Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion in Template:In the news (ITN), a protected Main Page template, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.

Presidential edition of the Russian constitution
Presidential edition of the Russian constitution

How to nominate an item[]

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC.
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process. Remember, we use UTC dates.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
    • Preferably use the template {{ITN candidate}} to nominate the article related to the event in the news. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable secondary source. Press releases are not acceptable. The suggested blurb should be written in simple present tense.
    • Adding an explanation why the event should be posted greatly increases the odds of posting.
  • Please consider alerting editors to the nomination by adding the template {{ITN note}} to the corresponding article's talk page.

Purge this page to update the cache

There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN.

Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template.

Headers[]

  • Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.
  • Items can also be marked as (Ready) when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked (Ready), you should remove the mark in the header.

Voicing an opinion on an item[]

  • Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
  • Some jargon: RD refers to "recent deaths", a subsection of the news box which lists only the names of the recent notable deceased. Blurb refers to the full sentences that occupy most of the news box. Most eligible deaths will be listed in the recent deaths section of the ITN template. However, some deaths may be given a full listing if there is sufficient consensus to do so.
  • The blurb of a promoted ITN item may be modified to complement the existing items on the main page.

Please do not...[]

  1. add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  2. oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive.
  3. accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  4. comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. oppose a WP:ITN/R item here because you disagree with current WP:ITN/R criteria (these can be discussed at the relevant Talk Page)
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Archives[]


July 5[]

Politics and elections

Law and crime

July 4[]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Politics and elections

Science and technology

2020 Kyushu floods[]

Article: 2020 Kyushu floods (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 17 die, including 14 old age home residents, in Kyushu floods. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​At least 17 people are killed in floods in Kyushu, Japan.
Alternative blurb II: Floods in Kyushu, Japan kill at least 17 people, with several more missing, and dozens stranded on rooftops.
News source(s): [1][2][3]
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Major flooding, tragic deaths, global warming effect on mankind. Chuka Chief (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Strong support High quality article with lots of information. The rainfall was also unprecedented for these prefectures. Nothing to complain about. This is ready for inclusion in ITN. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • support - ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose disaster stub but since we pretty consistently post trash like this I added an alt-blurb that doesn't single out causalities by age or gender or any other arbitrary measure. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Fixed typo of LaserLegs's alt-blurb and made alt-blurb 3. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support with altblurb 1 While this is stub and needs more pending information which LaserLegs said, this is disaster management which have significant event on earth. The rainfall was unexpected for these prefectures and the country as well. 180.242.9.91 () 23:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb 1 per nomination. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 23:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. (talk) (contributions) 04:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per LaserLegs, we post a lot of natural disaster stub articles here and yet I'm not even sure this one would meet our low threshold. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 08:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Lin Dan retires[]

Strong consensus against posting. MSN12102001 (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Lin Dan (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Chinese badminton star Lin Dan retires (Post)
News source(s): [4]
Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Sources say he's arguably the greatest of all time.  (talk) 07:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think it's widely acknowledged that the posting of Alex Ferguson's retirement was a poor decision overall, and this guy, at the age of 36, would double down on that error. Plus the latter stages of this BLP are very poorly referenced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now He'll be back. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not the kind of story that ITN is for. P-K3 (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
FYI: [Posted_Alex_Ferguson_retires][Posted_Yao_Ming_Retires][Posted_Sachin_Tendulkar]. (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
You’ll notice that all of those were controversial. There is substantial opposition to posting any sportspeople’s retirements, for good reason. P-K3 (talk) 12:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as I don't think this is getting the coverage needed; I have no large issue with posting notable retirements in general. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Straight-forward retirement like this is not ITN worthy despite the significance of the athlete; we should never have posted the previous cases as they stood. --Masem (t) 12:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Minor sports footnote. – Sca (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per PKiii. ——Serial # 13:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Posting of any retirement certainly needs more notability than posting a death as a blurb. And, no offense to Badminton, but it's not exactly a sport where major retirements will have much of an impact. Kingsif (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

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

July 3[]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Ready) RD: Earl Cameron[]

Article: Earl Cameron (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Only filmograph section + table needs sources. Masem (t) 20:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Support No issues. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support High-quality article. This is ready. Dantheanimator (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Absolutely ready given the state it was in when I nominated it. All the -ography aspects have been properly sourced. --Masem (t) 03:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

(Ready) RD: Tyson Brummett[]

Article: Tyson Brummett (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Philadelphia Inquirer; USA Today
Credits:

Article updated

 Bloom6132 (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

*Weak Oppose High quality article however, there is no in-text citations in the summary. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  • @Dantheanimator: per MOS:LEADCITE: "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." Since all the info in this lead is repeated in the main text (and cited there), and it does not contain material that is challenged (or likely to be challenged) or any direct quotations, it is redundant to repeat them. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Thank you Bloom6132 for telling me. Usually in other articles I saw in-text citations in the intro so I assumed it was mandatory. I'm still new so any corrections like these are greatly appreciated. I'm not sure about this but if I change my opinion to support, do I strike out my previous opposition? Thanks. Best regards, Dantheanimator (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Dantheanimator: Thanks, and no worries! We're in the same boat – I'm still learning new things even after a decade here. Yes, striking out previous oppose votes once the issue(s) are resolved is the norm. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

RD: Saroj Khan[]

Article: Saroj Khan (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): india tv
Credits:

 Choreographer Saroj Khan dies at 72 Mr.Mani Raj Paul - talk 01:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

RD: Reckful[]

Article: Reckful (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Forbes, Kotaku
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Popular Twitch streamer, apparently. Nahnah4 (talk

  • Oppose achievements unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 06:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Article has been updated. Ruyter (talkedits) 09:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • When I'm not familiar with the references used, I like to vet against WP:RSN. For the first time, I'm finding none of these sites there. While this is certainly not a requirement, it makes me wary when so much of the article is based on sources that have not been reviewed by the community. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I wonder -- Would we not AFD in these circumstances?--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 13:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
The BBC are covering his death - he seems to be notable. P-K3 (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't arguing notability, but rather the reliability of sources. Known bad sources are not allowed - what about unknown sources? GreatCaesarsGhost 01:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
"The BBC are covering his death", is the BBC an unknown source? I hope not. I think P-K3's comment answers your question or settles your concern GreatCaesarsGhost. Dantheanimator (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Not in the slightest. The entire article must be cited. It is not enough that some of the facts are reported by the BBC, but rather "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." GreatCaesarsGhost 14:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose His death is cited by reliable sources (including the BBC), but the sources about his life are either unreliable and/or interviews and/or passing mentions. It would certainly have been a reasonable candidate for AfD before he died (and may well still be, as his death is BLP1E). Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

(Ready) RD: Ángela Jeria[]

Article: Ángela Jeria (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Infobae, La Tercera
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Chilean archaeologist and activist, detained and tortured during Augusto Pinochet's dictatorship. Mother of former Chilean president and current UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet. Jamez42 (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Support - short but sufficient within Start-class. Good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose no mention in the prose (that I can see) of her death. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Added section on her death as per The Rambling Man's opposition. No other issues with the page for what I can see. I think this is ready. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support interesting story where you can learn important events. sourcing looks good. KittenKlub (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Narendra Modi's visit to soldiers in the Ladakh region[]

Withdrawn by nom. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2020 China–India skirmishes (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visits soldiers in the Ladakh region amid heightened tensions between China and India. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Following recent border skirmishes in the disputed Ladakh region, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visits soldiers stationed near the Line of Actual Control (LAC).
Alternative blurb II: ​Amidst a revived wave of border hostility between India and China over their disputed border, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visits soldiers in the Ladakh region.
News source(s): [5]
Credits:
Article updated
Nominator's comments: I don't know if this is allowed, but I think this would be better and more comprehensive if it was merged with the halting of $2.8 billion worth of Chinese power equipment by Indian Minister of Power R. K. Singh, since they both deal with the China-India tensions. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Suggestion If there's an appropriate China–India relations article, it could be put in ongoing. Kingsif (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Done, changed the nomination into an ongoing one. I'm not sure exactly how ongoing nominations work so if I made a mistake, please tell me. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose relations article not getting regular updates, and the skirmishes article is stale because there are no skirmishes. This really is a thing where we should blurb significant updates instead of parking some stale article in the box for two months. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Reverted my ongoing nomination back to an event nomination as per LaserLegs opposition. Also, the India-China skirmishes article receives decent updates regularly, I don't know why you think the article is "stale" LaserLegs. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose A visit by the Indian PM to the border is not sufficient for ITN. If this was for the purposes of commencing military operations or other actions it would be more appropriate. 104.243.98.96 (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment this nom was converted in place from an ongoing to blurb nom. I'm still opposed. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A President visiting their country's troops is a normal thing, especially within the country. 331dot (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Should this discussion be closed than? It seems agreed that this shouldn't be put in the ITN. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
If you wish to withdraw your nomination, please indicate that. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I wish to withdraw my nomination. Dantheanimator (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

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

July 2[]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

RD: Nikolai Kapustin[]

Article: Nikolai Kapustin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): official site
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Ukrainian-born Russian pianist and composer, playing jazz when it just resurfaced after being banned under Stalin, composing jazz sounds in classical forms, and recorded by leading pianists. The article was tagged for needing more sources, but - nice surprise - rich sources including two dissertations were hidden in the external links. - So far, the date of death appears only on his official website, but Discogs and YouTube picked up the year. I was shocked for a moment by seeing the exact wording of our article in a book (and reworded some), but then saw that the book even mentions Wikipedia as a source. Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

*Strong Oppose Missing multiple in-text citations, doesn't have a separate section for the individuals death, and only has one section. All in all, this article needs a lot of work. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

All we know about his death is that it happened and a date. No cause. Not even a place, which is only induced from where he lived last. I have no idea how that constitutes the need for a separate section. Which facts do you think are not cited inline? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Short but article is now decently referenced by Gerda and death section added JW 1961 Talk 21:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Thank you Gerda Arendt all the improvements to the article you made, it really shows. I added a section for his early life and personal life so that is would be less clumped together and more organized. As long as there is a source about his death, a separate section for his death can be made. It is likely that more information will be released in the future and which can be used to expand those sections. This nomination should be ready. Best regards, Dantheanimator (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    If you really believe that we need sections in a short bio section, please change Ludwig Finscher. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Ghislaine Maxwell arrested[]

Arrests are not posted, only convictions. Stephen 01:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Ghislaine Maxwell (talk, history)
Blurb: Ghislaine Maxwell, an associate of Jeffrey Epstein, is arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in New Hampshire and charged by the Department of Justice for enticement of minors, sex trafficking, and perjury. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: A big development in the ongoing Epstein saga. Maxwell has faced persistent allegations of being a recruiter for Epstein. The whole saga in general has international significance (for instance, Prince Andrew had to resign over his connections to Epstein). From what I can tell, the article is well sourced and this would be of interest for the ITN audience. JOEBRO64 22:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's a big development and hopefully justice will prevail, but it's not ITN-worthy to report her arrest, once she is convicted then we can post. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait for something juicy per TRM. Kingsif (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose We post convictions, not arrests. Posting this would raise potentially serious BLP concerns. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

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

RD: Sybil Wettasinghe[]

Article: Sybil Wettasinghe (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Menafn
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Updated and well sourced. The author was awarded the Guinness World Record for her book Wonder Crystal in March 2020 for the most number of alternate endings. Abishe (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose several works and awards unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Has written many childrens books which have been translated into many languages and thus should be included. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    That's not how it works. We accept her notability by default, all we look at in RD nominations is article quality, and this falls way short. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now until references are improved in the areas noted by The Rambling Man JW 1961 Talk 21:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Hpakant jade mine disaster[]

Article: 2020 Hpakant jade mine disaster (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 100 people are killed in a landslide at Hpakant jade mine in Myanmar. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, CNN, Reuters, AP
Credits:

Nominator's comments: death toll expected to rise, possibly significantly. Last count is 120, but recovery efforts have been halted due to conditions with bodies in field. The accident itself is a significant loss of life, Myanmarese lives matter. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 11:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Support shocking. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support article good, major world news - the leading item on BBC World Service (not BBC News, but certainly equal). Kingsif (talk) 11:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose disaster stub, and it's not really a "mine collapse" this was a landslide "The miners at the site were freelancing scavengers who were scouring the tailings of a mining company." which is maybe still notable but the current title is misleading. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    LaserLegs, reliable source differ on what is a mine. BBC: "Myanmar jade mine landslide kills 120" [6]. New York Times: "Myanmar Jade Mine Collapse Kills at Least 100" [7]. CBS: "Landslide kills more than 100 in "dystopian wasteland" of Myanmar's jade mines" [8]. CNN: "Jade mine landslide kills at least 100 in Myanmar, with more people still missing" [9]. See also Open-pit mining.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 12:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    I agree, every RS you cited calls it a "landslide". Glad that's settled. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    1. No, New York Times says "Myanmar Jade Mine Collapse Kills at Least 100". 2. What are you objecting to? At the time of your post ([10]), the blurb said landslide as well. The article is titled "disaster", not "collapse". Every use of "collapse" in the article (which I am amenable to change) follows a reference using it as well normal usage of "collapse" and with clear context. (e.g. "collapse of a heap of mining waste"). The blurb and the article do not use "mine collapse" (the sole use is a link to 2019 Hpakant jade mine collapse, a different event).--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 13:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - good article and shocking disaster as said above. Sad. CoryGlee (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – Major disaster, wide coverage. – Sca (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted Article in good shape for posting. Not sure if the pictures on that page are of *that* mine but if we want to use those to show what mining conditions are like there, that would be fair. --Masem (t) 14:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm going ahead to prep File:Jade_Mine.jpg for image protection (as it gives good reason to understand how such a disaster could easily happen). I don't know how best to "caption" it in the blurb, like "(representative mine pictured)"? Suggestions while waiting for protection to propagate? --Masem (t) 14:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
      • User:Masem, my understanding is that the picture is from the Hpakant mining complex, broadly construed, but that the Hpakant mines are spread over a fairly wide area as they are open pit mines. e.g. File:A large company Jade Mine in Hpakant 2018 January .jpg is an organized mine (the collapsed mine is the dump site on the edges of one of the more organized mine, File:Jade_Mine.jpg, File:Jade Mine 2.jpg, File:Jade Mine 3.jpg, File:Jade Mine 4.jpg, File:Jade Mine 5.jpg are good representations how these makeshift sites look like).--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 14:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Sure, I'm not expecting a picture of *the* mine site of the disaster but to show that these are effectively open pit mines (going back up to the "collapse/landslide" issue) and so just a matter of saying "this is what these mines in this same complex look like" but in a concise manner for ITN box. --Masem (t) 15:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
          • User:Masem, "Makeshift jade mining in Hpakant (2018)" ?--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 15:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
            • That works for the caption, I'm looking for what to include in the blurb text for appropriateness, too. But as we just added the HK Protest, doesn't make sense to change for about 24hr here. --Masem (t) 15:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, for the record. This went up before I had a chance to see the nomination but clearly a major disaster.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Russian bounty program[]

I don't think consensus for posting is likely to arise. El_C 05:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Russian bounty program (talk, history)
Blurb: ​News media and legislators suspect that the Russian government is involved in the bounty program that pays Talibans to kill American soldiers and their allies in Afghanistan. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Intelligence agencies allege Russia operated a bounty program paying Taliban militants to kill coalition soldiers in Afghanistan, sparking political controversy among the U.S. government.
Alternative blurb II: ​Russia's intelligence agencies operate an alleged bounty program that pays Taliban militants to target coalition soldiers in Afghanistan, causing controversy among the U.S. government.
News source(s): The New York Times, The Hill, KSN, Wall Street Journal, NBC News, etc.
Credits:
Nominator's comments: This article has lots of sources and quite decent. Lots of news media wanted answers from the government about the program. The government called the program a hoax. -- (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support article is decent, topic is in the news, ticks my boxes. We posted Putin's assassination of some blokes in the UK with poisoned umbrella tips or something and it's not like we waited for him to fly the to the UN and confess. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. But the blurb needs work. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The article looks good and well-sourced, but more photos could be added to help the casual reader understand the events. (talk) (contributions) 02:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose mainly because it's unproven allegations. Still, the media seems to be very interested, so it's only weak oppose. (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Only because there's nothing yet of an event here. It's a suspicion and there's no event that's tripped. Its clear what the goal is (chance number 2 for impeachment) but we're dealing with yet-proven (though well-backed) claims. Not appropriate for ITN yet. Its similar to the reported claims about the Chinese gov't-directed genocide a few days ago - what actions are taken will be the news point, not that there's a report they exist. --Masem (t) 03:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, but change "pays Talibans" to something in the singular. The article adequately reflects the degree to which the allegation is disputed, and the news is equally significant if it is true, or if it is proved to have been a hoax. BD2412 T 05:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support has definitely been enduring in the news for past few days which lends more support for ITN. And its looks like there is an active investigation by US government officials right now. It looks like "work" is being done quite rapidly to get to the bottom of this. 104.243.98.96 (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose we don't post "suspicions", wow. This is not a tabloid newspaper. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 06:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb wording per TRM, neutral on blurb itself. NorthernFalcon (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Shocked this is even being considered. The key word here is "suspect". If this is actually confirmed, maybe it's for the front page, but until then we don't post theories. 88.215.17.228 (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support with updated wording. Suggest "intelligence agencies allege Russia operated a bounty program paying Taliban militants to kill coalition soldiers" or similar. This is proving to be highly significant to the Afghan War, Russia-US/UK relations, and the Trump administration. The Times is rolling out new details daily. gobonobo + c 09:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose We don't post tin-foil-hat conspiracy theories. I also don't see this as a front-page news in the media here in Europe (including the BBC).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This is hardly a tin foil hat conspiracy theory, soldiers who were on the ground found much evidence about this. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree, the time is not yet right for this. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If the President feels this isn't worth following up on, then perhaps this isn't worthy for ITN.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 11:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
If the Russians have kompromat on Trump, of course he will allow them to pay people to kill American soldiers. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
The opposite of what Trump does/wants to do is typically the correct course of action in pretty much every scenario, so this specific argument can easily be flipped.  Nixinova T  C   06:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Note that "launch" suggests the Russians are commencing the program just now, not that it has been going on for some time as is alleged. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per Masem, TRM. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Allegations without genuine proof. Suggest close as well. KittenKlub (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
There is some support here, no grounds for an early close. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
There is also plenty of evidence available. Unless we are waiting for Putin(who still denies there are Russian forces in Ukraine) to confess, there is no impartial international body that will make a determination here. We can only go by what RS report. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Intelligence reports are not RS by definition, and "a red scare" isn't to change my mind.KittenKlub (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Sources that report on what intelligence reports and soldiers state are RS; I'm not trying to change your mind, but it's factually incorrect to say "without genuine proof". 331dot (talk) 13:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Three supports after you two "suggested closed" I was thinking to mark it ready. Good thing no one unilaterally closed a nom after just 12 hours when it has 7 days to be considered right? Should probably stop doing that altogether. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Decent article and in the news. The nature of these things means there will never be definitive proof one way or the other, but as ever we go with what the sources are saying.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per above. The article is quite good. Davey2116 (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support we regularly post news items that are contested or which there is no definite proof. All a matter of wording and appropriate sourcing in the article. Alt blurb I seems to encapsulate that very well, but the other ones are also ok. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:1D96:7DCA:BC29:BDA7 () 15:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem and The Rambling Man. Hrodvarsson (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm not seeing anyone besides the unnamed intelligence agencies and officials stating that this program existed; everyone else is attributing it to them, and does not provide any substantiating evidence. As such, it's still substantially an allegation rather than a statement of fact. Moreover, I'm not seeing this making headlines outside the country affected, which, I find, is a useful rule of thumb. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose As probably mentioned earlier, this is just professional speculation, nothing more. The in the news section should have more than just speculations and allegations. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose and snow close per Vanamonde93, and more jingoistic posturing by Hill politicians. We would never post new groundbreaking archaeological findings that are mere "professional speculation" (per Dantheanimator) but lacking in scholarly consensus. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    Why all the demands to close this? There is plenty of support. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm sure if we had unsubstantiated claims of Russia assassinating people in the UK it would be posted --LaserLegs (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    @LaserLegs: I think this annoys people the most so that they might feel inclined to oppose even if that was not their first thought. You stated your vote well and so be it. Others might agree or disagree with you and a smooth flow of discussion will eventually determine whether this gets a chance or not. Suppose someone wants to support this and doesn't do it simply because of disagreement with your attitude to draw comparison from a past story that went a different way, your view on the Skripal's poisoning or your (mis)treatment of news related to the UK in general.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    Oh? So we had no evidence of the poisoning except for statements by unnamed officials? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    Standard tangential non-sequitur I'm afraid. It was beyond doubt that the Skripal's (and others) were attacked using Russian nerve agents. There's even an excellent three-part dramatisation by the BBC to help you learn some more about it, you probably can't watch it but it's here. And attempting to compare the use of chemical weapons by one sovereign state on another who aren't at war with one another is not quite analogous to mercenary activities in theatres (sorry, theaters) of war, now is it? Deary me. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support -- headline news, and well sourced. --Rockstone[Send me a message!] 20:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose As it's only a suspicion. JW 1961 Talk 21:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose consider the blurb's vague subject and verb - "News media and legislators suspect" or "​Intelligence agencies allege". These sort of stories need a definitive subject and verb, like "The CIA confirms" or "The DNI announces" GreatCaesarsGhost 22:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support...and now we have "confirmation" from a "senior Afghan official." GreatCaesarsGhost 13:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Even if it is real - there's clearly going to be more to this story than just discovery, and the ITN point would be who's to take blame for not stopping it once it was known... --Masem (t) 13:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Can you clarify that? You're saying it's too early to post (I can buy that) but the trigger for when to post would be when? We certainly shouldn't expect the "American" government to confirm. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Actually I do expect that there should be some type of investigative action (in this case, it would likely be another congressional investigation here) to verify. It doesn't necessary need to be the US gov't either if the issue is that severe. All reports right now are from media sources, while they are well established for investigative reports, still lack access to the whole picture, and can't be taken as authoritative. Eg: Woodward and Bernstein revealed the existence of what would become Watergate and should be recognized for that, but the key part of Watergate was the impeachment trial against Nixon. We're at the same point here that the existence of something that points at potentially impeachable or other liable actions within the US government, but only from what the media has reported. A full investigation and followup would be need to affirm how true that was and if wasn't part of the story missing or the like. Again, I point to the Chinese genocide story ITNC below as a comparison: it seems nearly factually complete and just as confirmed, but again, the existence of the genocide as stated by a reliable media source isn't sufficient for an ITN story, its what actions come from that story taken by others that we'd be more interested in posting. Now certainly if this was a driven ongoing story for the US and world news, I might consider that, but even today, coverage of it seems buried, under how Trump generally dismissed intelligence reports throughout his term. --Masem (t) 14:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I would suggest nominating the article for WP:DYK. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ) 01:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Not sure it's a great precedent to post unconfirmed allegations. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 04:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: A case of 'big if true', however I don't think pure allegations should really be on ITN. The article states that "'officials said there was disagreement among intelligence officials about the strength of the evidence about the suspected Russian plot'", so this doesn't seem to be a conclusive claim.  Nixinova T  C   06:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I found that a senior Afghan official explained to CBS News that the bounty program is real. See here-- (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Indeed, far from the baseless tabloid speculation that some opposers are characterizing this, we now have a named Afghan bussinessman as a middleman. P-K3 (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Also, the controversy keeps growing as part of the U.S. government keeps downplaying this program.-- (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This does not seem to be going away after a few days. Its still very much ITN.104.243.98.96 (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

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

(Posted) 2020 Russian constitutional referendum[]

Article: 2020 Russian constitutional referendum (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Russian electorate votes to amend the Russian constitution. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Russian voters pass a constitutional referendum allowing Vladimir Putin to remain president until 2036.
Alternative blurb II: ​Russian voters vote to endorse changes to the Russian constitution, one of which allows Vladimir Putin to remain president until 2036.
News source(s): [11]
Credits:

Article updated

  (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose no context at all, what changes? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The referendum was not even necessary, the amendments had already been ratified. Copies of the updated constitution were in bookstores before the vote. The result was never in doubt. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
You make it sound like we don't post elections whose results were never in doubt. (talk) 11:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a referendum, not an election(most of which are ITNR). The referendum was not even necessary as the amendments had already been officially adopted. The time to post this was that adoption(maybe it was, I don't remember off the top of my head) 331dot (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Are you sure? Do you have a source that says the amendments had already been adopted prior to the referendum? (talk) 11:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
ABC News: "The vote was already largely symbolic, as Russia's parliament had already passed the amendments into law. But the vote allows for the Kremlin to say the changes have a stamp of public legitimacy." 331dot (talk) 11:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm skeptical about this since it's not in any of the other sources I've seen, and it's not in the article (or 2020 amendments to the Constitution of Russia) either. (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
BBC. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
The BBC quotes an organization as saying "there was no legal need for it". 331dot (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but that isn't the same as saying it's already been implemented. (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
As I noted, they had already published the changes and made them available for sale. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I think sources like this one clearly indicate the changes hadn't already been implemented before the referendum. The "already published" part is probably due to people who see the outcome as a foregone conclusion so they might as well start printing books with it - not unlike how long before Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, the media was already treating him as the nominee. (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
The BBC source clearly states Both Russia's houses of parliament have already adopted the changes. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • By the way I oppose alt blurb since it's not known if Putin is intending to stay in power till 2036. (talk) 11:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree he could be theoretically voted out of office, but do you think he would have pushed these changes through if he didn't have such intention? 331dot (talk) 11:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
It's possible he doesn't run. Plus, are we speculating about Putin's intentions on ITN now? (talk) 11:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it takes speculation to see what his intentions are, but I will stop digressing here. Thank you 331dot (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I've propose another altblurb, as most RS agree that extending Putin's term was the primary goal of the changes. 331dot (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Did any of them actually say extending Putin's term was the primary goal, or did they only say it's a possibility? (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
We go by what reliable sources claim, not what the subject says about themselves. According to Putin, there are no Russian forces in Ukraine, and Russia does not interfere with US elections(despite Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections) Since it seems that the only thing you will accept as evidence is Putin saying his goal is to stay in office, I will stop wasting our time debating it with you. Thanks 331dot (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Support article is ok, topic is interesting. Similar to the HK law posting "totalitarian regime strengthens hold" the vote was perfunctory. Whether it's poisoning diplomats, seizing peninsulas, or paying bounties on dead soldiers you cannot deny Russia has involved itself in global affairs so what happens there has international implications (not that it matters to an ITN nom but it does highlight the significance) --LaserLegs (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Foregone conclusion, товарищи. – Sca (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's been clear for over a decade that Putin will remain in power for life absent a coup. The specific machinations are not noteworthy. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - going to go against the grain here, this is actually important news. Even if a foregone conclusion, I dont think that precludes us from posting it. --Rockstone[Send me a message!] 20:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Altblurb 2 preferred. This is actually important news. so it is worthly to posted it. forgetting any opposer that tends because no important, not involve US/UK in ITN, etc 180.242.5.183 (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    No, we will not be "forgetting any opposer that tends because no important." That's really the whole point of discussing the nom. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support any good blurb around the topic. This is former G8 country that just banned same-sex marriage and made it possible for its leader to remain in power for 12 extra years. gobonobo + c 07:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, with preference for Alt 1. Fair or not, it's clearly an important development. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, with a preference for Al 1. The vote outcome was not a surprise, but this constitutional reform still represents a major change in Russia's political system. Nsk92 (talk) 11:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The referendum was not only about allowing Putin to stay in power until 2036. Other provisions were also included, so I suggest Alt Blurb 2. It does not matter now if the result of the referendum was clear even before it was held. (talk) (contributions) 13:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The extension of Putin's rule as President for Life is notable, the method of which this change was brought about doesn't matter. Support Alt 1. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ) 15:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Posting the most basic blurb. Feel free to modify if needed. --Tone 16:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Please use ALT1 or ALT2. The basic blurb is essentially devoid of news. starship.paint (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    As discussed above, both alts are inaccurate in suggesting the vote "allows" something, but that thing was already allowed. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb II Ljgua124 (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

(Ready) Police penetration of EncroChat[]

Article: EncroChat (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In a Europe wide operation, police penetrate EncroChat, a top-secret communications system used by criminals to sell drugs and plan attacks. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Multiple police agencies penetrate a top-secret communications system used by criminals to sell drugs and plan attacks called EncroChat in a Europe wide operation.
Alternative blurb II: ​A top-secret communications system used by criminals to sell drugs and plan attacks known as EncroChat is penetrated by multiple police agencies in a Europe wide operation.
Alternative blurb III: ​Combined European police agencies crack EncroChat, a high-level criminal chat system, and subsequently arrest over 800 people.
Alternative blurb IV: ​In a collaborative effort European police agencies infiltrate EncroChat, a high-level criminal chat system, leading to the arrest of over 800 people.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article updated

 Dantheanimator (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Support in principle but it needs a better blurb. How about something mentioning nearly 800 people are arrested after European police agencies crack a high-level criminal chat? Anything better than the verbose and empty 'police penetrate a communications system'. But, yes, major event. Kingsif (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in principle per Kingsif but oppose on target quality. Plus, a better blurb, more aligned with their suggestion, is needed, but notable in any case. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in principle but my golly that is a stubby article.John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 21:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Another Support in principle way too stubby at present. Blurb per Kingsif suggestion if article is improved JW 1961 Talk 21:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Would "In a Europe wide operation, multiple police agencies arrest over 800 individuals, intercept over two tonnes of drugs, and seize £54 million in criminal cash following the penetration of the criminal network EncroChat." be a better blurb? Dantheanimator (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait – Stub, one source. Needs expansion, more sources. – Sca (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, now that article has been cleaned up per comments. Magnovvig (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment added altblurb 3- to get to the point quickly and impactfully, but not overdo it. Kingsif (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support on Alt-blurb 3 but a better blurb would certainly be welcome. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – Sourcing – Telegraph, Register, Sky News, Motherboard, Phoneweek – still feels edgy. Suggest drawing on Thursday's AP, Reuters reports. – Sca (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb 3. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ) 15:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Pulling !vote/comment. 19:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Added Alt-blurb 4. It is mostly a rewording of Kingsif's alt-blurb 3. Dantheanimator (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Opppose we can't post the arrests only convictions, nor can we post "tinfoil hat conspiracies" about unproven suspicions from government agencies. These truisms have both been recently asserted. Perhaps when the trials are concluded, and the suspicions proven in a court, we can revisit. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Come on, LL, you know the story isn't a person-arrested nor a claim-of-crime, it's the major international event of "Operation Venetic". Kingsif (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

July 1[]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Sports

(Posted) RD: Hugh Downs[]

Article: Hugh Downs (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): WaPo
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: American television host dies at age 99. Only a few refs needed. Davey2116 (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

(Ready) Hachalu Hundessa assassination and riots[]

Article: Hachalu Hundessa (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Following the assassination of singer Hachalu Hundessa, 80 die in protests in Ethiopia. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Following the killing of singer Hachalu Hundessa, 80 die in protests in Ethiopia.
News source(s): Al Jazeera, AP, BBC, Guardian
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Death occurred on 29 June, protests peaking later. Abductive (reasoning) 02:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment Would support on significance but the article needs major work on early/personal life, prominence, and discography if this article is to hooked. Otherwise a separate article on the protests might be better. Gotitbro (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I would probably weakly support RD here. There's no mention of "assassination" in the article, which obviously implies deliberate targeting, just that he was "shot". I fixed the date of death in the nom template. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment There's lots of speculation in the Oromo community that there was foul play, but I haven't seen any evidence. Hundessa was something of a modern folk hero to the Oromo people. I've found relatively little in the way of reliable sources in English that address his early life though. gobonobo + c 11:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Article looks satisfactory to me. Kingsif (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support – Weak because article is thin, but the surprising death toll (AP: 80+) merits a blurb. Fairly wide coverage – Sca (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Sca. I too would like more flesh, but there is enough there to post. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose then, as there's still nothing to substantiate an "assassination". The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    You're opposing a blurb regarding the death of scores of people because you aren't personally convinced his murder was politically motivated? The AJ article linked above calls it an assassination. The police have called it a "targeted killing" of a politically prominent person. If that's not enough to convince you, propose an alternate blurb! GreatCaesarsGhost 21:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    Not at all. I'm opposing because the article linked doesn't say he was "assassinated". That's what I said 12 hours ago, and that's what I'm saying now. And I've already said it's a weak support for RD. So thanks for your invitation, but no thanks. I prefer to work on things I have more knowledge of, and that's good advice for many around here. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    I'm not sure that follows. Alt-2 should be perfectly acceptable to you? Plus "killing" sounds more neutral. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, but suggest that it is re-worded to something like: "80 die in protests in Ethiopia following the killing of singer Hachalu Hundessa"—Brigade Piron (talk) 08:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb but probably not ready The lead needs to be expanded. The blurb should reflect the article which says 200 deaths. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

RD: David F. Gantt[]

Article: David F. Gantt (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Spectrum Local News
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Updated and well sourced. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Weak support reads like a CV of someone with an obsession with traffic cameras. But mostly okay. Ditch that inline external link though. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose said to be notable for membership of New York Assembly, but the only mention of it is his announcement that he's leaving? A well-sourced account of his time on the county legislature isn't enough for me -- PaulBetteridge (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (ec) Oppose it's too bare-bones for me. All the stuff about the traffic cameras has been removed (whether intentionally or not I don't know) so we're left with nothing to tell us about his policies or political beliefs.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – per above. Also does not adhere to MOS:LEAD and MOS:OPENPARABIO. A one-sentence lead is insufficient. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment @Bloom6132: @PaulBetteridge: @Pawnkingthree: Hey I am in the midst of updating this article (I didn't notice that somebody had already posted it for a RD) and I plan to finish either tomorrow or the next day. For anybody else coming across this please hold off any support or oppose comments. Also @TDKR Chicago 101: I have added my name as an updater since right now the authorship of the page is 34% by me and I am not even close to done. - Jon698 talk 04:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Everton Weekes[]

Article: Everton Weekes (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Legendary West Indies Cricketer. Lead may need some expansion but the article looks to be in generaly decent shape, and for a change is well sourced. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Support per nom; article seems comprehensive and well-sourced. It is true that many articles of this length would have a longer lead, but it does convey the key facts at its present, restrained, length. -- PaulBetteridge (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as tagged. Everything else seems fine, just expand the lead appropriately. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I have added to the lead. P-K3 (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Pretty good for a sport RD. Some referencing and citation technical fixes needed but largely fine. Gotitbro (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as improved. BD2412 T 05:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per the improvements made. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Good to go just needs an admin to promote it. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted. Black Kite (talk) 09:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Georg Ratzinger[]

Article: Georg Ratzinger (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Well sourced and updated. Pope Emeritus Benedict's older brother --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Mississippi flag change[]

Consensus will not develop to post. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 19:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Flag of Mississippi (talk, history)
Blurb: Mississippi State Legislature passes a bill that mandates the removal of the Confederate Battle Flag from the State flag. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Sections of the Mississippi State Code defining the flag are removed due to controversy regarding the Confederate Battle Flag.
News source(s): AJC, Houston Chronicle
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Just got passed, so article not yet updated. This is what the protests were leading up to, and they may have to back on depending on the reaction to this, but for now this is clearly a blurb. Yeetstuff (t) 08:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Purely symbolic change with no international or far-reaching impact. Would we even consider posting a change in the flag of a Canadian province? In my understanding it isn't even the only US state incorporating the Confederate flag. —Brigade Piron (talk) 07:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Brigade Piron It's the last state to have the Confederate battle flag in its state flag. Georgia's flag is based on the regular Confederate flag, which is much less known. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose seriously, would this make the top 1000 news stories of the year from around the globe? Not a chance. But it might be okay for the trivia section? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Support in the news, decent article, boxes ticked. This is the last US state to jettison this symbol of tyranny and we have a whole "please do not" above about something only relating to a single country --LaserLegs (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't see anyone opposing this because it relates to a single country. 331dot (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is indirectly covered by the George Floyd protests posting, as the protests got the ball rolling on this issue. In addition, this only started the process of removing the flag; the old flag will not come back, but it's going to be at least a few months before it is actually replaced, and possibly a year if the first proposed replacement is rejected at the ballot box in November. 331dot (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Only in the news because of the George Floyd protests, which is already in the box. When else would major news be made about a change in the legislature about a regional flag - not even the flag changing. Kingsif (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I mean, in the US, this is a great news story and good on the state to pass it with little opposition, but end of the day, it's not major world-shaking story; it was a change expected as part of numerous other changes after the Floyd protests. --Masem (t) 14:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Symbolically resonant story, and I think there's more international interest than people assume. The BBC has been reporting on Mississippi's flag for years: [12], [13]. This would absolutely be in the news regardless of the George Floyd context. Zagalejo^^^ 14:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Just one among many changes in the United States that resulted from George Floyd protests, which are already listed. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 17:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Changing a national flag might be significant enough to justify publishing in ITN, but a single state isn't. We wouldn't post changes to, say, the Flag of Andalusia, Flag of Bavaria or Flag of New South Wales. All have higher populations than Mississippi. Modest Genius talk 18:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

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

June 30[]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents
  • A large explosion at a medical clinic in Tehran, Iran, kills at least 19 people, mostly women, according to Iranian authorities. A gas leak is suspected as being the cause. (BBC)

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) RD: Ludwig Finscher[]

Article: Ludwig Finscher (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NZZ
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: German Musicologist who edited a 28-volumes encyclopedia known as MGG. We expanded a stub. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ida Haendel[]

Article: Ida Haendel (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BR-Klassik, Guardian
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Violinist, child prodigy. Grimes2 (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rudolfo Anaya[]

Article: Rudolfo Anaya (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Died on June 28, but only reported on June 30. Bloom6132 (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jack Whittaker (lottery winner)[]

Article: Jack Whittaker (lottery winner) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Died on June 27, but only reported on June 30. Bloom6132 (talk) 08:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Hong Kong National Security Law[]

Article: Hong Kong national security law (talk, history)
Blurb: ​China passes its Hong Kong national security law that criminalises secession of Hong Kong and other controversial measures. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​China passes its Hong Kong national security law in an act widely seen as a breach of its treaty obligations and the Hong Kong Basic Law.
Alternative blurb II: ​China passes a controversial security law regarding its relationship with Hong Kong.
Alternative blurb III: China imposes a national security law on Hong Kong, limiting personal freedoms within the special administrative region
News source(s): Guardian, Reuters, CNN, NYTimes, BBC
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Just got passed, so article not yet updated. This is what the protests were leading up to, and they may have to back on depending on the reaction to this, but for now this is clearly a blurb. Masem (t) 02:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. We can discuss whether this should roll off into ongoing when the time comes. Davey2116 (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support no-brainer, quality is sufficient. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 03:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I've since updated the article with what we know. China has not published any final version of this law, and according to sources, bypassed the HK approval to pass it (!!) so we're going off what was known to be in the draft. --Masem (t) 03:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per above and comment: is there anyway to incorporate into the blurb that China overrode HK's usual legislative process? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ) 03:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Added alt blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support original blurb, quality is good. Hong Kong Basic Law Article 23 does require Hong Hong to pass a national security law so it doesn't breach that. I believe the treaty you are referring to is Sino-British Joint Declaration, so how does this sound:
China passes its Hong Kong national security law in an act widely seen as a breach of Sino-British Joint Declaration.104.243.98.96 (talk) 04:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, the HK leader doesn’t even know what’s in the law, so it really does breach the Basic Law. But also the Joint Declaration, hence the UK rightfully not getting as much flak for being involved as the US has just for trying. Kingsif (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per significance, alblurb preferred, because I oppose blurb that contains grammatical errors. 182.1.10.212 () 04:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
IP, you’ve been commenting this on a lot of recent noms when there’s no grammatical errors. Further, whoever posts it will correct typos and punctuation, so there’s no reason to say oppose just because you think there’s a spelling or other mistake (where there isn’t one). Kingsif (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now pending more details. Especially oppose altblurb which is NPOV. (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    • The problem is that China has not published the details and given how little they've published on the draft, no one expects details on this to be published readily in the next few days. --Masem (t) 05:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Then we can't have a blurb, can we? It'd be sort of like a "elections just concluded, but we don't know who won yet because the votes are still being counted" kind of blurb - we do nothing until the count is over. (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
        • With all due respect to that position, this is much like the Premier League blurb – this is in the news now, and we already know of the law's existence. Waiting will probably do more harm than good. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 05:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
        • No, we know enough about what it contained - that it criminialises cessession attempts of HK, attempts for HK to work with foreign powers, and other details from a draft published earlier last week. There was no indication that China was going to change it mind on those terms, but other specifics that may have been added or removed are not clear. What was supposed to happened was that HK was to have gotten this bill to vote on at which point the world would have known, but instead China backdoor'ed its passage and kept the bill's text a secret. Chinese officials in HK will get the bill and start to enforce it at which point its full extent is expected to be known but those details don't matter - the broad concept of what was in the bill was well known already -that's why there were those protests for nearly a year - and its passed with clearly no sign China was backing down on the matter. --Masem (t) 05:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Significant build up from last year, not sure about the blurb though. Gotitbro (talk) 05:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, but agree current blurbs are speculative and veer off NPOV. I suggest something along the lines of "China passes a new Hong Kong national security law in the National People's Congress, bypassing the Hong Kong Legislature." This is not speculative yet still conveys a reason behind why the issue is controversial and in the news, without taking a position on it. CMD (talk) 09:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support alternative blurb. Significant event, but the main blurb makes no sense. I think what Masem meant to say was, "criminalises support of the secession of Hong Kong". Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) please always ping! 09:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose all those words and it doesn't tell me anything about what's in the Hong Kong national security law. The hook says that it "criminalises secession of Hong Kong and other controversial measures". What other measure? Is the whole point to just implement Article 23 of the Hong Kong "basic law" (which apparently wasn't a law)? The article spends 1000s of words detailing outrage but doesn't actually tell me what the problem is. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Weak Support the news here seems to be the outrage over a piece of legislation, not the actual legislation itself. The alt-blurb proposed by CMD is better, the current proposals are highly POV --LaserLegs (talk) 10:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose and WAIT Support now until the Gazette is published and it comes into effect. The Gazette will also contain full details of the law. It should be later today or tomorrow, probably. After keeping an eye (and writing much of) the article, I’m surprised it’s been nommed quite this early. Yes, the story is at least half about the controversy, but we can’t say the article has been updated appropriately to reflect that it’s been passed yet. Kingsif (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    • It's not even the details of the law, but that it was passed bypassing HK when it was expected HK would have a say. Now if the text is to hit within the next few hours, that's reasonable, but the story is that HK just got kicked out of the room on their own future here which the rest of the world is crying foul about. --Masem (t) 13:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Gazette appears to have been published, so the point is moot, but if the only story was the controversy of China getting involved, it would have been posted last month with the decision - but I think that was quickly shot down with 'wait until they make a law and it comes into effect'. Kingsif (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
        • It wasn't China getting involved, but that they decided to use a process - technically legal apparently - to bypass any input or vote from HK themselves to put the law into effect, and which HK can't do anything about. UN and most other countries are seeing this as a severe violation of what was expected even after China got involved last month, which was for HK to have a chance to see and vote on the law themselves. --Masem (t) 19:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
          • Technically legal, under Chinese law, just about from the political reading I've been doing for the article. And a lot of media seemed to hope that Beijing would at least show Carrie Lam the law before approving it, but a lot them didn't exactly expect it that to happen. I think China has now also dropped the claim that this is to 'support' a law that the HK LegCo should bring in with the same text. They're just getting started from the sounds of reporting. We'll probably know more very quickly with all the democracy supporters who have said they're still going to protest tomorrow. Kingsif (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, but note that blurb should read "secessionism" not "secession" or should be reworded to clarify. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Just a question: Isn't that an ongoing thing? Why it is not considered ongoing, particularly when you consider the effect of the bill. Agree that the blurb seems POV, maybe something like : China overrides local power to introduce a National Security Legislation so as to criminalize some acts promotes Hong Kong independence and/or foreign inteference. ? --1233 ( T / C 11:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support on significance. As far as I can tell, this was the final stage in the legislative process, unlike previous nominations. I can see the logic of waiting a few hours until the text of the law is published, but no more. None of the blurbs are particularly good though; I'll add alt3. Modest Genius talk 11:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
"imposes"? Come on, HK is sovereign territory of the PRC --LaserLegs (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, it's perfectly legal for them to do so (under Chinese law anyway, unclear under HK law), but it has not been passed by the Hong Kong legislature. I don't see what's wrong with that word, but you could swap it for 'legislates' or 'promulgates' (once the text has been published). Modest Genius talk 12:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Striking as the full text has now been published. I think consensus is clear, marking ready. Modest Genius talk 16:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – On EV more than news value, as this has been in the wind for months. Somewhat favor Alt3 referencing effects. – Sca (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - A significant event that probably will change Hong Kong forever. OceanHok (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • ALERT - No Brainer: This IS the "English" version of the gazette: Just an English frame but main content still Chinese text: [14]--1233 ( T / C 15:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support on significance in Hong Kong history. Altblurb3 preferred. 110.137.125.1 () 15:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support a very important issue, and must not go underreported. Altblurb preferred. KittenKlub (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Now updated, I'm just reading through the grisly details to add more on the content. Kingsif (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment This law is currently IN FORCE in Hong Kong.--1233 ( T / C 16:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • We got it, dude. Kingsif (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Hong Kong has now lost its special status within China. Count Iblis (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • plus Posted Altblurb posted, it's hard to come to a NPOV blurb since the issue itself is a POV (anti-China/pro-HK). For now I'm posting the altblurb because a) it has the most support, b) it seems to be an accurate representation of current talk in the media. Discussion should continue towards a better blurb imo. --qedk (t c) 17:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support original blurb. The blurb needs to mention successionism as the reason for the law as well as the fact that it has other controversies. The other blurbs don't describe what the law is supposed to do.104.243.98.96 (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Current blurb is kinda bad. I'm itching to place a Template:By whom just after "widely seen". Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[ᴛ] 17:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Change to CMD's alternative blurb with wording of ", bypassing the Legislative Council of Hong Kong" on NPOV grounds. When the England-educated, former Tory, Grenville Cross, himself former Director of Public Prosecutions in the HKSAR from 1997 to 2009, writes that the law is a result of the Basic Law not being treated as a "two-way street", it is unacceptable WP:UNDUE to treat frothing 'criticism' from the U.S. / UK governments on equal grounds. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support CMD's altblurb; failing that, I'd also support altblurb II. Both strike me as being neutrally worded, whilst conveying the gravity of the situation as more than "some random law passed". Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 18:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Updated blurb to CMD's suggestion per above. SpencerT•C 22:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Image update I don't expect asking in this thread to be seen, but since the talkpage was less helpful: I think the image for the blurb should be changed. The current image isn't in the article, and an image of protests may be more relevant. I added an image of some protests against the law decision in May, and someone else just added this photo from protests yesterday, which I think would be a good option. Kingsif (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Updated image. -- King of ♥ 15:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

June 29[]

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents
  • At least 32 people die when their ferry collides with another vessel and sinks in the Buriganga River, near Bangladesh's capital Dhaka. There are still about 20 passengers missing. (BBC)

International relations

Law and crime

(Posted) RD: Johnny Mandel[]

Article: Johnny Mandel (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times; BBC News; The Guardian
Credits:

Article updated

 Bloom6132 (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Carl Reiner[]

Stale. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Carl Reiner (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: American actor, comedian, director, screenwriter, and publisher whose career spanned seven decades, winning 11 Emmy Awards (Post)
News source(s): Variety, New York Times, CBS TV, Independent, The Guardian
Credits:

Article updated
 Masem (t) 13:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose masses of unreferenced material. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately yes, typical of most actors even legends like Reiner. --Masem (t) 13:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support the article doesn't look terrible unreferenced and RD isn't a blurb (which Reiner should possibly have). We are talking about a comedic legend that even if an article might have some referencing issues, should be highlighted on the main page. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    Definitely not a blurb and regardless of blurb or simply RD, the same quality standards apply. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. Referencing (as usual). -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support and fix anything that needs fixing. A highly notable recent death. BD2412 T 19:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    • No opinion on whether a blurb is needed. BD2412 T 18:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Whole paragraphs unreferenced and the TV appearances are mostly unreferenced too.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    And this should go without saying, but even if all citation issues are fixed – RD only, no blurb.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Career section has a lot of referencing issues along with missing refs in the work sections (discography/filmography). Gotitbro (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support A comedy icon that defined American sketch during the second half of the twentieth century. Article needs work though. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Clearly falls short of ITN standards. 75.188.224.208 () 23:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support with blurb Stature is comparable to Robin Williams (whose death WP blurbed). I have not enough basis to judge whether the article is refined enough to post now or "soon" but it should be posted. (talk) 23:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
The two are not at all comparable. Williams was posted because of the circumstances of his death, not his stature in the field. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support with blurb All the "citation needed" tags have been filled in and many references have been added to support the material. It would be nice to have an Impact or Legacy section, but the article is in great shape and should be considered for a main page appearance. Yoninah (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Clearly an entertainment legend; should not be omitted on the basis of pedantic, fallible guidelines. (talk) 04:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Article appears in excellent shape. When we total the page views of all the six current RDs and three blurbs, they total less than 20% of the page views Reiner's article received yesterday. --Light show (talk) 08:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC) Almost no unreferenced appearances from the long list, since the few without a separate citation are blue-linked to articles which support the details.--Light show (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Oppose: Potentially dignifying Reiner, a Jewish WWII vet, alongside now posted Georg Ratzinger, would not be a good idea.--Light show (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the moment until the article is fully cited. Def oppose blurb at any point: this is a candidate for RD only. - SchroCat (talk) 12:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Can we get some examples of what uncited statements still need to be addressed? KConWiki (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Parts of the Filmography and all the Discography and Bibliography, for starters. - SchroCat (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - the article is well sourced now, I'm not sure what it was like when the others opposed. You can't ask for perfection and the article is perfectly suited for inclusion now. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 17:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
    I agree we can't ask for perfection, but there are 30+ roles in the filmography without citation. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. I've always been under the impression that filmography sections do not require citations, because the sources are the films themselves. Calidum 18:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
No, the only time this can be taken as true is when the person was in a top-billing role. Particularly when we get to some of Reiner's roles here as cameos and uncredited roles, they absolutely have to be sourced. --Masem (t) 18:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Common misconception though, so don't be sad about it. Many filmographies feature items which aren't even linked to articles, so the verification of claims is even more tenuous. Often, linked articles here on Wikipedia don't even mention the individuals. And worse, Wikipedia isn't a RS. Doubly worse, the linked articles may change and lose the references needed. Worse thrice, We could just add a bunch of fake movies and say "well, if you can't find those movies, you're not trying hard enough". So no, three times no, each appearance needs to be referenced in this article, and that is a general principle for all BLP/BDPs. Cheers!! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality, no blurb Looks good to go except for the filmography section, but nowhere near Little Richard or Vera Lynn, much less Matcher or Thandela. (:P) – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 21:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
..... Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. Article appears to be reasonably sourced aside from the -ography sections. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • 96 years This seems to be yet another case of a veteran star getting hung up at RD because they had a long career and the jobsworths insist that every role and appearance be cited. Our readership doesn't care, as they are already reading the article in large numbers, but, as this keeps coming up, I thought I'd check what difference it makes. Are any of the uncited entries actually wrong? I compared the entries in Reiner's filmography before the death, when it was almost completely uncited, with how it is now, when it is mostly cited. I found that all the entries remained the same – so no errors – but that three recent bit-parts were added – awful stuff like Dumbbells, which is probably best forgotten. So, this insistence on citing filmographies seems to be the waste of time that one would expect.
Such casting information is unlikely to be wrong because it is public knowledge – millions of people watch the movies and the credits are quite well-documented. It's the other details that need checking and verification. For example, I see an uncited sentence – "Reiner was a lifelong Democrat." Do people get registered with political parties when they are children in the US? What about before WW2, when he was a machinist, not an actor? Is this uncited because it's hard to verify or perhaps even not true?
Andrew🐉(talk) 23:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
That certainly needs a citation; thank you for pointing that out. Also his “endorsement” of Bernie Sanders in 2016 is just cited to a Twitter post saying he liked one of Sanders’ rally speeches. Not good enough. P-K3 (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
The "lifelong Democrat" has now been cited to an obituary in a newspaper but that's probably a case of citogenesis. I'm wary of such obituaries now because they often rely on Wikipedia. I'm going to try taking out the word "lifelong" and see if such sources follow. As for Twitter, Reiner was quite prolific in that medium, tweeting every day. That's quite easy to verify but our article doesn't say anything about such new media. From looking at Twitter, I find this recent reminiscence on Youtube: Dispatches from Quarantine. That's quite well-produced and very accessible so it's a shame that Wikipedia isn't keeping up. And there's old media too which might be missed. He recently wrote a book I Remember Radio and I found a reference to an interview that he gave on Monitor. Tracking all these various media appearances over such a long career should not be an obstacle at RD because it should not be necessary. We are supposed to write in a summary style and, per WP:NOTDIARY, not try to record everything that the subject ever did. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Feel free to dive in and fix the issues rather than list them out here. Improving the article might go some way to getting it posted. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
As can be seen from this reference, Reiner appeared in literally dozens of television specials and acted in television series from the 1950s to 2000. We have completely sourced his film appearances, but the television appearances are difficult to source (some only appear on fan websites; one was just removed as a non-RS) and the list may never be complete. I expanded and sourced the Bibliography section but have no idea how to trace his old records under Discography. I agree with Andrew Davidson: enough already. The article got half a million views yesterday. It is in good shape. Comment out the stuff without cites that you don't like and let the rest of our readers see it. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
What I am flabbergastered about is the lack of sourcing for the 1990s shows and beyond. This should be easy. For example, there's a Crossing Jordan episode. Less than 10 seconds in Google gets me a ChiTrib hit (which I will add). I did try to look at that 1958 special earlier and that looks a lot harder as it has a couple different names it seem, but people need to look at Google Books and other resources out there. Documentation is there. --Masem (t) 03:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

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

(Closed) New swine flu strain found in China[]

Strong consensus against posting. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: G4 EA H1N1 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​New G4 EA H1N1 swine flu strain with pandemic potential found in China (Post)
News source(s): Science
Credits:

Article updated
 Count Iblis (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, unless this actually becomes a serious pandemic. We're not a crystal ball. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 00:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, although this does seem better than most of Count Iblis's other nominations. This will probably be like the "murder hornets" a while back and be exaggerated for the whole "2020 amirite lol" value. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 00:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:CRYSTAL. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ) 01:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose but a reasonable good-faith awareness story in 20/20 hindsight of COVID. We (ITN) shouldn't jump on it but good that the news is covering it. --Masem (t) 02:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose but I'd say Rockstone35 is exaggerating what would need to happen for this to be suitable. I'd say that if the WHO declares it a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, or even if more than twenty people die of it, it can be renominated and I'd support it. Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) please always ping! 03:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Also the article quality is no where near ready for the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Crystal and appears to be latching on to the COVID-19 pandemic, don't see how this would be a significant news or ITN material otherwise. Gotitbro (talk) 05:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

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

François Fillon convicted of embezzlement[]

Articles: François Fillon (talk, history) and Fillon affair (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In France former Prime Minister François Fillon is convicted of embezzlement of public funds and sentenced to prison. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In France, François Fillon is convicted of embezzlement related to his 2017 presidential campaign and is sentenced to prison.
News source(s): The Telegraph & etc.
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Former PM of a major European country is jailed for corruption. Not a common event. Section dealing with the trial and conviction may need further expansion. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Support, the scandal arguably sunk his presidential candidacy on LR ticket, too. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Oppose – He left office eight years ago. – Sca (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support and adding altblurb because he hasn't been PM for years. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ) 21:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose isn't the French PM role just a vanity role? Who cares that a has-been French politician got caught? Parochial, no enduring impact, etc etc. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Opppose Per TRM, "former" "ceremonial" official got convicted, pretty domestic not ITN material. Gotitbro (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Fillon affair is a decent article could bold that the update needs a bit of expansion. François Fillon needs refs in the career section. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM; it appears that unlike many other countries, the President has more power in France than the PM, otherwise I'd support. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 00:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
It's all over the place. We actually have a pretty decent list List of current heads of state and government --LaserLegs (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - We'd cover it if the Vice President of the US was convicted of embezzlement, and the PM is a similar role and France is a great power in any sense of the word. As political scandals go, the only thing that might make it less than notable is American other-countries-don't-exist-ism (FWIW, I'm american) This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps if it was the current VP but definitely not for a former one and it would be a hard sell either way. Gotitbro (talk) 05:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support While not equivalent to countries such as the UK, the Prime Minister of France very far from a ceremonial role. Further, it was a very impactful scandal during a significant Presidential bid. Similar to Orbitalbuzzsaw's point, if Joe Biden was taken to court for paying his wife hundreds of thousands for nominal work, that would be big news, as would the result being a prison sentence. CMD (talk) 05:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support Second in command of a major country, in the executive, gets convicted of wrongdoing and jailed. If the treasurer of a major country got jailed for fraud etc especially when lining up to try and take up the top job, that's notable, and per Chipmunkdavis Bumbubookworm (talk) 05:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per the precedent of Conviction of Vital Kamerhe a couple of days ago. Had Fillon been a former head of state or incumbent PM, I think it would be different. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. We would post it if Nancy Pelosi or Mike Pence were convicted of embezzlement, while in office or afterwards, due to conduct related to their duties or campaigns. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
That's not really a fair parallel because those are both active politicians. A better example would be Dick Cheney or Al Gore. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Nor is it fair because the PM of France is not the equivalent of POTUS. Not by a LONG shot. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Recall that Fillon was neck-and-neck with Le Pen in the Presidential race when this scandal broke, at which point his numbers tanked and never recovered. It is more likely than not the reason the current president is Macron and not someone else. The focus of oppose votes on the relative importance of the PM seems to be missing the point. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh, so just some political damage to an individual. I see. "Politician gets caught". No big deal then. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Why is everyone in this thread exaggerating their positions? Of course it's a big deal if the probable next leader of a G8 country goes to jail. Maybe it's not ITN-worthy (I'm not supporting) but it's certainly a valid candidate. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Benny Mardones[]

Stale. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Benny Mardones (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Article needs some reformatting.  (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)MetaTracker
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) China Forcing Birth Control on Uyghurs[]

No consensus to post. Stephen 01:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Cultural genocide of Uyghurs (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An Associated Press investigation reveals that the Chinese government is committing "demographic genocide" against its Uyghur population. (Post)
News source(s): The Associated Press, BBC, Guardian
Credits:

Article needs updating
  (talk) 06:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is no discussion of this AP News story in the target article. I note there is previous discussion of the subject (i.e. forced sterilization) but that uses sources from 2019. Black Kite (talk) 11:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Tentative oppose. The issue is that it gives a lot of weight to this report, and Wikipedia itself would be saying 'China is currently committing genocide' - a very weighted statement - based on this report. Then there's also the likelihood of the Hong Kong national security law coming back into the news soon, and with this and that the box would be 2/3 'China is doing horrible things to people'. Without placing a judgment on either story to be posted over the other, there are many more RS about the national security law, so saying 'China is destroying human rights in HK' is probably safer main page because of the weight of outside sources saying so. If there's more RS about this genocide, I would probably support. Kingsif (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: Patten (last HK Governor) has now called it genocide. [15] Article should be updated. Kingsif (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per WP:EXTRAORDINARY and the weak sourcing that the AP article uses, heavily quoting Adrian Zenz. Even the Wall Street Journal has acknowledged that Zenz is responsible for the publicity of the exaggerated re-education camp figures; despite the fact he is a "lecturer" at a suspect institution (unlike a highly regarded one such as University of Munich). And note this gem by Zenz. All in all, nothing attributed to Zenz should be treated seriously here on WP. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The issue is getting significant coverage by respectable media such as the BBC. It seems more significant than the horse race blurb, which is 9 days old now and so quite stale. Let's be displaying what's actually in the news, please. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    Well that's a page on the BBC website. On the main page of the BBC News website is the Golden State Killer plea bargain which is getting much more attention. If we're going to become WP:TOP25 at least use the "actually in the news" stories. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    The first sentence (emphasis mine) from that BBC link is The report, by China scholar Adrian Zenz, has prompted international calls for the United Nations to investigate. See my remarks on Zenz above, and what qualifies him to be a "China scholar", e.g. a degree in Sino studies? Peer-reviewed authorship of China-focused sociology? Crickets, because there are no such credentials. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    For context, Andrew often opines that ITNC carries stories which are not of interest our readers yet supports this article which has had an average of 370 views per day this month, c.f. 1,618 for Belmont Stakes (despite being "9 days old now and so quite stale" and the lurid Golden State Killer scoring nearly 15,000 daily hits including nearly 65k yesterday. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
To put his in perspective, a major global newsmaker like Beyonce – Pardonnez-moi, I mean Beyoncé! – racked up 95,000 page views last Friday. (That's an average of seven page views for each one of the 13,500 words in her article.) – Sca (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, it's worth noting once again that I believe running ITNC on pageviews is absurd, and that's what WP:TOP25 is for. Others appear to have different views. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the basis this only being a single source of discovery. This is not to state the report necessarily is wrong, but that its only one point; it will very much likely trigger human rights agencies like UN/WHO to investigate and come out later with declarative statements against Chinese about the practice which would be more substantial ITN points, assuming they came to the same conclusion. They may not, as a possibility. The press is not the court of law and in line with what Kingsif is saying we need to be careful how that then is presented in Wikivoice given how controversial this statement would be. --Masem (t) 18:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in principle but currently unsure of the sourcing per the others. Perhaps a more neutrally-written blurb could be written, but if true and more properly verified this is a huge deal. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 19:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC) Oppose seems a bit overblown, also we have another more important China blurb w/ Hong Kong. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 00:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose per others. Needs better sourcing and wider coverage. There are unquestionably some pretty horrible things going on in China these days. But we need to tread carefully when discussing them on the main page per NOTNEWS and RGW. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Needs more than a single source being one report. Should be added to existing page on Xinjiang. Opens up the door to having similar allegations of ITN for other countries, i.e. India. 104.243.98.96 (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – There is at least one additional RS report, from the BBC, but two sources isn't good enough for ITN. Also, we certainly would not use a polemical phrase like "demographic genocide" in a blurb. – Sca (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
PS: Guardian fields cautiously worded article. – Sca (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Seems like a technical oppose for me. Don't really see how this is ITN material, considering this is part of the Xinjiang re-education camps, and I don't remember seeing that on ITN (please correct if I'm wrong), which hasn't had significant updates in the campaign. And what is the blurb and hook here exactly? The linked article isn't in the blurb and appears way too broad/not exactly related to the news reports. A better blurb, hook and reasoning is needed here. Gotitbro (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'd support posting something on China's oppression of the Uyghurs, but I don't think it is acceptable to word a blurb in this way. AP states "some experts are calling [it] a form of 'demographic genocide.'" We can't take that and state it has been 'revealed that China is committing demographic genocide'. No alternative blurbs immediately come to mind. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose POV blurb, POV article title. AP reports that Chinas social conservatives are forcibly limiting reproductive rights ... what's the event here? --LaserLegs (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
It's obviously not gonna be posted, but your framing of this issue is very dishonest. Of course, this really isn't the place for a debate. (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose this kind of claim needs more than one independent source to be featured. (talk) 04:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Uncharacteristically, normally staid AP is pushing this as an "exclusive" (which it isn't) for the second day in a row. Too much hype on a sex-related topic for my taste. – Sca (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

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

(Posted) 2020 Pakistan Stock Exchange attack[]

Article: 2020 Pakistan Stock Exchange attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Gunmen have attacked the Pakistani stock exchange in Karachi, Pakistan, killing at least eight people and injuring others. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​At least 8 people are killed and seven others injured in an attack on Pakistan Stock Exchange in Karachi.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Developing. Still stub. Sherenk1 (talk) 06:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose: Terrorist attacks are sadly pretty common in Pakistan and the body-count is not particularly unusual here. The only question to my mind is whether the location is enough to make this particular attack notable, and I'm not sure it does. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. The BBC observes "Pakistan has suffered years of militant violence, mostly by Islamist groups, but attacks such as this one have become rare in recent years" - furthermore, the nature of the attack here, in which a prominent institution was attacked, is significant. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Comparatively minor. Wider significance not readily apparent. – Sca (talk) 13:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Sca. – Ammarpad (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality at the moment - it is too flat on details to post. If the article improves it may show enough significance to be notable enough to post. Kingsif (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb There isn't a which means this can be posted given a notable target & the global coverage which can be seen within the article. Guy in the Mall (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose good faith nom. Unfortunately, gun and terrorist violence is extremely common in Pakistan. There really isn't anything here that makes this altogether unusual. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb and updated count. Appears to be a significant development in the relatively low-intensity Insurgency in Balochistan. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ) 19:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb: Article appears to be in good shape. In terms of significance, I would say it's not so much the casualties but the target itself. As this appears to be the first time the Stock Exchange was hit, the attack on a major financial institution makes it noteworthy enough. (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb' while it is not significant, but it appears to be the first time a major financial markets being attacked by terrorist attack, the other being Jakarta Stock Exchange in 2000. 114.125.234.247 () 21:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support alt iff the ridiculous flag salad "reactions" section is removed. I was on the fence, but the arguments that it's a rare attack on the rich (vs some street market) are compelling. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Terrorist attacks in middle east are currently less common during COVID crisis, also stock exchanges being hit is extremely rare. 104.243.98.96 (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I don't see why not. (talk) 04:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Ready article is fine (I boldly removed the flag salad we'll see if that sticks) and consensus is clear --LaserLegs (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted ALT. SpencerT•C 22:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Spencer Since when did we start recognizing the death of terrorists? Why does the blurb say 8 people died instead of it being four? Guy in the Mall (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

June 28[]

Arts and culture

Business and economy
  • Following negotiations with creditors, Chesapeake Energy applies for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the United States. It will seek to restructure its debts in order to continue operations. The company is experiencing cash flow and liquidity issues due to low energy prices and large amounts of debt. (Reuters)

Health and environment

International relations

Politics and elections

Sports

(Posted) Malawian election[]

Articles: 2020 Malawian presidential election (talk, history) and Lazarus Chakwera (talk, history)
Blurb: Lazarus Chakwera is elected President of Malawi in fresh elections ordered by the Constitutional Court after irregularities were uncovered during voting in 2019 (Post)
News source(s): AP, BBC, Reuters
Credits:

One or both nominated events are listed at WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event should in itself merit a post on WP:ITN, subject to the quality of the article and any update(s) to it.

 —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose both articles need more citations; election article needs more coverage. Kingsif (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – Relatively brief at 440 words, but seems to be mostly there. Fairly widely covered. – Sca (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Would like to see some expansion and background in the article before going for a support. Some dangling paras with no cites also exist in the article. Gotitbro (talk) 14:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This is a notable event. Article looks good. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 23:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Article is good if a bit short. Might be less relevant if the previous election hadn't been annulled, but it was so here we are This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This is a notable event. Fairly widely covered. AbDaryaee (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I don’t understand the above supports. This is ITN/R (automatically deemed important enough) and the only judgment needs to be made on article quality. While improved, both target articles still need at least two citations - in the election one for stats/results, no less. Kingsif (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Can you be more specific? The election statistics are cited (albeit in a slightly unorthodox way) to the Malawian Electoral Commission. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
The last line of "Candidates" and first line of "Opinion polls." GreatCaesarsGhost 14:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
These have now both been addressed, GreatCaesarsGhost. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support A notable event. Good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 11:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Kingsif. Article is very thin, and anything this short need to be fully cited. 75.188.224.208 () 13:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Okay now. 75.188.224.208 () 01:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Sufficiently referenced now. P-K3 (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • plus Posted --qedk (t c) 17:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Belarus unrest[]

No consensus to post. Stephen 01:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: 2020 Belarusian protests (talk, history) and 2020 Belarusian presidential election (talk, history)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:

Article updated
 Abcmaxx (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose This appeared, at best, to be a story from about last week, but there's little international coverage of it since. The article on the protests also don't show the signs for an ongoing event. If this was meant to be a blurb, the story is definitely stale. --Masem (t) 23:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Nominator comments I have nominated this because the protests are rapidly gaining momentum and are escalating. Obviously coverage of Belarus is lacking at best anyway in most countries that do not border it; even the fact that WikiProject:Belarus is inactive show how well covered the country is; but certainly Polish, Lithuanian and Ukrainian media are now picking the story up more and more frantically and the protests are getting more and more intense. The article is short because it is still early days, but the closer to the elections the more coverage I expect there will be. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Crystal ball nom, nominate when there are actual "ongoing" protests and which are "in the news". Gotitbro (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Unsee current coverage. – Sca (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

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

References[]

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

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