Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/July 2020

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form; any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

July 31
Only linked to not break transclusion limit: Portal:Current events/2020 July 31

(Posted) RD: Bill English (computer engineer)

 * Support Looks good. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 15:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Stephen Tataw

 * Comment Just the honours section needs referencing, will support when fixed JW 1961   Talk  13:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * that's already been done! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Good work improving, looks ready to go now JW 1961   Talk  16:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support – I added a few sentences to the lead, but aside from that, it looks like it meets the criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment is there anything outstanding that I need to resolve on this one? It has been marked ready for ages but not added yet. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support you know what they, if you a job doing properly..... this has been good to go for half a day now, I'd IAR and post the entry yourself. Who's going to sue you for that? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 15:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Good enough. I'm guessing he didn't get the coaching job in 2018? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eusebio Leal

 * Support Looks fine for RD JW 1961   Talk  09:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - there is a sentence in the lead, saying he wrote books and presented TV programmes about Havana, but it is not mentioned elsewhere as far as I can see and is uncited. After that's fixed, good to go. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Added cited info re presenting in "Other positions". Removed the part about books since I couldn't find any sources on that. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD. Great, thanks for the update, . I've actually added back mentions of a couple of his books just with links to the Google Books page, which seems sufficient to verify their existence! Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Gary Knopp

 * Support Its prose is quite short but fairly well referenced, one cn there on a committee membership should be easy fixed by someone in the know JW 1961   Talk  10:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Resume in prose format; insufficient depth of coverage. Lists committees he was on in his role as a politician, but doesn't say what he did as part of those committees.  Spencer T• C 00:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine for RD. – Ammarpad (talk) 04:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Spencer. Needs a bit more detail on what he did, it's pretty much just a list of positions at present. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose and stale Too little personal information to comfortably call a BLP, and too few professional details prevent establishing notability. A mere 5 edits before his death prevents this from being a BLP1E.130.233.3.21 (talk) 10:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing Removal: 2020 China floods

 * Support This was getting coverage in the world middle of July and was rightly ITN, but not so much so anymore. TBH, it is one of many heavier than usual floods happening across Asia like Japan and India which seem to have either comparable damage or casualties. Doesn't seem so special anymore unless someone wants to do a grand article on 2020 floods across Asia.  Then again, even the death toll/damages we are bad but definitely not catastrophic for what Asia usually sees.2604:3D09:682:B00:1987:35DF:CE31:2228 (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Floods are very much still happening its just that its a time issue as the consider is on the stability of the Three Gorges Dam, and that's literally just a waiting game as all the flooded areas drain out into the reservior behind it. They are still on alert, but they nothing they can tell people to take action about because they've done as much as they can. --M asem  (t) 22:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you point me to the article edit with new pertinent information because I can't seem to find it --LaserLegs (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out, its a waiting game of watching waters dangerous rising behind a decades old dam that is showing signs of failure but hasnt' failed yet. It's like reporting on paint drying to a point, there's nothing really to report until either 1) the waters receed or 2) the dam breaks. Its clearly in the news but there's not much that can be immediately updated appropraitely. Common sense is needed in cases like this. -M asem (t) 02:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support While floods may still be happening, it's no longer in the news, nor is the article being updated. Kingsif (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. It's not really suitable for ongoing at this point. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  00:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Doesn't seem to be making front page news anywhere. If only I had a nickel every time someone said (or "wished") 3G dam would burst... if that happens, it wouldn't be "Ongoing" but ITN anyways. Albertaont (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support no use hanging around waiting to see if it will become in the news again. It certainly isn't right now.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 07:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed. There seems to be a solid consensus that this should be withdrawn at this point. If anything further develops in the future, it can be renominated. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) British Academy TV awards

 * Oppose- many countries have television awards and I'm not convinced (though, as always, open to changing my mind) that the British ones are indeed the second most important.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 21:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's the Emmys but held in London, of equal importance, not even 'second'. I'd be interested to hear your take on the British Academy Film Awards (the only not-Oscar film awards in ITN/R)... As you can see, the main source is Deadline Hollywood, based in LA, which got their coverage out before the BBC did. Kingsif (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * For better or worse, the Emmys are of greater importance due to American pop cultural dominance. I think film has more lasting cultural importance than television, so I have less problem with theoretically posting multiple film awards each year.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 21:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't you like to counter that dominance? If ITN just bowed to it the way you're advocating here, the box would be filled with American stuff and nothing else. (And like I noted, a Los Angeles industry news outlet covered this before the BBC, so it's certainly in the American cultural interest) Kingsif (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Clever argument, but US popular media dominance is not the kind of bias I'm concerned with since it isn't really a bias at all, just a reality. It's quite different from Western media bias on terror attacks for example, since I don't think people in say Southeast Asia are also disproportionately concerned about the lives of Western terror victims, whereas US popular media is genuinely of disproportionate international interest. That being said, I also wouldn't object to removal of the Emmys from ITN/R, since television generally has less long-term cachet than film.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 21:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Reading that (and the addition) a few times, it seems your argument to oppose is not just that you think no TV is as important as American TV, but that no TV is important except American TV. To which I can only inform you that the British invented TV, and step back. Kingsif (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with the former statement but not the latter. Not sure how you interpreted my reply to mean that, sorry if it wasn't clear.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, no worries - and I'm glad I understand your argument now. A debatable viewpoint, at least. Kingsif (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support This is a major awards show (surprised it's not ITN/R as well) and there's a decent amount of prose on the ceremony. P-K3 (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support article is the minimum for an awards show and entertainment is sadly under represented at ITN. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support in principle, but for a couple of things: (1) why are the awards in the blurb those singled out ("Stath Rents Flats" is fucking briliant but no Chernobyl) and (b) there's not much prose in there.... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 22:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To (1), following the Emmy ITN/R instructions to post best drama and (scripted) comedy. Chernobyl won as best miniseries, which is also an Emmy category excluded from the blurb. It could be changed to say the three each won 2 awards? For (b), feel free to expand, I'm still working on it! Kingsif (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know how those categories were cherry-picked, is there a relevant discussion somewhere? And no thanks, I've got plenty of other things on my backlog right now, but all the best with your expansion.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 07:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * the earliest discussion is this one that you started after it was added without discussion. Interestingly, there is broad support in there to add the BAFTAs, too. Kingsif (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support ITN is not always about "disasters and stuff" and nice to show arts and entertainment kicking off again. Albertaont (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This seems to be little more than a clip show – self-congratulatory, self-promotion. Lots of shows and stars got prizes and the selection for top billing seems to be quite arbitrary – from the buzz I've seen, Glenda Jackson and Fleabag are the standouts.  I looked at the article to see who had made the selections but it doesn't say.  It also has a long list of recent deaths.  The entries are unsourced and include someone who doesn't have an article.  The closest thing to a source in that section seems to be a Youtube video. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're looking at but I added a source for everything. Edit: The In memoriam is a section that is standard for award show articles; as a montage shown in the ceremony it comes under PLOT, but I also added the clip of the montage for sourcing. This is a major award show, so you can get off that horse, too. Who made the selections? The British Academy of Film and Television Arts: it's literally in the name. Sorry, Andrew, but this is a very uninformed comment. Kingsif (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So I guess the Oscars are considered the same then Andrew? You  know who made the selections,  the clue's in the name: BAFTA.  If you want to find out the names of the individuals, go find them.  A long list of RDs is typical of all such ceremonies: the Oscars have been doing them for decades.  This is borderline Cloud Cuckoo Land-stuff.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 22:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Frankly, how bizarre. This article is attracting as much attention as the other currently-listed ITN articles, which is normally an argument propounded by Andrew, yet now he opposes this approach to a notable awards ceremony which our readers might well be looking to learn more about.  So much for  WP:TOP25 and the Daily Mail.... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 22:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The daily readership for this article peaked at less than 6K which is tiny for topics which are supposed to be in the news. Nowhere near the Top 25. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

*Weak Oppose Shouldn't this be a ITNR nom, since it is recurring? I don't think ITN should be a place for every single Movie awards ceremony, be it the Academy or Oscars, unless it is historical which in this case it is not. Will change my position considering other, more convincing, arguements. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, no remarks on quality since I haven't looked at the article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 11:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Kingsif. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, Dan, some corrections for your comments, which I write with the best of intentions: WP:ITN/R noms are for things listed at that page (arguably, the BAFTA TV Awards should be on the list, but there hasn't been a community discussion about it) not just any recurring event. ITN isn't trying to list all the film (and TV, this is TV) awards, don't worry (e.g. the GLAAD Media Awards happened on the same day, no nom), typically just the 'majors', which this is one of. The Academy Awards and the Oscars are the same thing. And well, this ceremony is historic if you count 'first during pandemic' and 'reopening of TV industry'. Kingsif (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Andrew D. I don't think this is a significant enough event to warrant posting. And if people really think it is, then have the proper discussion about getting it added to ITN/R. (And I'm obviously aware that ITN/R is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for posting, but just commenting that I don't personally think this one is quite there among the elite awards ceremonies, unlike the BAFTAs, Oscars and Emmy awards etc, and if it were then we probably would have added it by now.) &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Most ITNR discussions ask that the nominated topic first succeed with a regular ITNC nomination first. We used to write at the top of this page "Please do not oppose an item because it is not on WP:ITN/R." 331dot (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to add Amakuru, that your argument is you think it isn't the BAFTAs, Oscars and Emmy awards - which is valid, except, it is literally the BAFTA-Emmys. Kingsif (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Just because a recurring event is not listed on ITNR doesn't mean it doesn't qualify for ITN via an ITNC. This was in the news and the article is up to date. British television has worldwide distribution and importance, and the BAFTAs broadly have worldwide recognition. I would generally support blurb2 as most sources focused on Chernobyl's wins despite it not in the normal cats we recognize. --M asem (t) 16:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose If the problem with the Emmys was the bias of American voters, the BAFTAs could counter that with British voters. But they go a step further and exclude all foreign productions from consideration. This is a tacit admission that even with British voters, American programs would still win. Thus the BAFTAs establish themselves as an award for second tier programs by rule.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Except the BAFTAs changed the rules last year, so that the American co-production Killing Eve could be nominated; now most of the nominees (e.g. Chernobyl) are international co-productions (I think all American). So they fixed that. And anyway, the Emmys also exclude foreign shows except in their international category: you could argue that the Emmys tacitly admit they're second tier because foreign shows could win. Kingsif (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So is the plan here to harass every single editor who opposes your nom to discourage others? First, the Emmy's do not exclude foreign shows - that's an easily disprovable lie as there are several foreign productions in the top categories this year. Let us be more plain - we don't post the junior varsity champions. We don't post Greek Basket League or MLS. The BAFTAs are what you win if you want to get a job on a show that's eligible for an Emmy.  GreatCaesarsGhost   22:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Harass? Am I not allowed to respond to people blatantly being ignorant? Sorry, GCG, I thought you were reasonable. The fact of the matter is, like the BAFTA Film awards and Oscars, the BAFTA TV awards and Emmys have a massive overlap in nominees - e.g. the international Chernobyl - and we can still post both. You can't assert the BAFTAs are JV when they're just the Emmys, in London. It's ridiculous. Your argument was that the BAFTAs admit they are second string by not nominating foreign shows - something utterly false, and then you attack me for pointing that out. Thanks. Kingsif (talk) 04:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A) you've replied to every oppose. B) you refer to a difference in opinion on a subjective matter as "being ignorant." Yes, this is harassment.   GreatCaesarsGhost   14:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Because most of the opposes are "it's not American so it doesn't matter", don't mischaracterize my responses and ignore context for your own ad hominem attacks. Kingsif (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh my god, is this "my tv show is better than your television programme, so nah nah nah"?? Claptrap of the highest order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Rambling Man (talk • contribs)
 * Not at all, anonymous British person. It is that what is of local interest to you is not automatically important to a global audience. The BAFTAs are for all good TV produced in the UK. The Emmys are for that plus the TV produced everywhere else, including out in Hollywood where (shock) most TV is produced.   GreatCaesarsGhost   22:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That comment was left by TRM, by the way. Kingsif (talk) 04:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, unsigned, oopsie.  would do well to read what  has just written at the WP:ITNR nomination for BAFTAs to be included annually, just like Emmys.  There seems to be a lot of ignorance and nationalism going on, and at the very least we can address the former using facts as laid out by Kingsif.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Why is it ignorance and nationalism when an American minimizes a British nom, but completely acceptable the other way around? I raised rather valid objections, and was dismissed completely. Meanwhile, the supports are all "clearly, obviously" as if it's a fait accompli. I don't even feel that strongly against posting, but the rhetoric here is clearly in bad faith and uncivil.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. As notable as the Emmys on the global stage, given the worldwide distribution of many of the nominated programmes, and the dual-country productions that regularly appear nowadays. Should be run, despite some of the nationalistic nonsense which sees this as some zero sum game about “winning” something that isn’t being competed. - SchroCat (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb. The article is fine and I'm convinced that this meets the notability criteria. However, there's no reason to mention COVID in the blurb when it's already permanently featured in ITN. Also, the incorporation of the Craft Awards in the last blurb affords a good superlative, but makes it too verbose and confuses the bold link with a different awards ceremony. If Drama & Comedy are the prestigious categories, then the succinct "X wins a, Y wins b" is sufficient.130.233.3.21 (talk) 06:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not of global interest. Not notable to warrant a homepage news post. Also, more than half a week since the event - does not hold newsworthiness. Ktin (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Items don't need to be "of global interest" and you may not have noticed but three or four days is just fine for ITN inclusion: as long as it's not older than the oldest item up there, that position is baseless. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ready? While I oppose this nom, there seems to be sufficient support and the item is aging.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Stale. All items are newer than this one. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alan Parker

 * Support A few filmography refs needed, so best to wait for that, but otherwise well-reffed and seems detailed enough. Kingsif (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There aren't any gaps on the filmography: there is a link to the BFI at the top of the table that covers all his work. - SchroCat (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support with blurb. One of Europe's best directors in history. Would balance the current blurbs about scandals, civil wars, and scams. --Light show (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD that's good to go, feel free to continue chatting about blurb. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 17:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per the above.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Consensus that there are no issues with quality. Oppose blurb though, for obvious reasons. He made a few good films, but he's no Mandela or Thatcher. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Using the John Lewis standard, impact across the pond was not as great without any notable Academy Awards.—Bagumba (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not everyone feels that only political figures (ie. Lewis, Mandala, Thatcher) or political topics as in the current blurbs, should be more notable than great artists. Parker won many more awards than even Stanley Kubrick. --Light show (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I was alluding to the "standard" by which Lewis' blurb was ultimately pulled.—Bagumba (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly. This isn't about tit for tat, I will oppose British or American RDs equally if I think they don't meet the bar. Most people agree that the level of "fame" for old age deaths should be very high, but then start campaigning for a blurb when someone seemingly a household name comes up. The default is no blurb, and if we start from that point we'll keep it at the right level,as we have been doing quite well lately. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That seems to imply that people like Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, or John Lennon, who because they did not live to a ripe old age, would have been more likely to get a blurb. Then giving a 24-word blurb and portrait photo, for some little known politico like Najib Razak, simply because he was found guilty of a crime, might be hard to explain. --Light show (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * can you please explain to me how is significant outside of the UK? Even as a New Yorker who has watched tons of films and many UK films, his name only faintly seems familiar (maybe I'm confusing him with Peter Parker?). The reason Najib Razak has a blurb is because he stole RM 2.67 billion (approximately US$700 million) from the government. This sounds insignificant to you as a Westerner but for many in Malaysia and abroad, this is very big. I'm sure you would support a blurb for a conviction of embezzlement if it dealt with PM May of even Raab. Dantheanimator (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The Guardian obit above and the bio explains why Parker was a transformative influence to the cinema. He resuscitated movie musicals and broke down the barriers between the American and British film industries, among a few reasons. IMO he was among the greatest artists that Britain has produced in the second half of the 20th century, even above the modern canvas artists promoted to greatness by the auction houses. He was a director, not an actor, and like Frank Capra, created from his own ideas to present his own messages, not the studio's, and not just to entertain. But why I noted Najib Razak was because ITN blurbs seem heavily focused on politics, and rarely on the arts, which I feel is a mistake, and itself reduces the value of ITN. Countless RDs are posted of unknown people whose articles had received from 0 to 5 visits per day. --Light show (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As many users at ITN keep saying, if a user claims that their ignorance of a person is a reason for the person to not be notable, it just shows that the user is unfit to judge the person's notability. "But I haven't heard of him" is not a good argument. Kingsif (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * sorry about that. Yes, you are 100% correct, I remember GreatCeasersGhost brought up this point before in a previous discussion. As such I will change my stance to Neutral since I am unfit to judge this director. However, you should consider also changing your oppose to neutral since you opposition is just as flawed as mine, by saying that "if Kirk Douglas and Olivia de Havilland did not get a blurb, then Alan Parker shouldn't too." Dantheanimator (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I already did change to neutral in my response, you can read why below. Kingsif (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You have a comment after your oppose saying "I may change to neutral for a blurb". You should strike out the oppose because it looks and sounds like you still oppose. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

*Support RD per above consensus. Strongest possible Oppose for blurb I looked at his filmography... for a director he doesn't have many films and of his films, I know almost 0 (and I watched a lot of films). If this were to make it as blurb, ITN would have no value. Dantheanimator (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per Kirk Douglas and Little Richard, among others.  Calidum   20:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb (I'm not sure what the equity posturing above is, but Parker is not comparable to John Lewis.) Even with Parker's amazing and international filmography, entertainment blurbs have been given a high bar recently and it would be strange to post Parker and not Kirk Douglas, Olivia de Havilland, etc. ETA: I may change to neutral for a blurb because, re-reading my comment, I feel we may fall into a cycle of "X didn't get a blurb so Y shouldn't", which seems like an unhelpful standard to set. Kingsif (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not even Bugsy Malone? Evita? While I agree with the oppose, I must say if you haven't even heard of these you are not a film buff in the slightest. It would probably be a little far to ask if you've heard of Jaws, but that's the level they're at. And they're both American films, too. Kingsif (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The only film of his I haven't seen yet is Bugsy Malone, LOL. But I'd hesitate to compare his movies to Jaws or any of Spielberg's films, as big as they are. Parker's films were extremely personal, as he always dived deeply into the psyche of his characters. Even movies as different as Midnight Express and his next one, Fame, took the viewer into a highly personal world of the characters. Parker had tremendous respect for the average person, which comes out in most of his films. --Light show (talk) 21:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I meant as cultural landmarks, rather than style, but yes. Kingsif (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I watched Jaws at least 20 times if not more. I've heard of Midnight Express and that's about it of his films. I don't watch comedies that much so it would have been very odd for me to have watched Bugsy Malone. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support plus blurb. He got Bob Hoskins to tell us Bob Geldof was "a fucking artist". Unbelievable.    ——  Serial  22:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb It's going to be fucking lousy optics indeed if we blurb a film director but not John Lewis. WaltCip- (BLM!Resist The Orange One)  00:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Even without Lewis, no Christopher Lee or Orson Welles. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * RD only No John Carpenter or Gary Goddard. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) July 2020 Mars launch window

 * Support per my rationale below.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 23:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Consensus below seemed to be on waiting until they land, or reporting of a mission failure. I honestly don't believe we would have had a joint nomination for ITN had only Hope and Tianwen launched, so it still seems not NPOV and just another attempt to include Perserverance. Albertaont (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We agreed we'd post these as and when they land. The launches aren't particularly significant. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose again, thrice. Launches are humdrum, landings on Mars are highly significant.  February please.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 07:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support target articles are all pretty thorough, the launch window section of the exploration article does a decent job of explaining the subject. The reason three went up in short order makes sense, but it's still uncommon. It's a 7 month trip, so we can post again when they either blow up or show up. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per LaserLegs. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all three previous discussions. The spacecraft are of no use at all until they land/orbit Mars as planned. We can (and should) post these when they arrive. Launches are only a step in the process. Modest Genius talk 13:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) NASA Mars mission

 * Oppose recent discussions of Mars launches end up saying 'wait until they blow up or land'. Kingsif (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I've heard that this the first flying, portable drone sent to Mars but otherwise, is this any different than the last Mars missions? Seems to me that the hype is unwarranted. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Outside of a toy helicopter, this is the same mission and rover as Curiosity. We have litigated this to death with other Mars missions last week; wait until this lands, or "dies trying". Albertaont (talk) 01:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The helicopter will be the first time a powered craft has flown on another planet. I was surprised that it was possible with Mars's thin atmosphere and all.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I would like to see these on ITN -- what about a joint blurb with the other Mars mission(s?) launching at this time.  Nixinova   T   C  05:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This is the first Mars mission that is capable to find evidence of past life on Mars if it existed in an abundance similar to here on Earth about 3.8 billion years ago. Count Iblis (talk) 08:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We likely won't get any substantial results on ancient Mars life until the samples are returned to Earth, which will be 2029 at the earliest. Modest Genius talk 13:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A combined entry covering the launches of all three missions to Mars would be sensible. We should emphasise the current launch window for the Hohmann transfer orbit which is causing these to all happen at this time.  Focussing only on the US mission would not be NPOV. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose If ITN had decided not to post the other 2 on launch, then we're shouldn't be posting the 3rd one now. We can wait until they arrives now. -- KTC (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose wait til it lands like the other similar recent noms JW 1961   Talk  10:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I would support a combined entry for the different Mars mission launches as suggested above (assuming acceptable quality – I haven't checked), but I oppose an entry for just one of the launches – wait until arrival (which is WP:ITN/R). TompaDompa (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose rocket launches are very mundane these days, if it had exploded on takeoff or subsequently then it'd be noteworthy. What is noteworthy is when it arrives, so let's see the re-nomination in February! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 11:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait for arrival on Mars, just like the other recent launches. Modest Genius talk 11:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless we did a combined blurb w/ China's mission (There was a third, that was to happen but its slipping my mind). But as it stands it sounds like there's no support for any launch here, only the arrivals. --M asem (t) 13:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose – On grounds of encyclopedic equity. Since we didn't post the Mars lander launches of the UAE (July 19) or China (July 23), we certainly can't post this U.S. launch – at least, not without being justifiably accused of POV favoritism. All three probes are due to arrive at Mars in February 2021. Let's wait 'til then. – Sca (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support posting combined blurb for all three missions, we can also post landings but it’s unusually notable to have so many Mars missions in a span of weeks.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 18:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Renominate after arrival if still relevant. – Ammarpad (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

July 30
Only linked to not break transclusion limit: Portal:Current events/2020 July 30

(Posted) RD: Bob Dearing

 * Weak Support The article itself seems pretty decent.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Withdrawal of US troops from Germany

 * Oppose I'm no expert but given that the Orange Lie Basket may well not be the POTUS in six months time, this may literally never happen, right? Happy to look at it when it's actioned.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's not a total pullout. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Foreign policy posturing with no certainty that this will actually happen. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment article is atrocious. It's in the news though, would have supported. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think we need stronger evidence this has larger ramifications (without the media's CRYSTALBALLing here, we need evidence that it will). That's part of the problem with most stories around Trump that get nom is the claim "This is a big deal!" and yet we can't really back that up. --M asem (t) 23:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The US has troops stationed in over 100 countries around the world, including mine. Unless they are all being withdrawn, or at least those from a decent proportion of countries, it's not an appropriate item for ITN. Unless, of course, we want to see over 100 items in turn as they all get withdrawn. HiLo48 (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Comment If this actually follows through and some other EU countries (most likely Hungary considering Orban's support) join in, I'll consider changing my opinion. This might be the first step towards a EU army, which is huge deal if it materializes. Dantheanimator (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Hong Kong opposition disqualification

 * Comment a question really, is the disqualification of those who oppose the regime a new thing, or has it happened before? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems that in the previous election six candidates were disqualified for being pro-independence, but none for being pro-democracy. Someone who follows Hong Kong more closely can weigh in on whether this is truly unprecedented.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 21:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose China is a Communist police state. This is how they operate. In other news the sun is expected to rise in the east tomorrow morning. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * China is a police state, but it has not been communist since at least Deng Xiaoping.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 21:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * China might be, but Hong Kong wasn't. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  05:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Maybe would have been more newsworthy ITN today had Donald not TRUMPED it by suggesting that US elections be delayed in their entirety. Albertaont (talk) 00:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, that nom was snow closed in 23 minutes. We can keep this one open, maybe even stick it back into ongoing for two more months. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: I don't think we should have it on ITN now because more people are going to be disqualified today, and even more is going to get disqualified tomorrow. The final number is likely to be way higher than 12. It is likely for most, if not all winners from the winners of the primaries to get disqualified. I am not sure how big it is for the world, but in Hong Kong context, the disqualification of several conservative democrats (those from Civic Party and Kenneth Leung), is shocking. The disqualification of incumbent lawmakers is unprecedent as well. OceanHok (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support They now announced that they will be postponing the elections for a year and so an entry covering these controversial developments would be appropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Stretch to relate the delaying of elections to this. If they have already disqualified the candidates most threatening to the current administration, wouldn't make sense to delay elections for this reason. Elections in other countries have also been delayed to COVID, and there is a 2nd wave in HK right now bigger than their 1st one. Delay of elections needs to be discussed separately for ITN. Albertaont (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Andrew. A wider blurb about developments in Hong Kong would be notable. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nothing to see here, this is a logical enforcement action of the NatSec law. Those disqualified included pro-democracy activist Joshua Wong (from Reuters) – All one needs to know about the calibre of the 'disqualified' candidates, who are all too comfortable with violence if it suits their cause. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 14:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, it might be unsurprising given what we've seen from China, but it's not normal at least for Hong Kong. And this isn't just some local election in a city like NYC; HK has a quasi-international status. -- King of ♥ ♦<b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 15:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Notes: There is a separate article for the disqualification incident: 2020 Hong Kong LegCo candidates' disqualification controversy. OceanHok (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Current wording does not consider the fact that "traditional democrat" group have not been disqualified from running, nor even all the candidates in "localist/independence" camp. It looks like 12 of the total 31 democracy group candidates have been disqualified. If more are disqualified, then there is more support for ITN.104.243.98.96 (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We had HK protest on ITN ongoing for ages. The larger story here is that HK no longer has a special status, China will do as it pleases. I don't really care if we post it one more time or not, but posting each step towards authoritarianism is the exact same as the Trump-ticker.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lee Teng-hui

 * Support – Article text looks more than adequate, although some sections need documentation (or condensation). – Sca (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose article far from adequate, ten whole paragraphs without a single reference. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 16:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose till references have been updated. There are specific locations which require citations. However, I am suspecting that there may be a mix of referencing from further reading sections. Otherwise, article seems ok and has been largely stable and improved (after comparing the 2010 more citation tag revision to current revision). – robertsky (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Former presidents of countries go on this list Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not if their articles contain multiple BLP violations. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 20:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So if it was a stub without those problems, it would be allowed? Tell me what to delete and I will delete it. Tell me what sentnce to add a source to, and I can add it. What other Presidents who died in the recent past have been held up on this pretext? Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the article can be brief, but must be relatively comprehensive. Just deleting loads of it is not appropriate. Add sources to all sentences which aren't currently sourced.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, deleting unsourced material from Wikipedia is the only responsible course of action. If someone finds a source for something later, they can add that content whenever they find that source. The page should be ready now. First Democratically elected President of Taiwan (Republic of China) died, let's inform the people who look at the main page. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Should be a no-brainer given he was an influence figure and former head of state. Having an (subjectively) incomplete article shouldn't deter us from listing him on the front page. Also, article history suggests that people are actively trying to clean up the article (yes, I'm aware of editorialising, but this does not seem to be the case), so it should be sufficient in a few hours. In any case, this is a notable death. --AsianHippie (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose . Just as a note for the two !voters above, there is no need for us to argue about whether he's notable enough for recent deaths - all subjects with their own articles are eligible. The quality criterion is a bright line rule though, it can't be sidestepped just because we deem the person more important than others. Deleting prose isn't really acceptable either, unless you're sure it's wrong. As TRM says, go and find sourcing for what's there currently and then we can re-evaluate. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Clearly notable figure. Article doesn't look worse than some other past RDs. Would be of genuine interest to wiki users even if not perfect. Albertaont (talk) 02:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. I just added 7 sources to fill in the gaps.  — <span style="border:1px solid #93010b;background:#ef0000;padding:2px;color:#efe6e6;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em; font-family: Georgia;"> AjaxSmack  02:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose 10 paragraphs that do not end with a reference, some lacking a single reference. Stephen 03:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Has the situation been corrected with the additional sourcing? On what grounds do you oppose telling the readers he died now? Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * On the grounds of it being a biography with unreferenced claims. Stephen 04:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Such as? Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 10 paragraphs that do not end with a reference, some lacking a single reference. Do you not understand what that means? Stephen 05:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Changes have been made to the page. Are there any further obstacles to telling the readers that the former President of Taiwan died? Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Are there any remaining objections? Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your deletion of material from the article. Much of that material looks to be correct, and is important for the article - e.g. details on how he stepped down and who his successor was. We have established before at ITN that simply removing chunks of an article, even though they lack citations, is not a solution to objections raised here. Please go and find citations for the sections which are missing them, and than we can look again. As such, I still have to oppose for now. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I remain in objection while uncited claims are made. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 07:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As I have mentioned, the text is possibly supported by the book in the further reading section, judging from the preview in Google Books. I would like to do the citations myself today, but then the public libraries at where I am are closed for a holiday, barring myself from reading the book for the day. In the meantime, as many of us here have done so, we have been sourcing for alternative references to help support the claims here. Nonetheless, the parts of the article remains unsourced. – robertsky (talk) 08:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe it is morally unconscionable to add or restore material to a Wikipedia page for which you are not personally aware of the sources. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * uh huh. I have to clarify that I wasn't the one who added or restore material. Did you even take a look at the edit history and find out who did it? However, I support the reversion and here's my 2 cents' worth on the matter, the text had been largely stable for at least decade or so. I would have assume that if there were any disputes about the veracity of the claims in the text, these would have been trashed out somehow somewhen, but had not cited either properly or explicitly the sources of the claims, which lead to the appearance of the text being underreferenced. By default, we should try to fix the problem here, failing which, we then remove the unverifiable text. Earlier in this entry, I did mention that the text may be supported by the book in the Further reading section, and this was based on the limited preview I read through Google Books, thus reinforcing my view that the content referencing could be fixed. It is demonstrably fixable since the reversion of your content removal with the subsequent edits done by various editors to include references from various sources. – robertsky (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support All we're doing with an RD entry is saying that the person is dead and so that's the only fact that matters. More general issues of article quality are not the business of ITN.  If subjects are in the news then they will be getting lots of readers regardless – over 25K in this case yesterday.  In such  cases, Wikipedia therefore has to rely on its general policy of imperfection and the corresponding disclaimers which appear on the main page, just like every other page. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, BLP means we don't publicise articles about individuals completely steeped in unreferenced claims. It's very simple, and nothing to do with "imperfection". The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 10:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The article in question is vital and is grade B class, which is quite good by Wikipedia standards. Attempting to impose separate and idiosyncratic standards is absurd because readers can and do read the article in large numbers regardless.  The quality of the ITN section is reduced by such errors of omission.  If the casual reader should happen to notice that RD is snubbing this prominent figure they are likely to suppose that this is bias – kowtowing to the PRC by failing to recognise Taiwan or just failing to notice someone because they are not UK/US.  My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We discussed the "B grade" yesterday, remember? Anyway, WP:BLP trumps your concerns to rush horrendously under-sourced material to the main page of encyclopedia.  I'm not sure how many times we have to tell you the same thing.  If you disagree with how ITN functions, start an RFC to use it as a shop window for unsourced and sub-standard articles.  Until then, repeating the same argument time and again but doing nothing about it is a waste of everyone's time.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 12:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP is quite irrelevant because the subject is dead and the article is being read in large numbers regardless. All that's happening here is putting a brief link into RD so all this huffing and puffing is hyperbole. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you need to read the policy before making such erroneous claims. In fact, if ITN  was to follow your two main paradigms (1 – post popular stories irrespective of their encyclopedic value, 2 –  post articles regardless of their quality and verifiability) I think we'd end up with the Daily Mail on the front page.  Nein danke.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 12:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources supplied for this above are the New York Times; CNA; and Reuters. Simply providing a link to a death reported by these reliable sources is not a big deal. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You still haven't read the policy. Don't just cherry-pick.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 13:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Changing to support - I have found citations for almost everything now, and others have amended bits of text, also with cites, so I think this is finally ready to go now. I'll not post immediately, just in case anyone spots any lingering problems but marking as ready. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd say it's satis now, good work. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 15:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD - no objections after I marked it ready, and it seems that all reasons for opposing are cleared now. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Herman Cain

 * Oppose a couple of citation needed tags, otherwise seems satis. I wondered what happened to him, RIP. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , no cn tags left. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Multiple news outlets have now confirmed his death., , - Jgeorge20  —Preceding undated comment added 15:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Seems to be a direct result of the Tulsa rally. Sad! Davey2116 (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support x 9-9-9 p  b  p  15:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted by . The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 16:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Blurb? Not for his death alone, but for the fact that he is, I believe, now the biggest celebrity to die of COVID-19 who wasn't an octogenarian or otherwise already sick. BD2412  T 01:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutley not, particularly given there wasn't consensus to post John Lewis, who, in the same "field", was significantly much more influential. --M asem (t) 01:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * John Lewis was not a pizza lobby chairman. Herman Cain was not a civil rights congressman. But as old black cable news subjects, yeah, Lewis was bigger. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * He was a septuagenarian... -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  05:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You obviously don't rate actual world leaders... —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * according to the Burundian government, he died of a cardiac attack, not exactly COVID-19. However, if I remember correctly, the health minister of Zimbabwe died from COVID a few days ago. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) July 2020 Afghanistan attacks

 * Oppose - thanks for the nom, but the article isn't really in a suitable state for posting now. It has no lead and sections so is not really structured correctly, and also no proper prose - it's just a bulleted list of timeline entries. Also, I'd have to question the significance of it... regrettable though it is, unless I'm mistaken incidents of this nature are commonplace in Afghanistan. What is particularly notable about this one, compared with all the others at Category:2020 murders in Afghanistan and related pages? Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the article is really a list of discrete sentences. Out of curiosity, what's the relevance of the mountain image? ——  Serial  17:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The mountain image is an image taken from Ghazni Province, which where the incident occurred. I personally though put the image with the nom because I think it's just breathtaking and cool. It is one of those natural wonders you don't see often in my opinion. Dantheanimator (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping back. I've scratched my oppose as the issue I raised has been dealt with. I agree it's a great picture, but it's too tangential to the reader to be of any particular use to the reader, I'm afraid. (That's only my opinion though.)  ——  Serial  19:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Two stub tags are present at the bottom of this article. Also, there isn't any prose in it. --AlphaBeta135 (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 *  Weak Support This article now have proses and is sufficiently sized. However, the image doesn't really correlate to the attacks in Afghanistan .--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Updated my post after the image is gone.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Working on adding prose in the background section and modifying the format. Will try my best to make this a suitable article. Would appreciate assistance from any veteran editors. Dantheanimator (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait lets give the OP time to turn this into our run-of-the-mill disaster stub like the bus plunge or South Sudan attacks before shutting it down with a wall of opposes. Killing two Taliban leaders might generate a few paragraphs of prose. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "like the bus plunge or South Sudan attacks" You meant to say Sudan attacks, not South Sudan attacks. It a very easy mistake that I also made it lots of time before. I think it helps if you remember that Darfur is in Sudan and that Sudan has arguably more violence than South Sudan. Otherwise, I guess just think of the desert when you think of Darfur (when I think of desert, Sudan comes more naturally to me than South Sudan, which is sub-Saharan). Dantheanimator (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I also confuse the Carolinas. Sorry about that. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. :) I do the same mistakes all the time. Once last year in my history class I confused Siberia with Serbia lol. We all make mistakes, just human. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * ,, , , I fixed the lead and changed the timeline to prose. I think it should be now or near ready. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Pretty close. Try expanding the infobox with a map. There is an example here. If you have a quote from Ghani you can put it in a reactions section and it'll be good to go. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all the help and support! I added a map using your sample and a statement by Ghani. It looks ready. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Finished fixing and expanding the article. I'll remove the image since there is opposition toward it. It's a pity though, was hoping this great image can be displayed on the homepage. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support A string of attacks in short succession is probably notable article is as good as the Darfur attack. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose- Source does not demonstrate notability of the event. Not even the deadliest attack in Afghanistan this week, and just because it's the bad guys getting killed doesn't make it more newsworthy. Practically no information is available about the importance of these "leaders."  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 21:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * would it help if you compared it to the Darfur attacks (which are posted) or even the Anshun bus plunge? Regarding the info on the "leaders", I doubt the Taliban or really most if any "terrorist" organization would divulge that sort of sensitive info. If I made an alt-blurb that combined the Puli Alam explosion and this would you reconsider? Dantheanimator (talk) 03:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This particular attack was not covered in most major international news sources. That should be enough to disqualify it.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 20:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Close support for this will not develop anytime soon. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Donald Trump calls for the US election to be delayed indefinitely

 * Oppose a mere statement (on Twitter!) from Trump. Iff the election is actually postponed, that could be worth posting on ITN. Political posturing is not. Let's wait to see what happens. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose more nonsense from the orange wonder. Once it's postponed, we can re-visit. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 13:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose ITN is not a Trump ticker.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Huawei

 * Oppose we don't post "routine" business news. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 09:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment another one I'd be willing to consider with a better target article (maybe Smartphone) and a more subdue blurb. With respect to John we post routine sports, routine weather, routine politics, we can post routine business too if it's in the news and has an article worthy of putting on the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * With the exception of politics, we don't post "routine" (as opposed to recurrent) examples of any of those, just important stuff such as storms and championships. Likewise with business, this is material for Forbes and not the ITN section. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose trivia. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 11:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Far too limited of a market segement. If we were talking of all businesses regardless of market, maybe. --M asem (t) 15:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Apple, Amazon, Google and Facebook face anti-trust charges

 * Oppose we don't post Congressional testimonies; even if this were a court of law we'd wait until the conviction or plea deal. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 09:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment it's in the news, I'd be willing to consider it but the articles are huge. "Criticism of Google" has a dedicated article for goodness sake. If you want to start an article Endless whining about big tech by Donald Trump or similar and detail the years long saga, and write a less flamboyant blurb, it might stand a chance of posting. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppsoe realy? Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Legislatures around the world hear testimony every day. Nothing special about this one. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per John M Wolfson. Em-mustapha  talk  11:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose if they are convicted of something, let's post that. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 11:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Stonehenge

 * Oppose sadly much of the article is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 08:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Lots of projects have an interest in the topic and they mostly grade it as B-class which one would have thought was good enough for ITN. As the topic is level 4 vital, this is a good opportunity to push it up a level. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sadly no, the B class/"vital" level 4 is irrelevant here. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 09:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Compare with the current blurbs. 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal and 2020 Twitter bitcoin scam are C class.  2020 Darfur attacks is just start class.  Anyway, I found a few citation needed and I've taken care of them. The article now has over a hundred citations and a huge bibliography. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think Stonehenge would be a very worthy front page article link. But I guess the news story might be bigger if you live in Marlborough. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've proved your own point to be incorrect, we don't pay heed to the "class" or whether some individual has deemed it "vital", we look at the quality of the article standalone from those arcane practices. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 10:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well done Andrew for proving your own point to be incorrect. I often seem to manage that. But then I'm all too fond of those arcane practices. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose not particularly significant, although a good story. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 09:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Always great to see assonance on the front page. How about "The secret source of the stunning sarsens of Stonehenge suddenly shown"? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Question: has this research been published in a peer-reviewed journal? The Guardian story says 'published on Wednesday' but doesn't say where, and the BBC doesn't mention it. It's an interesting story, but peer review should be a minimum requirement before we even think about article quality. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Science Advances here. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Martin for those links. It's good that the paper was published under a CC licence so that we are free to read it for ourselves.  The authors were charged $4,500 for this publication so we should count our blessings that the WMF doesn't charge us thousands of dollars to publish articles in Wikipedia too.  We just have our own bureaucratic barriers to deal with ... Andrew🐉(talk) 12:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Thanks, that's a very nice paper and the results are convincing. Article quality seems fine to me - it would be nice if there were more explicit footnotes, but all controversial statements seem to be suitably sourced. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as trivia, except for Chevy Chase.  ——  Serial  12:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that the story does have a quirky US angle to it: "Employee Robert Phillips kept it in pride of place in his office, which he later took with him when he emigrated to the US, and its existence remained unknown for six decades." Martinevans123 (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose as a minor mystery solved but changes little of our understanding of Stonehenge. (I'd love a main page section that's not quite DYK, not quite ITN for these nice quirky tidbits, but this qualifies for neither). --M asem (t) 15:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This is fine ITN material of high encyclopedic value revolving around a resolved mystery summarised in a nice scientific paper. I wish we had more similar stories nominated for the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as per above. Comment If anybody is planning to ever go to stonehenge, I strongly advise you against going. The Avebury Stone Circles are older, larger, and cheaper than Stonehenge and are also located in the UK. Dantheanimator (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Handy alternative: can recommend a lovely field in the Savernake Forest. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I went to Stonehenge, got there early, was the only person walking around. It was beautiful and inspiring. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 20:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It is actually possible to see Stonehenge for free using a public footpath which runs nearby, if you're prepared to walk a little away from the nearest parking spots! I wouldn't agree that it's not worth visiting anyway. Avebury's nice too (I've been to both in the past) but it doesn't have the cross beams that make Stonehenge so recognisable... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is completely off topic, but I agree that Avebury is more impressive than Stonehenge. Nevertheless it's still worth visiting both - they're only a few miles apart and easy to visit on the same afternoon. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "Stonehenge B&B" at Slades Farm: reasonable rates. Hippies welcome. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Very interesting, thanks everyone for the insight. I personally have never been to the UK or Western Europe so I had no clue of their close proximity. Going to be honest though I still think Avebury's got more going for it. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Bah! Just a cheap imitation. Some of Avebury's stones are made of concrete! Martinevans123 (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised no one has brought up Castlerigg in all this. Nice and secluded. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment there are numerous unreferenced paragraphs, several unreferenced sections and multiple unreferenced claims. If we want to start using ITN as a shop-front for articles which need improvement then I'll support.  I don't think that's part of the current ITN criteria, so until then this can't be featured.  I realise there's a gut instinct to want to feature something as notable as Stonehenge, almost by default, but as we all know, the sheer number of refs is somewhat irrelevant when large portions of teh article have no references.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 20:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support- science stories are underrepresented and, unusually for such stories, this is of popular interest.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 20:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not front-page worthy compared to the scientific discoveries or revelations we feature - it confirmed a "suspicion" according to archaeologist Susan Greaney. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 11:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Outside of anglo-centricism, no relevance whatsoever for ITN. Does not advance our understanding of science or culture. To compare, Mars probes were 10x more interesting, and that was nearly SNOW closed.Albertaont (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Stonehenge is a World Heritage Site and so of interest to the entire world. And the estimate of 10 times is quite mistaken.  Consider the |2020_Darfur_attacks|2020_Twitter_bitcoin_scam|Stonehenge|Mars_2020|Perseverance_(rover)|Emirates_Mars_Mission|Tianwen-1 readership for the last week.  Stonehenge got more peak readership than any of the three Mars missions and more than any of the three ITN blurbs too.  ITN's selection of blurbs is of appalling quality, failing to reflect what's actually in the news. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that this should be accepted but can you please stop using page views as evidence? Also, there are many UNESCO sites around the world, no different with this one. There also much worser/larger stuff happening with other UNESCO sites, like Virunga National Park, a UNESCO cite in the DRC, which was attacked yesterday! I feel like your looking at the news through your own lens, maybe try looking it through some individual in the Eastern world and see whats in the news for them. It's certainly not Stonehenge or other Western cultural items. Dantheanimator (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

July 29
Only linked to not break transclusion limit: Portal:Current events/2020 July 29

(Posted) RD: Bob McCurdy

 * Support – looks like it meets the criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 10:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No opposition since someone else marked "Ready" ~48 hrs ago.—Bagumba (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Joe Kernan (politician)

 * Comment I have some concerns about the tone of the article which strikes me as bordering on a puff piece. I also note that while at first glance the article appears well referenced, many of the citations are to nakedly promotional sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per AO. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 10:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mike Gillespie (baseball)

 * Support Decent article and adequately sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a lot in the second half of the infobox that's not mentioned or referenced in the body, including awards. Stephen 05:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * added two sources to the infobox (end of the awards section). —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 06:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Malik B.

 * Oppose too short, no update on death, refs are bare urls/citations missing. When the article is improved, obvious support. Kingsif (talk) 01:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now per Kingsif. Needs work. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Perence Shiri

 * Support pretty well referenced article JW 1961   Talk  12:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, although some work on the prose would certainly be beneficial. Nice to have a Covid-19 good news story for a change! —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 😃 ——  Serial  12:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I think this is ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Gisèle Halimi

 * Comment – Orange-tagged. – Sca (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Also needs some ISBN's JW 1961   Talk  12:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ISBN's done, turned works into easier-to-read table w/ translated titles. PotentPotables (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Insufficient depth of coverage regarding her career/work as a writer.  Spencer T• C 14:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Andy Haden

 * Support Short article but all seems to be referenced well JW 1961   Talk  12:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article can do with expansion but what's there is solid. Very influential player.  Schwede 66  19:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this is ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The reference for cheating and unsporting conduct does not assign those terms to him. There's undue weight about a single event in a match against Wales, but next to nothing about his 40 other appearances for one of the most revered teams in Rugby.  Stephen 05:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. I had this tab open on my browser ready to look to support but it just didn't feel right, that an All Black with 40 appearances had such a one-sided article.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 06:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * just added 4 sources that assign the terms "cheating" and "unsporting". And most of them describe more than just that one incident against Wales. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That doesn’t solve the problem that not a single other match or tour is worthy of mention? Or his club career? Just a single match controversy making the majority of the content. Stephen 10:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * just added 5 more sentences about his other activities. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above. Needs a major rewrite, as it's completely unbalanced right now and seriously fails WP:NPOV and the WP:BLP policy. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * please have a look again at the additional material just added. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Regretfully, no, it's still an oppose from me. As I said above, it needs a major rewrite. A few tweaks aren't going to make this conform to BLP policy. Even the later years section seems to focus more than half of its prose on yet another "controversy" regarding his book. I've no idea of its history but the article's tone doesn't seem to square at all with the largely positive stories I'm seeing in the headlines. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Insufficient depth of coverage regarding his rugby playing career.  Spencer T• C 14:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

(Removed) George Floyd protests

 * Tentative oppose the Portland stuff is still very much ongoing from what I can tell on Twitter, but that is admittedly not the best source. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose With large events like the Floyd protests or previously the Hong Kong protests, where the event has gone on so long that there is a summary-style structure with subpages covering different facets/timeframes of the event, we have to look the updates at those pages, as the smaller details may not be appropriate to be adding to the main event page. As as pointed out, the Portland protests are still very much happening and ITN (as legal action is being taken). --M asem (t) 03:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * we have to look the updates at those pages -- is this an explicit Ongoing criterion? <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  07:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The ITN wording for ongoing says "In order to be posted to ongoing, the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information.". Common sense should be obvious that when the target article is so large (likely due to the longevity of the ongoing event) to have summary style breakdowns that the target article may no longer be the one regularly updated. This is, for all purposes, how the Olympic and World Cup articles are normally structured too. --M asem (t) 15:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The main article needs to be updated, which is exactly what happens with the Olympic and World Cup articles that we list in ongoing. Stephen 02:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The article linked on the Main page does not have any events dated later than 20 July. Stephen 04:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support and replace with an article on the ongoing situation in Portland. Banedon (talk) 04:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now Portland situation is still ongoing and still notable in ITN. 36.77.135.75 (talk) 04:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support If Portland protest lives, let's watch that. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support if "Portland protests" is so significant, let someone propose a blurb for it. This ongoing has expired. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 07:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So where are the updates in George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon? Again, no significant updates for anything in the last week? Stephen 08:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, per above. The continuing protests, by virtue of their size and extent, are no longer globally notable. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Clearly no longer "ongoing". – Ammarpad (talk) 10:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support long overdue --LaserLegs (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support It's not so newsworthy anymore JW 1961   Talk  12:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support - It's fair to say at this point the protests have become less about George Floyd and more about, rather paradoxically, the federal government's response to the protests.--WaltCip- (BLM!Resist The Orange One)  12:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Probably could've been taken down sooner. Awsomaw (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support no longer ongoing despite still happening. 114.125.237.107 (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems we have an overwhelming support for removal. Invisible Lad (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed -- KTC (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, let's focus on other things. Em-mustapha  talk  18:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * PR Support It's time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- Obviously given that it's been removed, my opposition is moot now, but protests are continuing beyond just in Portland. Last Saturday someone was shot and killed in Austin, while Seattle and other cities are still seeing action. --  Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  05:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

July 28
Only linked to not break transclusion limit: Portal:Current events/2020 July 28

(Closed) RD: Mo Gaba

 * StaleStephen 23:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John McNamara (baseball)

 * Support Looks like a decent article and adequately sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Reference [9] is dead, and supports at least one whole paragraph. Can a replacement be found? Stephen 05:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've replaced the dead URL with the new one (same source) and archived the latter. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I think this is ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD - I fixed a missing reference that was there, but otherwise fine and ready to go. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Reese Schonfeld

 * Support, but could do with some work on the prose. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this is ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support pretty well referenced JW 1961   Talk  12:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 19:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Conviction of Najib Razak

 * Oppose not important to posted at this place because it was only relate to a single country and no international significance. 110.137.184.3 (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support It is seems very important to be posted it on ITN because it is the first time that a Malaysian PM that be convicted. 182.1.229.226 (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – pretty sure this judgment will be appealed. If so, shouldn't we wait until all avenues of appeal have been exhausted? —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is news now, if overturned, that may be newsworthy on its own. --Tone 09:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The cause for conviction looks strong, and because other trials related to the scandal are also progressing separately, there might be few chances for appealing. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support we do in fact generally post convictions. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 09:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, per John M Wolfson. This is internationally significant. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose a quick scan of the Razak article shows enough unreferenced claims to pause a BLP. I hope someone has time to read it in detail (I won't today) and double check any exceptional claims before it's rushed to the main page. 1MDB looks ok but the timeline section is unreferenced (and for a subject like this, it adds value so please avoid scrapping it). --LaserLegs (talk) 10:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose bolding the bio, No Comment on the case 🌏 InedibleHulk (talk) 10:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per JMWolfson; even if it does go to appeal, it is the original conviction that is the first notable event, from which the others later stem.   ——  Serial  10:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for bolding bio, Support for elsewhere. While i disagree to have bio bolded in blurb, internationally significance event influence this to be posted. 114.125.236.57 (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Five years after the fact, this conviction is of doubtful general significance. – Sca (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In case you didn't know, the scandal was a big part of the reason why Razak's party lost the previous Malaysian election. Banedon (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support assuming we post convictions. If we don't then this should wait since Razak has already indicated he will appeal a guilty conviction. Banedon (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support As per John M Wolfson comments JW 1961   Talk  14:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as long as the Timeline on the scandal page is unsourced (it seems that should be easy to source reusing the existing sources on that page). This is otherwise hitting all the right checkboxes for posting - former world leader, conviction passed down (even though there will be an appeal), article quality otherwise is fine outside the timeline. --M asem (t) 15:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * have sourced for references for the Timeline section. – robertsky (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, nice job. Razak is still missing a few refs and bold or not we can't link a BLP vio from the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Is the "Background" section on Razak's article appropriate at all? That's material that should be in the lede, at least to a point, or as somewhere in the part about his period as a PM. I've never seen a Bio with a background section like that. --M asem (t) 21:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Using the Who Wrote That extension, I had checked for the specific edits and the accompanying edit comments: Special:Diff/633049206, Special:Diff/677870604, Special:Diff/848907379. It seems like the entire text in the Background section were written for the lead, until someone broke the lead up with this: Special:Diff/849312153. Reverting and rewriting in progress. – robertsky (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - I have to agree with Support here. This is significant.BabbaQ (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Significant as the scandal and his actions had affected Malaysia, and other countries. – robertsky (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Major story and both articles seem sound quality-wise.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Significant and important to a lot of people. I'd imagine all the American wikipedians here would almost immediately post the same thing if it concerned Pence. Dantheanimator (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support The 1MBD scandal has been a major case of corruption, this is a significant development therein. Gotitbro (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

July 27
Only linked to not break transclusion limit: Portal:Current events/2020 July 27

(Posted) RD: Frank A. Howard

 * Support Everything looks to be well referenced JW 1961   Talk  21:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) Blurb/RD: Owen Arthur

 * Support article looks good, you could suggest a blurb because of his influence in Caribbean politics, but I don't know if it would get posted. Kingsif (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The only barrier to that would be if the article quality is low and no one volunteered to fix it up. At glance, this article is not in bad shape. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have added blurb candidates.Joofjoof (talk) 03:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * His article does not do him justice: There is no mention of him being the 'architect' of CARICOM, nor have any great influence other than longest-serving. Most of the article is given over to opposition political machinations. Stephen 04:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If you need a source for some of his CARICOM contributions, Loop has an article. Kingsif (talk) 04:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The lede has been updated.Joofjoof (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Conditionally support RD, once his article does him sufficient justice, per those in the know. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support RD only a couple of unreferenced statements persist, the rest is satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 07:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks OK for RD. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD looks good to go there - neutral on blurb JW 1961   Talk  21:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD per others. Support blurb because of his importance. CARICOM is almost the equivalent of the EU in the Caribbean. Dantheanimator (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a comparison that's rather too flattering to CARICOM. Aside from the fact that it has a combined population that is significantly smaller than Benelux, it also has much more limited competences.—Brigade Piron (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * EU = 27 member states. CARICOM = 15 countries and dependencies (plus associate and observers, which are excluded from this count). Now Europe has 44 countries and the Caribbean (traditional definition) has 13 countries and over 13 more territories (so in total, like half of that of Europe). Taking this into consideration, the EU unifies as many countries in Europe (relative to the total number of European countries) as does CARICOM unifies countries/dependencies in the Caribbean (relative to the total number of Caribbean political entities). Comparing them based off pop. and size is misleading and fails to show the political reconciliation/unification that the organization has accomplished. Besides, as mentioned by Joofjoof, he's also the longest serving pm of Barbados, in itself notable. Dantheanimator (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted to RD Stephen 23:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per Brigade Piron. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 10:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral on blurb- clearly a transformative head of state, which is usually a good bet for a blurb, but the lack of international, in-depth news coverage may be a disqualifier. Major figure in underrepresented region is the kind of blurb I'm loath to oppose though.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 22:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, the New York Times ran an obituary after this article was updated. Joofjoof (talk) 06:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Darfur attacks

 * Wait – NYT says "some 120 said to be killed," BBC puts toll at 80. Given the region's long history of internecine slaughter, these rather sketchy reports would require further confirmation. – Sca (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose even by our standards the current article is too short - and filling it up with background and reactions sections won't help. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I've expanded and cleaned it up a little, including correcting dates; no background or reaction yet, but something on the War in Darfur seems relevant. Kingsif (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Still short but sufficient now, I'd say. A paragraph about the background is reasonable. --Tone 21:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support   unlike LaserLegs' continued pointedness, there is no background, there is no reaction, and yet it's more than a stub and thus meets our requirements.  I guess I've missed something else that can be sniped, but from my point of view it's ok, just a little brief.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Mind your WP:CIV. He was looking at a much different article hours before you.  GreatCaesarsGhost   23:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What, mind your own CIV. Sadly LaserLegs has recently taken to making pointed edits which is a shame as they strongly undermine his normal useful input.  If you  missed the related pointedness, please take a look at the Hanna nomination.  In the meantime, the moment I take civility lessons from you is the moment I quit Wikipedia, and that ain't gonna happen.  Cheers.   (And finally, the "version" LaserLegs was looking at had no such sections, did you miss the point?!) The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 00:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * At the time at which I reviewed the article, it was indeed a stub and rightly tagged as such. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And when I looked, there still wasn't a Reactions section and filling one up remains a pointless way to help, so good fucking job there, buddy! Not even sarcastic. I'd buy civility lessons from you before even asking TRM if he's open, for what that's worth. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * . The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 07:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * that's really rude. I get that Wiki is not censored but do you really have to curse? Your acting kind of disrespectful to us younger individuals! Same goes to you too for supporting such crude behavior and language. Your cursing just goes to show your limited vocabulary and lack of care for the innocence of younger individuals. Dantheanimator (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * please show me where I supported crude behaviour and language and apparently used "cursing"?  Is this some kind of joke?  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 23:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh I get it.  did indeed use the naughty F-word.  We're all grown-ups and can deal with that.  He then went on to suggest that he'd rather take social lessons from a user who I had suggested was being pointy, in preference to me.  I sarcastically applauded that.  He liked it.  And now you're giving it the "think of the children"?  I'm totally bemused by your behaviour.  Perhaps you didn't quite understand the nuances of communication here.  I'd be happy (as I'm sure InedibleHulk would) to take some time to step you through this discourse.  No-one died, a "bad" word was used once, but the context for it all was essential.  Give me a shout if you need some help with it all.  Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 23:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I was just about to post a apology when you commented again. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Dantheanimator (talk) 23:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, it happens. Cheers.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 23:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I wrote an eloquent apology, with some decent mitigating backstory and no profanity, but accidentally double-tapped my X button and lost everything, so #$@% it! TRM explained my innocence well enough, I'll mind my words when talking to you, Dan. Shocked and appalled to learn that applause was sarcastic, though, shocked and appalled. But really, I find it a bit disrespectful, rude and offensive to see young people called "individuals", especially repeatedly. I'm not hurt, just saying. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support it's in the news, it's a big deal for the region, and it's new (as compared to some of the items in the box). Banedon (talk) 01:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment This article got just 1,000 readers yesterday so I'm not convinced that it's really in the news. For comparison, there was a story about a St Bernard dog being rescued which got good attention and I see that the readership of our St. Bernard article has doubled to about 5,000.  So, the Darfur raid rates less than a shaggy dog story.
 * These numbers are quite small so I checked what our readership is actually reading. RDs dominate with Olivia de Havilland leading at about 500K.  But I was startled to see war pig in the Top 10 with 150K.  The flaming pig is a wargaming favourite but they date from the classical era and so don't usually appear in the news.  So what's going on?  My best guess is that it's due to this recent headline: War against wild hogs rages on across Oklahoma.  Feral hogs have been in the news for a while now as they are the vector for another pandemic – African swine fever virus.  Countries like Germany are building a wall to keep out the hogs while it seems that Canada has already fallen!  And even the English Channel won't keep the UK safe as the Goldsmiths are in the news for rewilding it by releasing deer and wild boar!
 * So, when you emerge from your lockdown seclusion – watch out for huge feral hogs – they are on the march!
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 07:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As ever, if you'd like ITN to become WP:TOP25, you'll need to start an RFC. In the meantime I think it's time to stop regaling us with these meaningless pageview statistics.  Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 08:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please abide by WP:POLEMIC, cheers. ——  Serial  09:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for teaching me "pigloo", though, seriously. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Post-posting comment – Still rather sketchily sourced; not much in the nooz. (Not an argument for pulling, tho.) – Sca (talk) 12:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Standard disaster stub. Few sentences about the attack, no details about the perpetrators. A year from now it'll look much like it does today with no follow-up and the only thing linking to it will be lists and infoboxes. Typical fare for ITN I'm afraid. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's comically similar to the "see also" article 2010 South Darfur clash which we featured at ITN, and has barely been touched since it was created in 2010. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment Thanks Kingsif and others for making this an actual readable article. Dantheanimator (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

July 26
Only linked to not break transclusion limit: Portal:Current events/2020 July 26

(Posted) RD: Edmund Ansin

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 07:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this is ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support looks good to go alright JW 1961   Talk  14:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 14:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hans-Jochen Vogel

 * Comment: I would have nominated him later, working on it. I just did a round of copy-editing so far, now comes the harder job of references, and I will have to go soon, RL. Help! - The German article is very detailed, but as usually without much referencing. We should at least get publications and some more awards over. He'd really deserve a mentioning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, a few unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 20:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support satis.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Inclined to Support, its down to 3 CN's, a lot of good work on improving this article today JW 1961   Talk  21:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please look again, cn gone, TRM. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 22:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Hurricane Hanna

 * Wait until the extent of casualties and damage is known. Only a category one but COVID may cause unusual impacts. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose no indication of any kind of consequences in the blurb, some unreferenced claims in the article, what makes this interesting to our readers right now? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 09:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in the news, decent article. Posting a storm during storm season does storm things is well established here. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not trying to be rude or anything, but didn’t you oppose Cyclone Amphan for the same reason why you support this one? Quoting you, you said "storm during storm season doing unremarkable storm things". Or maybe you're being sarcastic about supporting this one. Wait for both article quality to improve and disaster impact to be known. 45.251.33.222 (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Consensus was against me on that one, so I guess I was wrong. Let's see how consensus goes this time. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmmmmmmmmmm.... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 18:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait – Impact unclear. So far seems to be comparatively moderate property damage. – Sca (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait Was definitely not as strong as Harvey when hit, and while it was damaging homes and threatening flooding amid a COVID stricken area, a lack of significant deaths would make this a non-headline storm for us. --M asem (t) 13:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Blurb does not state the country in which 'Texas' is located. Chrisclear (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Are there other Texas's in the world that this would be confused with?(genuine question). Texas has an outsized profile and is well known in the world(as they say everything in bigger in Texas). 331dot (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding the first question - I do not know. My main concern relates to your second sentence. What exactly is the threshold for determining which geographic locations have an "outsized profile"? Couldn't we just make it easier for Wikipedia readers who do not live in the country in which Texas is located by naming the country in which it can be found? On a related note, if a weather event took place in Maharashtra, population 112 million, I find it hard to believe that it would be listed without a country name. Is it really that hard to do the same for Texas, which only has about 30 million people? Chrisclear (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not "hard" per se, but it seems unnecessary(though I don't "oppose" doing so) if there is no other entity named Texas that it will be confused with. Not every detail needs to be in the blurb.  That's what the article is for.  Texas might have less people than some Indian states but if it were a sovereign country it would have the 10th largest economy in the world.(according to Texas)  331dot (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no need for special pleading here.--WaltCip- (BLM!Resist The Orange One)  15:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Chrisclear shows up every time there's a blurb proposed for a US place that doesn't explicitly name the country (just search the archives). P-K3 (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * C'mon, everyone knows that Texas is in more than 15 American states! Apparently, Texas is in Texas!!! Seriously though, I support adding the country as well for the sake of uniformity and the fact that it sounds/looks better to me (same editor who first replied to LaserLegs). 45.251.33.220 (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * - it doesn't need to, per WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. Texas means the American State, unless otherwise defined. Mjroots (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment appears to be dissipating now, with a single fatality. Tragic while that is, this won't linger in the memory.  The archetypal ITN "storm in a teacup".  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 18:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Suggest swift closure before it starts snowing. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 18:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well this clinches it. If there's no "aftermath" section applicable, I'd suggest this is a non-starter, a non-event.  Time at the bar, ladies and gents.....  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * For the sake of social distancing, lads, I would actually suggest avoiding the bars if you can help it. WaltCip- (BLM!Resist The Orange One)  23:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's the first named Hurricane of the 2020 season, and that's notable. But Hanna formed, hit land, and moved across Mexico without doing anything notable or important. A Hurricane named "H" in July is notable, I concede. But Hanna has not caused (thankfully) enough damage or death to put it on the front page. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ongoing usually when a storm dissipates we move it to the ongoing section for a week while the aftermath section gets stale. It makes sense to follow the same established pattern. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how this pointy suggestion helps at all? There is no aftermath section, it's been removed because there simply isn't an aftermath to a non-event regular meteorological event.  Your original support was undermined from the start, by your own self-admission and I'm not sure what you're doing here now, other than making your own opinions less appreciated going forward.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 22:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose  seems to be a case of "nothing to see here" &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

July 25
Only linked to not break transclusion limit: Portal:Current events/2020 July 25

(Posted) RD: Eddie Shack

 * Support article looks in a reasonable condition to me. zhsdh &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Hockey bios tend to be under-sourced, but this one is in good shape. Teemu08 (talk) 04:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 07:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted to RD) RD/Blurb: Olivia de Havilland

 * Edit conflicted, beaten to the nom, SUPPORT. Mjroots (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted, GA, so the article is already in the prime shape. --Tone 16:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support and as a comment for the record, while the -ology on this page was not sourced, it is fully sourced on the linked standalone -ology page, which is also an acceptable way to do that, if that -ology page exists. The issue is usually (as with say John Saxon above) the main -ology table just lacks any sources. --M asem (t) 16:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well no, it's never good form to rely on a linked article to provide sourcing. There's no guarantee that the linked article won't be modified or even that those links are reliable, particularly problematic when we're talking about BLPs. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 16:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In terms of, say, a GA or FA quality and the permanency of it, yes. For the length of time an RD will be up, I think its reasonable, but obviously we could just copy the refs over easily. The issue we normally have is the absence of any references for the cast or creative participation anywhere in WP (or relying on IMDB or the primary source.). --M asem (t) 17:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really, whether it's a C-class or an FA, it's a BLP and sources shouldn't be relied upon in other Wikipedia articles. That's a dangerous argument to start propounding here as "reasonable"  or "an acceptable way to do that".  Verification of claims in articles should be in those articles and not relying on other  Wikipedia pages (Wikipedia is not RS).  For highly experienced admins to be suggesting otherwise seems like a huge problem to me.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting luvvie support. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , what is an "-ology table"? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Masem means "filmography" for instance (not -ology), we typically have massive tables of appearances which aren't referenced for these kinds of  BLPs.  As you  can see from above, there's some contention as to whether  references should explicitly be listed in the BLP (as is my  contention) or it's just fine to rely on other linked Wikipedia pages to find such sources (as is Masem's assertion, albeit just for ITN [which is a very odd transient approach I'm thusfar in 15 years  of being here unaware]). The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did mean -ography here, but my point on the sourcing was more in that, the usual RD from the entertainment side that gets here has hardly any of their -ographies sourced at all - on the BLP page or the separate page. I agree that the sourcing of the works on the BLP page should be there in the long run, but in this case the sources were all there in the filmaography page, so it would be trivial to bring them over to meet that, putting this article light-years ahead in that quality factor than others. It should still be done but I would not have made that an issue to at least pull the posting, but a recommendation before posting. But again - trivial here. The 99% of the RD of other entertainment and creative types just don't have that as astarting point. --M asem (t) 01:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Obvious PP Support for RD Also Support blurb as the last surviving star from Hollywood's golden age. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Perhaps the last icon of that age but not one of the top icons of it. --M asem (t) 17:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What is PP? I am guessing RD is recent death(s). Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * PP is "Post-posting." P-K3 (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb – Muboshgu (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Mjroots (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Inactive since 1988, despite lying infobox, more fondly remembered than influential at death. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per Ad Orientem. I just carefully read the entire article, and in my view de Havilland is clearly blurb-worthy. Her historic career spanned Gone with the Wind to Roots. Not only was she the last major survivor of the Hollywood Golden Age, and a top award winner including two Oscar wins, many other awards and international honors galore in retirement, she was instrumental in freeing artists from abusive industry practices via a lawsuit that is named after her, the De Havilland Law. The icing on the cake is the article quality, which we should be proud to feature on the front page. If they have not done so, I suggest opposers, and potential opposers, read her article in entirety for themselves. Today, July 26 2020, indeed marks the end of an era. Jusdafax (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It was a damn fine career, and left a good bio we do feature on the main page, just not at all an interesting death (her era died long ago). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Age 104? I find her sheer longevity interesting, and healthy to the end. May we all be so unusually fortunate! Jusdafax (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a long life; maybe should've nominated her 100th birthday, but too late now (Gail Halvorsen is creeping up, if anyone's interested). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Jeanne Calment did not star in her first movie until she was 114. She lived for over half a decade longer. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Aye, and if Betty White beats her time, I'll support her blurb, but 104 is 6% of a century short of even super old, much less duper. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb we don't just post very old people who died who were very famous a long time ago. Far from blurb-worthy I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb with regret c.f. my reasoning w/ Vera Lynn. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per the ongoing convo, I believe we're better off keeping blurbs to a minimum.  GreatCaesarsGhost   23:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. It seems paradoxical that blurb-worthiness should fade with age. If Sean Connery or Woody Allen or Meryl Streep lives to be 104, will we then say they are no longer blurb-worthy because their careers were in a different era? BD2412  T 01:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: John Saxon

 * Oppose dreadful condition, the "prose" is basically just the table written out. Basically no real critical commentary of the man, his roles,  his life etc.  Terrible. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;)
 * WP:SOFIXIT. 86.187.168.14 (talk) 08:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not interested in the slightest, thanks IP. Your contributions here are invaluable, by the way. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 08:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Stale Stephen 03:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Maurice Petty

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 08:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support this one looks ready JW 1961   Talk  11:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I absolutely hate that table. It just keeps going on and on to the right off the screen and is indecipherable to me. I know the motorsports people all have these. Can we at least collapse it? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry,, only saw your message just now. And thanks! —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted Collapsed the table myself. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * per MOS:ACCESS we shouldn't auto-collapse tables. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 00:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , oy, so we get that instead. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Green (musician)

 * Weak oppose - the "Peter Green Splinter Group" section needs help but otherwise it's practically good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 23:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose at the moment; big chunks of unsourced information in "Fleetwood Mac". I look forward to seeing this up eventually, "Albatross" remains a favorite. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added some more information from the NYT obit, and tidied up some of the referencing. Harrias  talk 13:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Much improved - I think this is ready now.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Azimzhan Askarov

 * Support satis. Good, even. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 15:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 17:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

July 24
Only linked to not break transclusion limit: Portal:Current events/2020 July 24

(Closed) RD: Regis Philbin

 * Oppose there are a good number of un-referenced claims. Maybe my colleagues could refrain from piling on opposes right away, and check back in a day to see if the article has improved any. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose roughly 80% is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 22:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Eh, we almost made it two hours. 75.188.224.208 (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Always happy to return to re-visit. Also I trust several of our admins here to understand when an article is ready to be posted. Cheers IP, do come again. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 23:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Abstain An excited manner and New York accent are hardly his trademarks, a gimmick as old as television. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that the ownership of those characteristics (who created them) doesn't matter. Those are things that he can be easily recognized for having, regardless of who created those characteristics or how long television has existed. He was a television host known to have those characteristics, . (for the record, I am not voting. Just making a counterargument to a weak oppose vote. The rest have basis, the article could use some work. Therefore, this is a Comment.)DrewieStewie (talk) 04:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If I asked a hundred people to name a witty, excited New Yorker and even a quarter picked Regis, I'd be amazed. It's too generic to claim, even rhetorically. Biting the heads off bats, wearing a meat dress or playing guitar in Times Square are distinctive elements. But yeah, a "weak oppose", I could have said. Fair play on crushing it! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Referencing improving; looks like 4 CN tags and an unreferenced discography section, and then it should more or less be good to go.  Spencer T• C 05:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rene Carpenter

 * Support. Quality looks fine, and she had an independent media career in addition to extensive coverage as Carpenter's wife so doesn't seem much danger of an afd for WP:NOTINHERITED. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 08:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * . El_C 08:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jerry Taft

 * Support Short but looks well-referenced. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 17:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting weak oppose Per the lede, he's notable for being a meteorologist but tbh there's very minimal information about that in the article beyond being called "one of [the Chicago Tribune's] favorite weathermen" and being the second most popular meteorologist in Chicago in a poll.  Spencer T• C 23:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think he had an independent career as a meteorologist, he used that skill entirely through his weather presenting (and possibly also through radar work with the air force), so I don't directly agree with Spencer's objection. However, what does concern me is that there's no mention of when he was elevated to chief meteorologist and really no detail on any aspect of his career in that role, other than a few anecdotes and tributes. I tried to find some detail online and really struggled, so this info may not be readily available. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Benjamin Mkapa

 * Support: The article is reasonably extensive and well-sourced. I hate the "Honours and Awards" section in principle (see WP:TRIVIA) but it's no basis not to post! —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have issues with the corruption accusations noted in the Presidency and Post-Presidency sections. First, Clare Short defended the spending; this reads that she criticised it. Second, we need to say who is doing the accusing - the opposition, the media, int'l authorities, etc. Finally, the shortness of the article creates WP:BALASP concerns because so much is tied to corruption.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've clarified that Short was criticizing the deal with BAE systems for military aviation equipment (i.e. "the latter purchase"), and not the purchase of the presidential jet. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support In good shape, balanced and cited throughout. - SchroCat (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Would like a bit more lead, and not so many flags, but no reasons not to support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks OK. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 17:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

July 23
Only linked to not break transclusion limit: Portal:Current events/2020 July 23

(Posted) RD: Dick Bond (Kansas politician)

 * Posted Stephen 01:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paulette Wilson

 * Oppose no way a fair use image of someone who died five days ago should be permitted. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 23:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, so the image has gone, but we still can't have stuff like "...the human rights failings caused by the Home Office hostile environment policy..." in Wikipedia's voice. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 08:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * All sources, including several parliamentary reports and internal Home Office investigations acknowledge that the Home Office denied British citizens their legal rights. I will attempt to find a more neutral, concise way to frame the fact that the Home Office -by its own admission - fucked up big time in the way that it implemented this policy. Pincrete (talk) 08:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've modified that last sentence to read "… the Home Office failings in its implementation of the hostile environment policy". I don't think anyone would dispute that implementation failed.Pincrete (talk) 09:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. I've removed the image, and otherwise it looks good enough to me. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks much better now. – Ammarpad (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Stuart Wheeler

 * Support satis on the face of it. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 15:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks OK. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go JW 1961   Talk  16:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support satis. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

July 22
Only linked to not break transclusion limit: Portal:Current events/2020 July 22

(Posted) RD: Stanley Robinson (basketball)

 * Support All there is pretty well referenced JW 1961   Talk  07:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support bit proseline but hey, what's there looks satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 07:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Operation Legend

 * Oppose We can't post every crime Trump commits or there will be no room for the Ashes! But seriously- this is small potatoes in 2020.  GreatCaesarsGhost   22:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a federal crimefighting effort, the likes of which America has never tried, not a petty Trump crime. This thing is doomed if his name's in the blurb. Especially if LeGend's isn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You know the Brits are never going to allow this.  GreatCaesarsGhost   23:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As long as the Iroquois Confederacy stays dead and buried, viva la revolution! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Alt Blurb InedibleHulk (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose having decided to keep the George Floyd protests in ongoing, I think we should decline this as well. If we remove the George Floyd protests from ongoing then I'll support making this a blurb. Banedon (talk) 00:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per above. And a better time to post would have been when the Portland situation got out of hand, now it's just a footnote to that disaster. When the protesters start properly fighting back, that will probably get a blurb. Kingsif (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Alternatively Support Ongoing Whatever is escalating here, all signs and sides point to the horizon, as if to say nothing has been settled yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Part of the existing ongoing protests for all purposes. --M asem (t) 01:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment:   Not sure if you know, but the operation is not related to the protests directly. It was implemented because of the reported increase of crime throughout the United States.--WMrapids (talk) 01:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Also the Chicago kind, which just never seems to decrease. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Most of the media are tying the launch of the program to the protests including what has happened recently in Portland, considering the remarks made by Trump in the days leading up to this are based on the gov't response to Portland, and the cities where this is being targetted looking to take similar responses that Portland and Oregon did to restrict the gov't actions there. Yes, on paper its seperate, but its not being treated that way. --M asem (t) 02:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it the same "most of the media" that routinely attempt to assassinate the president's character and don't care if some other guys run the agencies responsible for this U.S. operation? If so, they're partial and heavily "on paper". These ongoing events are separate in fact (though admittedly concurrent). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The President scarcely needs help from the media in assassinating his own character.--WaltCip- (BLM!Resist The Orange One)  16:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support: Though some of you mistakenly state that this is related to the protests, the operation is intended to be separate. With the United States deploying federal agents throughout their territory in response to increases in crime, this event should qualify as being notable. The US government does not deploy federal agents to combat crime on a nationwide scale very often.--WMrapids (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - A Nixonian election-year ploy. WaltCip- (BLM!Resist The Orange One)  02:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all. A de facto part of the protest stories, which we have (and should have) in Ongoing. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Walt and John. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 07:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment did anyone actually read the article? Operation Legend is a typically cynical and reactionary move from the Trump administration but is not the secret police action in Portland. The mayor of KC asked for assistance due to non-protest related violence. Also oppose for that reason. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * While on paper it has no ties to Portland events, it is being connected by the media and analysts to it based on the line of statements made by Trump and actions taken. It would be inappropriate, per UNDUE, not to acknowledge this connection even if its not explicitly stated. --M asem (t) 16:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Walt and John. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Grand-standing response to the George Floyd protests. If something major happens as a result of this operation we can reconsider; simply deploying some federal officers is not enough. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Full of sound and fury, signifying not much. – Sca (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Change to diplomatic immunity UK-US

 * Comment. As I understand it, the loophole has been closed only for US staff at RAF Croughton where there was a "special arrangement" in place. Although Dunn's parents see this as a minor victory, the case is far from resolved and the true news item will be if and when Sacoolas returned to the UK to face trial. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * and p.s. Jonathon Sacoolas is described as a "CIA operative" rather than "a diplomat", which suggests polite tea and scones at the Embassy. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's the beauty of his disguise, it's supposed to suggest whatever people think it should. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose much like the Universal fire, not something of major significance. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * a) why would you bring that up here, b) you think the universal fire was insignificant?!  GreatCaesarsGhost   22:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * a) Just something off the top of my head that I remember was discussed and rejected here, and b) in the grand scheme of things, yes (though the artistic destruction was regrettable). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose too minor. Today's news is dominated by other topics - Covid, upcoming US elections, US-China tensions, etc, so even though this is technically international it doesn't get much coverage even in the countries it affects the most (i.e. the UK). Banedon (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, it was the top news story in the UK yesterday. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 07:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support decent article, in the news, truly shady behavior from the US on this one. Relevant because of the US-UK special relationship. This has been a year in the making which means all other efforts to achieve justice had failed. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Doesn't rise to the level of a global-impact transformative story IMHO. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose this most definitely received huge coverage in the UK and little wonder it's been "overlooked" in the US because of the "shady behavior", allowing a woman who accidentally killed a child to escape completely free under a technicality. Disgusting, but as noted by Amakuru, probably not in the top 1000 encyclopedic news stories of the year, although only just not.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 10:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Tragic death and a silly loophole, but the number of cases that will be affected by this legal tweak is miniscule. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Far below the significance threshold. – Sca (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charles Evers

 * Notable Names Database is a deprecated source, and is used five times here. I believe it needs to be replaced.  GreatCaesarsGhost   22:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the NNDB source and verified information with reliable sources. The only verification I can't find is his induction into the Rhythm and Blues Music Hall of Fame. Yoninah (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I found this list of 2017 inductees which seems complete and does not list him. I checked 2016 and 18 for good measure, and no dice. Removed from the page. G2G.   GreatCaesarsGhost   01:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support all looks satisfactory JW 1961   Talk  07:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 07:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Andrew Mlangeni

 * Mostly ready. One concern is uncited fact that he was born in Soweto. A named source says he was born in Bethlehem and raised in Soweto. Easy fix, but I'm not sure if there is any question on this point?   GreatCaesarsGhost   15:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Did some more digging, and not seeing Soweto anywhere. Changed it, now ready.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Support Good nomination.Sitaphul (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Looks pretty good. – Sca (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tim Smith

 * Very sad news. Cardiacs were a unique band, and there's not many times you can say that. Working on the cites now ... Black Kite (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I think I've cited everything. It probably needs a bit of polishing but I think everything important is there.  Probably will be able to improve the sources a little when the extended obituaries come out. Black Kite (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficient.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Houston Chinese consulate closure

 * Oppose per obvious reasons. Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose standard sabre-rattling performance. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 10:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Incredibly minor news. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It is the top news item of CNN, BBC News and Financial Times at time of this comment, and excluding COVID updates generally the top item in American sites. Not exactly "minor". Juxlos (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

'' 13:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support in the news, stubby but good enough article. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Political posturing over unspecified "egregious behavior." – Sca (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I don't know if this sort of symbolic posturing has any long-term impact. I think the minimum ITN would consider for an escalation is a partial or total trade embargo between China and the U.S..--WaltCip-'' (BLM!Resist The Orange One)
 * Snow Close - It might be important and significant to the US, but does not relate to the whole worldSitaphul (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Sitaphul, you make it sound like it only affected one country... Howard the Duck (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 India-China Skirmishes

 * Oppose posturing and bickering aren't skirmishes. The article is huge with the usual background and reactions filler. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * LaserLegs, I think you might not be well-versed with the topic. 20 Indian soldiers and an undisclosed number of Chinese soldiers died in the border skirmishes. I believe that it is not just posturing and bickering.Sitaphul (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Sitaphul, the actual confrontation last month where 20 Indians and several Chinese were posted. Now I dunno if an additional 20 Indians and more Chinese died since then... the article isn't updated to state that fact. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Howard the Duck No, an additional 20 Indians and Chinese didn't die, I request you to check the attached news article.:)Sitaphul (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * we're not here to check the attached news article, we're here to check the Wikipedia article that's the whole point. If the last skirmish was a month ago, then the skirmishes aren't ongoing now are they? --LaserLegs (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Sitaphul, this is a nomination for ongoing item. ITN has already reported on the prior skirmishes -- there are no actual armed confrontations since late June -- at least this is what the article's "Incidents" section says. You may not be well-versed with ITN. Please take a look at what "ongoing" means at WP:ITN. Then follow up on me once you do. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose We already reported this as ITN during initial clashes. This does not meet the criteria for Ongoing as there has been no military engagements since.  Recommend for speedy close Albertaont (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

July 21
Only linked to not break transclusion limit: Portal:Current events/2020 July 21

(Posted) RD: Annie Ross

 * Oppose as noted, most of the latter half of the article is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 07:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I got the discog and filmography. There are a few inlines still needed that should all be covered with the sources already there.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:49, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I got everything now.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good work improving this articles referencing JW 1961   Talk  16:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Good to go now.BabbaQ (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 23:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lalji Tandon

 * Weak oppose some unreferenced claims in a basic article. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This seems significant to add Sitaphul (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you please a look now.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support looks fine  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Object the article is rather incomplete and lacks basic details. He was an MP in the parliament of the largest state in India for 31 years (about 200m people in today's terms), including 4 as opposition leader, but all we have is 3 lines with a list of offices occupied. It then states he was a minister in a coalition government without saying when this power-sharing occurred or the background behind it, and says he was a minister under Kalyan Singh, without explaining what and when, and there is no details on policy. There is no detail on the motivation or background behind him switching between the different houses of parliament, and state and federal politics, and apart from an accident and one line on unviersities, nothing on policy Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted, a basic referenced article is sufficient. Extended analysis can be added if you wish. Stephen 23:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Hostage crisis in Lutsk

 * Oppose - not seeing this as of huge global significance right now. In the unlikely event that it all ends in a tragic killing spree then we can re-evaluate. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, at this pt. sounds like a wacko. – Sca (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Wait - not sure if notable enough for ITN (yet). We should wait for it to resolve -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  15:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Gunman surrenders, hostages unharmed. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Sca and wouldn't be surprised if this fails to meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia, let alone be featured on the main page. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

(I know this is closed but are we sure we really don't want to post this now? :) Hostage siege ends after Ukrainian president endorses Joaquin Phoenix film --M asem (t) 04:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Francisco Rodríguez Adrados

 * Oppose for now - article is technically just over the stub limit, at 1630 bytes of prose size. But almost half of the content is devoted to the "Awards" section at present. It needs more prose in the "Career" section, because that's what he is notable for. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's 285 words. – Sca (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose as it is a stub. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support- I combined smaller sections. I think it just clears stub class. TJMSmith (talk) 22:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Seems sufficient. Above comments state this is a stub as if that were a fact. My understanding is that the stub designation is subjective.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Object Clearly this learned fellow was notable for his scholarly achievements, but it would be an important aspect of the article to exhibit what this is. The article simply says he is, without explaining what his contributions to the field were. It just says he is an expert, and the prizes and academies indicate this is true, but it doesn't say how he moved the scholarship forward Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Short, referenced, can be expanded as you see fit. Stephen 23:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2021 ICC Men's T20 World Cup

 * Oppose Outside of the Olympics the postponement of any events at this point is old hat and covered by the COVID banner. --M asem (t) 04:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ditto InedibleHulk (talk) 05:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Postponing event now is just the norm. It's just another routine news – Ammarpad (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Snow close We have a nice list of sport events that were postponed due to the COVId-19 pandemic. There is nothing special that makes this one more important than all other events.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-close comment - thanks for the nom Abishe, appreciate it, but I would have put an appose here, as per the above.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

July 20
Only linked to not break transclusion limit: Portal:Current events/2020 July 20

(Posted) RD: Hal Bernson

 * Weak support article is a little bit dismal, but not so bad as to prevent it from scraping across the ITN line. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 07:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shane Tuck

 * Honours section needs cited. Otherwise ready.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Done, reused from profile pages in the main body Bumbubookworm (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Ultimately this is fine. I had to do a little cross-referencing to parse that business with the 2nd-5th place finish in the B&F being named for other players. This is not in the references, which is sort of confusing.  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Roy Den Hollander

 * Support: This is a tangible, unusual and very compelling event, surrounding two prominent individuals.  D ÅRTH B ØTTØ ( T • C ) 19:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just FYI notability is not at issue for RD nominations. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support well cited most everything that is in there JW 1961   Talk  21:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Does not seem to pass WP:CRIME or WP:1EVENT. Absent a single alleged criminal act, this person would not (and did not) have an article.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC) Withdrawing oppose, as this is moot with the AfD.   GreatCaesarsGhost   22:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Feel free to WP:AFD then. Until then, notability is assumed by the existence of an article. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 07:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 *  Oppose for now  I usually make the same "then AfD it" counter argument. However, the recent murder suspect just doesn't meet WP:SUSTAINED yet. Is there enough coverage before the deaths to disprove this?  As this is ongoing, I dont think an AfD is worthwhile yet as 1) his notability might be established in a few more days 2) this might be notable as a murder article as opposed to a bio. Note that WP:ITNRD requires bios for RD.—Bagumba (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a bio and it's not listed for deletion so its notability is currently established. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 08:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I just redirected it to Salas article precisely because of the notability issues. All relevant content is covered there. --Tone 08:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Some past sources identified below. I'm striking oppose.—Bagumba (talk) 09:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment People keep saying notability is not an issue for RDs. This is a misreading of the consensus, which is that the standard for RD is no higher than WP:GNG. The notion that reasonable objection to a subject's notability requires an AfD nom has never been agreed to. On the contrary - nominating an article at AfD while an article is nominated for RD allows a single editor to unilaterally torpedo the nom. This is clearly detrimental to the project, so per WP:IAR should never happen.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, misplaced AfDs can be speedily closed as keep, so that should not be too much of an issue. In any case, no AfD is needed here as a more elegant solution exists (a redirect). --Tone 11:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, suggesting articles are somehow immune from regular Wikipedia process simply because they are nominated at ITN is clearly inappropriate.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 12:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And until last year, we had this message clearly on display in the RD template:  Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD..  Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 12:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * With due respect to Tone, and per WP:BRD, I have reverted the decision to redirect. The subject has plenty enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, and although per WP:NOPAGE and WP:BLP1E it might be appropriate to host coverage of him as a sub-topic of some other page, Esther Salas's article doesn't seem the best choice to me. Moving the article to a dedicated page about the attacks would be the better way to do that, if there were consensus to do so. Either way this should be settled at AFD, and until someone actually nominates it there, it is expressly still eligible for RD per In_the_news. The existence of the Wikipedia article is sufficient unless it's been nominated for deletion. The message TRM mentions should be restored, because that was what was agreed at the RFC, not for us to have our own mini-analysis as to whether GNG is met. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, the way I see the AfD process is that the nominator seeks deletion, not a redirect or merge (which is my preferred outcome here). But I don't mind starting the AfD, shall we? --Tone 12:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * that's entirely up to you - I can't stop you starting the AFD smiley.png. On balance my preference would be (1) retain the article as is, and (2) move it to a new title focusing on the attacks, in that order, with merging to Esther Salas and deletion as options I wouldn't be in favour of. But as far as I know AFDs are permitted to find consensus for any of those outcomes, so participants could all weigh in as they see fit. Cheers  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's run it. Articles for deletion/Roy Den Hollander. --Tone 15:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. Well I guess that pauses this nom for the time being then. If the AFD happens to be closed as a speedy keep, then this might come back into play, otherwise I guess this is toast. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, if will look like a speedy keep, will be happy to withdraw the nomination myself. I consider this more of a procedural move because I am curious about the outcome. --Tone 15:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - all of the boxes at In_the_news are met, including article quality, which conforms to the 2016 RFC on the rules for RD. And as mentioned above I've undone the bold decision to redirect the page. If someone later decides to nominate it for deletion then so be it, but for now this is good to go and this is not the forum to argue about GNG issues. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality is fine. The subject meets GNG and was notable before the incident that led to the creation of the article.P-K3 (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – The good thing about obscure, insignificant RDs these days is they don't stay out there very long. Meh. – Sca (talk) 13:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support once the AFD is closed (looks like snow) this should be posted immediately. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 09:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. I !voted above so I'm WP:INVOLVED. But now that the AFD has been closed as keep this doesn't seem controversial at all, as there's full consensus that quality requirements are met. He won't be up for very long, as he's second bottom already, but better late than never! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Michael Brooks

 * Oppose too many [citations needed]. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 07:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The refs have been added, good work. Davey2116 (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing removal: George Floyd protests

 * Oppose Very much ongoing. I assume much of the updating has been to sub articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I had a discussion open for a month to amend the OG criteria to include "sub-articles" which got no traction. If you think a "sub-article" is getting sufficient updates then nominate it for the box instead. Right now there is no consideration for "sub-articles" it's completely made up. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support removal three days ago it would have been easy, but dispatching anonymous federal troops to arrest protestors is shocking. Still, the article itself has gotten stale and there wasn't much going on before the Portland debacle, and if a "sub-article" (whatever that is) has meaningful updates regarding Portland it may qualify on it's own for a blurb. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , DHS is going into Chicago too. We can update the main article if that's what it'll take to keep it up, but this situation is escalating. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * See, Legs, I told you Crime in Chicago was the ongoing story of our times. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support removal while There are many protests that still ongoing, these protest is still needs to add to sub articles. Per Laserlegs stats. It may be information about how many to dispatched troops to blurb. 114.125.246.192 (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment There have been updates to George Floyd protests. We can add more there. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per recent developments with federal forces. I might support iff that becomes a blurb, but this ought to stay on ITN. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment All these developments and yet there is no event in the article dated more recently than July 14, more than a week ago. Stephen 00:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support removal it's sort of dropped off the news. Developments such as federal involvement feel more suited to their own blurb than to ongoing. Banedon (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. The protests are still going on very strong, across the entire country. I'm literally watching protests in St. Petersburg, Florida, Chicago, Austin, Texas, and Denver. And in Portland particularly they've been extremely violent. Last night, there were at least 2000 people protesting by the Federal Courthouse. They then gassed them (yet again), and much of downtown Portland was thick with tear gas. Perhaps renaming from "George Floyd Protests" may be appropriate, though. It's beyond that now. --  Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  01:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose yet again. Clearly with the Portland situation very much in the news and threats this may go to Chicago and morph into something else, its nowhere close to done. Editors need to understand a topic that's been going on this long will have many sub-articles and the main topic article may not be updatded daily because the events are not sufficient to that top level one. --M asem (t) 03:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If the events are "not sufficient to that top level one" then they're not sufficient for ITN either. Sub-articles exist to cover topics in greater detail than will fit in one page, but the main article is still the top-level summary of all major goings on. So if current events aren't going in at the top then either this is no longer top-headline news, in which case it's removed, or the article is stale because it's not been updated, which also means it's removed, on quality grounds. So stop lecturing us on what you think "editors need to understand", and actually go and update the article if there are still significant things going on. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not how summary style works for a topic that runs this long. There has been updates - the stuff happening in Portland - to the main article when they first started but given the weight to which all past events of the protests have been covered in that main article and how the sub-articles cover the details, it would be inappropriate and undue to push the day-to-day details of the Portland protests to the main article just to appear to satisfy this "main article is kept up to date" standard. At this point in time, the main article should not be expected to see day-to-day updates for any aspect because of that just being undue, only updates from slower shifts even though there can be day-by-day events covered in the sub-articles. --M asem (t) 13:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose A much stronger case for its removal could have been made even a few days ago, but we are now seeing front page coverage in both Canada and UK of developments in Chicago, Seattle, and Portland. A cursory glance at European and Asian news show this is still being covered actively. This should be reviewed in another 2 weeks if protests truly peter out. Albertaont (talk) 04:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Here in the UK I've not seen any coverage of the protests for several weeks, let alone on the newspaper front pages. Remember the major news websites tailor the stories shown on their home pages based on IP geolocation. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose We left the Hong Kong protests up for weeks after they finished in June. In the same instance, there is no indication that these protests have actually stopped, although the daily shootings and riotings have reduced.104.243.98.96 (talk) 04:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose George Floyd protests, for one, is ongoing. Per WP:ITN, this is not older than the oldest blurb, which could warrant removal.—Bagumba (talk) 11:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Heck no. There's a story to be told here, not just in the protests but in the disproportionate federal response to it.--WaltCip- (BLM!Resist The Orange One)  12:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support removal unless the article is updated. If there's something newsworthy still happening, then update the article accordingly with citations so we can judge their impact. Otherwise there is no case to answer - articles must be continually being updated to stay in the "ongoing" slot, however many "oppose" !votes this nom gets. Much as the protests are probably still going on, and not much concrete action has been taken yet to rectify the issues being protested about, that's not the way ITN works. And much as I support the aims of the protests myself, we aren't here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Portland situation shows it is still ongoing. Subarticles are being updated.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant. Unless the main article, the one linked from the main page, is being updated, it is not eligible for "ongoing". If you want to change the rules then propose that. Or else update the article itself with the Portland protests so we can judge their impact. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking at In_the_news, it doesn't actually say anything about when an ongoing item should be removed, only when it should be posted. That probably needs clarifying.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I guess that's a fair point. It has been suggested above that the HK protests remained up long after they'd actually stopped being in the news, so perhaps there is some uncertainty. Or else we just stick to our usual custom of just muddling through based on the consensus of those who show up at the discussion, as we usually do at ITN. smiley.png &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not a fair point, it's pedantic beyond the point of usefulness. Anywhere discussing "adding to ongoing" can be reasonable read as "existing as a link in ongoing" without losing intent, meaning, or usefulness.  Any article which would not qualify to be added to ongoing should not be kept at ongoing.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not pedantic, we have myself, Masem and others arguing that updates to subarticles can be a substitute for updates to the main article, while others arguing it cannot. This needs clarifying. I find it odd that there is no mention of a removal process - does there always have to be a nomination, or can an admin remove obviously stale ones by themselves?-- P-K3 (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If subarticles (a fantastically imprecise word, I must say...) are being updated, then nominate those for swapping in. We do, from time to time, swap an ongoing link from one article to a more relevant article.  That solves the problem admirably, and does not require someone to click through a random link in a large omnibus article to find relevant content.  We're discussing this article, not an article I can find from a link in this article.  If you intend for us to highlight text from a different article, nominate that instead.  It's not useful for us to review every possible related article.  Again, as a topic there is no problem with including this in ongoing.  It's a real thing, that is really happening.  Ongoing, however, is not "news you can search for outside of Wikipedia to find good information".  It's "here's an article with updated information".  That an article, with no good information, links to one that does, is irrelevant.  If the information is not in the article under discussion, either a) add it, or b) change to the article we should be reviewing.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In this case, swapping to a subarticle like George Floyd protests in Portland won't solve the issue when the troops are deployed to Chicago, because then we'll have to add George Floyd protests in Chicago. Not to mention, Trump specifically namedropped New York, Detroit, Philadelphia, Oakland, and Baltimore as other targets for military occupation peacekeeping forces. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Davey2116 (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose leaning support within a day or so, if the article is not updated significantly. The last meaningful new events in the article itself date to July 14, which means that for about 1 week, no new significant events have been added to the article.  It is hard to argue an article is adequately covering an ongoing event if the article hasn't covered any events which have happened more recently than that.  If we keep this, someone who wants it kept should go in and update the article to reflect the events (i.e. the Portland information cited above from the past few days, which is not in the article as of me writing this).  The "ongoing" section is not for "news you should be reading about outside of Wikipedia to find good information about".  It is for "news you can find in Wikipedia".  If you can't find the ongoing information in Wikipedia, then it shouldn't be highlighted in Ongoing.  If it should be in the article, add it to the article before arguing it should be on the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Updated I added a sentence about the DHS plans to send 150 federal agents to Chicago. I included the date of the report, July 20, so now we can stop talking about this being stale just because the article isn't being updated with proseline. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment If the federal troops involvement gets its own article, I would support putting that as a blurb. Currently, because there's been an update, oppose removal. Kingsif (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , the article is Protecting American Communities Task Force. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The protests still make some significant news from time to time. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 16:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Masjid Mubarak Begum

 * Oppose on article size, notability (as an Indian I had never heard of this mosque till now) and the fact that many international news sources don't seem to have written on this. Maybe WP:SNOW? 45.251.33.54 (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's difficult to argue that partial damage to a building would warrant posting when that building didn't even get an article until it was damaged.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * On second glance, it does not appear to pass WP:NBUILD or WP:GNG.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Total collapse of a 200-year-old mosque, sure. Three domes down, aged 199, probably. A majority of 1822 domes, not likely. One measly third of a 197-year-old ornamental structure, no way! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, blaming it on the rain is hardly fair. The other two got the same amount, no problem, as did most buildings. I'd suspect a preexisting frailty, if anything. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 Assam floods

 * Oppose Article is a stub, lacks crucial details, and is woefully outdated. The most recent source cited in the article is from 14 July. Furthermore, the blub, as currently proposed, is far too vague and sensationalistic.--Tdl1060 (talk) 08:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub and appears to have been ongoing for quite some time so would be a more likely "ongoing" candidate. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 11:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose When a natural disaster takes substantially longer to kill drastically fewer people than a homemade bus does a few towns over a short time ago, the affected geographical region is doing alright. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Checking news sources, this has to be an India-wide flood coverage., CBS News (notably "In the wider region, including eastern India, Nepal, and Bangladesh, this year's monsoon rains and flooding have killed more than 200 people and displaced 4 million. That toll includes 67 deaths and 2.6 million people who have been displaced in Bangladesh." And this is definitely better as ongoing at this point. --M asem  (t) 21:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And to be clear, even with a good article, this cannot be merged with the China flooding ongoing, they are in completely distinct regions (not like border neighboring areas). --M asem (t) 21:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Proposed an alt blurb which is more in-line with standard ITN posts. NorthernFalcon (talk) 03:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb depending on whether it's "over", Ongoing doesn't seem too appropriate. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ruth Lewis

 * Support seems ready.Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support looks good to go. TJMSmith (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This has been marked ready for 21 hours.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

July 19
Only linked to not break transclusion limit: Portal:Current events/2020 July 19

(Posted) RD: Jack McIlhargey

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 06:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. There were one or two small fixes remaining, but I have done those and otherwise all good. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Emirates Mars Mission launched

 * Wait per the nom below. Kingsif (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "not piggybacked on someone else's spacecraft" but it did piggyback on someone else's rocket, and it was built by Americans in the US. I'll admit ignorance of the field, but this doesn't really strike me as a indigenous launch.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support & Comment There seems to have been consensus to post AFTER launch occurred, per original nom. Sorry to GCG, but it was built by emirates, albeit with help from American universities.104.243.98.96 (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is just not true - it was built by LASP, using their people. The UAE people "helped" but were really there to learn. UAE deliberately choose to leverage existing technology and experienced foreign engineers rather than homegrow so they could advance their program faster . It makes a lot of sense, but it does make this launch less substantial as a native accomplishment.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait for landing arrival Hardly a mission to Mars if you don't reach Mars, and right now, Dubai hasn't. Seeing a spacecraft leave Earth is mundane now, cool fifty years ago. Not sure "interplanetary" needs saying. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Minor point: it's an orbiter, not a lander. It still has to fire its engines to enter that orbit when it gets to Mars, but that's far less technically challenging than landing on the surface. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's hardly minor, I'd have waited forever! Thanks for the tip. I'll try to watch the skies more closely in the future, at least before actively judging the inhabitants and norms. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The Chinese spacecraft to Mars is supposed to launch in 3 days (orbiter/lander/rover), and then the US spacecraft is supposed to launch 1 week later. The fact that there will be 3 spacecraft from 3 countries launching towards Mars around the same time will definitely be ITN, we should do a short blurb for UAE which will then be modified to include the chinese and american spacecrafts when they launch.104.243.98.96 (talk) 03:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting launch and will support posting arrival (successful or, ʾilahat forbid, unsuccessful). The other nations listed at timeline of first orbital launches by country launched missions on home-grown rockets, from "home", and carrying loads developed at home. This is not on par. In Wikipedia time, 7 months is not too long a wait. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait until it arrives at Mars, per WP:ITNR and the previous nomination just a few days ago. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Mars and Earth are aligned for Hohmann transfers and so, as said above, there are multiple missions launching now -- UAE/Japan, China and the US (the EU mission is delayed). A combined or ongoing entry would therefore be appropriate.  See C Net and Popular Science. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as noted above, launches into space are now commonplace, actually succeeding in mission objectives less so. Post it when it gets there. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 12:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Coffee&Crumbs. The significance of this event appears to be overstated, as the spacecraft was primarily designed in the US and was launched from Japan. The UAE is really just organising and funding the thing. If it reaches Mars, then post that per usual practice. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous two. It ain't over. – Sca (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted ongoing) 2020 China floods

 * Support and the only thing on the article quality would be the excessive amount of proseline in a few sections, but otherwise sourced and ready. --M asem (t) 22:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support important and satis; proseline is suboptimal but not disqualifying. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 11:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. --Tone 11:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) (Stale) Tolulope Arotile

 * Oppose per criteria: Articles that are subject to serious issues, as indicated by 'orange'- or 'red'-level tags at either the article level or within any section, may not be accepted for an emboldened link. ——  Serial  14:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Stale, as she died on the 12th and the oldest RD at the moment is from the 15th. Also, AfD does not help, though it will likely result in keep. I suggest the DYK approach here, the article is long enough and new enough. --Tone 16:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Arguably, death was on the 14th BBC) but with reporting the day after, the 14th would be considered the post date and thus this remains stale. --M asem (t) 16:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

July 18
Only linked to not break transclusion limit: Portal:Current events/2020 July 18

(Closed) Nantes Cathedral

 * Oppose – Lacks general significance. – Sca (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Lack of general significance a fire of a cathedral and its suspected criminal origin? Come on!
 * Preceding comment posted by Alsoriano97. – Sca (talk)
 * Lacks broader significance; appears to be a parochial event. – Sca (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose The source provided is clear that the damage was negligible.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose fails the Notre Dame test. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 19:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose No apparent connection to the early Norwegian black metal scene (plus above reasons). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support It may not have any connection to the early Norwegian black metal scene, but it is part of a recent wave of attacks on Catholic churches . While this cathedral may not rise to the level of notability of Notre Dame, the fact that authorities are treating this as a deliberate act does increase its significance.--Tdl1060 (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Connecting it to others ITN already ignored decreases significance by association, though. Luckily for you, the "wave" is said to exist in the US, a whole ocean away. This doesn't have to be washed out with those. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * None of these other incidents occured in a 15th century cathedral, and most were not arson, so I would never expect any of these other incidents to be considered by ITN. I'm sure none of these incidents are even connected. My comment about the recent wave was merely in response to your citing a lack of connection to the early Norwegian black metal scene as a basis for opposing.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK. I misread that this act gets its significance as another deliberate attack on a Catholic church. If someone commits arson in a 15th-century stone temple in North America, that would certainly be huge, regardless of denomination. But in Europe, even 300-year-old organs aren't so rare. If a representative of any musical genre opposed to church music is arrested, I'll reconsider, even someone who just prefers Anglican or Orthodox tunes. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not major damage, not the Notre Dame. Kingsif (talk) 05:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Anti-terrorism act of 2020

 * Support: This act has drawn strong condemnation, both domestically and internationally, from a wide assortment of politicians, NGOs, religious organizations, and media outlets. It is certainly consequential enough to warrant an ITN post.--Tdl1060 (talk) 08:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose both in newsworthiness and target article quality. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 08:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The prima facie argument is this allows anyone to be detained for three weeks without charge or warrant. That seems pretty huge. Common sense and history (both in this country and others) tells us these provisions are created to abuse dissidents. What's the counter argument- that the Philippines is too far gone for further action to be noteworthy?  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per 's two counts. FWIW, re. detained for three weeks without charge or warrant. That seems pretty huge; in which case, they're 14 years behind the Brits' 28 day-detentions. ——  Serial  14:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The Brits have been at this game much longer than that, but agreed- this is a good example of a country that used the premise of anti-terrorist action to detain and intimidate political opposition.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose rendition flights and Gitmo don't count!! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 11:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Count as intimidating political opponents? I wouldn't think so. Though the current invasion of Portland certainly would.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the indefinite arrest of individuals without charge. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 14:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Guantanamo Bay, anyone?--WaltCip- (BLM!Resist The Orange One)  19:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for reasons stated above. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not ITN worthy. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  19:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Haruma Miura

 * Weak oppose for now. This article has been greatly improved since nom, but there is still too much unreferenced in the filmography and accolades sections. --Tdl1060 (talk) 07:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Striking my previous opposition. Support now that the problems with referencing have been taken care of. Kudos to User:Lullabying for their hard work..--Tdl1060 (talk) 09:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I spent the last two days searching for references and rewriting this article completely; I also removed non-notable roles that couldn't be verified anyway. and, please feel free to reconsider. lullabying (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose not good enough. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 08:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Filmography refs are a burden each RD post must carry. Kingsif (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posting now that the tables have been thoroughly referenced. --Tone 09:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ekaterina Alexandrovskaya

 * Support. Notability: 2017 World Junior champion, 2017 Junior Grand Prix Final champion, 2016 and 2018 Australian national champion. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 09:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is of good quality and has been updated to the past tense. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Notability is not at issue for RD nominations, as every person with an article is presumed notable enough for RD. This discussion is only to evaluate article quality/updates. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have updated my comment. — UnladenSwallow (talk) 09:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose I'm seeing a handful of unreferenced statements in the prose.  Tragic death. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 09:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks fine to me. Putinism claims another victim --212.74.201.229 (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Preceding comment the only post from this IP address. – Sca (talk)


 * Support Article is well written and there don't appear to be any remaining problems with referencing.--Tdl1060 (talk) 04:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: Article seems in excellent shape. The second death to hit the Australian Olympic community this month adds to its notability. --Light show (talk) 06:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: Referencing issues dealt with. MurielMary (talk) 09:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Barry Jarman

 * Oppose much unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 07:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article needs a lot of work with sections, references, etc.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 15:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Still needs work.BabbaQ (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose For now, still too much unreferenced, might change as Australian daytime just about starting JW 1961   Talk  21:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Seeking attention Considerable work has been done to this article since the preceding comment. HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Much improved, but there remain several unreferenced statements.  GreatCaesarsGhost   23:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Then please stick some cn tags in there to help those of us who care. HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Now referenced. Seems enough? JennyOz (talk) 07:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 08:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

July 17
Only linked to not break transclusion limit: Portal:Current events/2020 July 17

(Posted) RD: Zizi Jeanmaire

 * Support Good work with the article. ——  Serial  15:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good shape.--Tdl1060 (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This article looks ready to go to me JW 1961   Talk  22:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed)(Blurb pulled) RD/blurb: John Lewis

 * Support the only problem with the article is one citation needed tag in the SNCC Chairmanship section, but that can be easily fixed. To think that only six days ago he had a false death report. - Jon698 talk 3:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Also the obvious tense problems that come with death. --M asem (t) 03:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * However, I oppose blurb here. The death was not a surprise (he said since Dec he was on such a watch), and while an important civil rights figure, he does not carry the type of weight in the overall field of politics that would make him one of the top of the field. We may be a bit sensative to civil rights issues at the current time to think this might be important, but we to step back and recognize he was beloved, but that's not the same as top of field --M asem (t) 12:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , being one of the six in the Big Six (activists) says he was at the top of his field. And that's without considering his importance to Congress. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support So sad. Article is pretty good; the forthcoming obits should be able to patch the few missing cites. Would support blurb too. Davey2116 (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Question Are we sure that it is true this time? He just released a press release earlier today according to hit site https://johnlewis.house.gov/, none of the sources say where they got these reports, and he was wrongly reported dead last week.  All sounds fishy to me. 131.93.247.66 (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, his office and other sources are all confirming. And yes, he just has a PR out today, which is why this was sudden. --M asem (t) 03:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * He was reportedly in hospice for quite a while, so I don't think the previous reports were pulled out of someone's behind as much as they just jumped the gun. Nohomersryan (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Right now I think the tense of his article has been updated by me and a few other people. - Jon698 talk 4:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Apparently only one updater can be listed, but great work has been done by User:JTW1998+ and User:Randy Kryn - Jon698 talk 4:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Got 'em up there now. Nohomersryan (talk) 04:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support, and he and C. T. Vivian should go on together and aside each other. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: Multiple sources are now confirming this, including CNN, Fox, NYT, WaPo, and many others. I only see one CN tag at this time, I'm sure we can address that promptly. KConWiki (talk) 04:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose there's not doubt he's dead, but several uncited claims in the article means it's not ready for posting. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 07:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Death is confirmed, and article is "of sufficient quality". -DePiep (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose if you consider unreferenced paragraphs and quotes to be of "sufficient quality" then yes. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 09:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * None now remain. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Strongly support blurb He helped found the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Commission (SNCC) and served as its chair during the height of the Civil Rights Movement. Spoke at the March on Washington, was the last of the "big six" Civil Rights Leaders alive. Is known for marching and facing a beating at Selma, activism that led to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. As a member of Congress, he was a major force responsible for the National Museum of African American History and Culture. -TenorTwelve (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, once fully referenced. Only five two cn tags now remaining, none controversial. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support with blurb, now fully referenced. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Strongly support blurb He was one of the "Big Six" leaders of groups who organized the 1963 March on Washington, played many key roles in the Civil Rights Movement. AbDaryaee (talk) 10:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD only —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support looks good. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD once the issues are resolved. Oppose blurb. An important figure in the civil rights movement no doubt, but not at the level of worldwide transformative that we blurb for. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD only Looks ready. P-K3 (talk) 11:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support full blurb but RD is better than nothing. Something like "American civil rights movement leader Rep. John Lewis dies at the age of 80" or the like?  Short and simple?  SnowFire (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support full blurb Looks will referenced. KittenKlub (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb – Together with Vivian, this is worthy of a blurb. I suggest:
 * Congressman John Lewis and minister C. T. Vivian, Freedom Riders and leaders of the civil rights movement in the United States, die at the age of 80 and 95, respectively.
 * I also created File:John Lewis and C.T. Vivian.jpg. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support this, an accurate and timely blurb. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd support that, also. ([The US loses two icons of the civil rights movement in one day])Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * While there is a certain romanticism to the coincidence, I don't think it reflects well on us to dabble in such sentimentality (shades of Fisher/Reynolds).  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support blurb Understanding that Lewis' was not just someone who made his mark 50 years ago and continued to live. He was a major world leader in the field of Civil Rights advocacy for close to sixty years.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD only – oppose blurb. Man dies at age 80 after eight-month battle with cancer. (His notability was mainly historical.) – Sca (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * He was still in Congress when he died so "mainly historical" is inaccurate. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Although I support a blurb, even dying in office as a member of congress doesn't make someone notable enough to be on the front page. Otherwise we'd be constantly listing members of legislative assemblies who have died in office. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  02:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted RD, the article is in a good shape. I don't yet see a consensus for a blurb. --Tone 14:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per rationale from AbDaryaee. Subject is of importance. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 16:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Strongly support blurb this does not need further explanation. A major figure in the Civil Rights movement and a man who truly shaped American history for the better Zingarese talk  ·  contribs  17:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb per Coffeeandcrumbs -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  18:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb as he ain't getting a state funeral. Invisible Lad (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment we've done very well recently, resisting the temptation to blurb deaths just because the people concerned were famous and/or involved with great things. Kirk Douglas, Vera Lynn, Daniel arap Moi, all major figures (and I initially posted Moi, a two decades leader of East Africa's largest economy, but the community decided be didn't reach the threshold which is fine but tells us clearly where the benchmark lies). Lewis was a US civil rights hero, and it's right to honour him, but for all that he's still just one hero amongst many, not the single transforming Mandela, Thatcher or indeed the Martin Luther King which we would post without hesitation. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Fully agree with this comment; I didn't nominate this as a blurb for pretty much this exact reason.Nohomersryan (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * For the love of all that is holy, please stop including Thatcher in such high company.  GreatCaesarsGhost   22:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Although to be fair, a Western state leader whose death provoked spontaneous street parties in their own country was always going to get a blurb. Black Kite (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not saying I liked Thatcher, or that she was the Mandela of 1980s Britain or anything. But this isn't supposed to be a popularity contest! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If we're not aiming for popularity, I'll admit that as a white Canadian child of the '80s, even Nelson Mandela has never seemed particularly amazing to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. per Amakuru. Awsomaw (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support C&C's alt blurb. -- Tavix ( talk ) 02:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Upgraded to blurb. Numerically, it's close but support for a blurb is slowly but surely ahead. None of the arguments on either side have stuck out to me as particularly good or bad, so we are going with the clear numerical majority. Not enough people have commented on the double blurb with C. T. Vivian, so leaving him off for now. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 03:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If we're doing a blurb include Vivian as well they both seem notable enough. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb He was a Freedom rider (which the blurb doesn't even mention), but this doesn't rise to the level of well, Mandela, a comparative figure. He wasn't Mandela, and is basically unknown outside of the US. Even I first thought of the founder of the department store when I first read the name. I might give a blurb weak support if it mentions Vivian and the Freedom Riders, but neither death was unusual and they weren't international figures. Kingsif (talk) 04:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Even as guy who didn't think Mandela and Thatcher deserved blurbs (retired people always die at the end), they were both way bigger than Lewis in political change, per their articles. Nothing weird about cancer at 80. Congresspeople aren't that crucial, outside their district, so incumbency at death means little (unless one pulls a Mauril Belanger, getting work done from the grave). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "Octogenarian whose primary notability was six decades in the past dies of natural causes" is unlikely to be one of the half-dozen or so most significant deaths of 2020. Pull. —Cryptic 06:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per Amakuru, among others. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Civil rights is a very broad category and this person doesn't seem to fit there very high given that the he's never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize or the Sakharov Prize. By the way, I don't know how this did get a blurb when there are more oppose votes.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per Kingsif. Not an international figure.--Tdl1060 (talk) 07:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb per Amakuru. The death did not even happen under controversial circumstances. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 07:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per Amakuru. Come on, this is getting silly now.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 08:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Pulled. The consensus seems clear after posting(and IMO perhaps even before) that this should not be blurbed, so I am pulling it. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per above. RD is fine. -Ad Orientem (talk) 09:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment However you feel about this particular nom, to post and then pull such a significant figure in the days after his death is unseemly. The comments in this nom are nauseating (many are dead wrong - "primary notability was six decades in the past"?!). This seems to keep happening - the best solution clearly is to just stop having blurbs.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Lewis is arguably better known today than he was 20 years ago, due to his March comics - which are widely used in classrooms. Many kids learn about Lewis in school. Zagal e jo^^^ 13:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-pulling comment – While I opposed the blurb above (and haven't changed my opinion), I agree that pulling this now is amateurish and potentially offensive to interested readers. Gauche to say the least. – Sca (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: J. I. Packer

 * Oppose much of it is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 07:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've done some work in the article. It should be good to go now.? Awsomaw (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to oppose this. I was just going to ignore it, but then everyone else did as well, and I must take their silence to be a choice like mine. I feel the article is too dependent on sources that do not appear to be reliable and independent of the subject. The Gospel Coalition is used for many facts and looks too close to the subject (WP:RSN has not weighed in). Many other citations are either primary or almost primary. I personally don't think it demonstrates the quality we want to show on the main page, but this is not a !vote.  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting point. Admittedly, some sources are closely connected (Regents College particularly). I would be helpful if I had print biographies of Packer; there's at least three of them out there. Note that TheGospelCoalition source is really just pulling from the print sources, and the ChristianityToday source is written by one of his past biographers. WORLD is an independent conservative Christian magazine. So out of the four citations that I used to clean up the article, I can concede that RegentsCollege is definitely not independent (he taught there), but confirms some of the information on the subject. The other three are sources that are within his area of notability, so you can draw some sort of connection there, but none of the three are officially affiliated with him or his church (Anglican). Let me know what you think, Awsomaw (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your efforts. I'll go ahead and Support and let the admin make the call.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Posting. --Tone 16:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Zenon Grocholewski

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 07:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I’ve done most of the updating and cleanup, but the quality remains questionable. Note especially how 15 years as prefect are covered with a poorly written paragraph about a single statement; his academic career is covered with a generic paragraph that reads like boilerplate. See also the problematic sourcing for his academic career. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 11:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Stale Stephen 23:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: C. T. Vivian

 *  Oppose  as noted, plenty of unreferenced material in there. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 22:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , everything is sourced now. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support much better, nice work . The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 23:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, C.T. Vivian a very important activist in the Civil Rights Movement. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - A notable figure in the U.S. Civil Rights Movement, and the article looks to be in good shape. Any concerns about the article's quality, let's discuss particulars and see what we can do to address those concerns. KConWiki (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support looks good. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC) (See also combo with John Lewis (civil rights leader), above. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC))
 * Posted. --Tone 14:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Roshni Nadar

 * Comment: Leaning toward an oppose as questioning the lasting impact of this, but if the article were expanded to show how this were notable/reactions/etc., I could be convinced otherwise.  Spencer T• C 19:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – HCL Technologies is a very sizeable enterprise, but Ms. Roshni Nadar's article at 285 words seems rather thin. Agree with Spencer re impact. – Sca (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Tentative oppose This might be better for DYK, but I might be able to be swayed if this becomes more significant, per Spencer. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too far narrow of a "bin" here. Why an IT company and not any listed company (which I presume has long since happened)? --M asem (t) 04:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) Real Madrid win La Liga

 * Oppose basically no prose summary of the season which is usually the bare minimum requirement. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 10:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose same, and because someone always says prose is not needed - WP:NOTSTATS.  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per TRM – and because article (& notes) at roughly 14,000 words is grossly overweight, a case of fandom gone wild. – Sca (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now per above as there is insufficient prose and the infobox at 2019–20 La Liga, the only article that should be in this nom IMO, indicates that it is over a month out of date. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 Iranian Explosions

 * Wait - We need sources that link every explosion listed to one another. Otherwise, this reads like WP:SYNTH. Also, citation is needed for the amount of non-fatal injuries. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 04:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Using the NYTimes article we have no idea these are tied together yet, so it would be improper to treat it that way. It is not like floods that we can directly point to weather as a cause. --M asem  (t) 05:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * NYT behind fire wall. This one from CNN seems to draw a connection.   GreatCaesarsGhost   02:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I once saw CNN seem to draw a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. And people who voted Republican last time to far worse things. It has also linked the same household products to both sides of the "War on Cancer", many times over. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right the Bush administration did fabricate a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 and CNN did report that fabricated connection. Let me know when CNN publishes obviously doctors photos of armed militants at otherwise peaceful protests. LOL. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean this in a partisan or zero-sum way. All ratings-driven, ad-friendly television is built on the same fundamental capitalistic lie. And all administrations except Carter's have made the post-Hiroshima world a worse place overall; hate the game, not the players! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose/Wait, per Masem. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Way too much speculation, contradictory claims by anonymous sources and general SYNTH (per Nice4What & Masem) in that article for my comfort level. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

July 16
Only linked to not break transclusion limit: Portal:Current events/2020 July 16

(Stale) RD: Arthur J. Samberg

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 09:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – just added one ref to verify his education, but other than that, looks like it meets the criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment has been ready for 12 hours. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 20:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Was searching and was unable to find news coverage for the death outside of a the (presumably self-published) obituary. Is that typical for RD?  Spencer T• C 21:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair point, not in the news. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 23:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks fine. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We need "reliably sourced confirmation of their death." I'm weak oppose on if a purchased obit fulfills this requirement.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per above; needs to actually be in the news. P-K3 (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would even go as far to beg the question whether there's any notability here. The company he ran may be, but not him. The sources that seem to be about him are weak RSs or primary, which is not a good starting point. --M asem (t) 05:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tony Taylor (baseball)

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 22:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) New Gabonese Prime Minister

 * Comment She is the first woman to become Prime Minister of Gabon. NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * True, but it should be noted that there have only been 11 before her and the post did not even exist for 15 years of the country's post-independence history. The six who have served under the incumbent president have tended to last only about two years. The swinging-door nature of the office is all the more remarkable given that Gabon is one of the continent's last old-style dictatorships!  —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose pending expansion. Article consists of about 6 lines of text.  Needs some serious expansion before it's main page ready.  Expand it to the depth of coverage one would expect for a national leader, and it would be fine to post. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. The PM of Gabon serves at the pleasure of the President, who is head of government, so I'm not sure how significant this appointment is. 331dot (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: She is merely an appointee of Ali Bongo whose own inevitable ousting will definitely merit a WP:ITN entry. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Currently updating the article. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 19:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support - The Gabonese government has seen many shuffles since the January 2019 coup attempt, but what makes this notable is her being the first woman to hold this position and that she replaced the coup-appointed PM. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 19:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment – Unsee on major RS sites except the Guardian, so this doesn't seem to be much in the news. Significance questionable. – Sca (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose not the head of government, so not particularly notable. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

July 15
Only linked to not break transclusion limit: Portal:Current events/2020 July 15

(Posted) RD: Kieran O'Connor

 * Support Looks ok.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Well referenced article JW 1961   Talk  13:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Soft oppose . One para needs sourcing, but the rest of the article is fine. - SchroCat (talk) 05:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Good to go - SchroCat (talk) 06:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * just added a source for that para. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

(Reposted) Twitter Bitcoin scam

 * Support once the article has been further developed, it is a bit too short right now but is quickly being expanded. Buttons0603 (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as article creator - being described as "the worst hack of a major social media platform yet" is clearly quite significant. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 23:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support lots of high profile people's twitter accounts being compromised to promote a bitcoin scam is something which probably should make the news. The article is being expanded quickly, so should cover most of the incident soon, if not now. Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 23:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support big enough news; article covers the basics. Natureium (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing, Wait on the story but general support. I am not downplaying how big this is, but we do want to have an idea of its size, # of accounts hacked, as there have been hacks in the 100s of millions, and that's not yet apparent here, it doesn't seem as big if it was only after the most influential accounts. (eg saying "the worst hack of a major social media platform" is extreme hyperhole right now given known hacks of 3B accounts at Yahoo!) I oppose the ongoing because it appears the hack is under control for the time being, and this is certainly not like Wannacry where it is a computer virus or worm that is propagating the attack and thus would take time for it to be resolved and stop the spread; it is all at Twitter's systems, so this is a singular event, not an ongoing one. --M asem (t) 23:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To be fair, "worst" is a value judgement; personally speaking, I'd argue it is potentially worse than a hack of 3B accounts, because whilst that might be linked to poor security precautions on the part of the people who were hacked, this looks like it's shaping up to be a platform compromise rather than an account-specific compromise. (I don't know if that was the case with Yahoo too, to be fair.) Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 23:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ongoing is a non-starter, but reluctant support in principle I'm highly reluctant to post Twitter stuff here, but this seems to have crossed the social media/mainstream media barrier. I don't think any resultant investigation is ongoing-worthy, but maybe we can post convictions, if any. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb as John M W says, this is not an ongoing event - but a major cybersecurity scam that appears to have compromised Obama's Twitter? Good for a blurb. Article currently looks good enough. Kingsif (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 00:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose a hack of a social media platform hardly seems so newsworthy to support its inclusion here, regardless of whose account was hacked. Ljgua124 (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Post Posting Support - You do understand that so many accounts got hacked, don't you? Former POTUS and future (hopefully) POTUS, richest guy in the world, largest tech company by value, and many other accounts! This is definitely serious. 45.251.33.179 (talk) 03:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I understand, it's a financial scam which made use of Twitter employee privileges, and in which posts were removed in a matter of minutes. I concur with Brigade Piron – "its real-world and long-term effects are likely to be minimal". Ljgua124 (talk) 05:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Post posting support Significant cybercrime news and good to see news other than the usual disasters, conflicts or politics. Also highlights growing cryptocurrency fraud on which Wikipedia itself has had to take significant measures, WP:GS/Crypto. Gotitbro (talk) 05:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Better blurb needed. If the story here is the hacking of the accounts, then the blurb should focus on that. Mentioning bitcoin and scams tells me nothing about what this story is. In fact I came here to oppose, because a "bitcoin scam" does not sound significant to me. But the compromising of large numbers of twitter accounts is likely a major story. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not so much as those high profile Twitter accounts are compromised as staff accounts/login are compromised which allow the hacker to make post appears on the high profile accounts. Current wording at least to me implies the accounts were individually and seperately hacked. -- KTC (talk) 09:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Rushing to post details of a hack in this way is debatable. The article in question is open to anyone to edit – even IP editors – and that includes the hackers, who could use it to sow further confusion.  The article has, at various times, contained an image of one of the fraudulent tweets, including details of the bitcoin account.  Topics of this sort should go through some security screening, rather then being broadcast indiscriminately and in haste, to make sure that we don't become part of the problem.  We're supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a live feed, like Twitter. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There's currently a discussion on the article's talk page about the inclusion of the Bitcoin wallet - there is an argument (which I advance) that keeping it is useful for academic purposes. Very little vandalism has been seen on the article, and it's consistent with our principles that unless there was a significant issue, it would be open to anyone to edit. "Go[ing] through some security screening" is against the fundamental principles of Wikipedia - an encyclopedia that anyone can edit with well-sourced content. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 09:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Our terms of use forbid "Posting or distributing content that contains any viruses, malware, worms, Trojan horses, malicious code, or other device that could harm our technical infrastructure or system or that of our users;" Redistributing fraudulent postings seems contrary to this warning. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A Bitcoin wallet address is a number, it is not executable code. It does not fall into the criteria of contains any viruses, malware, worms, Trojan horses, malicious code, or other device that could harm our technical infrastructure or system or that of our users. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 09:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The account number is a "device" that could "harm" "our users". Presumably that's why it has been suppressed by editors like Masem.  But there has been edit-warring about this.  The article is still not protected in any way and so is wide open.  The pandemic should have taught people something about the ease with which a virus can spread and cause chaos. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The account number is not a "device", it's a number, and it cannot harm the technical infrastructure or system of Wikipedia users - again, it's a number. There isn't an opportunity to spread a virus using it. Whether it could potentially harm users in other ways is a subject for debate, but we already have policy on this, and it's WP:NOTCENSORED. To my knowledge, there has been no edit warring about this, either - just people following BRD - and there's no cause for page protection, because there is no widespread vandalism, and protection is not pre-emptive. Either way, this isn't the place for this discussion - it belongs on the talk page. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 10:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Anything may be expressed as a number – see Gödel numbering. Saying that it's just a number is therefore meaningless.  The issue is what may be done with the information.  I would have thought it was common sense that we shouldn't be broadcasting information like bank account numbers.  If the article is in hands of editors who think otherwise, it should be pulled until we can be sure of its quality and safety. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Logic here, and Anything may be expressed as a number – see Gödel numbering seems rather flawed. If I create a function that maps every word in the dictionary to something malicious, can I now claim that Wikipedia should be taken down, as everything on here is now malicious? ProcFunc has a ring to it, I must say. A bitcoin address isn't malicious, it isn't a virus. If someone is silly enough to send money to an address listed on an article about a scam, that's on them. We document the steps for hanging, weighing the benefit of the information as more important than the risk that a small percent might use it as a guide on how to hang. We write LD50s for drugs, with the risk that some drug users might treat it as a how to guide for how far they can go and end up ODing. Censorship because an address is 'malicious' is absurd, it's just another Bitcoin address, nothing technically special about it, and we can expect editors don't send money to it. Respectfully, I can't understand your reasoning. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose: I don't see what is particularly newsworthy about this. Yes, it is an impressively large piece of hacking but its real-world and long-term effects are likely to be minimal. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose. A scam that nets $100,000 is hardly Earth-shattering news. Using celebrity Twitter accounts to spread it (rather than e.g. emails or WhatsApp) makes the event more visible, but this is hardly going to have long-term encyclopaedic value. Would make a decent DYK, but is extremely underwhelming as an ITN blurb. I also think it needed more than 90 minutes of discussion before posting. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The importance of it is not the scam, but the fact that the backend of a Silicon Valley giant was compromised. That almost never happens. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 12:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Security flaws in software or web services are not rare, even those written by large companies. The effects of this one seem less substantial than e.g. password or credit card leaks, which occur frequently. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If credit card information linked to one of the world's most prominent websites was breached, that would be significant, too, and I'd argue warrant an ITN post. Amazon, for instance, having credit card information breached from its users, would be of huge consequence to millions of people. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 16:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Whilst the specific combination of Amazon and millions of credit cards hasn't happened recently, see List of data breaches for the sheer number of these that occur, many involving larger companies than Twitter and far more users. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose wow, less than two hours from nom to post! Per Modest Genius, this is hardly worth worrying about for its long-term impact.  It's tabloid fodder, WP:TOP25 would no doubt nom it up, as would another part of the main page, but it's not ITN material.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 11:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A major security breach of one of the most popular social networking services in the world, as it has now been confirmed to be, is definitely not "tabloid fodder" - and, indeed, worldwide news organisations agree with the assessment that it is not, if you look at what the headlines are like. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 15:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Pulled for the time being as there is a substantial opposition to the posting. Let's first discuss here what is the proper way to continue. --Tone 12:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * For future reference, is there any guidance on length of time from nom to posting? I can see why the United States going to war with China could be posted in 90 minutes but it's pretty odd in any other context. It also means only users in one time-zone may get to vote which, I suspect, is what happened here. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is not a specific length of discussion requirement, nor a requirement that a nomination be held so users in different time zones can comment. 331dot (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I imagine not. It would still be nice at least to show that we care about a global perspective on Wikipedia? There are uncontroversial WP:RD nominations which have not been posted after double the number of user endorsements and days after opening. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's been discussed before(minimum discussion time) and not reached consensus, as any limitation would be arbitrary- and if there are exceptions to it(such as a major news event) that would render any limitation meaningless. Even within the same time zone, people could work third shift or otherwise be unavailable to comment when users typically comment(in a given time zone). I know I'm on Wikipedia at different hours depending on my schedule. As for postings, there has to be administrators available to do so. But I digress from this discussion. 331dot (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Not a typical ITN story but if it is truly the "worst hack of a major social media platform yet" as described in the article then that's significant, and I don't see any quality issues with the article.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Now that Europe is awake, post-posting oppose. Bitcoin scams happen all the time. This story picked up a lot of traction due to the profiles that happened to be targeted by the Twitter hack, but that is more of a novelty rather than anything of actual significance, such as terrorism.--WaltCip- (BLM!Resist The Orange One)  13:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you name a single instance in the past in which attackers gained access to the master keys of a major social networking service, allowing them to post under any account? -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 13:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a clever rhetorical trick there, but not an inherent demonstration of lasting newsworthiness.--WaltCip- (BLM!Resist The Orange One)  13:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support pulling – Per TRM, Walt. Ephemeral, obscure. ZZZzzzz. – Sca (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If it is "the worst hack of a major social media platform yet", as stated by Dmitri Alperovitch, then I'd support posting. The article also highlights the point that Twitter is used by many US politicians, and the platform's flaws is a major concern during a presidential election year. Also, was it right to pull this after just three oppose !votes while not considering the amount of support? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 14:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC); Edited 15:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Added altblurb2. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 16:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose altblurb, as I think some of the concerns here are justifiable with the currently-proposed blurb - the altblurb more clearly explains why this specifically is notable, as it's now been confirmed that Twitter itself was the target, rather than individuals. Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 15:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support an altblurb. Mariah Carey's Twitter being hacked to say "Eminem can hold this pussy" - tabloid news. Over a dozen public figures being hacked to promote a scam as a major example of cybercrime - significant (in my opinion, anyway). It's not necessarily just "Twitter accounts got hacked," it's still a breach on one of the world's biggest media platforms that's been covered extensively in reliable sources. So long as the blurb clarifies why it's significant, I think it has a place on ITN. Spengouli (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support reposting as altblurb. This is very significant news. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 16:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support reposting using an altblurb per Spengouli.  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 16:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb as it clarifies why the incident is important (this is not just a hacking of individual prominent accounts). -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 16:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted with a slightly less wordy version of the alt blurb that doesn't get into all the details of the administrative interface and employees. Also replaced the specialized slang of "tweeted" with "promoting." Follow up at WP:ERRORS. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 17:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting Weak Oppose. Limited lasting impact; "weak" because the article is reasonably fleshed out highlighting relevant noteworthiness, even though IMO it falls below the bar of posting to ITN.  Spencer T• C 19:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support per Naypta and Spengouli. Davey2116 (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Post-posting comment and support as nominator: as it has been noted prevously, at least 12 bitcoins have been transferred during the scam, the equivalent of over US$110,000. It might be useful to include this information in the blurb to give a perspective of the magnitude of the scam. --Jamez42 (talk) 10:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Oscar Hugh Lipscomb

 * Ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 07:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) A Surge of Power (Jen Reid) 2020

 * Question - article quality is irrelevant if it doesn't meet the significance criterion, so why "give this article a closer look"? Banedon (talk) 20:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Because it's interesting and it's notable, not just as a work of art (in the objective sense), but also significant in that it's another chapter in what happened to this notable statue that has been there since the 19th century. It's rather like that statue that was put up on Wall Street of a girl standing up to a bull. Although that wasn't posted on ITN, its significance has withstood and warranted an independent article of it. I feel this is an opportunity for ITN to take a more open mind in terms of posting notable content.--WaltCip- (BLM!Resist The Orange One)  21:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose I looked at the article. The mayor says the statue will be removed. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll be the first to say it - more suited to another area of the Main Page. P-K3 (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It very well could be, but it's in the news right now. Where is the distinction?--WaltCip- (BLM!Resist The Orange One)  21:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment –, According to the AP article, Mayor Marvin Rees said "the future of the plinth and what is installed on it must be decided by the people of Bristol" at some point in the future. – Sca (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If the people of Bristol decide to keep this statue, that would be a less notable moment than right now, when it has already been erected and the message has been sent.--WaltCip- (BLM!Resist The Orange One)  21:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * It's still just one statue that was toppled among many during these protests, which are covered by an ongoing link. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And Rhodes lost his head in Cape Town the other day. – Sca (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Nope, sorry. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I could support this on notability if Bristolians (?) eventually voted to keep Jen Reid up there, signifying a profound cultural shift. Even as things stand now, it's drawn wide RS coverage. – Sca (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Ah, oppose, sorry Great story but not ITN. DYK? Black Kite (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sir Toke Talagi

 *  Weak Support the lead needs expansion but the article is remarkably well-sourced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 11:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with above but the article is yes indeed overwhelmingly sourced. Besides, ruled Niue for a long time, a recognised figure. ^_^ CoryGlee (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * & Speak of the devil, while you were commenting on this I was already expanding the lead. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Great. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 12:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in responding! Great! ^_^ CoryGlee (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Well sourced. - SchroCat (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Flag of Niue.svg

You learn something niue every day. – Sca (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article is great.Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Emirates Mars Mission

 * Wait Most certainly meets an ITNR, but the mission launch is delayed until later in the week. --M asem (t) 00:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait per Masem; also note that currently If successful, it would become the first mission to Mars by any West Asian, Arab or Muslim majority country., The mission is timed to arrive at Mars before the 50th anniversary of the independence of the United Arab Emirates on 2 December 1971., with support from MBRSC., and and is set to arrive at Mars in February 2021. are all uncited, with much of the "Specifications" section inadequately cited. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting the launch, wait to see if it arrives successfully at Mars. WP:ITNR explicitly states: "Arrival of spacecraft (to lunar orbit and beyond) at their destinations". That's due in February. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 10:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Or arrives unsuccessfully. Did we not agree that crashes are arrivals? --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 10:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't remember any discussion of that, but agree that crashing into Mars would also be worth posting. I'm not so sure if it suffers a malfunction en route or fails to leave Earth orbit. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel like we've discussed that but can't recall off the top of my head. An arrival that crashes is still an arrival. If it didn't make it into space it would be a launch failure which would be ITNR as well. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've complained frequently about the vagaries of the ITNR section for Space Exploration. 1. if a launch fails, it is ITNR; if it suceeds it is not. 2. what exactly does indigenous mean in the modern world? 3. when is a rocket differnt enough to be called "new?" ITNC is perfectly capable of handling these noms - the ITNR entry just adds confusion (which is directly counter to ITNR's purpose).  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think there are circumstances of space exploration that would merit being on ITNR, but the current list has been largely unchanged for years and perhaps could use a review. 331dot (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed! I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree that the arrival will be ITNR, but this is being launched from Japan(so it isn't a country conducting its first indigenous launch). 331dot (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a valid point that needs to be properly addressed in the blurb (when NASA or Roscosmos launch similar missions, we don't use the United States or Russia in the blurb). I also see the mention of three American universities in the opening sentence.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but no problem for me to wait until it reaches the final destination.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now (particularly as it's been "postponed indefinitely"). - SchroCat (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait for actual launch. Also the role of different organizations involved should be made clear in the article, and who is actually launching this should be in the blurb. Gotitbro (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support launched. Created altblurb2 to specify launch site per the above.104.243.98.96 (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait for launch, but support original blurb otherwise. Tweaked the grammar in blurb and altblurb2. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 15:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb, now that the launch has occured. Worthy of ITN per WP:ITN/R .--Tdl1060 (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Struck ITNR justification since it isn't the country's "first successful indigenous orbital launch" since it was launched from Japan, but I still feel this merits an ITN, as the UAE's first Mars mission, a major accomplishment not many nations have achieved.--Tdl1060 (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support with blurb. Really big news.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

July 14
Only linked to not break transclusion limit: Portal:Current events/2020 July 14

(Posted) RD: Daniel Lewis Lee

 * Support I see no problems with the article and the person meets the notability guidelines. - Jon698 talk 13:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support all looks ok to me with this one JW 1961   Talk  14:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. (I supplied a reference for the one cite tag I saw).-- P-K3 (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Well referenced story. No blurb, but is notable enough.KittenKlub (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Grant Imahara

 *  Neutral pending a few more cites  support damn, beat me to it. There's still a few unsourced things though. -- a lad insane  <small style="color:#006600">(channel two)  04:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Cites boosted by Masem - -- a lad insane  <small style="color:#006600">(channel two)  04:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I've finished going through to make sure all the material is cited at this point. --M asem (t) 04:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Confirmed by his former co-stars. –DMartin  04:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

July 13
Only linked to not break transclusion limit: Portal:Current events/2020 July 13

(Posted) RD: Marilyn Howard

 * Support neat little article that is well referenced JW 1961   Talk  19:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Does this really meet the WP:GNG? —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say it does not, but I'm usually in the minority in these conversations. Would you say the the citations listed in this article address her "directly and in detail" or mention her in trivial passing (she ran, she took office, she left)?  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. I think the GNG is OK, and it hasn't been tagged as such or nominated for deletion. There are non-passing-mentions in papers and books, such as . &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm unconvinced she actually meets GNG as well. Every reference, apart from the one Amakaru mentioned above, is local papers.  Not wishing to be funny, but apart from Amakaru's book I could write an article on myself with that level of sourcing. Black Kite (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , she meets WP:NPOL as someone elected to a statewide office. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Naya Rivera
Oppose RD and neutral on blurb Missing some citations in filmography and other tables. Once that's fixed I will Support for RD. Everything else looks ready good. I would definitely have supported this but considering the previous debate on Won-soon and Rajput's exclusion, I'm very hesitant on RD's as blurbs. Will reconsider my position depending on other peoples points. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Anything not cited in filmography (etc.) is cited in prose, something supported by MOS. Kingsif (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kingsif, I had no clue. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support RD and neutral on blurb I definitely would have supported this but considering the previous debate on Won-soon and Rajput's exclusion, I'm very hesitant on RD's as blurbs. Will reconsider my position depending on other peoples points. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD, flat out oppose blurb tragic,  very tragic, but she was not transformative in any sense whatsoever.   The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 20:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not for 'death is the story' blurb? Kingsif (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, this person's death, while tragic, will have precisely zero long-term impact. It was an accident, she died young, it's definitely a sad situation, but if we're now going to continue the Carrie Fisher mistake (and Carrie Fisher had much more call for a blurb than this individual, yet it was still wholly incorrect), then ITN is morer of a running joke than I thought.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A 4/5-day disappearance that's been making headlines around the world is a story, which is what would be blurbed, not just her death. As you said, tragic as it is, she's nowhere near famous/whatever enough for a death blurb if not for the circumstances. Of course, death blurbs are a mess of inconsistencies and debate (I didn't outright nominate for blurb because I'm still not sure where we're sitting on the 'criteria') Kingsif (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * She fell off a boat. This "disappearance" thing is a red herring.  It often takes days to find people in such situations.  If this was Meryl Streep or Brie Larson or Renee Zellweger for instance, it'd be a reasonable call, as they have literally transformed their industry.  This actress, while popular, has not.  We don't need another Carrie Fisher or Paul Hunter moment.  And why are all these posted individuals from the US??  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You make some good points, I have thoughts (which I don't think will change your view, as they build on subjectivity) that would probably be better expressed in the death blurb discussion on talk than drawing this nom out. In short: public response to the disappearance story has been overwhelming internationally in a way you would expect for those much more notable actresses. As said, though, I'm not going to fight blurb views because of how messy the area is. Kingsif (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "public response"? What, "we're sad someone young and on television has died"? I get it, and I am not suggesting this isn't getting a lot of popular traffic (just like Hamilton, see WP:TOP25) but this is no way to run the rule over who is notable enough for a blurb. We pretty much universally agreed that Carrie Fisher's posting as a blurb was a mistake, and this would just doubly double down on that: a popular yet not-transformative American actress getting a blurb?  Nope. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 22:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What happened with Carrie Fisher nom's blurb that make it so "bad"? I wasn't with wiki when she died nor when the nom was made so I have no clue what is the big deal with Carrie Fisher. I would think being a lead Star Wars actor would be notable on its own but that's just my thoughts. Dantheanimator (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well yes, that's practically nailed it. She was big in one set of movies about 35 years before her death and then not much else.  That was the problem.  But even then, she had some historic movies behind her rather than this individual here who literally has been a US TV "star" for a while.  Fisher shouldn't have been posted and sadly this individual pales into insignificance when compared to her. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 23:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Most celebrities die many years after what made them famous.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * But this "celebrity" was not "transformative". Popular, yes, but nothing more.  While it may be considered disrespectful to say it, her death won't be long in the memory.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 23:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * With Carrie Fisher, it was seen that she had a relatively natural death and was very famous for one franchise, without leaving any other impact, and that similar actors (especially from elsewhere in the world) would not even be considered for blurbs because the 'cult fan' thing Star Wars has doesn't apply. Posting Fisher as a blurb was kind of saying 'Star Wars is more important than better films'. Kingsif (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you Kingsif and The Rambling Man for the explanation. Yeah, it makes sense. Not surprised if the debate was really long considering how many Star Wars fans there are (partially including myself). Dantheanimator (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Wait – Body hasn't been ID'd nor a cause of death determined. In any case, very low EV. – Sca (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Body has now been identified. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 21:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Obvious blurb, but wait for confirmation. This is a 33 year old network TV star whose disappearance was widely covered. If we don't blurb this, the RD criteria have no meaning.  GreatCaesarsGhost   21:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * same with Rajput and he didn't get a blurb. The RD criteria at this point already has no meaning. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with the "RD criteria"? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "Death as the main story: ... If the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb." Also, between 01 June to 6 July 2020, Rajput's page received 13,684,142 views (with a daily peak of 7M). That's over 10M more views than the page just under it (which had only 1,988,366 and a daily peak of 593K). One more thing "For deaths where ... the events surrounding the death merit additional explanation (such as ongoing investigations, major stories about memorial services or international reactions, etc.)." There is an ongoing investigation right now. Almost everything about Rajput's death warranted a blurb but he never got a blurb. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not the RD criteria then is it? That's the main ITN criteria.  And you've nailed it there with "newsworthy reaction".  What we're seeing herer for this individual is "sad, young actress dies in accident" but she wasn't transformative, she had not won any Academy Awards etc, in two days time  this will be completely forgotten by 99.999% of people, and finally, please we all need to stop attempting to equate ITN candidates with pageviews.  If that's what we really want to do, base it on popularity, not encyclopedic significance, then someone start an RFC to rework ITN to match that expectation.  If not, please go to WP:TOP25 where you can find all the "popular" pages.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * don't get me wrong, I 100% agree with you and that's why I'm putting myself as neutral for the blurb. The only reason I'm equating page views with Rajput because the disparity is very, very large (I could also cite Google search trends if you like, which would also be very high). I am arguing for the same point you are (that this nom doesn't qualify for a blurb) just differently though. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * TRM, as ever, maintains that TOP25 (fun as it is) shouldn't dictate blurbs. Now, I don't think the difference between Rajput and other articles viewed that week adds much when he didn't have a notable death nor was a particularly influential actor. FWIW, Rivera was the top-viewed article last week, and dragged two other Glee actors into the top 25 with her, but this also isn't much support for the blurb case here. Kingsif (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Both, I would be more than happy that, following an RFC to confirm that pageviews should form a constituent part of the decision-making process at ITN, we then institute that approach. Kingsif, you're right, and in fact I mentioned this very news story as it was top of the WP:TOP25 fun list.  I also noted that most of the remainder of the top ten was related to Hamilton (the musical).  We can't just look at pageviews and equate it to notability or even newsworthiness.  But, as I mentioned, if an RFC is formulated  which incorporates pageviews somehow,  I'd be glad to see the proposal.  In the meantime, this is an encyclopedia.  We blurb a handful of individuals deaths a year, and they are usually considered the deeply significant, transformative individuals.  We don't (or shouldn't) post "popular" TV actresses who die, albeit far too soon.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 22:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am saying I agree, there's a shaky line at ITN between things that are actually in the news (which often dictates pageviews) and then things that are meaningfully in the news (rather than things reported to generate traffic, which also gets pageviews). I support ITN/C discussion taking precedence over but they have 5 million views arguments. Kingsif (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As a point of reference, the inauguration of Donald Trump and the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the supreme court were two events that were both the top headline in virtually all papers across the world, and dominated page views at their respective times, but did not find consensus to post. (Trump's was eventually posted, but only because the protests surrounding the inauguration became notable in themselves). So even though the main aim of ITN is to showcase articles related to topics that are in the news, that is always nuanced by convention and the way consensus is built here. There is an oft-used adage that "ITN is not a news-ticker". &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Ventura county sheriff press conference confirmed at 2pm PDT (9pm UTC). Pinging as update to their 'wait's :) Kingsif (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD, weak support for blurb Though not necessarily a "transformative figure", the story of her death is an international story itself. This is not a usual passing away, but the result of a five-day search with her young son surviving. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 21:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment tagging this good to go for the RD, and suggesting blurb discussion is allowed to continue, no point in holding up RD as the article is in good order and consensus for that exists. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 22:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD only An unexpected death may warrant a blurb. This one doesn’t. P-K3 (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb I don't find the argument that the disappearance itself has been a headline story for days plausible when no-one nominated it here. If that story had been nominated and halted pending conclusion before the worst happened, then this would have had a much better chance for posting as something that ended tragically. In general, people tend to overstate all preceding events before the worst happens and so seems to be the case here.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The sensible were waiting before proposing a disappearance that would never get posted, but when the article of a not-otherwise-current/relevant actress was the top viewed on Wikipedia before she was found dead, it is entirely plausible that the disappearance was indeed a big story. Kingsif (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I get your point and the only chance for this to get posted is to highlight the notability of the event rather than the underlying person but the main problem is that we don't even have a separate article documenting the disappearance as something that will be included in the blurb. We posted Emiliano Sala's death last year after he had disappeared under speculative circumstances but the story was very well documented and nominated for inclusion once the disappearance was announced. In general, the existence of a separate article about the event should be conveniently considered a precondition for posting in such cases.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb, RD only. The point of the "unusual circumstances" clause is that such deaths can be considered for a blurb outside of the usual extremely high bar for blurbing if it's a regular old age death (the much-discussed "Thatcher/Mandela test"). The clause does not imply that such deaths must automatically be elevated to blurb status. The question is whether we consider the story of the death significant enough for the blurb section, applying the usual standards that we would for any other story. In this case, like others above I don't think the story of Rivera's disappeareance and death is of sufficient global and overall significance, although of course it is very tragic particularly for such a young person with small children. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support As they say on Star Trek, "She's dead Jim".  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * She is. Are you supporting the RD, the blurb or both?  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 23:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Filmography and below is poorly referenced. Stephen 23:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb unfortunately accidents and suicides (esp among entertainers, sportspeople etc or overdoses) or occur from time to time and there is nothing particularly notable about this accident (as opposed to suicides related to scandals and so forth). Bumbubookworm (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I think everything that lacked a citation in the table(s) is referenced inline in the prose.  Can you let me know if anything  is missing?  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 23:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The first two I checked - House Blend, which doesn't have an article, and The Jersey - aren't referenced in the cite for their prose mention. Stephen 23:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I perhaps assumed too much good faith here!  Cheers.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 23:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A few days ago I went through and checked the filmography, I didn't think I'd missed anything but I'll add those and check the others again. And will add prose refs in the filmography, per suggestion below. Kingsif (talk) 23:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Very minor point, but the episode count for Step Up: High Water is given as 20 episodes, but I don't think that number is mentioned in the prose. Not citing those entries mentioned elsewhere does seem an odd way of doing things, personally I'd just repeat the ref in both the table and the prose, to avoid confusion and accidental removal if the text is later changed, but it is permitted anyway. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * RD only As we found out last week, blurbs are not for people about whom, prior to their death, most of the world's population would have said "who?" Black Kite (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment refs updated. There's no unified ref for the number of Royal Family or Devious Maids episodes. For the latter, they're all on YouTube so a note with the five YT links could be added. Royal Family seems too old, but if she was in every episode then it's correct. Kingsif (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani skirmishes
*Comment wow, this is a really strange day for me I guess. This is the second time I was about to nominate something but saw it was already posted in the past few minutes. Also would like to respectfully disagree with you comments on the comet and ERM II accession. Regarding the nom, I'll have to Weakly Oppose. Unless someone else brings up a good point, this feels too minor (and more or less insignificant) for ITN inclusion. For this to be posted to ITN, I would expect at least 10 soldiers killed and some injured. Dantheanimator (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per updates I'd imagine if something like this happened at the Korean DMZ, it would have had no trouble getting on ITN. Also support per below. If anything changes, I cannot update since I will not be editing Wiki anymore (for a long while) due to my obligations. It was a privilege working with everyone. Thank you. Dantheanimator (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your contributions. Brandmeistertalk  16:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Dantheanimator (and as a retired soldier who made it out with a pension I'm glad Dan wasn't marking my time card LOL)  JW 1961   Talk  17:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Changing to Support per updates today JW 1961   Talk  14:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - per bigger picture of skirmishes and escalation of decades old disputes. BabbaQ (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait Support - Escalated to 16 deaths, including an Azeri general. (AP)104.243.98.96 (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 *  Oppose – for now. Appears comparatively minor. – Sca (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Similar clashes occurred in 2016 and 2018, and this appears to be an insignificant event in the broader Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. If these clashes escalate, then we should consider posting as a blurb. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 21:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Brandmeister. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 15:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support, partly because of notability but also because the article 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani skirmishes is actually pretty good. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Casualties have increased today, with at least 11 on Azerbaijani side alone. And that it happened outside the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region is somewhat unusual.    Brandmeistertalk   13:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Do we know the current amount of soldiers killed? I count a minimum 15 soldiers and a civilian if we combine Armenia and Azerbaijan's estimates of their own account. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 15:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 14 in total per NYT source above (including one Colonel and two Majors). Brandmeistertalk  15:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Wait – This locale has seen periodic skirmishes and warfare off & on for decades. The latest flareup seems like more of the same, without notable significance ... yet. – Sca (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Armenia and Azerbaijan always have minor skirmishes from time to time, but these are exceptional. They are the largest skirmishes since the 2016 4 day war, and unlike in 2016, these skirmishes are directly between the international borders of the two countries rather than on the line of contact in Nagorno-Karabakh. This is unusual, and it is the biggest fighting to have occurred on the border since the 1994 war. A 2-star Azerbaijani general has been killed, and there are protests going on in Baku in support of war. Achemish (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support While significant seems like the reaction is relatively mute, compared to past instances, perhaps due to the pandemic. Not sure on long term impacts but this is clearly "in the news" material. Gotitbro (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I've updated the blurb per recent developments, could we have an admin for assessment? Brandmeistertalk  22:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment/Oppose till issues fixed The background section has no references. Other than that there is a primary sources orange tag in the reactions section. I'm less worried about that myself, as reactions are the sort of thing you can just verify with the source of the reaction itself, as long as no interpretation is made. The tag should be either removed as not valid, or the issue resolved though, prior to posting. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Both issues fixed now (agree that secondary sources aren't needed for quotes). Brandmeistertalk  07:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted - the two issues I raised above have been resolved, and there is solid consensus to post otherwise. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Washington NFL team confirm name change

 * Close good faith nom. Long time coming in the post-George Floyd era, but of zero importance outside of people directly concerned about this single football team.--WaltCip- (BLM!Resist The Orange One)  15:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment They haven't chosen a new name yet so it might be better to wait until it happens. As the owner promised that the name would NEVER be changed, his plans are not reliable. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose and close, per WaltCip. - SchroCat (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose we seem to be having a series of "things that might happen" stories being nominated. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 15:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment was just about to post this when I saw this. Oh well, thanks for posting this P-K3. Despite that, I'll have to Oppose due to the reasons listed above. No way near notable enough for ITN inclusion in my opinion. Dantheanimator (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. I am not a follower of the NFL but I thought it was topical, and a good quality article.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Good news, but other prominent name changes (see: several country bands) have not been posted. They're doing the basic right thing, and don't need applause for it. Kingsif (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eleanor Sokoloff

 * Support. Looks OK to me. Quite short, but not a stub and covers the basics. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. A decent article which, realistically, could not be any longer. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Supportok this is really short but as per above, it meets the requirements. Dantheanimator (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support It's long enough and referenced well JW 1961   Talk  17:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support it's good to go folks. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 19:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. I !voted above, but there's sufficient consensus even without that, so it was good to go. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

(Reposted) RD: Zindzi Mandela

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 10:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – No BLP should have a controversy section. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Where's the related policy for that? I checked WP:BLP and couldn't find anything. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 12:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Here WP:WEIGHT. Especially compared to the size of the article, there is no way the section has been given proper weight. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, the undue thing. But that doesn't equate to your initial assertion in any way at all.  Cheers though.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 13:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Controversy sections lead to undue emphasis 99% of time in my experience. This always happens on BLPs. People keep adding to it, covering non-notable events in minute detail. I was just using shorthand. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a different experience from my own. I just think it not wise to make non-policy-based claims like that, even if you yourself understood it to be shorthand for what you personally feel.  Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 13:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I challenge you to show me a BLP with a controversy section that is not undue. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, thanks, I'm not interested, I have plenty of other things to do I'm afraid. But I'm glad you clarified your personal assertion. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 13:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh christ, just admit when you're obviously wrong. You voted in support of this absolutely burning dumpster fire of a BLP. People who suffered under Apartheid criticizing the people that did it is not racist or controversial.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No thanks. And while you're blaspheming at me, why not strike out in anger at the posting admin.  After all, I was just offering my opinion, no harm there until this all started up.  Perhaps if you care so much, you could address the issues you see in the article to your satisfaction.  Cheers.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 13:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Pulled. Given that two users object to the article on NPOV grounds, I have pulled it for the time being. If the issues are resolved, or consensus becomes clear again in favour, then it can be re-posted. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support: I think we could really fill a biography with the undoubtedly crucial duties which being South African ambassador to Denmark entails. The controversy section is well-sourced and, frankly, pertinent to a diplomat's career. I see no WP:UNDUE issue. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. There is no UNDUE issue, and the claim that "No BLP should have a controversy section" is way beyond dubious, it's just utterly wrong: if Trump dies tomorrow, do we say he can't appear on the MP because there is something negative about him not just on his article, but several separate articles detailing the various controversies? - SchroCat (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Trump is the most controversial living person on Twitter and the article about him ... surprise, surprise... has no Twitter CSECTION. Why? Because of our policy at WP:BLPBALANCE. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Is he actually though? I'm going to take that as a subjective thought. Better not to use hyperbole/exaggeration when arguing on wiki. Dantheanimator (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, I looked through his page and did find a section about his use of Twitter and the controversy related to it. The section is called "Social media". Dantheanimator (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes of course there is controversy but it is not sectioned off as controversy and highlighted. Section headings should not be inherently negative or prejudiced. The "Social media" section also includes information that is not negative like "his tweets have been considered official statements". Please read WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION. It explains everything I am saying. Of course "most controversial living person on Twitter" is an opinion. Everything I write on a talk page is my opinion and my interpretation of the guidelines on Wikipedia as I understand. There is no need for me to say IMO. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. You really do need to read the things you rely on (and avoid nonsense like "No BLP should have a controversy section"). WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION says ""Controversy" is not necessarily part of the name of such a section". It's not the name of the section that is the issue. Either way this article is now on the MP (as will Trump's be, despite sections about controversies and entire articles about it too), and the information is still there - there has been no change in the NPOV from when it was refused to when it was posted. - SchroCat (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

*Support per above. Thank you for actually paying attention to the changing consensus and pulling it after the change, which is what real, true, and proper admins should do. We need more admins like you. Dantheanimator (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC) *Oppose per Muboshgu. Dantheanimator (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The two items in the controversy section seem significant and well-sourced, I don't think they are undue weight.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it's clear that this is ready once more now we've gone round the buoy. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 15:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not ready I'm not posting this in the state it's in. WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION is an essay that I follow and I don't think this article is adhering to NPOV as it should. Her "ambassadorship" section is two short sentences about taking the ambassadorship, and her "Racism controversy" subjection is for some reason separate from her ambassadorship in the prose (though it relates directly to her time in Denmark). Is there really nothing else to say about her ambassadorship? Her obits don't have anything else to say? The Mayweather-Pacquiao bit is odd and incomplete. If these things are so important, they should be better integrated into the rest of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is consensus in favour of posting. There is consensus in favour of it being suitable, having taken those concerns into account already.  You shouldn't be supervoting. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 16:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , you know well that it's not a "supervote" for an admin to come along and say, "no, this isn't ready to post". Amakuru or any other admin can disagree with me, if they wish. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Amakuru already did disagree with you. He posted it in the first instance.  He then listened to the community and pulled.  And now someone should listen to the community and post, not supervote it down because they personally disagree with the content.  Anyway, you know all that.  Cheers.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 16:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * How information is presented has large effect on NPOV. So does what information is selected. This article reads like a COATRACK for controversy. No effort has been made to represent the full extent of her life. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You've already made your thoughts very clear above, I don't see any value in repeating them unless this is filibustering I suppose. There's a consensus to post, despite what you personally think.  But you already know that. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 17:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ditto and NOTVOTE. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Who said vote?! Bizarre.  Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 17:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with your points and  but you both need to accept the fact: there is a decently large consensus in support of posting this so this must be posted eventually as per The Rambling Man. No use in delaying the inevitable. Dantheanimator (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , admins are given the mop because it's our job to clean up the messes, like ensuring that there are no orange tags in articles that are posted to the main page. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's certainly not the case. Admins are usually given the mop because they are trusted to judge the wishes of the community.  They do act as gatekeepers to prevent overt issues from becoming a problem, but in this case that wasn't the issue at hand.  In fact, the sudden mention of orange tags below which didn't form part of any single opposition above is quite telling.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "Orange tags" was shorthand for "NPOV problem", as that's what the orange tag there was about. I could have been clearer on that. That said, we sometimes have to judge the wishes of the community against their best interests of the project, especially the five pillars. WP:ITN#Article quality does address this. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Reposted Now that there are no orange tags, we can post this article again per the consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Now that the drama is over for the time being, I wonder whether a blurb is warranted. She rather self-evidently meets the "Thatcher / Mandela test", after all smiley.png &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Lol, yeah she definitely passed the Thatcher/Mandela test. I'm a little wary though of supporting any RD for a blurb now after the whole Park Won-soon event and everything else that happened thus far. As such, I'm going to leave myself as Neutral for the blurb until someone else offers a convincing claim with some convincing evidence.Dantheanimator (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Suggest we post this one on odd-numbered dates only. – Sca (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * my comment was just a joke! There's no way Zindzi Mandela's death would ever be considered for a blurb, unless it happened under very unusual circumstances. I wrote the line in small text, which is usually a clue that it's a less-than-serious comment, much like Sca's immediately above this one. (I believe the small text can cause problems for people with impaired vision though, so it should be used with caution). Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I know it was a joke and that's why I italicized "definitely" and "Mandela" (since "obviously" she would fit the requirements because she literally is a Mandela). Sorry for the misunderstanding. In hindsight, maybe I should have bolded the words or placed them in quotes. Anyways. who cares, its just a joke. ;) Dantheanimator (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) First federal US Execution in over a decade

 * Oppose – Hasn't happened yet. – Sca (talk) 12:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait until the execution occurs. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose and snow close. Until the final final appeal has been denied, this isn't a story. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 13:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * While I agree here, the final appeal has only until 3pm ET today at SCOTUS to be made. So I would simply do a Wait on this rather than closing it, and then wait to see in about 7 hours from when I type this. --M asem (t) 13:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose but wait I agree with that it's jumping the gun: we shouldn't run anything that predicts the future, we should summarise what has already happened in the past, however recent. having said that, if as Masem says, the result is likely to be known in less a few hours, then I don't really see the point in closing this only to reopen (NOTBURO, etc). And these things often stay open longer than the allotted time anyway, so. By the way, TRM, ygm.  ——  Serial # 13:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose even if executed because roughly a score of people were executed in the US in 2018 (?) and even if it's the legitimate first execution in a decade, several hundred people are executed around the world every year, so this is not special. Banedon (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * point of clarity: this is the first execution that is being conducted by the federal government since 2001. All those in the past years are state-level ones, of which there have been hundreds. But that there have been hundreds otherwise is still a fair point --M asem (t) 13:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - No need to restate that the U.S. engages in a rather bizarre form of barbarism that most other developed countries have given up.--WaltCip- (BLM!Resist The Orange One)  13:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The point is that the federal government has not been engaging in it for some time, only a decreasing handful of states have.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's somewhat "meh" whether it's the federal government or some other organisation handing out/carrying out these ridiculous sentences.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 14:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Lets not go there with "bizarre form of barbarism." A third of the G20 retain capital punishment, and those that have given it up did so well into their civilized eras.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Um, yes, while the US ramps up the numbers. Mystifying. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 14:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The distinction between a state execution and a federal one is of interest to legal scholars, but not the general public. The person dies either way. The US continues to conduct a few dozen executions per year. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not unexpectedly, a judge has delayed the execution. Even if it goes ahead I do not think it meets the threshold for ITN inclusion.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems there is a unanimous consensus against this so I think it's best to close this nom soon. Dantheanimator (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 Polish presidential election

 * Comment I've linked a couple of items (e.g. target article, president name) but strikes me that none of the blurbs say which country to which this relates... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 12:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you . Yeah, should have included Poland in the blurbs. Thanks for improving them. Dantheanimator (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose - candidates and opinion poll sections are very under-referenced &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I'd just add Polish President Andrzej Duda so that it is clear on what country this is about. T Magierowski (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Or, there's always "In Poland, x x x" – Sca (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, but do we have to put three kisses in the hook like that?! Seems a little unencyclopedic... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * How do you feel about elipses? – Sca (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per Amakuru those two sections need to be referenced, and there should be some prose in the Results section.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Needs citations throughout and a prose update. Kingsif (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article is "improving" rapidly as additional information is being added by contributors. From a strictly news perspective, this has very significant impact in European politics as Poland is still one of the biggest members of the EU. Definitely a polarized election which would have seen significant shift in European politics had it also gone the other way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.243.98.96 (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * – Or did you mean a Polonized election? – Sca (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Still zero prose update, no sources in opinion polls, candidate section is little more than images under party headers, etc. No meaningful improvements yet. Kingsif (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I added some prose under results, as for the opinion polls, they are all sourced in the separate opinion poll article. T Magierowski (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. Article is not bad and the topic is clearly notable. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

July 12
Only linked to not break transclusion limit: Portal:Current events/2020 July 12

(Posted) RD: Joanna Cole

 * Support The last sentence about her work with Calmenson should be sourced; it is clearly true - I can see those books in reliable catalogs, but simply no prose-based source for that, so I would not consider it a line that is required to be sourced but if needed this page should work. --M asem (t) 04:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I sourced it and included two links from Calmenson's website. SL93 (talk) 05:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: I expanded it and referenced much of the article. She was a very noteworthy author. SL93 (talk) 05:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, article is well enough sourced. Damn, this hasn't been a good week for my childhood. -- a lad insane  <small style="color:#006600">(channel two)  05:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD (Death announced July 15).  Spencer T• C 19:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Manuel Moroun

 * Oppose Big gap in the biography. He graduates from university in 1949, then it leaps to him buying a bridge 30 years later. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * He and his family have been described as secretive and reclusive. Hence the gap in info.  Per In the news: "Articles should be a minimally comprehensive overview of the subject, not omitting any major items."  This is ITN, not GAN. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Article is incomplete, which is a problem given that there are lots of sources, which indicate that he is an extremely polarising figure, and do cover many business activities that are not in the article. The RD criteria need to be increased to favour quality over quantity because there are just too many drive-bys that are just being put up to increase throughput Bumbubookworm (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * How does it look now? —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the RD criteria do not need to be increased.  They already are based solely on quality.  Cheers! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 09:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that the RD criteria are fine as they are, but the question is whether this article satisfies the "quality" requirement. The suggestion that the article is incomplete seems valid, given that it leaps from his graduation in 1949 (or possible the "middle of the decade", which I assume means around 1955) to a one-liner about him buying the bridge in 1979 (with no detail on how or why) and then the first substantial material on that only from 2009 onwards. The material that's there seems to focus almost exclusively on negative coverage of him too, which may evoke memories of yesterday's "controversies" debate surrounding Mandela! As an aside, Bumbubookworm may be alluding to the fact that the OP is taking part in the WikiCup, and has amassed a very tidy score there through ITN nominations. Nothing wrong with that of course, as long as our usual rules are being followed. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of the WikiCup encompassing ITN actually, but I had noticed a massive increase in the number of RD noms recently, and that less of the RDs seemed to be of the kind where the nominator ended up having to expand the article significantly to get it up to speed [I would have assumed that there would otherwise be no incentive to nominate four articles that stay for a day each rather than one article that was expanded a lot and then lasted four days]. Obviously it is going to be difficult to polish articles (to a medium level, I am not asking for quick-build GAs) if one is nominating multiple RDs a day. There have been a flurry of articles that are mostly unsourced cropping up at ITN recently, and this one is far from being the worst, because it was mostly sourced to proper newspapers. The issue is that when you have a controversial businessman, politician or military officer, there is always a danger that what was put in there long ago might have misrepresented sources, or selectively included content for POV purposes. The main problem here is that even with no bad intent, the existing article will need thorough working through because of the nature of the subject so that the disputes etc have the required context (cf if we just had an artist or whatever with incompleteness, it would usually not cause POV issues or mislead people) - The same applies for Tran Ngoc Chau, even if it were submitted for GA, there's possibly a substantial chance people wouldn't notice the subtle but clear neutrality issues. So basically, one would need to do fairly thorough research to be reasonably confident that the article was coherent and relatively fair. Bumbubookworm (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Specifically to the article quality, I am not convinced because a quick Google showed that most info about this fellow is relating to obstructionist/anti-competitive behaviour, land hoarding and a lot of attempts to prevent other projects to maintain a monopoly. This is not really clear and a lot of info would need to be added for his activities to make sense. Random examples  in depth profile some claims of asbestos vios. It's just inherent to the nature of this person's activities that the article would need to be quite long to not accidentally mislead/be POV due to jumps/gaps in info Bumbubookworm (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Unlike Mandela (where the events detailed in "Controversies" are more subjective), Moroun has been labelled outright as a "controversial owner" in the headline of his obituaries in the Detroit Free Press and Crain's Detroit Business, and called "a controversial figure for much of his career" by The Globe and Mail back in 2017. So it's no big surprise that the coverage on him is mostly negative.  Since he rarely does interviews or speaks to the media, there's not much to go on to fill in the gap between 1955 and 1979.  Or to improve his reputation among the general public. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I've done my best to address the aforementioned concerns. What do you guys think? —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging for good measure. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, marking ready. I think this meets standards for appropriate coverage since it highlights what he is notable for. Would prefer an additional "support" before posting outright.  Spencer T• C 16:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Just to be clear, per the above two objections I also don't believe this to be ready because the article has huge gaps in the timeline, covering the majority of his adult life. For a person of this stature and business standing, even with his secretive nature, it just isn't plausible that there are no other details available. Even from brief obits it says how he converted his father's small business into an empire; there is mention of him fighting with his sisters and taking control of the business from them, which isn't mentioned. There must be more coverage of how he came to be the majority owner of the bridge as well. Main page articles don't have to be perfect, but they do have to be balanced. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * just added paragraph about the feud with his sisters. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this nom. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Alfred Mtsi

 * Support. Short, but covers just about enough. - SchroCat (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Dantheanimator (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – per MOS:LEAD and MOS:OPENPARABIO. Also, if we take away the WP:UNDUE fluff padding of post-death "praise", this article is simply a stub hovering around the 1,500 character mark. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Opinion on the article now? - Jon698 (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll wait for GreatCaesarsGhost's response first. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said to Caesar, Mtsi was a provincial legislator for 15 years (basically a state legislator) so he easily passes the notability rules. Also the article cites multiple independent sources. - Jon698 (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It has almost been 24 hours since GreatCaesarsGhost has responded. Could you give me your opinion on the article now as I believe that I have shown why his points are meaningless. - Jon698 (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, the fluff padding of post-death "praise" is still there … in spite what I said above. Or do you consider my comment meaningless as well? —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Opinion on the article now? - Jon698 (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks better. I'm still going to wait for GreatCaesarsGhost's response to this.  I'm not inclined to dismiss his opinion so lightly. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Opinion on the article now? Since I have pinged GreatCaesarsGhost he has made four edits, with one being made on this page itself, but has not made any attempt to make further comment on Alfred Mtsi. - Jon698 (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Target does not meet the requirement of WP:GNG to have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent, nor does he does not meet the lower standard of WP:NPOL.  GreatCaesarsGhost   21:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The article cites sources from the Daily Dispatch, Buffalo City government, Queenstown Representative (know as "The Rep"), and the South African Broadcasting Corporation. Also Mtsi served as the mayor of an municipality of over 700,000 people and as a provincial legislator, making him a "state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels". - Jon698 (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging you again for a reply. - Jon698 (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging you again for a reply. - Jon698 (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment It is completely unfair that this is being close when the only reason it wasn't put up was due GreatCaesarsGhost refusing to reply. - Jon698 (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Explain how you have been able to make eight edits relating to ITN since your oppose comment, but could not bother to reply. - Jon698 (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Reading the discussion, there was no consensus that the article was in a sufficient state to post. Additionally, after assessing the article now, it is essentially a resume in prose format with respect to the subject's political career (no content about what he did in those roles), and I would have opposed it as such for insufficient depth of coverage. But that's a moot point anyway, since it's 2 days older than the oldest ITN item. See above nom that I closed even though I felt like the state met minimum posting standards for ITN; there was not consensus there either.  Spencer T• C 21:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I was not "refusing to reply." I received no notification of your pings; perhaps this is a preference setting. It is no matter - I expressed my opinion and if others feel differently, they may express theirs. There is no need to convince any one editor to change their reading of facts, because consensus rules. Note that I expressed a similar opinion about Marilyn Howard, but she was posted nevertheless. The nom failed because admins deemed there was insufficient support.  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1. The only reason it had "insufficient support" was because Bloom was waiting for YOU to reply 2. You did not write an oppose comment for Marily Howard you only replied to a comment. 3. I still want a reply to my point in response to your oppose comment - Jon698 (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1. It's Bloom's business how he chooses to manage his life. There are dozens of editors actively editing this page everyday - ignoring a nom is a vote of its own. 2. I felt more strongly about Mtsi's insignificance than I did Howard's. The consensus agreed with me on that. 3. Persons meeting one of the criterion under WP:BIO are "likely to be notable" but it "does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Rather, the guideline should be taken as a whole, considering if a person is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."  GreatCaesarsGhost   21:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1. There was no "consensus" that Mtsi was insignificant because the nomination only failed because it was stale 2. Bloom literally said that he was waiting for YOU to reply 3. If you don't believe that Mtsi is notable at all then why don't you file a AfD if not then you entire point is worthless if you don't bother to take action - Jon698 (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kelly Preston

 * Oppose a citation needed tag, an uncited end-of-paragraph, and uncited -ography sections. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per cn tag, orange-tagged filmography section and unsourced awards and nominations section. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 14:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Dantheanimator (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I think I got everything covered. Please review again.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good work. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 19:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Nicely tidied up JW 1961   Talk  21:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support nice clean up :) Kingsif (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article improved to satisfy criteria. Rusted AutoParts  23:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Brad Watson (writer)

 * Stale dies on the 8th, was reported on the 9th. We don't date from when the Boston Globe gets around to his obituary.  Stephen 04:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * even if we do date it to the 9th, there's still 3 more days to go before it should be archived. Can this not be put at the very bottom entry of RD (i.e. replacing Mahmoud Reda)? —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Why would it be dated to the 9th, he died on the 8th? We don't micromanage to when the first mention is given.  Currently the oldest RD is the 10th, so it's stale whatever date. Stephen 04:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, fine, 2 days left then. That still doesn't answer my question as to why this cannot be put at the very bottom entry of RD. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Because the oldest RD is the 10th, so this is older than that. Stephen 04:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, we do micromanage to when the first mention is given. That's what is stated at In the news: "For purposes of determining timing and staleness, the date is considered when the event was first reported in reliable sources. This will often be the same day as the event itself, but sometimes it can be some time later".  The first reliable source with national readership to report this is the Globe. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Stale, per . Even if we go by the apparent reporting date of July 9th, this is already older than all entries in RD. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there actually an established rule that says an older RD (still within the 7 day period) can't replace a newer RD? I'm fine with a nom being rejected on substantive grounds (e.g. quality, referencing, tags, etc.).  But it really feels like this is being stonewalled on an unwritten technicality.—Bloom6132 (talk) 11:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've seen plenty of instances of RDs replacing the last RDs on the same date, but not from the day before the last day on there... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 12:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What is this "7 day period" you are referencing? I'm not familiar with this.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well ITN/C has a seven day rolling buffer, right? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is an established rule, yes. It's at In the news: 'Singular events that took place more than seven days prior to their nomination are considered stale, as well as any event that is older than the oldest entry in the current "In the News" box. It goes on to say that Recent Deaths are considered separate from standard blurbs for this purpose, which I assume means the rule applies to both standard blurbs and RDs, but with each maintaining its own timeline. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Since the "established rule" does indeed say that "Recent Deaths are considered separate from standard blurbs for this purpose", I'd interpret that as meaning that it doesn't apply to Recent Deaths. If it was intended to follow a separate timeline, that would have been stated in the rule.  But it isn't. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * We have broken convention here on ITN before to post supposedly stale RDs based on reporting date. We ought to be able to do the same here.--WaltCip- (BLM!Resist The Orange One)  13:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are a lot of RD nominations competing for limited space; this one came too late. Even if we go by reported date, it's still stale. Sorry.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Should've been earlier if ever. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

July 11
Only linked to not break transclusion limit: Portal:Current events/2020 July 11

(Posted) RD: Gabriella Tucci

 * Support Short but properly referenced article JW 1961   Talk  17:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jyotsna Bhatt

 * Support is a bit short but has the in-text refs. Only possible issue is if the sources are not reliable, which I do not know. Everything else is good. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Frank Bolling

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 08:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - good to go. Sources are good, long enough. Updated.BabbaQ (talk) 08:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Comet NEOWISE

 * Support ok article, is a bit short but covers everything that a reader needs to know. Missing 1 in-text ref but other then that, this is great. Thanks for nominating this, definitely is something I'll be looking forward to. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait – A nice little (200 words) guide with basic info for would-be comet spotters, but any posting on ITN would depend on article expansion, which should be doable as the visible phenomenon peaks in a week or so. – Sca (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. NEOWISE is a bright comet for sure, but it's not the brightest of the century. That distinction belongs to Comet McNaught (2007). However, it might be safe to say that it's the brightest Northern Hemisphere comet of the century since maybe Comet Hale-Bopp. I suggested a second blurb to accommodate these facts. 142.116.200.239 (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks good enough for posting. Updated and good sources.BabbaQ (talk) 08:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – for now. Has gained 40 words; not MP material yet. – Sca (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Image What matters most for this is not the number of words but the image, which is worth a thousand words. I went out last night to see the comet for myself but didn't get a good photo.  I've seen some outstanding pictures elsewhere such as over Stonehenge or rising to the ISS.  Pictures are accumulating at Commons now and so we should look for a good one.  I quite like the dawn images such as the California desert image (right). Andrew🐉(talk) 13:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A picture may be worth a thousand words elsewhere, but this here is an encyclopedia. Pictures complement the words, they don't replace them.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Am I hearing this straight? Forgo any quality concerns over an article because someone has posted a nice picture of a comet (much like many other comets, i.e. not unique at all) to Commons?  Is that the claim this time instead of a WP:TOP25 claim?  I can't keep up with the reasons to post things at ITN which aren't what ITN is about but yet Andrew et al seem to be convinced are...... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 22:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * How do we know this is a "great comet" if that term has no agreed upon meaning?  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * GreatCaesarsGhost, "It's the brightest Northern Hemisphere comet of the century since maybe Comet Hale-Bopp" per 142.116.200.239. I think this should make it a "great comet". Dantheanimator (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your subjective opinion, but I was inquiring about the non-subjective matter of whether this is an ITNR nomination. Not all comets are great comets, and only great comets are ITNR. I've no concern about posting the brightest comet in 13 years.  GreatCaesarsGhost   21:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, maybe it's a "great comet" because someone called it "great". WP:V is mandatory in this project. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 22:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue is discussed in detail already at WP:ITN/R – RTFM. Anyway, it doesn't really matter because the existing blurbs are junk like a bus plunge which has no WP:ITN/R standing and just about no readers too. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Why would a bus disaster need a listing at ITNR? Why does the lack of "bus disasters" at ITNR consign this one to being "junk"?  I'm sorely confused by you Andrew.  One minute it's pageviews, like trying to turn ITN into WP:TOP25, next it's suggesting that items already posted are "junk" if they have no (sic) "ITN/R standing".  How bizarre. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 23:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I did read ITNR, Andrew. Did you? There is zero discussion of the problem raised here - that you cannot make a subset of a normally occurring phenomena ITNR without distinguishing that subset.  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , the footnote defines "Great comet" as "clearly visible by naked eye even to those who weren't specifically looking for it". AFAICT, this meets the criteria. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support – The article is good enough and this is ITNR. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Clearly visible to the naked eye, meets the threshold set at ITNR. The article is a bit underwhelming, but sufficiently well referenced to post. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Image The coverage and pictures are ramping up. Here's another one of the comet over the Golden Gate bridge (right).  A portent for people in San Francisco!? Andrew🐉(talk) 13:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 14:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * any thoughts on using the San Francisco image suggested by ? The comet is visible in the sky even at ITN resolution, and it is a very striking photo. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We have too many good photos of the comet so my plan is to cycle through them given each one some air time. -- <b style="color:red">King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 15:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) ABS-CBN franchise renewal controversy
*Support article is ok, has some missing in-text refs though. Maybe a different blurb though? This one feels unnecessarily long and wordy. Dantheanimator (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC) Oppose per LaserLegs. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Same thoughts on the blurb I've created. Maybe you could suggest some alt blurbs? I can't think well following this shut down. There's just too many problems in the PH right now.  Hiwilms   Talk   16:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Both alt blurbs are good. Yeah, same here . This lockdown has definitely had a huge psychological impact on me as well. Dantheanimator (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose We already posted this back in May --LaserLegs (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Legs, we can't keep regurgitating the same problem. If this is a chronic story, Ongoing is the way ahead, but this doesn't feel significant enough for that. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 19:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Parochial politix; little general significance beyond reflecting on Duterte. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all. This has been dragging on and hasn't reached international significance except for a few moments. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Close? I don't think the necessary consensus will develop anytime soon. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Marked attention. – Sca (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If we stop responding, it's the same as closing without shutting out feedback from newcomers. We really ought stop closing noms before they expire --LaserLegs (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that pre-expiration closes are bad, especially when consensus is unlikely to emerge and attention is better served with other candidates, but at that point it should be a natural close without someone expressly asking for one (unless, of course, the proposed item is bound to create a shitstorm in the discussion without any benefit or likelihood of posting, when such calls are appropriate). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jack Charlton

 * Support article is GA. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - article looks good Spiderone  08:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Soft oppose given a couple of cn tags, but a definite support once they are cleared up. - SchroCat (talk) 08:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Soft oppose per SchroCat, but good to go when cites are sorted. I was a little concerned about how much was cited to his autobiography, but unlike the Chau example below, it seems to be mainly for verifying objective facts rather than opinions, so that's OK. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support pending the cn's being fixed JW 1961   Talk  09:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I don't really see an issue with cn, the majority of the article is pretty good. Govvy (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment He was such a large figure in English footballing history, can we make this more of an ITN blurb than an RD? Govvy (talk) 10:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose the vast majority of the article is self-sourced, and it should not be a GA Bumbubookworm (talk) 11:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t mean this facetiously, but how much of his autobiography do you think Charlton actually wrote himself? His collaborator, Peter Byrne is a respected Irish Times journalist and presumably did his own research as well. P-K3 (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support an icon of English football. The article is also a GA. REDMAN 2019  ( talk ) 11:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted as the issue with citations has been fixed. Black Kite (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment This should be in July 10, not here (July 11). He died July 10. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * News of his death was not released until 11th, which is the metric we work by. Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks for telling me Black Kite. I always just assumed it was the day they died. Always appreciate it when veteran editors like you help out us newbies. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Morris Cerullo

 * Oppose tagged. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 19:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose one para is cited to 'eyewitness' Bumbubookworm (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

July 10
Only linked to not break transclusion limit: Portal:Current events/2020 July 10

(Posted) RD: Mike Ryan (catcher)

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 18:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support article looks good. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lara van Ruijven

 * Support - article fully referenced, no issues. Mjroots (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good enough article, and well sourced. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 07:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per all the above.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good article. KittenKlub (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support decently referenced article JW 1961   Talk  09:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Dantheanimator (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment been good to go for about 12 hours. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 18:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Bulgaria and Croatia join ERM II

 * Weak Oppose While the proposed article appears to be in good shape, what makes me reluctant to support it is that joining the ERM II is just that; a step in adopting the euro. According to the article linked it would take at least three more years for it to actually be adopted, which in my opinion would be way more notable. Also it seems that the "European Exchange Rate Mechanism" should be the main article here since that is the stage being joined. Mount Patagonia (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand your point and that's why I said in my comment "first expansion of Eurozone in over a decade". This should make it noteworthy. Changed main article to ERM II per your recommendation. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, I think it might help if you compared this too the granting of observer status in the UN to Palestine, which is a major step towards UN membership to Palestine. The former is seen as significant in the world of international politics. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support This is actually significant, because it represents the first notable european event which strengthens/builds the EU since brexit. Also while ERM II is just one of many steps to joining the Eurozone, it's similar to a "path of no-return" for euro adoption in new members, excluding countries which had a historic opt-out for eurozone adoption. 104.243.98.96 (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support for the reasons above. It's technical, dry, a bit procedural, so I get why it's not lighting up like a certain AfD I could mention, cough cough Kanye ahem, but this is news. And it's important news within its sphere. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support decently referenced article, important in the EU per IP above JW 1961   Talk  13:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, basically per Mount Patagonia. As and when they join the euro itself, that would be the time to post. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would also be significant but this is also significant for the reasons above. These reasons should definitely be sufficient for this to be posted. Definitely also consider that "this is first expansion of Eurozone in over a decade". Dantheanimator (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not though, is it... the ERM is not the eurozone and this is just one of several steps towards membership. I guess the potential accession to the euro itself is still at least three years away though, if the article is to be believed, so maybe it's not a big deal to run it again when that happens. I don't personally consider this a big enough story to post, but will change my !vote to Neutral and leave it to others to decide one way or the other. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per 104.243.98.96. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 17:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment You wouldn't know from this that the big news in Bulgaria currently is that there have been days of anti-corruption protests against the government. While stronger countries like Poland and Sweden continue to stay out of the ERM.  The Euro is looking rather shaky nowadays and so predicting its future is balls. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Singaporean general election

 * Oppose on quality - there doesn't appear to be a prose update on the results, and the article is generally an unreadable mess of massive unstructured tables. A better blurb would also be needed. Kingsif (talk) 01:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Would it be better if a large part of the timeline tables are removed and rewritten as prose at a later date? As for the blurb, what problems do you have with it and what would you suggest? <b style="color:#FA0">Darylgolden</b>(<b style="color:#F00">talk</b>) Ping when replying 01:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Reworking most of the tables into at least manageable tables would be ideal. The blurb should tell me who won, not ramble for a few clauses about different parties before even mentioning the election. Kingsif (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's enough time to do that if it were to be listed on ITN. I'm thinking of significantly trimming to a manageable size and detail and then rewriting as prose after ITN. The timeline is probably way too detailed anyways. As for the blurb, how about the alt blurb? <b style="color:#FA0">Darylgolden</b>(<b style="color:#F00">talk</b>) Ping when replying 02:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As long as you don't trim too much, just make it digestible. I've suggested alt2. Kingsif (talk) 02:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Which parts in particular do you think need trimming? Should the "non-official" events in the timeline (not official announcements or registration of candidates but rather political warring) be trimmed or entirely removed and readded at a later date? <b style="color:#FA0">Darylgolden</b>(<b style="color:#F00">talk</b>) Ping when replying 02:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps look at other election articles? Kingsif (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose looking better, but the source tag in the analysis section has been removed without any sources being added? Kingsif (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The analysis section has been removed by . I agree that it was OR. <b style="color:#FA0">Darylgolden</b>(<b style="color:#F00">talk</b>) Ping when replying 23:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support and marking as ready. Kingsif (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support alt2. – robertsky (talk) 02:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alt or alt2 can. Sculture65 (talk) 04:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb2 per nom. 36.77.93.247 (talk) 08:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alt or alt2 -- AquaDTRS (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Either the original blurb (preferred) or the 2nd alt blurb. The Workers' Party winning its 2nd GRC has been noted in international media, like the BBC, the New York Times and SCMP etc, so it would be a bit weird to omit the opposition's performance from the blurb; nevertheless, it seems consensus has settled on the 2nd alt blurb, which is also a good blurb. JaventheAldericky (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Changing preferred support to that of the 3rd alt blurb; however again if consensus prefers the 2nd alt blurb, I'm still good with that. JaventheAldericky (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support The mess of the tables pointed out by Kingsif have been removed and most of the relevant events condensed into paragraphs. Seloloving (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb 1 per above. Dantheanimator (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose per Kingsif's point. Although it's good that the prose was updated, and is good to go, there are still too many tables, giving information of dubious interest such as "Sample count accuracies". This seems to be a case of WP:NOTREPO. Also, I can't see sourcing for any of the "Analysis" section. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The analysis section has been removed by . I agree that it was OR. <b style="color:#FA0">Darylgolden</b>(<b style="color:#F00">talk</b>) Ping when replying 23:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted - my objection above has been dealt with, and other than that there was consensus for this. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Hagia Sophia

 * Comment – Significance? – Sca (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , it is very important for Christians. And also this wikipedia is for English-speakers many of whom practise Christianity.— Abutalub (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Aside from the religious significance, no one has mentioned the huge historical value in this church. Even as an American, where we learn little to nothing about the Eastern world, this church was in my history curriculum. Also, at the time of its construction, it had one of the largest domes in the world, the most buttresses, and was one of the largest Christian churches too. Dantheanimator (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The last sentence of the opening paragraph says all: It is considered the epitome of Eastern Roman architecture and is said to have "changed the history of architecture".--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Said by two people most of us have never heard of, according to the footnotes. – Sca (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * how do you not know the significance of the Hagia Sofia? It has a significant purpose historically, as it was the main church of Constantinople (Istanbul). Also, as mentioned earlier, it is the epitome of Byzantine architecture and was an architectural feat at its time. If you want to know more why this is so historically important/significant, please read about Byzantine history and the Hagia Sofia itself. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, Dan, I was criticizing the weasel-wording "is said to be." No doubt it's an important structure historically. But I don't see how this change makes a big diff. in its significance. It's not as if they were tearing it down. – Sca (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm very sorry then. I completely misunderstood you. I thought you were questioning the significance of the church itself, not the event. The event, I agree, is more or less a political ploy and might not amount to much and should not be included in ITN (for now). Again, very sorry for the misunderstanding. Dantheanimator (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No prob. – Sca (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak support Basically, Erdogan here, trying to gain back waning popularity, has been pushing to take the Hagia Sophia, which since 1938 has been a secular museum with both Christianity and Muslim relics, and now with a court's decision, has been able to make it a mosque. While he claims this will not change its UNESCO status, and will remain an open site of worship tourists can still visit and they will protect the Christian relics there, it is setting off some conflicts with Greece and other groups, since they see that as a unilateral action, as well as concerns of scholar of how truthful Erdogan here will be on protecting the relics there. --M asem (t) 15:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not yet OK, now Like in Oklahoma, this shift in the old back-and-forth seems more like groundwork for the real clincher down the road ( even just the reopening day would be more timely a time This is opening day, per Erdogan; the court earlier revoked museum status). InedibleHulk (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait per InedibleHulk's comment. If this decision doesn't get reversed in the next few days, then I will support but until then, wait. Dantheanimator (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm waiting till these rulings take something like effect, not to see if they're reversed/overruled/whatever in a few days. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support in principle. One of the most iconic and significant religious buildings in the world being converted to a mosque after having served as a museum for 85 years is a very big deal. I also see this as a headline news in the media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose This only pertains to one site in a large country. Keep in mind Hagia Sophia has already been allowing religious services for some time, and additionally its supposed to remain open to tourists and christian icons aren't going to be removed. Other than that this is a political stunt by Erdogan, I don't see a strong significance. I would expect ITN about AKP/Erdogan to be more appropriate if they were to introduce "anti-blasphemy" laws and the like.104.243.98.96 (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. per 104.243.98.96. FWIW, as a protestant, this isn't high on my personal list. I am open to new information or comments that indicate more importance than what has been said here. Awsomaw (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's more about its historic significance, not religious. This is important in Eastern Orthodoxy, not Protestantism (which is generally a Western European sect of Christianity). As I mentioned earlier in response to Sca's question, this plays a very important role in Byzantine culture and history and is the main church of Constantinople (which was one of the most powerful cities on the globe for decades). There is so much more why this church is so important in history but I think it's best if you learn it yourself by reading about Byzantine history and the history of the church itself. I strongly urge you to relearn your ancient history if you don't remember/never learned, about this church. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I know all about this church, its role in church history, medieval history, etc. I guess I should've clarified that. Your comment was written very condescendingly btw, not sure if you caught that. Awsomaw (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry if I wrote it in that tone, did not at all intend to. I do have to admit though, out of all the units in my 9th grade world history class, my favorites were Byzantine history, Pre-Columbian South American history, early China (Shang, Zhou, Qin, Tang, and Song; I might've learned about Ming that year but I think I might be confusing it with the Ming unit from this year), and the French Rev/Enlightenment, so I do have a partial bias/interest you could say. Dantheanimator (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I take interest in the subject as well, but the ITN nom itself seems more like a political ploy with no real ramifications yet, as others have pointed out. What do you think about that? I think if someone can convince me that there's some real ramifications other than taking your shoes off, then I will be willing to change my vote. Awsomaw (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree with you and others. This is most very likely a political ploy with little to no actual de facto effects, only de jure ones. That's why I'm not full on supporting this yet, considering Erdogan's erratic political decisions recently. I think its best to wait on this for now until definite real effects can be seen. Dantheanimator (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * What is the actual change that is happening? Speaking from a position of relative ignorance here, it seems that designating a building as a mosque is not a material change in the way consecrating a Christian church would be. I'm assuming there is no change to physical building, it still serves as a museum, and access is not hindered. Expanding the prayer that is already occurring does not seem all that significant.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You're not exactly allowed to wear shoes in a mosque, so that'll slow some tourists down, outright stop others. Also some gender segregation one doesn't typically find in a museum or church. Can't throw around profanity or stink too bad anymore, in theory. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose – Oh I realize it's a historic edifice and all that, but this particular govt. move strikes me as domestic politix writ religiously, and in the big pic. I don't see a lot of significance to it. So what? – Sca (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Everything looks like petty crap if you view it in the big picture, even within a window of the last two million years; zoom into "this week's news" for how it's all relatively significant on our teensy level. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "Everything looks like petty crap if you view it in the big picture, even within a window of the last two million years"? The main thing the Seljuk Turks/Ottomans/other regional powers fought for was Constantinople, not the church itself (if I'm interpreting your statement correctly). Maybe are you trying to say the religious struggle? Generations of Christian Byzantine kings (who were viewed as both the patriarch and emperor of the Byzantine state due to the practice of caesaropapism) were coronated/baptized in this church. It unsuprising then that the Eastern Orthodox people/powers would be bitter of the Muslim control over it. This is what I think you saying though, if I'm wrong, please correct me. Dantheanimator (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You've got it wrong, I'm saying in the grand scheme of things, human existence is Dust in the Wind. Comparing things to vastly bigger things is always going to belittle the former. Gotta look at ITN in the current events picture, no broader. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh...I get it. Yes, that make a lot more sense. Sorry for my misunderstanding. When I read you comment, I thought you were talking about the church and its role in history not that. Dantheanimator (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, I confuse a lot of people in a lot of ways. This way's new, kind of refreshing. Cheers to the Byzantine Empire! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support: This is an important event in the ongoing reversal of Turkish secularism. However, I think a better blurb than either of the three available is needed. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This template can handle more than three altblurbs, just need to add the next field yourself (if you want). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support: The building is very significant from a religious (Muslim and Christian), architectural and historical point of view. This is an important change in the building's history and it has been covered in international media, so I see no reason why it shouldn't be added to the Wikipedia main page. I also added Alternative blurb III. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Still Weak Oppose, but alt blurb III is best if decide to post. Blurb has some grammatical awkwardness. Alt Blurb I not NPOV since there seems to be genuine support within Turkey at least, which is not really implied with "secular protest".  Alt blurb II is awkward since Erdogan as President will likely not be consecrating the mosque but rather some religious figure instead.104.243.98.96 (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support because of how much it is in the news, and the secular argument. Whether it will have massive real effects on many people doesn't seem to be a consideration for this story. Kingsif (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment the referencing needs work, content is pretty good. Tourists will be fine: shoes off and a loaner scarf just like the Sultan Ahmed Mosque. The "notability" here comes from Erdogan pandering to the religious nationalism. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support What a bad move by Erdogan. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 04:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Support because of how much it is impacting Turkish secular history. Altblurb2 is preferred because original blurb is too short. 36.77.93.247 (talk) 08:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support What a good move by Erdogan. ;-) It is an important social action and the article looks good.-- Seyyed(t-c) 09:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Conditional support pending orange tag fixes in some sections. Quite a shocking decision, though somewhat expectable from Erdogan. Brandmeistertalk  11:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support per nominator. I prefer Alt1 because of the mention of secular protests, but this can be reworded. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 15:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Notability seems pretty solid here with widespread coverage. It's rare to have a significant change to a major historic site. Prefer alt 3. Teemu08 (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now at least. There is no real substantive impact to this, and posting seems a bit like amplifying political speech (all the worse, the speech of a dictator).   GreatCaesarsGhost   20:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Support (not particular about wording) Perhaps the most significant Roman building outside Rome and easily one of the oldest, largest, most visited, and most important historic buildings in Europe is changing function for the first time in nearly a century (and the first time in Wikipedia's history). This is highly significant and I am amazed that this news has not yet appeared here. It is front-page news, comparable to, say, turning the Lincoln Monument into a Starbucks. Even without its uniquely precious and long histroy, the building is one of the most significant in the history of art, design, engineering, and so on. It's function has changed significantly only twice before: once under Mehmet II and once under Ataturk. Had Wikipedia been around on those occasions, it would surely have appeared "in the news". GPinkerton (talk) 06:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment there's consensus in favour of posting this, suggest an admin assesses this ASAP. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 08:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Ready for posting. Sources are good. And news are definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 08:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not Ready with two orange tagged sections --LaserLegs (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not happy with it saying "Hagia Sophia mosque becomes a mosque again". The word "mosque" need not be repeated! GPinkerton (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Still opposed, but must admit there's been a lot of coverage. This seems due in part to Covid-news weariness, and in part to the fact that the Hagia Sophia is so photographable, with myriad free images out there. Also, religion (of whatever stripe) is ever a hot topic. But if the Turks selfishly decided to remove the venerable Christian icons – which would be a falsification of history – I could support this nom. – Sca (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose purely on article quality. Serious gaps in referencing. It doesn't need to be perfect, but this page is not up to scratch for promotion on the main page. Support in principle.-Ad Orientem (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * One way to get it main page ready: delete large swaths of content --LaserLegs (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support It's a |2020_Singaporean_general_election|European_Exchange_Rate_Mechanism|Anshun_bus_crash|2020_Kyushu_floods bigger story than the Singapore election and much more significant than the bus plunge and other fillers. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * For the nth time, significance and newsworthiness in an encyclopedia is not directly proportional to page clicks. That's what WP:TOP25 is for.  If we followed your paradigm, we'd be posting the disappearance of Naya Rivera and all manner of articles relating to Hamilton.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 10:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Getting stale anyway. – Sca (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Genevieve Westcott

 * Support brief but satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 12:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Flossie Wong-Staal

 * Weak support there's an unreferenced claim in there, but just the one. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 12:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vikas Dubey

 * Support in principle, oppose on quality - article is too short, but this guy has been in the news for quite a while, first in 2001, then now. 45.251.33.227 (talk) 06:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Long enough. Sourced. Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 09:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Ferenc Koncz

 * Comment Could do with more citations throughout Political career and first part of Personal life, will change to support when fixed. JW 1961   Talk  19:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Almost all the article is cited to Items 1 and 2, which is the parliamentary biog, which is typically self-submitted by the MPs, so it is not independent Bumbubookworm (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Antonio Krastev

 * Oppose for now Awards box says olympic medals record, but he never competed at the olympics and I think there should be sources for the medals he won JW 1961   Talk  19:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Paik Sun-yup

 * Oppose almost entirely unsourced, and of the few bits that are sourced, they are to the subject himself Bumbubookworm (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the primary refs are OK for life facts, but otherwise hardly any referencing in this article. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mahmoud Reda

 * Comment 2 citations needed, will support once fixed JW 1961   Talk  21:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD - I've fixed up the remaining cites. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

July 9
Only linked to not break transclusion limit: Portal:Current events/2020 July 9

(Closed) RD: Trần Ngọc Châu

 * Object The article is well-written, very long and comprehensive, and to the naked eye looks very good. However, on closer inspection, vast swathes of the article are sourced to the autobiographies of the subject, and the overall tone is as a result very skewed towards the subject. For example, in the early Viet Minh section, there are large tracts about the subject's opinions and how he objects to certain things, which gives a big feel of him airing his conscience. Later for instance, in the section about the 1963 coup, most of the sources are either Chau's memoirs giving his opinion on others', or the memoirs of other officers and often is on tangential material. For the first paragraph, the refs are all about who ordered the execution of Diem, not the stuff about Chau trying to make a phone call. Later, in the reeducation camp, there is extreme detail about daily life in the reeducation camp, and then generic information about what happened in VN while he was in jail. The whole article has a strong tone of being about the subject's thoughts and how he disapproves of various other public figures. Bumbubookworm (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Good enough for RD at this point.BabbaQ (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per BabbaQ. This is ready. Dantheanimator (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * How is an article that is mostly sourced to the subject, acceptable? Bumbubookworm (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a huge article and it's difficult for me to assess Bumbubookworm's objections without more knowledge of the subject. That said, the bibliography is largely unreferenced and we usually expect to see ISBNs.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In this case, not a great deal of direct knowledge of Vietnam is required. While I have read a lot about 20th century Vietnamese politics, I am not well-versed with this individual specifically, and not a lot is written about him (apart from his autobiographies). Without his autobiograph, it wouldn't be possible for this article to be so long. As a lieutenant colonel, there would easily be 100+ generals and colonels and civilian regime insiders with a high rank than he is, so it's not surprising that there is not actually much info on him in general books. Although it has a lot of refs to lots of books, mostly these are general background info, and then the bits that relate to Chau are his autobios, eg the 'As a civilian politician' section, all four paras have lots of cites. Mostly these have outside refs, but the section is background info except parts of the first para about Chau, which seems to be all cited to Chau. Then the next subsection 'Elected to Assembly' is mostly cited to him, and in the last para, there is an accusation of another person cheating, but the footnote is just another comment, not a reference. Basically a large part is cited to the subject, and while a lot appears to be outside sources, these are almost all for background knowledge. If we removed most of this excessive generic info about Vietnam, the vast majority of the article would be sourced to the autobio Bumbubookworm (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per . Looking briefly through this article, I have to agree that it seems to suffer quite seriously from neutrality issues, in particular that it repeatedly presents Chau's views on things as if they are established fact. Just to take one example, the third paragraph of the "CIA & CORDS: Redesign" section, which starts: "From Châu's perspective, what had happened was America's take-over of the war, followed by their taking charge of the pacification effort. Essentially misguided, it abused Vietnamese customs, sentiments, and pride. It did not understand the force of Vietnamese nationalism. The overwhelming presence in the country of the awesome American military cast a long shadow." Now yes, this does admit that what's written is Chau's perspective. Yet it is not presented as a quote, instead the entire paragraph is written in Wikipdia's voice, detailing this anti-American rhetoric as if it's established fact, and with no cross-reference to independent reliable sources to establish WP:Due weight. In short, I don't think this article is suitable for presenting on the main page without a major rewrite. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Johnny Beattie

 * Strong oppose IMDB is not a reliable source and there are other deadlinks, so most of the article is unsourced. Bumbubookworm (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Sahara Khatun

 * Strong oppose - dreadful article. I did a random sample and several sources were dead, and many others were government or political party websites. Note that in Bangladesh, while they do have elections, when there is a change of govt, it is common for the opposition politicians to be put on trial en masse, and civil servants and uni professors fired and replaced with partisans from the other side. So govt and party sources aren't reliable at all. There were two other sources that I removed that were a personal website and another that self-identified as 'Islamic Caliphate'. Given the political atmosphere in BD, being interior minister (interior security) has a lot of power and the events depicted are fragmented and out of context. Political exit/downfall isn't explained at all. The English needs a copy-edit but that is the least of the concerns. Bumbubookworm (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) McGirt v. Oklahoma
*Oppose per above. The article being nominated should be the court case, not the Oklahoma or Indian reservation articles, which include info on a lot of other things as well. Dantheanimator (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for now. No (bold) article that refers to this decision at this time. El_C 17:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral I have a very strong COI with this so I cannot make a proper, non-baised decision on this. The article is good though. Dantheanimator (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment this is interesting (though it's about to go down in flames) but as I read it SCOTUS didn't say the tribe "owns" the land just that it's in their jurisdiction. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not yet Sets the stage for some big changes, but the state figured out a way to create a state out of two federally-designated Indian Territories before, it might reasonably wiggle its way out of this, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added the case article that I had been working on before and after the decision and with altblurb. --M asem (t) 19:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Masem. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seems like domestic politics. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose All rulings from the US Supreme Court are going to be presented as candidates to the ITN? Tiring.Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please do not ... oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not the point being made. The point being made is why would every US Supreme Court judgement need to go through ITNC?  Some of them simply aren't sufficiently notable.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks LaserLegs for replying, but I didn't said that. I'm trying to say that it seems that every rulings from SCOTUS have to be able to be published in ITN without a previous reflexion. I support some, but lately the less important are posted here as candidates. The Rambling Man seems that he has spoken for me! Greetings.Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The US upholding its word with Native Americans has got to be news. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would not expect to see this in an almanac of the top 1000 news stories of the year, let alone the top 100. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose internal to the US, and even then, only part of the US. Banedon (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , not a valid reason to oppose this. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Strictly, no, but then there's a conflict of "don't oppose on a minor parochial political issue" and "ITN should feature stuff people are actually looking for", right? This is "minor parochial political issue" which "few people will be looking for".  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose even in the states this is not getting significant, in-depth news coverage. It got buried by the other major supreme court decisions regarding Trump's finances (which I also wouldn't support for ITN). ZettaComposer (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This is probably going to be remembered as one of the most important SCOTUS decisions relating to indigenous peoples in US history. Unfortunately, it is getting buried by the press/media who are obsessed by all things Trump and the pandemic. It's significance outside of the US is likely to be minimal. But historians and lawyers will be studying this decision and its ramifications, which could impact most of the states, long after a lot of the stuff we post here is relegated to a footnote in the history books. Sometimes (not often) court decisions really are that important. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To stress, Congress in 1908 metaphorically forgot to dot an "i" (explicitly writing "disestablished the reservations") in the Ok. Enabling Act, which is why we're here today. No other state is impacted by this. It is important in terms of tribal rights but only because Congress screwed up back then, and (as I've read in legal opinions) Gorsuch a supporter of Tribal right saw the door open to support this solution. --M asem (t) 00:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but oppose because of uncited claims. This decision has far reaching implications across the United States. It sets a precedent for challenging 100s of disestablished native american nations. Also, millions of Americans could find out that they are living on a reservation. Nearly half a million people in Tulsa just found out they are not governed by Oklahoma laws. The land is so large that the supreme court essentially created a U.S. territory with no established laws. yes we are getting a lot of SCOTUS nominations right now, but it is just the season. It won't happen all year. SCOTUS has a habit of releasing opinions in batches, twice a year. This would only be the second opinion we posted for this season. ---  C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Er, no? They have been putting out between 2-3 opinions weekly since about March. Today were the last ones for this term. Just that at ITN we tend to avoid highlighting anything that doesn't tend to have major worldwide impact. The LGBTQ employment discrimination one was probably the one case that would resonate at this in terms of world interest ("welcome to the rest of the world, US" type logic). --M asem (t) 00:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but they tend to release more landmark decisions at the end of the season. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Nearly half a million people in Tulsa just found out they are not governed by Oklahoma laws. The land is so large that the supreme court essentially created a U.S. territory with no established laws. This is demonstrably false.  Calidum   18:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Speaking as one having worked on both this and the case last year Sharp v. Murphy that ended in a deadlock necessitating this one, this is one of those that borders between ITN and DYK. ITN that, wow, half of OK is really under tribal land oversight, but that really is in practice, per the ruling, mostly limited to anything involving criminal acts (roughly 8000 prisoners in the system), and as the ruling stated, SCOTUS fully expects the states and tribes to work out any conflicts in the future. Hence I feel it is better as a DYK-type fact. --M asem  (t) 00:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the point of suggesting DYK when it does not qualify at this time? Are you going to take it to GAN? --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What I've saying is, as one that wrote much of both case articles, is that at the time, the impact of this is not clear because the only direct aspect are about 10% of 1900 prisoners in OK that may get a federal trial now, and its more humorous that Congress forget to dot that "i" in 1908 as the "bigger" point, which would have been a great DYK if this was eligible but presently its not. (Taking it to GA would make it such). Just because its in the news now does not mean we have to rush to get to the DYK point, I'm just pointing out that I think that's what makes this more interesting than not. Certainly considered what type of scope ITN should be, this decision is minor, whereas at DYK has no scope issues. --M asem (t) 15:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support Yes it's domestic politics, but it is also part of the global issue of indigenous rights. No one says "domestic politics" whenever another country legalizes same-sex marriage or legalizes marijuana. NorthernFalcon (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Ad Orientem and Coffeeandcrumbs. Proposing alt blurb 2. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 02:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support a comment on indigenous rights as a whole, and definitely an important decision in the grand scheme of things. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  08:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I might have considered this for posting had the SCOTUS ruled that half of the United States is Native American tribal land. But for one state out of fifty, this is definitely not it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You realize the land is about the size of 1/4 of Germany or 3/5 of England. That nearly 2 million people could be living there. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What you say translates to 0.9 and 0.6 per cent of the United States in terms of area and population, respectively. That's a resounding 'no' for now. I'm here to reconsider my decision at any time if this eventually appears to have a domino effect and a series of rulings with similar outcome comes in.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You MIGHT have CONSIDERED posting the creation for the 7th largest country on Earth? How magnanimous.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator. Thinking though a number of treaties with Native Americans that the US has reneged on, this is belated great news. Thank you, Justice Gorsuch. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose – Wider significance seems lacking at this point, as there appears to be no immediate effect. – Sca (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While the decision is certainly notable, and potentially a landmark case, I don't think it merits placement on ITN. The effects of the ruling are fairly limited. While the eastern half of the state is now a reservation (or always was), homeowners won't be losing their property and the tribal government won't suddenly become the new ruler of the land. The case simply means that Indians charged with crimes in the territory in question will now need to be tried in federal court rather than state court.  Calidum   16:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support largely per Ad Orientum and C&C. -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Calidum. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait because I see there might be a bigger story (otherwise support) - what are OK going to do with this? Make something like the Navajo Nation, or quietly fix the old treaty and sign the land back over to the state. If the first, that's the bigger story. If the second, this ruling was basically pointless and not worth posting. Kingsif (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Park Won-soon
*Support - looks good to go for RD.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC) *Support High quality article. This is ready. Dantheanimator (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC) *Only support as RD and never have or will support this blurb for ITN. Dantheanimator (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - source calls him the second-most powerful politician in South Korea. Death is well-sourced, and blurb can be updated as more facts emerge. --WMSR (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support article definitely good enough for RD, and looks important enough for ITN too. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Blurb Non-retired transformative figure, death will affect a currently powerful city, not just get a lot of tweets. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * could you describe how he was a "transformative figure"? His article certainly doesn't give me that impression.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The guy helmed a megacity, if you can't see the power in that, you never will. But aside from that, the suicide of a major international figure for sexy shameful reasons is big news. At least in Canada. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * mis-typed your name.... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 22:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, unexpected death of non-natural causes of a sitting politician in powerful office. --LukeSurlt c 17:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per the above comments.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. 331dot (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb This the type of "unusual death" we'd consider, given that he was under accusations of sexual misconduct - they haven't ruled out either suicide or foul play but the death doesn't appear natural (despite being 64). --M asem (t) 19:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oops I see this was posted as blurb :P --M asem (t) 19:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oops indeed, what a mistake. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 22:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb not even close to notability for a blurb --LaserLegs (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb ??? Hardly near the threshold for a blurb. Banedon (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Switch to Weak support blurb on the depth of coverage in South Korea, even if it's not very prominent elsewhere in the world. Banedon (talk) 06:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb the mayor of Seoul is now equivalent to Mandela/Thatcher/&c? Wow.  Just wow.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb The sitting mayor of one of the most important cities on Earth dying suddenly and under mysterious circumstances is huge news, which is supported by the lengthy articles in major publications. -- Kicking222 (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , please explain to me how Seoul is one of the most important cities on Earth. Probably if you are an American or some Westerner or person of Korean descent, sure, this city is probably important to you. However, do you seriously think anybody in Africa, South America, or most of Europe care or known much about Seoul? This has got to be one of the most subjective statements I've seen in a while. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There's always going to be subjectivity in such a statement unless you're talking about London or New York. For the sake of supporting the statement, however, I will point out that Seoul is seventh on the Global Power City Index, the ninth most talked about city in the world, and is fourth on the list of cities by nominal GDP, ahead of Paris and London. It is without question an important city. - Plasma Twa  2  07:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point Plasma . Yeah, Seoul is rather important. Dantheanimator (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Support blurb - This is not a clearcut case, but he is the leader of a highly-populated area in a large country, so has control over a large budget/population etc, who died in controversial circumstances while under investigation for a scandal. So the notability is also due to the scandal. He is not being put in per Thatcher/Mandela as that is for intergenerational statesmen/women who died of old age long after retiring; it is clear that he wouldn't be in here if he died of old age at 80, 20 years after leaving office, even if he was impeached Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I posted this because of the unusual and likely unnatural death of a prominent official. Seoul itself has a population of almost 10 million, more than some countries. 331dot (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope. I hear this  "population" argument all the  time  (e.g. "California has a higher GDP than 90% of the countries in the  world" etc).  Nope.  To equate the "mayor of Seoul" to Thatcher/Mandela etc is a total joke.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As I stated, I posted him because of the unusual death, not due to equating him with Thatcher. 331dot (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I will add that WP:ITNRD states "Death as the main story: For deaths where the cause of death itself is a major story (such as the unexpected death of a prominent figure by homicide, suicide, or accident) ". 331dot (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A lot people die unusually, doesn't mean they get a blurb on the main page of Wikipedia. The mayor of Seoul!! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Are a lot of people mayors of large, global cities? I've cited the relevant policy above. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is simply not blurb-worthy. If the mayor of London died,  I'd  expect RD.  Terrible decision.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * - not criticising your decision to post because there was solid support at the time, but I think there's enough doubt about this now that it should be moved to RD for the time being. You've mentioned the rule regarding "death as the main story", but that doesn't give us any clue as to what calibre of individual would warrant inclusion under that. The mayor of a city, albeit a major one, does not constitute the level required. So this is certainly far from clear cut. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The mayor died under mysterious circumstances(that I won't go into here due to BLP) that are unusual for a prominent politician that is the leader of a large, globally influential city. I appreciate your opinion, but I disagree. If you want to develop specific criteria(which IMO would be instruction creep), that is your option.  Thanks 331dot (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that would be instruction creep, but as has already been said several times this blurb is not clear cut under the present wording of the "rules" either. And the lack of consensus right now means it should be pulled. You say his death was "under mysterious circumstances" but the blurb says nothing about that, and as you also say it is a BLP and we should be avoiding assigning more intrigue to this than is currently reliably known. To add insult to injury I notice below that the second in command of the Ivory Coast, who also died in office unexpectedly, has not been blurbed. Which is also IMHO correct, that's an RD too, but to blurb the Korean guy and not the African seems dubious to me. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The man you speak of died of a health problem, not circumstances similar to those in this case. 331dot (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In neither case would there be any objective measure to suggest the individuals were "transformative". After the strawman arguments, and failure to see the questions being asked, this can be declared as the worst RD blurb decision since Carrie Fisher.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 22:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe, a seasoned ITN regular, could have waited a bit longer before posting a blurb here, but at the time there was a consensus for it. I'm opposed to the consensus, not the admin who recognized it. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, there was a consensus for RD. The blurb came along after some supports for RD.  Bad call. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 23:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb and move to RD only per above. Was surprised to see this just now, and given there's probably nothing very remarkable about his death and he wasn't a head of state, I don't think there's a very good reason to blurb it. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment we've hit an all-time low bar with this being a blurb now. A mayor, not a head of state, of a city in South Korea killing himself is not what our blurbs should be about.  Perhaps this is the new Carrie Fisher.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to limit blurbs of unusual deaths to heads of state, you are free to propose that. 331dot (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's clearly not what I'm saying. This individual does not rise to the level of "transformative figure".  If he does, please explain how.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 22:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have responded to this point already and don't think it productive to repeat myself. Thanks 331dot (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you've not mentioned anywhere that I'm aware of as to how this individual could be considered "transformative". You've said he was in a position of political power (not a big one) and he died in unusual circumstances (suicide after accusations of sexual impropriety) but you certainly haven't expressed how he was a "transformative figure".  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 22:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is an "or" between "unusual deaths" and "transformative figures" though obviously, we're not posting non-notable Darwin award winners. I fully agree on 331dot's reasoning that a sitting major of a major ~10M city, embroiled in a scandal, and found dead by non-natural causes, easily meets the "unusual death" bar. If he had died of natural causes even as the sitting major, I would definitely agree only an RD was necessary (64 and natural death is far less unusual). --M asem (t) 22:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It was posted as a blurb when most votes in support were cast when the nomination was for RD. This is an admin super-vote (as evidenced by 331dot's attempted defence of the posting), as the point being, if we had a clear consensus for a blurb, it would be non-controversial.  As it stands, we don't, and we never did, but an individual admin interpreted it as we needed a blurb.  Error.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 22:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So I shouldn't defend and justify my actions? 331dot (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You absolutely should be accountable for them, as you suggest, no-one said otherwise. The problem is you posted a blurb for an RD, and now you're doubling down by using personal thoughts on it rather than just using the community consensus which is what you're charged with doing.  Never mind, but this is (as I've said) a new low for ITN.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 23:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove blurb Death blurb are contentious as a rule. To post one after just three hours debate is remarkably poor form, especially for someone as inconsequential as a mayor.  GreatCaesarsGhost   22:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ON second though, removing the blurb once posted is disruptive.  GreatCaesarsGhost   22:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a good point too, this was posted as a blurb after three hours. We regularly  have RDs with 100% consensus sitting there for eight hours or longer.  Bad call.  Shouldn't be a blurb, poor decision.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 22:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really very disruptive. You just remove the text, flip the picture back to the previous one, and add him to RD. It happens quite often, but whatevs, your !vote is yours to cast as you wish! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Also something not mentioned earlier by anyone but, who in the world cares about the death of a random mayor of the capital of some country. No offense to Seoul but, to many readers, it is rather irrelevant and I doubt anyone even knew this guy before he died. As per Amakuru comment, the 2nd head of state of Cote'd Ivoire should have been included. It baffles me how a admin would fast-track this and post it but ignore my last 2 noms. Dantheanimator (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement that everyone in the world must care about the subject being posted. Every subject is irrelevant to someone. Very little would be posted otherwise.  As I noted, the man you speak of died of a health problem, not unusual, unnatural circumstances.  I did not "ignore" nominations; I am not the only one who participates here, nor is it required that I or any user comment on every single nomination. 331dot (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * True, not everyone has to care about the subject but it has to be actually significant/relevant. From what I understand, this mayor died from suicide due to some sort of scandal. I'm sure this may be interesting to some, but only a small fraction. I don't think suicide is unusual or unnatural. If it is, Sushant Singh Rajput's death should of had a blurb. His page got 13,684,142 views in June. Dantheanimator (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , also, consider that Ennio Morricone, who had thousands of fans, made huge contributions in music and is a pop-culture icon, DID NOT get a blurb. Further, Sushant Singh Rajput's death is SIGNIFICANTLY more contentious than Park Won-soon's. There is no reason that Park Won-soon has a blurb and image but neither Ennio Morricone or Sushant Singh Rajput don't. Dantheanimator (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't comment on every past nomination and explain why it isn't the same as this. I considered the nomination in front of me. Neither of those two persons died in circumstances similar to this one. 331dot (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, Rajput also died of suicide under strange circumstances. There deaths are very similar in nature. Dantheanimator (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My opinion, of course, differs. I don't really have anything else to add. 331dot (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , so will you consider re-posting him as RD instead of ITN? So far, there has been some consensus on the removal of him from ITN. As a admin, you should consider this consensus. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I posted this per the guideline I indicated above with consensus at the time(and additional support has come in since). I stand by my decision. 331dot (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright then, I concede defeat. I just want to say though, as somewhat previously mentioned by The Rambling Man, this posting does severe injustice to many, many people who died recently. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If there have been other notable officeholders of large, globally influential cities who have been found dead after being charged with a crime, possibly by their own hand, please point those out. 331dot (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well not an officeholder, but Sushant Singh Rajput death was just as notable and his page recieved A LOT of views, a lot more than this one will ever. Both deaths are so similar in nature, as I said earlier, that it is surprising that they each received different treatment. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support blurb. Per 331dot. And I would advocate the same for London and New York. I don't think the RD Blurb fight will ever have a real clear-cut consensus until we more specific rules are established, given the recent discussions on Little Richard, Vera Lynn, and Ennio Morricone. I'd support a stricter measure. But until then, I support this. Awsomaw (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , why would you support this if you think this is a contentious issue? All the people you listed did NOT get a ITN blurb. It seems to me that until now, all the commotion was about posting a blurb for someones death, not removing a posted blurb of someones death. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, if no clear consensus on blurbs like this can develop or there is a debate regarding it, then it shouldn't be posted. It seems to me that we are doing injustice to all the significant people who were nominated for a blurb but only got RD. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Good questions. I'll try to go one at a time here. commotion. No, the past commotions were about whether or not you should post. If they were only commotion about not posting, then there wouldn't be commotion, it'd be snow. Just as reference, I voted for blurbing Richard, and then not blurbing Lynn off of precedent for Richard, and then abstaining for Morricone (because I don't know the guy). contentious. To me, it's not that it's contentious that we are blurbing stuff, it's that it is contentious because we do not have some hard guideline for posting or not posting. All the people you listed did NOT get a ITN blurb. I think that this death is quite different (maybe even qualitatively different). 1. The impact of his death is greater. Impact on people, politics, and press. 2. The cause of his death is different. It is not natural causes. I think these two reasons are valid reasons to consider blurbing Won-soon over Richard, Lynn, and Morricone, but I wouldn't be opposed to blurbing all of these if sufficient reason was given. At the same time, I see the need to have stricter rules so that we don't have these discussions all the time, so I wouldn't be opposed to a rule that would end up in all four of these people not getting blurbed.
 * doing injustice. Okay now. I think that 3 hours was a bit fast. But to WP:AGF, there was no opposition at the time, and so it seems to me like 331dot saw no reason not to blurb it then and there. We can argue back and forth about whether he should've waited or not, but let's just assume good faith here; he was not trying to intentionally do anyone injustice or make an admin super-vote, and I don't think that 331dot foresaw this kind of opposition. Now that it is up and there is opposition, I think it's fair for blurb to be taken down and pulled to RD and until consensus or close. (, I hope you don't mind me speaking a little for you, sorry if you'd prefer me not to.) Awsomaw (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm not saying that 331dot posted this in bad faith. Absolutely the opposite, 331dot posted this 100% with good faith but the issue is that 331dot continues to keep it up and defend it. While yes, there was clear consensus for posting it at the time of its posting (I even supported it, only for RD though) but now, the consensus is far different than it was originally, with many including myself preferring this for RD not ITN. As such, this should not remain in ITN since the consensus has developed out of its favor. Despite this, 331dot continues to defend its continued posting. This is my issue, not that it was ever posted but that it is still posted. I don't mind you speaking for me, you said it pretty well yourself. This should be taken down and posted as RD until a true positive consensus emerges. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry, it seems then that I should AGF for you next time. It did seem to me like the opposition was trying to accuse 331dot, but it's not a big deal. I would like the blurb to be up, but leaving it up is unfair, as you've helpfully pointed out. I think we are on agreement on this then, though you may still disagree with me on the earlier comments. Awsomaw (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you Awsomaw for agreeing. The only issue I have with this is that it is still posted in ITN despite the change among in consensus. This can go back up on ITN but only after it develops a "clear" consensus. Until then, this should remain as an RD. I think this is the best solution for everyone. Dantheanimator (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, regarding the nature of the death, as I said earlier, Rajput's death is very similar to this persons death. Rajput's death had a "great" impact (his page got 13,684,142 views) and the "cause" is not natural (he died of suicide too) and debated (police investigation is ongoing). The fact that Rajput did not get a blurb while this person did is the one of the main issues with this posting. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just because their nature of death are the same, doesn't not entail that their impacts are the same. I think that the cause and impact together makes this an unusual case that merits a blurb. Awsomaw (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Pull and move to RD. In no way important enough for a blurb (look at the article!!), and posted far too quickly for a blurb.  Black Kite (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please point me to the ITN guideline or policy about an arbitrary minimum comment period. When I posted, there was no opposition at all, and at least four comments supported a blurb(with some others unclear). Opposition has come in, but so has support. 331dot (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well then, let's have a look at the news. BBC News Front page?  Thirteen major stories there.  Not this one.  You need to click onto "World News" and it's the 4th highest story even there.  The Guardian?  12 stories.  Nope, buried in "Overseas news".   New York Times?  Need to scroll a long way down the page.  Le Monde? -  11th story.  Times of India?  Nope, buried in the foreign news section in small type.  And so on.  Blurbs for people should be worldwide top-level news.  This one isn't even mid-level.  We've posted something to ITN that isn't in the news. Black Kite (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support blurb and strongly oppose removal. The incumbent executive of a major global city (classified as Alpha under the GaWC scale) dying in office is huge news, especially given the circumstances. The story is on the front page of the NY Times and BBC websites, among others. This blurb also helps balance out the ITN section, which has a relatively minor story by world standards (EncroChat) that I have not seen mentioned as front-page news on American websites or TV programs.  Sounder Bruce  01:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "This blurb also helps balance out the ITN section, which has a relatively minor story by world standards (EncroChat) that I have not seen mentioned as front-page news on American websites or TV programs." HOW IN THE WORLD IS ENCROCHAT MINOR??? Encrochat lead to the arrest of over 800 people, seizure of millions in criminal cash, and much much more. It was also the hugest Euro-wide police operation in Europe in a while. SounderBruce, why does it have to be mentioned in American news? Your opposition is literally because of geographic bias. If you actually looked at international news, you would have seen it very soon. Why does your geographic bias have to affect out coverage on ITN? Dantheanimator (talk) 02:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not on the BBC front page, and it's buried half way down the NYT. Someone needs to tell the media that it's "huge news", because they don't seem to agree. Black Kite (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * News websites can vary their headlines due to location. There is no requirement that something be on X number of front pages to merit posting. 331dot (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Googling "Seoul mayor dead' gives me results from numerous outlets around the world. 331dot (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Googling "Black Lives Matter painted outside Trump Tower", "Trump tax returns", "Aston Villa 0 Manchester United 3" and "Naya Rivera" (amongst others) give me even more. This is not blurb level. Black Kite (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * As I note above, WP:ITNRD gives the following criteria: ""Death as the main story: For deaths where the cause of death itself is a major story (such as the unexpected death of a prominent figure by homicide, suicide, or accident)"(my emphasis). I believe that this posting is in keeping with that criteria, though I respect differing views. 331dot (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's exactly my point though - it doesn't appear to be that major a story, because he wasn't a prominent worldwide figure. Even the most-criticised previous RD blurbs (i.e. Carrie Fisher) were at least people with worldwide recognition.  How many people would have known this person before today?  Black Kite (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * so does googling Rajput and others mentioned earlier. This is simply un-acceptable for ITN. If you want to put major news on ITN, you should reconsider the aforementioned individuals. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * He was not a mayor of a globally influential city who died after being charged with a crime, possibly by suicide in an effort to avoid that charge. 331dot (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * But he is a popular Indian actor whose page recieved more views in June than any other persons page by a long shot. I agree with you, they aren't exactly the same, but they're pretty close. Why do we keep still arguing about this. Just re-post it as RD, re-nominate it as a blurb and get a proper/up to date consensus for posting. Dantheanimator (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Whilst I agree with you about the RD, can we leave Rajput out of it? He's not really relevant to this situation at all. Black Kite (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe consensus existed and still exists as support has come in since I posted it. I'd prefer there not be wheel warring on this, but I'm not going to in retaliation, so people can do what they will. And if consensus changes overnight, then it does. Good night(truly). 331dot (talk) 02:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * On a separate note, there is 4 of us (me, Black Kite (talk), The Rambling Man, and Amakuru) who oppose this ITN posting and want to see it re-posted as RD. How much longer until a clear consensus is developed? Dantheanimator (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , According to my version of BBC.com/news, the story on mayor Park is the most-read of the day. It is in the second section of the front page, next to stories about Michael Cohen and Chinese sanctions.  Sounder Bruce  02:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support blurb per SounderBruce. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 02:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Pull blurb, move to RD No consensus for a blurb, posted far too quickly. I’m surprised that this was not posted as RD first, with blurb discussion continuing, as is standard practice. A mayor is not notable enough for a blurb in my opinion, even if it was not natural causes.P-K3 (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb For Christ sake this man was described as the second most powerful politician in South Korea and was the mayor of the country's capitol. For a man of his stature to presumably commit suicide is rare (as in a high ranking politician). Plus its getting global coverage. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb this was a highly unexpected death of a noteworthy politician which made headlines around the world. This certainly seems like a case where it is the death itself that is noteworthy, rather than it being noteworthy solely due to his status when alive. I can't help but feel users are applying the Mandela/Wicked Witch test incorrectly since the person's accomplishments when alive are not the sole determining factor of whether their death warrants a blurb. -- Plasma Twa  2  07:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb. We have a prime minister of an African state (Amadou Gon Coulibaly) at RD, but the mayor of a single city gets a blurb? Either both should, or - a must better step - neither should. This inconsistency is a bit of a joke. Coulibaly's was a "highly unexpected death of a noteworthy politician which made headlines around the world", and "a highly unexpected death of a noteworthy politician which made headlines around the world" "the second most powerful politician" in a country, so how come we're happy with one serving politician at RD and one with a blurb? - SchroCat (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Posted after three hours with a fake blurb consensus and I'm still waiting for someone (anyone) to tell me how this individual was "transformative"?  Total joke. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 09:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The minister in question died of a health problem, which is not unusual in older people(he was 61), and he did not commit suicide to avoid criminal charges. I've twice cited the policy which permits postings like this one. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, 331dot, but you haven't quoted a policy, just an information page, and even then it's a paper thin justification (the guideline says if it's "a prominent figure" (questionable here) then the blurb "may be merited to explain the death's relevance". (1. "may", not "has to", and 2. I fail to see any explanation of the death's relevance); suicide isn't mentioned in the report - no cause of death is given, so the justification falls apart even further. It's a bullshit situation which has the appearance of a supervote. If you think it's suitable that a mayor gets a blurb and a Prime Minister of an African country gets a RD, then there is something deeply, deeply wrong about the way this is set up. - SchroCat (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that any official who dies of a normal health problem would merit a blurb, while I think that the leader of a globally influential city(which is probably more influential than the Ivory Coast, rightfully or wrongly) who dies under these unusual and unnatural circumstances does. The mayor's daughter reported that she received a message from him that sounded like a will, so he knew he was going to die. Race or nationality played zero part in my thought process.  If you feel that the guidelines should be changed, that is your option to pursue. 331dot (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the metrics of your decision making are flawed here. We don't know how he died, and although suicide is a possibility, you've jumped to that conclusion based on scant evidence. And seriously, a mayor of a city out-trumps an entire country? Again, that's a judgement call rather than something set into the guideline (not policy). Common sense is a long way away from the decision to have a blurb on a mayor who is dead in unknown circumstances, against a president of a country. It's a shockingly bad decision whatever the paper-thin justification you try and wheel out. - SchroCat (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Mayor of Seoul states that "The position is historically one of the most powerful in the country, charged with managing an annual budget of 23 trillion won. Many Seoul mayors have gone on to hold higher office" which is also usually true of Prime Minsters(in countries with an elected head of state or government). Seoul itself has a population of almost 10 million, more than about half of sovereign countries. Consensus existed when I posted and support has still come in.  I don't wheel war so whatever happens with this will happen, but I stand by my decision.  Anyway, thanks for the discussion. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine. Ignore the Prime Minister of an African country with a population of 26 million who was a candidate in the 2020 Presidential election (and the likely winner of it too); that's OK - Africa is kind of used to being overlooked when decisions are made. There was absolutely no consensus for a blurb when you posted (only two people !voted for one in the first three hours) - and that's why it looks like a supervote. It's a decision lacking in common sense when taking the balance of RD and blurbs into account and the guideline you have followed hasn't even been followed - I'm still trying to work out just how it "explains the death's relevance". Can you explain how it "explains the death's relevance", particularly given we have no idea on the cause of death? - SchroCat (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate the implication that race or nationality played a role in my decision. The article explains the relevance of the death as does the support in this discussion. When I posted, there were four support comments for a blurb and no opposition of any kind. Additional support has come in since. As I've indicated, whatever happens with this will happen. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

No, there were two three supports for a blurb at the point you posted. There were other !votes, but it cannot be claimed they were for a blurb. I'm sorry but that's either a supervote, or you've misread those !votes as supporting something that wasn't necessarily being supported. As it is, you've left us with a blurb (and image) of a mayor, while a Prime Minister of an African country is relegated to the RDs. Whether it was meant or not (and obviously I assume not), that gives entirely the wrong impression. Given the amount of pushback on this, it would be a sensible step to drop this back to RD. - SchroCat (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I interpret the comments of WMSR, Joseph2302, InedibleHulk, and LukeSurl as supporting a blurb, and the comment of Lugnuts says support based on the above comments that discuss blurbs. So that five, really. 331dot (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Aye, I see five. I also see Seoul's GDP is five times higher than the Ivory Coast's. Anyone given a choice between holding either position of power wouldn't equate them, one's clearly the bigger deal. Likewise, unnatural causes beat natural in news. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Then that's either bullshit or you're a mind reader. Only three of the comments mention the blurb, the remainder (in a discussion headed RD: Park Won-soon, not "RD/Blurb"). Given the clarity of the section heading, votes in support are votes for RD unless spcifically or clearly indicating a blurb. Only three do. You've supervoted and you're now sitting on that without showing any flexibility. I think that tells us all we need to know. - SchroCat (talk) 11:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have to be a mind reader to read the words in front of me that clearly indicate what I stated. I don't feel any flexibility is needed here. If you can find someone to do what you think should be done, that is your option. I've already said whatever will happen will happen. I do not have anything new to add. 331dot (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The words clearly showed support for an RD, except for the three that referred to a blurb. It’s fine if you can’t accept you’ve erred - I’ve come across enough admins who suffer from the same flaw, even in those who think super voting then not budging from it are an acceptable course. It speaks volumes. Well, if you won’t do the honourable thing, let’s hope there is someone around who will. - SchroCat (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I can absolutely accept that I have erred and I am offended at you claiming otherwise. There have been many occasions that I admit that. I don't feel that I have erred here. If we disagree about this matter, fine.  But that isn't a refusal to admit anything.  Very disappointing.  331dot (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Supervoting is disappointing. As is inflexibility. As is clinging to spurious claims of vote counting when the reality is rather different. If you can't see that you've erred in counting, or won't admit it, then there is little I can say that will get through. Such inflexibility is very, very disappointing. I also wonder why you didn't bother to follow the section of the guideline that reads "In cases where a blurb has been suggested for a recent death, but there is debate about whether to use a blurb or not, but the article is otherwise updated and of quality by editorial consensus, the name may be posted as a Recent Death while the blurb discussion continues." Was this not deemed a worthwhile step? - SchroCat (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "May be" posted, not "shall be" posted or "is required to be" posted. 331dot (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So you go with "a blurb 'may be merited to explain the death's relevance" when there is no relevance in the blurb - supervoting after only three hours in the process, then ignore "the name may be posted as a Recent Death while the blurb discussion continues" when it's a dubious call. Do you see how shaky your position is on this? Again, I have to wonder why you are refusing to acknowledge you have erred on this. If you truly believe you've made the right call, then it's a question of competence and flawed judgement, but I hope you just erred. If you can't see that, then we're back to C and FJ, which would be a problem. Why the desparation in having this as a blurb? Given the number of people asking for it to be pulled, do you not think that following the guidelines you should have followed ("the name may be posted as a Recent Death while the blurb discussion continues", etc) would have been a better course of action? I don't understand why you are being utterly inflexible on taking on board the number of complaints on this. - SchroCat (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You cannot treat a plain “Support” in an RD as explicit support for a blurb. P-K3 (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to Joseph2302, they state that it was "fine for ITN" which I interpret as referring to a blurb, as they mentioned RD separately. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb per the excellent points raised by others. One rule of thumb, I guess, could be: would there have been some support for a blurb if the death was ordinary? Like we had with Vera Lynn. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've already said that if he had died from a health problem(as the prime minister mentioned by others did) this would not have merited a blurb. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus for a blurb, especially after just three hours. Even well updated RDs are kept hanging around for half a day to a day these days, but this one was erroneously posted as a blurb after three hours.  Not good enough. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 12:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose/Comment - I'd say that for a death to be a blurb there has to be either - 1) a personality of top international recognition (like Mandela, Thatcher, etc.) or 2) that the events around the death is a news story in itself with a proper wikipedia article of its own (and then that wiki article is judged on its own merits for ITN). In this case neither 1 nor 2 applies. --Soman (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can certainly say that, but in saying that you would be contradicting WP:ITNRD which specifically says unusual causes of death (e.g. homicide or suicide) warrant a blurb posting for a death. Please familiarize yourself more thoroughly with these guidelines.--WaltCip- (BLM!Resist The Orange One)  12:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Except they are not that clear cut. It says it may warrant a blurb (and even then, we don't know the cause of death at the moment - it's likely to have been suicide, but there is nothing official to say that, just speculation). And when it leaves an imbalance in ITN (i.e a mayor of a city with blurb and image being given more weight than the Prime Minister of an African country who only warrants a mention at RD), then common sense has to be applied to that "may". Sadly common sense isn't that common. - SchroCat (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say my comment is largely in line with WP:ITNRD, albeit not verbatim. I.e. that deaths might be sufficiently significant news stories in themselves to warrant a blurb. In this case, the blurb made no mention of any unusual cause of death and until 10 July the article made no explicit mention of suicide (I didn't revise the entire editing history however, but at least there was no explicit mention in stable article versions of suicide until that point). In fact, even now, there is no material in the article itself whatsover that deals with reactions to the death, nothing to indicate that the event had any profound impact in Korean (and much less global) society. --Soman (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support blurb - Are we allowing "unexpected [manner of] death of a prominent figure" as a criteria for blurbs or not?--WaltCip- (BLM!Resist The Orange One)  12:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Pull - A blurb about this essentially personal matter is a glaring overweight mistake. – Sca (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There are very few "personal matters" with prominent government officials. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about a sex act. 331dot (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's time to recognise that this was a bad post and should be pulled, and to stop trying to find each and every way to attempt to defend it. It is most unbecoming. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 13:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There does seem to be an air of desparation and denial in the defence of a poor call. Very disappointing. - SchroCat (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no desperation in my responding to criticism of my actions. I think I made a good call in keeping with guidelines.  If you can find someone to do as you request, fair enough. I don't have anything else to say. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The point you're continually missing is that admins are supposed to be judging consensus, not make up reasons for why something should be posted when after three hours, there was no consensus for a blurb. All the responses attempting to come up with reasons why it should have got a consensus to post are not what an admin should be doing. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 13:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not missing anything. I judged the consensus and explained why I feel this is in keeping with guidelines(even citing the guideline) and explaining why that is.  Okay, now I have nothing else to say. 331dot (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You are supposed to assess if there is consensus for the "unusual manner of death" blurb posting, not just supervote because you personally think it meets that criteria. I'm disappointed that you have not self-reverted after a substantial amount of opposition has been raised.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 13:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah - the 'head in the sand, I have done no wrong' defence, well beloved by erring admins since the early days of Wiki. - SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * +1 from me too. The original decision to post can be defended, albeit a little earlier than I would have posted given that opposition could well have been predicted and RD/blurb decisions are usually more protracted. But things have changed since the intitial posting, and it is now clear that this doesn't enjoy consensus. There is no shame in accepting that. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Post-posting as blurb support. Tragic and highly unusual anywhere in the world that a leading official disappears and is found dead. We've posted assassinations of politicians. Why not this? (Also, by my count (NOTAVOTE), my vote evens out the supports and opposes to a blurb at 10-10. At this point there should be a clear consensus to remove. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I think I made a good decision, based in guidelines and continue to believe that. However, I don't want my decision to roil this board any more than it already has so I am pulling it.  I think it's disappointing that we aren't going to follow our own guidelines but it that's what people think, that's what they think. I'm also going to reevaluate my participation in ITN in general. 331dot (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think you did the right thing. I get that there are different interpretations of the guidelines, and that some (including yourself) feel this meets the threshold for inclusion as a blurb. But equally there are many who think it does not meet the guidelines. There's no way either of us can argue that this is crystal clear and unambiguous, and in the absence of consensus it's correct that it be left off. I do hope this won't cause you to step away from ITN, because your contributions here are certainly valued. All of us sometimes make what we think is the right decision but later have to retract it. That's just part of Wiki-life. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing the right thing. Now you can make a proper consensus for re-posting in ITN. As said ealier by Amakuru, we all appreciate you contributions to ITN and hope you don't stop because of this issue. Dantheanimator (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * , please don't leave ITN. You're one of the sensible ones in a sometimes senseless place. Your contributions here are invaluable. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - I support reinstating the blurb. BabbaQ (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * FYI and FWIW, Mr. Park's demise appears as an RD-only listing (with age, identifier) on today's French, German, Spanish, Swedish and Norwegian Wikis. – Sca (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What's this? The Paris Peace Conference? The Korean, Bahasa (Malay and Indonesian) and Thai ITNs all are having this as their lead story. I do see Ennio Morricone being the main ITN of many Wikipedias, and not just demoted to RD just like here in en.wiki... Howard the Duck (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support blurb. I don't see how the sudden death of an incumbent mayor of a city of 10 million residents doesn't qualify for a blurb. This seems to be a textbook example of the second example at In_the_news/Recent_deaths: "Death as the main story...deaths where the cause of death itself is a major story (such as the unexpected death of a prominent figure by homicide, suicide, or accident)."  Calidum   15:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible oppose for the blurb as per previously raised opposition. In comparison to previously rejected noms of very notable people, this fall extremely short. It might meet the criteria for posting but, considering previously more ITN-worthy noms got rejected, it would not be fair for this one to be allowed. Dantheanimator (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You've voted in bold four times on this now, and only struck out one, that seems unfair. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Allow me to raise doubt that your oppose is the "strongest possible". Seriously, what a silly preface.--WaltCip- (BLM!Resist The Orange One)  18:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , the first one was a clarification of my previous vote. The other two were supporting the removal of this from ITN, not the not-posting of it on ITN. WaltCip, how would you like me to word it? Would you prefer me saying "Very, very, very strongly oppose"? Dantheanimator (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The three each essentially say "RD only", bit visually misleading to a consensus weigher (unless they're astute). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Am I the only one who hears Kevin Pollak when people vote like this? "Objection, your Honor." "Overruled" "No, no. I STRENUOUSLY object." "Oh. You strenuously object. Then I'll take some time and reconsider."  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I stroke out all my previous votes. This should solve the problem. Lol yes, it does sound very similar  GreatCaesarsGhost  . Should watch the film again, its been to long since I last seen it. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "Struck", but yeah, way better than just stroking one out, thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support blurb per nom. -- Tavix ( talk ) 17:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Currently the count is: Blurb (20-21): Davey2116, WMSR, IndelibleHulk, LukeSurl, (Lugnuts?), 331dot, Masem, Banedon, Kicking222, bumbubookworm, Awsomaw, SounderBruce, Nice4What, TDKR Chicago 101, PlasmaTwa2, WaltCip, HowardTheDuck, BabbaQ, Calidum, Tavix, LSGH. No blurb (11-12): Laserlegs, TRM, Amakuru, GreatCaesarsGhost (?), Black Kite, P-K3, Sca, SchroCat, Usedtobecool, Soman, Dantheanimator, Kingsif.  Updated 19:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)  Not sure what consensus really is though, but I don't think things are changing much. Not sure what is enough to post, or when stuff should close, but I thought putting this here might help people get a feel on where the discussion is right now. Awsomaw (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You missed Sca. And GreatCaesarsGhost was also initially opposed, although they withdrew that on the grounds that it might be "disruptive" to pull the blurb once posted. But it actually is now pulled, so maybe that still stands? I think it's unlikely this will be reposted, but then I am biased obviously. At some point it's conventional for someone to come and stick a hat on the top with "consensus is unlikely to develop" and we can all move on with our lives! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Was sure I missed someone. I've updated the numbers now. I agree, we should either just close or post. No use in waiting. Note that GreatCaesarsGhost was in as GCG. I've expanded his name now to avoid confusion. Awsomaw (talk)
 * Count my nom as a 'support blurb', for much of the same reasons as the other supports above. In particular, we're not using the "transformative leader" criterion here since the unusual death is itself the story, and it also has significant impact on South Korean politics (as he was the incumbent mayor of the largest city) and even the MeToo movement there (due to his scandal). Also in my consideration was Seoul's global importance and the substantial RS coverage of the death. I'll admit that I did expect this nom to be contentious, though not for the discussion to be this long; I agree it's about time to decide this one way or another. Davey2116 (talk) 03:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll add that I'm somewhat irked by the excessive criticism of 331dot's decision, which was well within reason, both considering the state of consensus at the time &mdash; to set the record straight, there had been 6 'support blurbs' including mine, with no outright 'oppose blurbs' (one 'support RD' was later clarified as 'oppose blurb', while another was later clarified as 'support blurb') &mdash; and as an appropriate use of admin discretion on the ITNRD policy. Some users repeated the same points after 331dot had already responded to them. Some of those points, such as how prominently this story is displayed on news sites and which allegedly similar death-blurbs were previously posted, are specifically listed (at WP:ITN and WP:ITNRD, respectively) as being weak reasons to oppose in the first place. 331dot's frustration is entirely understandable; like many, I do hope that this discussion does not cause him to leave ITN. Davey2116 (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I wouldn't worry about it, it's merely a disagreement. You should have seen what happened when I tried to post an image with an RD! (apparently I was crazy). Stuff happens, please keep working here. Black Kite (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * An image with an RD? Shocking behaviour, Black Kite. How very dare you! smiley.png &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Everyone who has dared to post something in the template has been beaten up at some point, take a nice weekend 331dot and we hope you make it back --LaserLegs (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb I can understand the arguments on both sides, but when comparing this with other RD blurb noms that haven't gone up, and considering it is not a too strange/dramatic death, this is a no. Possibly worse than posting Carrie Fisher, when there was at least a big pop culture reaction. It's also barely hit the news, and is not even near the top death story in the news, being beat out by Vera Lynn's funeral and Naya Rivera's disappearance (guess which of the three articles I've been editing). Kingsif (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Late Support It's extremely rare that a news item that already gained its spot at the main page would be pulled because of unfounded rationales for opposition by some. The death of the mayor was under controversial circumstances, and Seoul is the capital city of a G20 economy, so those alone give as much notability for its mayor. It's also a headline that has been given attention by the larger international media outlets. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 03:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to wonder if all the fuss about this blurb was really worth it to chase away a long-time contributor to ITN.--WaltCip- (BLM!Resist The Orange One)  15:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * But Walt, where's your editorial patience? It's a mere 6,500 words – about 25 pages of typescript. Surely you can slog through that.... – Sca (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm counting over 9,300 words, which far surpasses John McCain (7,004 words) as the longest death-blurb discussion, and approaching the Special Counsel blurb dispute (10,241 words), the longest discussion in ITN history. Davey2116 (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * By golly you're right! A second run of my word-counter puts it at 9,446 words, from nominator's comments to Walt 's comment above. I apologize for this disinformation, due entirely to operator error. Doh is me. – Sca (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

July 8
Only linked to not break transclusion limit: Portal:Current events/2020 July 8

(Closed) RD: Finn Christian Jagge
*Strong Oppose Missing an in-text ref, is a stub, and has no mention of the person's death. This needs a lot of work. Dantheanimator (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC) *Weak support it's rather short. Dantheanimator (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Stub. – Sca (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as of now there are no references. -- a lad insane  <small style="color:#006600">(channel two)  22:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unreferenced and a stub JW 1961   Talk  22:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article is super short.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose it's still a stub and the table appears to be unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 06:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment This article is now fully referenced.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - it's a stub. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chynybaĭ Tursunbekov

 * Comment This article seems pretty short right now.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Some citations needed, marked on article. JW 1961   Talk  22:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support now referenced JW 1961   Talk  22:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

*Oppose for now per missing in-text refs. Dantheanimator (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support looks good, although short. Sorry for the late correction. Dantheanimator (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose Not fully referenced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 06:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment now seems ready. Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. I almost opposed this, because the article is incredibly short. But at 1562 bytes of readable prose it is I suppose *just* above the threshold of what we consider to be a stub, so meh. Maybe someone will expand it! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Wayne Mixson

 * Oppose for now. Several uncited paras need addressing first. - SchroCat (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Dantheanimator (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose (for now) This article is currently decently sized. However, it has some unsourced pieces of information.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed some Citation Needed templates to make way for sources that I added.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Still 4 citation needed tags, will support when those are fixed JW 1961   Talk  19:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - citations needed, and the electoral history section is entirely without referencing. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD/Blurb: Amadou Gon Coulibaly
* Support Short but well cited. This is ready. Dantheanimator (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article in good shape. Question, What about a blurb?. Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems a reasonable question, given he was the serving prime minister and possible (likely?) future president of a country of 26 million people. His death in other circumstances would not justify a blurb on his death, I suspect. Perhaps you could create a standard ITN nomination - I think this is being reported by the BBC in a way that might support that -- PaulBetteridge (talk) 07:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I just added the blurb, but I'm afraid it might be too late. What do you both think? Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support – looks good to go. Marking as ready. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment still ready 10 hours later. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 06:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 09:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb as a sitting non-acting head of government. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Blurb for a non–ceremonial heads of state with limited power (e.g. Bhutan) or de facto government leaders whose offices lack de jure constitutional power (e.g. Myanmar). --LaserLegs (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So the office of the Prime Minister would be equated with the Chief of the Cabinet of Ministers of Argentina? If so, I understand your opposition.Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * But we'll post a blurb for a mayor? I'm not happy with the lack of consistency at ITN. (Not a dig at you, LaserLegs - I know you opposed both, which is my position too) - SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A longer-serving mayor, with more constitutional, political and financial power and a less-routine death. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "more constitutional [and] political ... power"? No. Not only was he PM, Coulibaly was a presidential candidate in this years elections and a likely winner. His country holds 26 million people. Having him at RD with a mayor with blurb and image is entirely the wrong stance for ITN (and that's ignoring the tabloid bias ITN has with 'Ooo - a suicide! Let's give them a blurb!') Common sense is to have two political figures, both powerful in their own country, on the same footing, regardless of the possible sensationalist aspect of one of them (and there was no announcement on the cause of death for at least the first 24 hours with Won-soon, just speculation). - SchroCat (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * He had legislative stroke, not executive. Those 26 million people are part of the state, not government, could be 52 million and still not matter here. His presidential campaign went nowhere, never will, just hypothetical potential. There's a reason his actual seat can stay vacant this long, while Park's couldn't. Oohing at sudden violent death may make me a pervert, but this is a filthy den of bus plunges, mass shootings and plane crashes; aahing at lower-profile natural causes would be the wrong look in context. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support blurb for reasons cited. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as RD by default, Support blurb if Park Won-soon's blurb gets re-posted per above. Dantheanimator (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per above. Although not strictly an unusual manner of death as Park's was, this is still unexpected. He was an incumbent in a high office, and also had seemed likely to be elected president in October. Davey2116 (talk) 04:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Per Dantheanimator, Support blurb if Park Won-soon's blurb gets re-posted. Two senior political figures, both powerful and important in their own country, should be on the same footing. Either both at RD, or both with a blurb. - SchroCat (talk) 07:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. The PM is chosen by the President, who is head of government, so I agree with above.  "If we do X we must do Y" is a poor argument for a place where each nomination is judged on its own merits. Same goes for "we didn't do X so we shouldn't do Y". 331dot (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see the point your trying to make but you have to understand that some of the decisions made here create long-term precedents. There needs to be concrete expectations for posting on ITN and those expectations are somewhat defined by these precedents. Breaking these precedents does more harm than good unless its a permanent change. ITN needs more consistency as mentioned earlier by SchroCat. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't go by precedent, we go by consensus like the rest of Wikipedia. Consensus can change over time, or from one post to another. Concrete standards just makes this a news ticker. SchroCat (and you) is free to be a frequent contributor here to add to the consensus if they have certain standards they want upholded. 331dot (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry . Can we just stop debating this? I've mostly forgotten what the main point of this debate is anymore and I'm quite tired of typing up about it. I think it's time we move on and look ahead. Good night from long island, NY. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am a fairly frequent contributor here, but not as frequent as some, given my interests are wider than just ITN. You appear to have misunderstood what my rationale is with this !vote, but I’m sure that’s just the clumsy way I’ve written about consistency within a set of displayed ITN ‘Headlines’. Never mind. Like Dantheanimator I think we should just move on from this. - SchroCat (talk) 07:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb per 331dot. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 15:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Munah E. Pelham-Youngblood

 * Support Shortish, but covers the main points of notability in Liberian politics, and is cited throughout. (Are we sure this time the news is true tho...?) - SchroCat (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears so.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Short but well cited. This is ready. Dantheanimator (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Marked ready. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment still ready, 8 hours later.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 06:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 09:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alex Pullin

 * Comment The article is very much a stub, and the report looks like a click bait. (I know I just clicked) To make matters worse the report says "may have been spear fishing," so even that part is doubt, however ABC does mention a resuscitation attempt, so the article can be expanded from just that single source. Try to develop the article to Start class first, because there's too little for somebody like me who doesn't know the first thing about Alex Pullin. KittenKlub (talk) 06:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC) Changed to a Support, it's becoming more of an article.KittenKlub (talk) 09:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support it's a start class article already. It is brief, but what's there appears in good order. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 08:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I've added a couple more lines, but it does feel like this article covers all the (online) content about him. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 09:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Good enough for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 09:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support looks good. &mdash;Jonny Nixon (talk) 09:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 10:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Australia has snowboarders? Fascinating. Thanks, HiLo! InedibleHulk (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Dozens. &mdash;Jonny Nixon (talk) 04:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

July 7
Only linked to not break transclusion limit: Portal:Current events/2020 July 7

(Posted) RD: Brad Pye Jr.

 * Support. Slightly short, but covers the main points and fully sourced. - SchroCat (talk) 11:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above comment JW 1961   Talk  12:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 12:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mary Kay Letourneau

 * Support there's a lot on the crimes, but given that's from where her main notability stems, I guess it's not therefore undue. Article is in good shape.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 08:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Good shape article.BabbaQ (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support; good-sized article that is fully sourced. - SchroCat (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go JW 1961   Talk  12:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 12:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) U.S. withdraws from the WHO

 * Comment Maybe I'm confusing this with something else but I thought this was a previous ITNC suggest back when Trump suggested he was going to do it... I wanted to find that previous ITNC to review what the consensus was for posting (at the announcement or when the dead's done, in a year from now), but as I said, thre's a lot things Trump wants the US to withdraw from so I cant' easily find it. --M asem (t) 20:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose at this point, though. The year delay is required, so there's an election between now and then, and if Trump is outed and the next President wants us to stay, that can be undone. If it should be the case that the year goes by and the US does commit to leaving then we can post. --M asem (t) 20:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose post it when they do leave, not when Trump continues to rattle his sabre/saber.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 20:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose as per User:Masem although, given the circumstances, another shocking Kung Flu chop at the stability of world health. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Question does anyone know if this is a "Brexit" thing where they can change their minds 100 times or if this is a done deal? If the former then wait, if the latter then we can post now (assuming the article is OK) --LaserLegs (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What? Brexit wasn't "changing minds 100 times",  the government followed the result of the referendum and we're leaving the EU.  The deals we're making on the way are changing,  but I don't recall "a "Brexit" thing where they can change their minds 100 times".   Perhaps find a bit analogy for whatever it is you're trying to say?  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * After 4 or 5 delays right? Sorry if I misspoke. Anyway Wait the update is quite good but "it was unclear whether he had the authority to do so.". We'll need that sorted out first. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, I think a handful of internal amendments hardly equates to a hyperbolic "a "Brexit" thing where they can change their minds 100 times". And as you probably know, if Trump is shown the door in November, this probably won't happen, so it's time to put the crystal ball away and declare this as a "dead duck".  Quack. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, I misspoke and clarified I meant delay and delay and delay and delay glad I was able to clear that up for you. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No it was clearing it up for yourself. I think those of us living through Brexit have a clue as opposed to some bizarre foreign commentary.  How odd.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly, I'm glad you understand now --LaserLegs (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – I realize it's not done, but I'm tempted by the irony: It's like quitting the volunteer fire dept. when your house is on fire. Unfathomable. But this won't fly here, yet. – Sca (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per just about every comment above. Kingsif (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm pretty sure that the US's temporary withdrawal from WHO happened a month ago. See here and look for the publication date.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: It seems the main issue is the title of the ITNC, since it was really an announcement to withdraw in a year. --Light show (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There was a process started today, but there is a mandatory year period before the US can complete it. I'd assume this is to assure all funding commitments can be transferred w/ minimal disruption, etc. So there's an official clock running, but again, there's an election between now and then. --M asem (t) 22:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Why is everyone assuming or hinting that Trump won't get reelected in November? Every president since Bill Clinton has served 2 terms, even George W. Bush! The chances of Trump being elected are higher than everyone here is hinting/indicating. This will very likely take place. Dantheanimator (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * While the incumbent president usually has a good shot, Trump is behind in nearly all polls at the current time. He may still have a second term, but this is clearly far from assured at this point, compared to any of the last 3-4 Presidents at the relative same time. --M asem (t) 23:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's definitely not assured but it's more likely than your implying. Consider that Trump's election win was unexpected and against the polls, so whose to say this won't be the same? Also, consider that there will be other individuals running in the election, like Kanye West. I'm certain that Kanye West's presidental bid will take away the support of African-American southerners who usually vote for Democrats. There's also a possibility of another email scandal or of the like happening again, so Trump's reelection possibilities aren't that bad.Dantheanimator (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * While it's true that this move in the "middle of a pandemic is what makes this notable," as the nom states, it might be worth considering the move in context, ie. over five months ago Trump offered to send China and the WHO help, and both have ignored the offer, up to the present. So it's hard to guess what even Biden might do differently.--Light show (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all; we can post if/when the actual withdrawal takes place. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Good faith nom and certainly merits mention in the main article. But for ITN this is TOOSOON. Suggest speedy close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Legality of the assassination of Qasem Soleimani
*Support Alt blurb as NPOV. That a sitting western leader is directly implicated by the UN is notable and unprecedented. We are used to seeing cases of developing country dictators being charged, never some member of a G8. Whether or not the charges will lead to actual persecution/trial is irrelevant. 104.243.98.96 (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose at the moment. The process here is that Callamard will present the case to the Human Rights Council Thursday, and they will determine what actions should be taken. That will be the point to post when we know what will be charged. --M asem (t) 23:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable path to wait until case is presented at UNHRC on Thursday and re-evaluate then. 104.243.98.96 (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now per Masem. I would also note that, at least for the moment, this is receiving scant attention in the news media. While I don't require wall to wall news coverage for my support of a nomination, if it's something likely to be controversial, then we need a reasonable degree of coverage lest we run afoul of WP:RGW. This forum is for items that are In the News. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is like Malaysia (?) prosecuting Bush/Cheney in absentia, and without any further developments or action this seems like a bunch of posturing and saber-rattling. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * John M Wolfson, i'm going to guess you're talking about this. This Tribunal is not recognised by the United Nations with its verdicts being only symbolic. Unlike that, Agnès Callamard is the UN. Completely different situation although, it will probably turn out the same since US law has precedence over UN laws. Dantheanimator (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I still think this isn't going to go anywhere, and in the absence of a hubbub about it I'll still oppose. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose until something other than a "statement" occurs. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 08:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is no risk of any binding prosecution of anyone here. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Countries violate international law all the time and this is a pretty de minimis example. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's a statement, and little more. If it escalates then it would be worth further consideration. - SchroCat (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Anshun bus crash

 * Oppose disaster stub --LaserLegs (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support not a stub, but a disaster. Weak because the article is weak.  It's a proper tragedy, I imagine if a Greyhound skidded off a freeway killing 21 students, it'd be a cakewalk to the main page.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the consensus would be entirely transient and of almost zero encyclopedic value much like the current nomination, actually. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, strictly speaking yes, you are correct. I actually remember that crash (I wasn't officially with wiki at the time) and didn't think much of it. However, unlike that crash, this crash led to the deaths of mostly students. Arguably, this is as notable as the Umpqua Community College school shooting. You definitely have a point though but consider that if the Kyushu floods made it, this should too, since both are as "notable". Dantheanimator (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the fact that the victims were students has to do with it - deaths are deaths, and I've never heard of us adding any weighting based on their age or education status. Also you can't compare road traffic fatalities, which happen literally every day, with school shootings. 20 deaths is quite a lot though, and although I note that I opposed the limousine crash, in retrospect that was probably an error and it should have been posted. ITN can be a tricky quagmire at times though. I posted this one because there seemed to be broad consensus, but if that changes we can rethink. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Short article but the content is there and sourced. Normally regular passenger traffic accidents we don't cover but this is sufficiently large to be included. --M asem (t) 23:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You also opposed Schoharie. Do you believe that 21 deaths is sufficiently large, but 20 is an "unfortunate traffic accident"? 75.188.224.208 (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 *  Very weak support The article is well-sourced but it's pretty short.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am a little bit convinced per TongcyDai.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support An 8000-byte-long article is undoubtedly long enough to tell the readers all the important information.--TongcyDai (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - long enough. Good sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per LaserLegs. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 15:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No opinion here, but I'd just like to thank ITN editors for putting a bus plunge article (including those exact words!) on the main page. :) Robofish (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I was going to ask if we could adjust the blurb to "A bus plunges into a reservoir in Anshun, China, killing 21 people and injuring 16.". --LaserLegs (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose We just posted an article into ITN about a bus that plunged into a river 4 days ago? Recommend Speedy Close. 104.243.98.96 (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * At a minimum, lets try to get the ordering right, it should be 2nd after the Kyushu floods, which are still going on. 104.243.98.96 (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's a literal bus plunge story? We are not even trying anymore, I see.  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, you didn't complain when the Kyushu floods were accepted. I agree with you though, the standards here have been made way to low by very poor precedents. There needs to be reform. Dantheanimator (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't necessarily go by "precedents", we consider each nomination on it's own merits. This is because every contributor has their own opinions. Many people have tried to design a rule to keep out what they see as undesirable, and not often succeeded. That's just instruction creep. 331dot (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I get that each article is judged in it's own merit but their exists a minimum bar for inclusion in ITN. This bar is set by the community and sort of defined through its application. Ignoring this bar is akin to ignoring the purpose of ITN. By posting the mayor of Seoul, you more or less lowered the bar to a record low (as mentioned earlier by TheRamblingMan). This is what the main issue is in my understanding. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would respectfully disagree that it was a "record low" or a low of any kind, but I won't relitigate that here. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment the consensus was pretty weak when this went up, and it seems to have swung in the other direction. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe wait until 1 or 2 more people oppose and then remove? As it is now, it seems like its 50/50 or very close to that. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep – In general it's bad form to post and then pull, which comes across as dilettantish. Exceptions would be items with serious demerits (such as, IMO, the Park Won-soon suicide). This bus plunge doesn't seem to pose any obvious flaws. – Sca (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment the opposition is, generally, ridiculous: "disaster stub" and "per LaserLegs", who made the "stub" assertion. This is fine, we're not hanging around counting votes to remove an item which had decent consensus to post while opposition is just "I don't like it" and copies of that.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep this is going to be superseded out of ITN by either today or tomorrow anyways, no need to still debate removal.104.243.98.96 (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

July 6
Only linked to not break transclusion limit: Portal:Current events/2020 July 6

(Closed) Chiafalo v. Washington

 * Oppose and I did much of the contributions on the article. This was a decision everyone was predicting and it wasn't going to change the election. The number of times people have faithless-ly voted in the EC is so minor that its not a compelling issue to be ITN. There are things wrong with the electoral college, no one seriously thought the route of using faithless electors was the route to fix it. --M asem (t) 18:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose just not significant enough for ITN.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle I'm going to disagree with everyone here on this one. I didn't expect this at all as per M asem 's comment and I think this is significant for inclusion on ITN (as per P-K3's statement). However, there is some missing in-text citations. Once that's fixed up, I'll fully support. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I follow US politics and Supreme Court rulings and yet I cannot see how a rarely used quirk of the electoral college system would be of much interest to a wider audience. Perhaps you could explain the significance?-- P-K3 (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, this is unexpected and interesting. I don't really follow US politics that much (except near the elections) so I never really expected this. Besides, of the Wikipedians/readers from countries other than the U.S., the fact that this quirk existed until know will be relatively surprising to them, considering most other countries don't have this type of political system. P-K3, I'm not saying this will be seen as significant by other people but that I believe it is significant. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe for those that are familiar with the Electoral College, the faithless elector concept is rare, and only has been of talk later with the last Presidential elections and was being pushed as a possible mechanism for this upcoming one. From "There has been one faithless elector in each of the following elections: 1948, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1972, 1976, and 1988. A blank ballot was cast in 2000. In 2016, seven electors broke with their state on the presidential ballot and six did so on the vice presidential ballot." (In other words, 15 times for a President on well over 10,000 different elector votes in the last 100 years). That basically this decision maintains the expected status quo makes this a non-story.  (If anything, the other case decided, that robocallers can't call cell phones for debt collection payments, has a more pronounced impact, but even then that's not ITN). --M asem  (t) 19:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait a second, there were no faithless electoral votes in the 2004 election? Wow, that is really surprising. Thanks M asem for the info, its always great to get informed on things like this. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Masem.  Calidum   19:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose on notability which I try to avoid, but this is pretty arcane. These electors are partisan hacks selected by the party apparatus before the popular election and the only thing SCOTUS has done is to affirm that they're partisan hacks. The entire electoral college is a disaster for democracy -- let me know when the constitution is amended to dismiss it. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's always fun to walk up to people and say "There is no right to vote for President in the U.S." and then hear them try to explain why there is. (There isn't.)--WaltCip- (BLM!Resist The Orange One)  20:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's the right to vote for the right president that seems lacking. – Sca (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose hyper-parochial, arcane, literally of no interest to practically any of our readers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 19:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Routine court decision likely to have little practical impact in the US and none at all outside it. We don't do domestic politics and routine court cases. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Zippo effect on any national affairs in the US.--WaltCip- (BLM!Resist The Orange One)  20:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above.Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Unless they're saying that a faithless elector is one who doesn't have a religion. Clearly, such infidels should be burned at the stake. – Sca (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- not notable enough. Wouldn't expect a similar ruling in another country to show up ITN. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  21:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Philippines Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 Opposition

 * Oppose too much WP:CRYSTAL. By a long chalk. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 20:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy close and see you once the Supreme Court rules on it.... or probably not (see nomination above). Howard the Duck (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Close This nom is ready to be closed. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Snow close -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  21:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charlie Daniels
*Oppose for now As per Spengouli's comment, there is some missing in-text citations. Once these are added, this is good to go. *Support Looks good to go now, thx Bloom6132 Dantheanimator (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've just finished adding refs to the missing in-text citations. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. The subject's filmography is the least significant thing to be concerned about. The article is otherwise reasonably well-cited. The importance of the subject nears blurb territory. BD2412  T 18:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * He's nowhere close to blurb territory. Yes, he's in a few Hall of Fames, but has no awards or other recognition to his name (I'd be comparing to someone like Kenny Rogers who does have a massive body of awards/nominations, and who looks like we never even posted due to lack of improvement but there was opposition even there to a blurb. --M asem (t) 18:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the orange tagged section is fixed, and the filmography is cited.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * All cited now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Still needs refs, it seems. And yes, not a blurb by a country singer mile. Kingsif (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * All referenced now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support thanks Bloom Kingsif (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose far too weak. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 20:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've just finished referencing the filmography and the remaining "citation needed" tags. How about now? —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support thanks et al, it's a job well done.  G2g. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support especially considering the improvements over the past few hours. The sources are now there.  Although primarily popular in North America, Daniels has a four-decade-long chart history and was something of a cultural icon in his heyday.  — <span style="border:1px solid #93010b;background:#ef0000;padding:2px;color:#efe6e6;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em; font-family: Georgia;"> AjaxSmack  21:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support well referenced now JW 1961   Talk  22:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted RD) RD/Blurb: Ennio Morricone

 * Oppose a wealth of unreferenced prose, works, awards etc.  Needs a LOT of work. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 07:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , our music editor, if she's available. Brandmeistertalk  12:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the invitation, but I'll decline. While I agree that he'd deserve a blurb, I never edited the article, and am not familiar with the topic. The last two days, I took care (unplanned) of two who recently died and who would NOT get much attention (Nikolai Kapustin on the Main page, too late for the other), while his death will be noticed anyway. I think it's a shame that our rules prohibit to do him justice, but I remember the amount of work Jessye Norman's article needed. Big difference in motivation: she was someone who changed my life, while he just composed great music. You whose life he changed, find the sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ... adding: it's pointless to support. As long as teh rulez don't change, every fact needs a ref, or he can not appear. Time spent on supporting what can't happen would be better invested in adding references. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * By now, I added a book, a ref for his quote, and the Golden Globe obit. All could probably be useful for other facts if someone took the time. Someone is not me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb in principle. He is definitely the first name of a modern composer that comes to one's mind whose prolific career has exerted lasting impact in the history of modern music and film. There are some unreferenced paragraphs but the article is very well written in general.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb- Very far from being "transformative world leader" among all composers, and if we choose to narrow his field for WP:ITNRD to specifically film score composition, which is very specific and should not have many individuals qualify for a blurb, there are at least two figures that are more notable than Morricone (Bernard Herrmann and John Williams).  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 08:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In your opinion. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 08:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I don't find it necessary to clarify that things which I write are my opinion.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 08:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well it's important because people may consider  you to be an authority on such matters whereas you are simply stating a personal preference.  As far as I am concerned, Morricone deserves a blurb, and I've never heard of Herrmann.  Dangerous to go around declaring that some individual  is "more notable" than another.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 08:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You gotta click the link before you self-own like that. As a great Wikipedian once said, "it's always mildly amusing that people think by telling us they've never heard of iconic individuals somehow strengthens their argument where all it does is undermine their commentary as being an exemplar of pure ignorance."  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And one day you'll understand that I was being ironic: somehow claiming with authority that "A is more notable than B" is total nonsense. That was the point here. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I do apologise though, I have been reminded that some "cultures" don't understand irony, so please accept my deepest sympathies for any misunderstanding here. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I hope that nobody would take me to be an authority on film score composers (which I am certainly not) simply for expressing an opinion about some. By that heuristic, everybody at ITN/C would be assumed an expert on international politics.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 20:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's fine, you made a mistake, we probably don't need to perpetuate the issue. Clearly "notability" is in the eye of the beholder.  Cheers.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should narrow his field to film score composition as he composed many other popular compositions and has greatly influenced other music artists (In this vein, the last sentence of the introduction says "Morricone has influenced many artists from film scoring to other styles and genres, including Hans Zimmer, Danger Mouse, Dire Straits, Muse, Metallica, and Radiohead."). As for Herrmann and Williams, the first one lived in another time and is very far from the significance of his contemporary Dmitri Shostakovich, while Williams is great but not as influential as Morricone.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This would seem to support my argument, as if we are comparing him to all other 20th century composers then he is not nearly as close to the top.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 18:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, we're comparing him to all composers now (at the time of his death) and he's definitely on the top of the field. You can't compare people from different periods.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I meant to emphasize that I was referring to your suggestion that we consider him in the field of music composition in general rather than just film score composition.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 20:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Uh, he's probably not going to have the impact of Mozart or Beethoven, but I'm pretty sure no-one thought that was the case. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 20:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * By striking 20th-century, I intended to clarify that I agree it makes sense to only compare with other composers of the same generation. Sorry that wasn't clear.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 21:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Very cool, thanks for the clarification.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually some have called him the "Mozart of film music", while Tarantino considered him his "favorite composer," even compared to Mozart and Beethoven. --Light show (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not "some", it's Richard Mowe, and Tarantino has long been reputed in the press to lack a taste for decent art (and per Google, quite a few composers are considered a "Mozart of film music"). InedibleHulk (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose anything at the moment: way too much unsupported material to warrant any showing on the MP. - SchroCat (talk) 09:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC) On reflection, and only when the referencing is complete, oppose blurb; should be an RD only. - SchroCat (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb: This man was a giant in the movie world. His scores were transformative in their uniqueness and distinctiveness, and no other composer has come close to his recognizable style. Listen.--Light show (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb: The man was a legend. Easily one of the most well-known film composers in history. And for the record, both John Williams and Bernard Herrmann fit that bill, too. MetaTracker (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose not postable in either RD or blurb in current state. --M asem (t) 09:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support if/when improvements are made. Currently, the article is a mix of the good, the bad, and the ugly.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose referencing issues and oppose blurb no media circus and NOTMANDELA. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not ready for RD and oppose blurb. There are numerous entire paragraphs with no references at all. He was certainly a notable film & TV composer, but I don't think he was sufficiently influential on music in general to merit a blurb. Blurbs are supposed to be for the top individuals in an entire field (in this case music), not specialisms within that field (film composers). <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support: Very well known and critically acclaimed composer, and the people who have never heard of him will instantly recognize the music. However the article needs a lot of work, and it's a big article to boot. Support Blurb and Posting, if you can get it properly referenced.KittenKlub (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as a bare minimum the insertion in RD. Nick Cordero has 29 references in the article and was inserted with virtually zero discussion, Ennio Morricone is by far much better known worldwide, and by the way the article has >170 citations. I am surprised it's not in RD yet. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not the number of references total, it's the number of unreferenced claims. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There are a few unreferenced claims in the body of the text, but I don't think it's enough to dismiss it completely from RD. If the lede section is fine, it can be listed in RD. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We follow WP:BLP which says nothing about only applying to the lead. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, if I had a € for every time someone said "there's no need to worry about all the unreferenced stuff, there are actually 29 references in this article!" then I'd be a Euro-millionaire by now.  "It's not how big it is, it's how you use it"......  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 20:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Very funny. Now, the article has no single section that is completely unreferenced. There is only one subsection that is, I would say, largely unreferenced, in the sense that there are currently 8 "Citation needed" templates. While surely the article is not at high standards for Wikipedia, I still don't think that it's so bad that it can't be mentioned in the RD list. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support blurb It's frankly dumb that we are having this debate.--WaltCip- (BLM!Resist The Orange One)  12:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You mean every famous person who dies should automatically get a blurb? Cos otherwise we need to have a debate.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb – Support RD only (when ready), due to comparatively minor status. – Sca (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, Support posted as RD only due to minor status of this composer for music industry. This is not like Tchainvosky. i also support posted altblurb it needed. 36.77.93.215 (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, you gotta be living under the rock to not know this guy. The Good the Bad and the Ugly theme anybody? 82.26.220.45 (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Internationally known, certainly at the top of his field. Davey2116 (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support altblurb this Italian composer is well known abroad. He was a Oscar winning Italian composer of more than 500 film and TV scores by him. 114.125.251.80 (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb The vital articles list is a good place to start consideration of the weight of a person within their field. If we review the section where Morricone is listed, there are 30 names. My feeling is this is too niche to post more than one. The top three is some order of Morricone, Williams and Herrmann, but I'd never put Morricone at the top.   GreatCaesarsGhost   15:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your use of an actually somewhat objective metric in this morass of subjectivity that death blurb discussions have become.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 20:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To put some context around the "vital articles" claim, that microcosm of Wikipedia is governed by a handful (and I literally mean half a dozen) people. This is really important: if we as a community are starting to look to WP:VA to underpin the notability of individuals going for a blurb,  we absolutely have to have that discussion via RFC because somehow relating an individual's importance to a truly minor sub-project with basically no community oversight and a couple of regular users is really contrary to what we're trying to achieve here.  The stats for the project and talk page speak for themselves: |Wikipedia:WikiProject_Vital_Articles here so please, until someone can substantiate that that specific pet project is actually a true reflection of notability beyond a consensus of a couple of people and practically no viewership, desist from attempting to use it as an "objective measure" here.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not know that so thank you for bringing it up, but even so it is still a better argument than most in recent death blurb discussions.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 23:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm marking this as ready for recent deaths. There may be a consensus for a blurb, but I will leave that decision to an admin.  Calidum   16:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * How is it ready for RD? There are still large sections of unreferenced text, which is not up to the article quality requirements. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm unmarking it, but I found a good book which solves perhaps some of the problems, and which was already in the article but cited only for the fact of his birth. I used it more for musical training, but have to go. Feel free to read and cite more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb when ready, which it is not. I don't believe in the argument that film music is too niche of a field to be the top of, because when you look at the composers at the apex of classical music, none of them got a blurb (like Penderecki and Boulez, and we'll have to see about Philip Glass and Arvo Part when they die).  The reality is that film music is the most popular form of classical music today: composers like John Williams and Ennio Morricone have significantly more name recognition than Philip Glass or Arvo Part.  Popularity does bias who we choose to blurb; some might argue that popularity is an important factor to consider in selecting blurbs.  Either we take steps to balance against the bias of fame or we recognize it as a blurb factor.
 * Practically speaking, the RD blurbs that get voted in are transformative world leaders in their field, and Morricone meets that requirement. NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose RD on article quality. There are significant gaps in referencing which are going to need plugging before this can be seriously considered for the main page. Oppose Blurb fails the Thatcher Mandela standard. Beyond which we generally decline to blurb the deaths of elderly celebrities who die of natural causes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no Thatcher Mandela standard.--WaltCip- (BLM!Resist The Orange One)  20:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

*I am going to reinforce my oppose on this (note to closer: I have opposed further up in the discussion, this is to reinforce the position, given the citations added since yesterday). Although citations are being added, we now have c.14 refs pointing to Discogs.com and a few using IMDB. Neither of these are considered reliable for any articles, so why they are being used on a BLP is beyond me. - SchroCat (talk) 09:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb not niche, per NorthernFalcon - film music is the most popular form of classical music today.Jklamo (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in RD in principle It is a very developed/long article which is a definitely a good start. However, there is a lot of missing in-text citations (some sections don't have any in-text citations at all). Once those in-text citations are added, I will 100% support this. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle - very long impressive article that needs more refs. Support RD, doubtful about blurb: as great as he is, the first score composers I think of are Zimmer, Desplat, Williams, Elfman, and probably even Guðnadóttir. There's no single artist among the six that stands out above the rest, and we probably shouldn't blurb them all. Kingsif (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD, not quite blurb material. I'm likely wasting keystrokes here, but overzealous defense of the front page has created a particularly bad inherent bias that weighs heavily against artists with extensive filmographies, discographies, and bibliographies.  This was a major reason why we dropped the ball on Carl Reiner.  If the work is named and dated and they appear in the credits that's reference enough. Anyone who questions our report knows where to look. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb when ready (not yet). Morricone was impressive both for the quantity of his output and his influence on music and he is widely known outside of the Anglosphere.  — <span style="border:1px solid #93010b;background:#ef0000;padding:2px;color:#efe6e6;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em; font-family: Georgia;"> AjaxSmack  22:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Referencing still needs improvement for posting. Weak support on blurb if article is ready. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb with extreme reluctance I love his music, and he's one of the greatest soundtrack composers of all time (probably the greatest alongside John Williams), but if Vera Lynn or Little Richard don't get blurbs neither does he. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD on principle (ie that he's dead). Some articles are good, some are bad, and some are ugly.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD only, Oppose blurb due to minor contributions in global music industry. Meanwhile, the article has a good shape. 114.125.46.42 (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Currently 60 citations needed. Stephen 06:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Waking up, can't believe it: 437k views on his article, but Wikipedia too concerned about rules to mention him? What does that tell the world about us?
 * We could ignore all rules.
 * We could add the missing refs.
 * We could split the awards to a separate article.
 * We could drop facts that are not crucial.
 * What we can't do is leave it as it is.
 * Once done, I suggest - as done before - no blurb but an image. RIP. I will add what I can - but compare what I said yesterday: others might be better prepared. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I tried that with Tariq Aziz and it was postable for almost 24 hours before I got reverted but no one did. Without getting to the main page the article did get 150K+ views and those readers got, well, this. Just last week, we had Hachalu Hundessa whose death apparently caused riots that killed 200+ people in Ethiopia. We didn't post it because all we had was Hachalu Hundessa article, who is not notable enough for a blurb as a person and no one created the Hachalu Hundessa riots for the event. In case of Tariq Aziz, all it would have taken was for an admin to post it while it was ready, or an editor to back my edits to the article (it was superior even if it contained less). The more substantial the article is, unfortunately, the worse the problem is. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Digging into it: some things are tough to solve, such as in the Munich Philharmonie when such a thing doesn't exist. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * .. then finding a YouTube video which confirms there was a concert at the Gasteig, but in 2004, not 2005 as the article says. But YouTube is not a RS ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That thing done, comes a quote "If the audience comes for my gestures, they had better stay outside". Help needed: This quote is there multiple times on the internet, but who am I to tell who copied this from whom? Most seem to copy from us. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * More help needed: source "the oldest person at the time to win a competitive Oscar", - I don't even know what it means. Commented out for the moment. Time to ignore rulez, perhaps? --Gerda Arendt
 * We're down to 17 tags, and I need to go, real life, SchroCat, I can't fix more right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , all issues that have been pointed out have been fixed I think. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * One option would be splitting the awards and works into separate articles, as is often common for prominent artists. The text itself is rather well-referenced, after a quick look. --Tone 09:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, do it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll see how I am with time later today. --Tone 09:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I can start right away if no one minds. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually: that part doesn't even have "citation needed" so may be less of a problem than I thought. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There are two tags but, though untagged, there are also entire tables without inline citations, I can't think of a reason why those would be let slide. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The whole section is now tagged. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * move it out fast then --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Or fix it, rather than sweep the problems under the carpet. - SchroCat (talk) 11:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Post to RD (soon), image not blurb: Clearly there has been extensive tagging of the article, but I don't think there is much doubt as to the truth of the most of the facts asserted: that he composed music for such and such a film appears in little doubt. There are statements implying judgement or analysis that might deserve attention: " Though sonically bizarre for a movie score, Morricone's music was viscerally true to Leone's vision", for example. (Although I don't really question that either.) Fundamentally, I see no reason why we should be embarrassed by this article in its current state. I also support Gerda Arendt's suggestion to use one of the images. This actually seems like something we could do in general: if someone is "blurb-worthy", there will be a choice of images to post; the image has a natural connection to the subject; and we don't have to think of a blurb. -- PaulBetteridge (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Stats The numbers are in and Morricone is getting attention but not quite as much as Charlie Daniels.  For an evidence-based perspective, here's the top 10 deaths in June–July.  First, note that Joel Schumacher didn't quite make the cut.  Most of these people peak at about half a million views but there was one death which was a different order of magnitude.  It certainly wasn't Morricone but can you guess who it was ...?


 * Andrew🐉(talk) 10:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So Hollywood was lying to us about being famous or forever. Figures. Get that man his blurb! InedibleHulk (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support RD/Ready for RD I have purged the cn tags, as well as IMDB and Discogs cites. AFAICT, it meets the standard for ITN/DYK. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good now. Posting. --Tone 13:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I added some to the credits. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ronald Graham
*Oppose per above. Dantheanimator (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now with quite a few citation needed tags uncited paragraphs, but consider this a support when those are taken care of. Between him, Morricone, and Daniels, July 6 was a bad day for deaths. :/ – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC) Switching to s, see below. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see any citation needed tags. —[ Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 05:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought I had fixed that before posting, good catch! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support and adding to the growing number of those marked "Ready". Oppose (although a relatively weak one). There are some uncited paras in there, but there are only a couple, so this should not be too much of an obstacle if someone wants to take the final steps to allow it to be posted. - SchroCat (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I added citations. Please reconsider. User:Dantheanimator, User:SchroCat, User:John M Wolfson. 70.172.136.61 (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good now. For the record, I was not on-line when this was posted/fixed.Dantheanimator (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * although it has since then been surpassed by even larger numbers such as TREE(3). is still uncited, but consider this a support once that's done. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Added. @User:John M Wolfson. 70.172.136.61 (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I already said to consider my previous statement a support when the citation was added, so pinging me was unnecessary. That being said, I am satisfied with the current result and support it, nice job! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

July 5
Only linked to not break transclusion limit: Portal:Current events/2020 July 5

(Posted) RD: Nick Cordero
*Oppose for now Missing some in text-citations. Once the sources are referenced, I will support this. No other issues. *Support Looks good now. For the record though, I was still sleeping when you fixed this and when this was posted. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Beat me to it. Short but sourcing is there. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've just finished adding those refs. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 06:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bettina Gilois

 * Support Good article with no issues. This is ready. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Just needs a reference to the Kevin Costner/Disney film in the biography section, will change to support once fixed JW 1961   Talk  22:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Support looks good to go now  JW 1961   Talk  22:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * JW 1961, I added the missing in-text reference. It should be good now. Dantheanimator (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 02:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Cleveland Eaton

 * Support Looks good to me. No issues. This should be ready. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Short but well referenced throughout JW 1961   Talk  22:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing Removal: George Floyd protests

 * Oppose Between the coverage of Trump's comments from the July 3 speech directed at the protects, the event in Seattle yesterday where a protester was run over by a driver, and more statues being pulled down, they are still ongoing. Not as major, but they are still an event. --M asem (t) 18:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah I saw that too but the driver wasn't politically motivated and it was what? 50 people on the express way? I mean.... --LaserLegs (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There was also the removal of the Columbus statue in Baltimore, Maryland yesterday and other statues in the past few weeks. It seems to me this event is still ongoing; there's no reason to remove it. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still ongoing, still getting updates, even if more of them are to the subarticles. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose I would keep it up for now. Events related to the George Floyd protests are still occuring, though I do agree with M asem, they are smaller and less talked-about now. Also, as M asem said previously, there are still events related to the protest going on. A woman died during a protest in Seattle yesterday and a Columbus statue was removed. This should stay. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Per above, a woman died during a protest yesterday, and the protests are still getting daily front-page coverage in North America and Europe. Maybe we can revisit in another 1-2 weeks? 104.243.98.96 (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A Columbus statue was pulled down and pushed into Baltimore harbor. Things are still going on. 331dot (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose. I'm in Atlanta too; seems like it is quieting down. I'd think that in a few days we could nom if nothing else happens (but really, only God knows what will happen), but as for now, I think the Baltimore incident shows that it is still very much in the news. Awsomaw (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Agree this should be revisited in a week or two. Does it make sense to rename: "George Floyd protests" to "Civil Unrest in the United States" Black Lives Matter protests since there is no blurb?104.243.98.96 (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with this sentiment, though not the name. Calling current events the George Floyd protests is like calling the Arab Spring the Mohamed Bouazizi protests.  GreatCaesarsGhost   23:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, but doesn't that entail that the article linked to to be either changed or renamed? Surely Arab Spring is not called Mohamed Bouazizi protests. Awsomaw (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Should probably be renamed to Black Lives Matter protests, as the anger now is coming from more than the catalyst of Floyd's death. Stephen 23:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with GreatCaesarsGhost , the fact that it is called the George Floyd protests still is quite arbitrary/irrelevant considering how much the protests have expanded in both scope and area. However, we can't just rename the protests simply "Black Lives Matter protests" per Stephen's suggestion, because: there have been other BLM protests in the past and naming it this creates unnecessary confusion, and naming it the BLM protests excludes many of the other protests that are often cited as part of the movement (such as the protests against Columbus/Cecil Rhodes statues). This issue needs to be further discussed on the George Floyd Protests' page. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible oppose The notion that the media coverage of protests has "waned" is completely untrue. If anything, coverage is intensifying in most places. And the target article is stale? How? It is true that the "sub-articles" are being updated more frequently, but the idea that the target article is stale is nonsense--sorry. Zingarese talk  ·  contribs  23:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Almost everything in the edit history from the last 5 days ago until the time I posted the nom were content tweaks and ref improvements not "new, pertinent information". Why is it so difficult for people to comprehend the difference? If you want to change the ongoing criteria to support "sub-articles" then you can contribute here until then that's a made-up concession. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, thanks. Zingarese talk  ·  contribs  02:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Opppose -- we kept the Hong Kong protests on for months, even as they waned. The protests are still going on, and they're still pretty big. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  03:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Davey2116 (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * STRONGLY OPPOSE - You guys kept Hong Kong Protests even when they were fizzling out for MONTHS. This is political bias from US perspective to keep HK protests up while quickly diminishing US protests. Rwat128 (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

(NEEDS ATTENTION) 2020 Dominican Republic general election results

 * Comment We generally will post the results (once know) of the presidential part of the election per ITNR, but would be premature to mention that the election is happening. --M asem (t) 18:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait for the results; we don't post the mere occurrence of an election, we post the results, as general elections and head of state elections are ITNR. 331dot (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per posting but Wait for results, which takes place in matter of time. Thus it can be revised with official results of election 36.77.93.215 (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the election results come in. Although, here's a question: if the election takes a week or more to decide, do we mention it ITN? I'm thinking about this November in the US, we may not know who won for more than a week. --  Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  03:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The results are ITNR, not the occurrence of the election. If the delay is just the natural result of the mechanics of the election, it is unlikely such a "pending result" nom would garner support here.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Changed the nomination for results, not the election itself. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The results are ITNR; I've proposed a more neutral blurb. 331dot (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Question Should this nom be moved to July 7 or kept here? The election happened then, July 6, but the results weren't released/officiated until July 7 so wouldn't it be more appropriate to move this nom to July 7? Dantheanimator (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Moved to July 7 for this blurb because what results of election being released. This taught was originally election that are not results.36.77.93.215 (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support – Considering the locale, this will have to do. Good enough. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Can we have a statement from the presumptive winner Abinader? All we have are his rivals conceding, and not about him being happy and stuff. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment What happened with this? Shouldn't this be labeled closed? Dantheanimator (talk) 01:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

July 4
Only linked to not break transclusion limit: Portal:Current events/2020 July 4

(Posted) 2020 Kyushu floods

 * 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 said, this is disaster management which have significant event on earth. The rainfall was unexpected for these prefectures and the country as well. 180.242.9.91 (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb 1 per nomination. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 23:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 04:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per LaserLegs, we post a lot of natural disaster stub articles here and yet I'm not even sure this one would meet our low threshold.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 08:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - AP puts toll at 34. – Sca (talk) 12:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Updated blurbs to 34 (+dropped the missing because they are not reported in the 34 tally). I am OK with all the blurbs, reports have been putting a spotlight on the old age home that was a major casualty site, but it's OK either in or out.--Chuka Chief (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb I with update victims as the information can be changed in time many people killed in flood whilst still a stub this is very important natural disasters. and  please don't oppose just because of stub article but see any significance of event. 114.125.234.209 (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I give much greater weight to article quality than I do to the "significance" of 34 irrelevant people killed in a spot of bad weather and I'm rather sick of these stubby disaster articles expressed to the main page and subsequently abandoned -- but rest assured the practice will continue despite my objections. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Fixed typo. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 06:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Can this be reworded? &mdash;Jonny Nixon (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course it can.... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 11:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment deaths needed to change to 37 per new BBC source.36.77.93.215 (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Image suggestion Could the Russian book be replaced with the gif of the floods? It's generally more informative, and in my opinion more interesting. Kingsif (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Support for Kingsif's suggestion Yes! I support Kingsif's suggestion. The gif is so much more interesting and eye-catching than the Russian Constitution. This needs to happen. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Lin Dan retires

 * 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!&#33;!&#33;) 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: _Alex_Ferguson_retires]_Yao_Ming_Retires]_Sachin_Tendulkar]. Banedon (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You’ll notice that all of those were controversial. There is substantial opposition to posting any sportspeople’s retirements, for good reason. P-K3 (talk) 12:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * 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. --M asem (t) 12:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Minor sports footnote. – Sca (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per PKiii. ——  Serial # 13:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Posting of any retirement certainly needs more notability than posting a death as a blurb. And, no offense to Badminton, but it's not exactly a sport where major retirements will have much of an impact. Kingsif (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

July 3
Only linked to not break transclusion limit: Portal:Current events/2020 July 3

(Posted) RD: Earl Cameron

 * 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. --M asem (t) 03:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 15:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tyson Brummett
*Weak Oppose High quality article however, there is no in-text citations in the summary. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Thanks, and no worries! We're in the same boat – I'm still learning new things even after a decade here.  Yes, striking out previous oppose votes once the issue(s) are resolved is the norm. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Looks good to me JW 1961   Talk  20:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support no concerns.  GreatCaesarsGhost   22:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 15:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Saroj Khan

 * Oppose multiple issues,  tagged  etc. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 06:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose As per The Rambling Man's reasons. Also is missing some in text citations. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as a day and a half after first oppose the article still has 3 orange notices and some cn tags JW 1961   Talk  20:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Reckful

 * Oppose achievements unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 06:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Article has been updated. <span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"> — Ruyter (talk • edits)  09:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * When I'm not familiar with the references used, I like to vet against WP:RSN. For the first time, I'm finding none of these sites there. While this is certainly not a requirement, it makes me wary when so much of the article is based on sources that have not been reviewed by the community.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I wonder -- Would we not AFD in these circumstances?--WaltCip- (BLM!Resist The Orange One)  13:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The BBC are covering his death - he seems to be notable. P-K3 (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't arguing notability, but rather the reliability of sources. Known bad sources are not allowed - what about unknown sources?   GreatCaesarsGhost   01:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "The BBC are covering his death", is the BBC an unknown source? I hope not. I think P-K3's comment answers your question or settles your concern GreatCaesarsGhost. Dantheanimator (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not in the slightest. The entire article must be cited. It is not enough that some of the facts are reported by the BBC, but rather "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source."  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose His death is cited by reliable sources (including the BBC), but the sources about his life are either unreliable and/or interviews and/or passing mentions. It would certainly have been a reasonable candidate for AfD before he died (and may well still be, as his death is BLP1E). Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ángela Jeria

 * 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!&#33;!&#33;) 20:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Added section on her death as per The Rambling Man's opposition. No other issues with the page for what I can see. I think this is ready. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support interesting story where you can learn important events. sourcing looks good. KittenKlub (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 15:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

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

 * 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)

July 2
Only linked to not break transclusion limit: Portal:Current events/2020 July 2

(Posted) RD: Nikolai Kapustin
*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)
 * There's no reason to separate Ludwig Finscher's bio into more sections because the section title "Life and career" covers the information in it. In Nikolai Kapustin's article, the section title was only "career" despite it including information on his life. If you want to merge the sections Gerda Arendt, you can, but make sure the section title matches the information contained in the section. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Looks fine to me. Joofjoof (talk) 11:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 15:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Ghislaine Maxwell arrested

 * 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!&#33;!&#33;) 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)

(Stale) RD: Sybil Wettasinghe

 * Oppose several works and awards unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 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!&#33;!&#33;) 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

 * Support shocking. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 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" . New York Times: "Myanmar Jade Mine Collapse Kills at Least 100" . CBS: "Landslide kills more than 100 in "dystopian wasteland" of Myanmar's jade mines" . CNN: "Jade mine landslide kills at least 100 in Myanmar, with more people still missing" . See also Open-pit mining.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 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, 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  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 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. --M asem (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? --M asem (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  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 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. --M asem (t) 15:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Masem, "Makeshift jade mining in Hpakant (2018)" ?-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 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. --M asem (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

 * 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. LSGH (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. Banedon (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. --M asem (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!&#33;!&#33;) 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. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b> 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 (talk) 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. Caradhras Aiguo ( 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)
 * 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!&#33;!&#33;) 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... --M asem (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. --M asem (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.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 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. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b> 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--AlphaBeta135 (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.--AlphaBeta135 (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)

(Posted) 2020 Russian constitutional referendum

 * Oppose no context at all, what changes? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 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. Banedon (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? Banedon (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. Banedon (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * BBC. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 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. Banedon (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. Banedon (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!&#33;!&#33;) 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. Banedon (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? Banedon (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? Banedon (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. LSGH (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)

(Posted) Police penetration of EncroChat

 * 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!&#33;!&#33;) 21:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but my golly that is a stubby article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 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)


 * Support to build more consensus per Kingsif and others. Awsomaw (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Fat Clemenza. Leave the Snapchat, bring the cannoli. ——  Serial # 03:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Aside from the absence of convictions, this murky episode is getting quite stale already. – Sca (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

July 1
Only linked to not break transclusion limit: Portal:Current events/2020 July 1

(Posted) RD: Hugh Downs

 *  Oppose  as noted, several refs needed, and poor construction, proseline-tastic. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 18:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've just filled in the remaining refs. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support agree this is g2g. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 22:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Article has been updated and is now pretty well referenced JW 1961   Talk  21:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support No issues.  GreatCaesarsGhost   21:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Hachalu Hundessa assassination and riots

 * 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!&#33;!&#33;) 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!&#33;!&#33;) 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!&#33;!&#33;) 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)
 * Oppose Blurb not Thatcher/Mandela, RD is fine for this and almost every death --LaserLegs (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: David F. Gantt

 * 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!&#33;!&#33;) 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   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  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)


 * Umm why did you close the nomination when there are still two days left for it to go up? I was going to ping Bloom, PaulBetteridge, and Pawnkingthree about the article today. - Jon698 talk 15:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Everton Weekes

 * 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!&#33;!&#33;) 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. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 09:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Georg Ratzinger

 * Support seems satisfactory and referenced JW 1961   Talk  12:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Short but adequate and well referenced. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support G2G. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, well done. BD2412  T 05:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Mississippi flag change

 * 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)
 * 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!&#33;!&#33;) 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. --M asem (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:, . This would absolutely be in the news regardless of the George Floyd context. Zagal e jo^^^ 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.  B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 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. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)