RD for a blurb now after the whole Park Won-soon event and everything else that happened thus far. As such, I'm going to leave myself as Neutral for the blurb until someone else offers a convincing claim with some convincing evidence.Dantheanimator (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) First federal US Execution in over a decade
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: Convicted murderer Daniel Lewis Lee is sentenced to death in the first federal execution since 2003. (Post)
Alternative blurb: In the first federal execution since 2003, a court overturns a ruling blocking Daniel Lewis Lee's execution.
Alternative blurb II: After a court overturned a court ruling blocking Daniel Lewis Lee's execution, he will be the first federal execution since 2003.
News source(s): [12]
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Dantheanimator (talk · give credit)
- Created by Seth Ilys (talk · give credit)
- Oppose – Hasn't happened yet. – Sca (talk) 12:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Wait until the execution occurs. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose and snow close. Until the final final appeal has been denied, this isn't a story. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- While I agree here, the final appeal has only until 3pm ET today at SCOTUS to be made. So I would simply do a Wait on this rather than closing it, and then wait to see in about 7 hours from when I type this. --Masem (t) 13:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose but wait I agree with The Rambling Man that it's jumping the gun: we shouldn't run anything that predicts the future, we should summarise what has already happened in the past, however recent. having said that, if as Masem says, the result is likely to be known in less a few hours, then I don't really see the point in closing this only to reopen (NOTBURO, etc). And these things often stay open longer than the allotted time anyway, so. By the way, TRM, ygm. ——Serial # 13:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose even if executed because roughly a score of people were executed in the US in 2018 (?) and even if it's the legitimate first execution in a decade, several hundred people are executed around the world every year, so this is not special. Banedon (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- point of clarity: this is the first execution that is being conducted by the federal government since 2001. All those in the past years are state-level ones, of which there have been hundreds. But that there have been hundreds otherwise is still a fair point --Masem (t) 13:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - No need to restate that the U.S. engages in a rather bizarre form of barbarism that most other developed countries have given up.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 13:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- The point is that the federal government has not been engaging in it for some time, only a decreasing handful of states have.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- It's somewhat "meh" whether it's the federal government or some other organisation handing out/carrying out these ridiculous sentences. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Lets not go there with "bizarre form of barbarism." A third of the G20 retain capital punishment, and those that have given it up did so well into their civilized eras. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Um, yes, while the US ramps up the numbers. Mystifying. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- The point is that the federal government has not been engaging in it for some time, only a decreasing handful of states have.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. The distinction between a state execution and a federal one is of interest to legal scholars, but not the general public. The person dies either way. The US continues to conduct a few dozen executions per year. Modest Genius talk 14:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Not unexpectedly, a judge has delayed the execution. Even if it goes ahead I do not think it meets the threshold for ITN inclusion.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment It seems there is a unanimous consensus against this so I think it's best to close this nom soon. Dantheanimator (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
(Closed) 2020 Polish presidential election
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: Incumbent President Andrzej Duda is re-elected after winning 51.2% of the votes in a second round run-off. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The National Electoral Commission announces that incumbent President Andrzej Duda has been re-elected after winning 51.2% of the votes in a second round run-off with challenger Rafał Trzaskowski.
Alternative blurb II: President Andrzej Duda is re-elected after the National Electoral Commission announces that he won 51.2% of the votes in a second round run-off.
Alternative blurb III: In Poland, incumbent President Andrzej Duda is re-elected with 51.2% of the vote in a second round run-off.
News source(s): BBC, AP, Guardian, Reuters, dpa (Eng.)
Credits:
- Nominated by Dantheanimator (talk · give credit)
- Updated by T Magierowski (talk · give credit)
Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
- Comment I've linked a couple of items (e.g. target article, president name) but strikes me that none of the blurbs say which country to which this relates... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you The Rambling Man. Yeah, should have included Poland in the blurbs. Thanks for improving them. Dantheanimator (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - candidates and opinion poll sections are very under-referenced — Amakuru (talk) 13:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support I'd just add Polish President Andrzej Duda so that it is clear on what country this is about. T Magierowski (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Or, there's always "In Poland, x x x" – Sca (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, but do we have to put three kisses in the hook like that?! Seems a little unencyclopedic... — Amakuru (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- How do you feel about elipses? – Sca (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Sure, but do we have to put three kisses in the hook like that?! Seems a little unencyclopedic... — Amakuru (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Or, there's always "In Poland, x x x" – Sca (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Amakuru those two sections need to be referenced, and there should be some prose in the Results section.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Needs citations throughout and a prose update. Kingsif (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support Article is "improving" rapidly as additional information is being added by contributors. From a strictly news perspective, this has very significant impact in European politics as Poland is still one of the biggest members of the EU. Definitely a polarized election which would have seen significant shift in European politics had it also gone the other way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.243.98.96 (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- – Or did you mean a Polonized election? – Sca (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Still zero prose update, no sources in opinion polls, candidate section is little more than images under party headers, etc. No meaningful improvements yet. Kingsif (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- I added some prose under results, as for the opinion polls, they are all sourced in the separate opinion poll article. T Magierowski (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support. Article is not bad and the topic is clearly notable. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:04, 14 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: