Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:35, 21 June 2020

Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here.

In the news toolbox
Error reports Nominations History (Posts · Nominations) Discussion General criteria Death criteria Recurring items Admin guide Image protection Current events portal
v t e

• WP:ITN/C

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

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

Joseph Aoun Joseph Aoun (pictured) is elected president of Lebanon after a two-year vacancy. A series of wildfires in Southern California, United States, leaves at least 10 people dead and forces nearly 180,000 others to evacuate. A 7.1-magnitude earthquake hits Tingri County in the Tibet Autonomous Region, China, leaving at least 126 people dead. Indonesia becomes a full member of BRICS. Justin Trudeau announces his intention to resign as prime minister of Canada. Ongoing: Israel–Hamas war Russian invasion of Ukraine timeline Sudanese civil war timeline Recent deaths: Jeff Baena Rosita Missoni Brian Matusz Jean-Michel Defaye Ágnes Keleti Ripken Nominate an article view — page history — related changes — edit

Archives

June 21

RD: Zeev Sternhell

• Nominated by Rami R (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Some sourcing issues. Rami R 16:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

2020 Forbury Gardens stabbings

• Nominated by Naypta (talk · give credit)
• Created by Buttons0603 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Darren-M (talk · give credit), DeFacto (talk · give credit) and MIDI (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Serious incident, with regular news updates and consequently regular updates to the article; top story on all UK news outlets I've checked. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support I also changed the hooks for tense and grammar, added links. Kingsif (talk) 11:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Clearly major incident and article is acceptable. P-K3 (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Wait – BBC says police were not "treating the incident as terror-related." Three fatalities is comparatively few. Unless these factors change, this event doesn't seem widely significant. – Sca (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Sca: The police were not. They now are; apologies for including an older link, I've corrected it. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, changed to 'wait' - Let's give the story some time to develop. – Sca (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Terrorism of this sort gets to the main page.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 14:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  "Treating the incident as terrorism-related" does not mean yet it is terrorism. It is only to allow law enforcement to evoke special powers to resolve the matter much faster than domestic crimes. We can't treat it as a "terrorist attack" yet. --Masem (t) 14:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  Okay, suspected terrorism of this sort gets to the main page.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 14:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose knife wielding maniacs going on murder frenzies is an all too common occurrence in the UK but their society is too crippled by incompetence to pass meaningful knife control legislation so all we can do when it happens is insult the victims and the country where the tragedy took place. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  Yawn. Get some new material. P-K3 (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

June 20

Belmont Stakes

• Nominated by Bzweebl (talk · give credit)
• Created by Zimbabweed (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: I'm not particularly optimistic about this nomination's chances since sporting events that aren't ITNR are a hard sell around here, but we haven't had any sports posted in a while and this was the first major event in any sport in the United States since COVID-19. It also functioned as the first race of the Triple Crown this year instead of the Kentucky Derby, which is ITNR. Article is not updated yet but is otherwise in good shape. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 07:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Yeah, this isn't even the most important horse race in the US. Note that horse racing already returned in the UK with much more significant races, so the idea of posting it as 'horse racing reopens' isn't valid, either. Kingsif (talk) 07:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kingsif. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – Neigh, neigh. – Sca (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I’m open to supporting as this is a Triple Crown race but the article would need a prose summary of the results before I could do so. P-K3 (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. This is the first time that the Triple Crown races will be in a different order since 1931; the Kentucky Derby will be in September, and the Preakness Stakes in October. It's the first time ever the Belmont has been first(it is usually last). I think that adds some notability to this. 331dot (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment needs a prose summary of the race to be considered (which is a silly custom here at ITN) but I have no problem posting this if updated. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Conviction of Vital Kamerhe

• Nominated by P,TO 19104 (talk · give credit)

 P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 16:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment not sure yet on postworthiness but article quality for Kamerhe isn't anywhere close. I would also not include the Congo article as a target, it's not a "relevant" target in this case. --Masem (t) 21:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The one Reuters news sources says that "high-level corruption is endemic" in DRC, and that seems to be the case in these two articles as well: Corruption in the Democratic Republic of the Congo & Corruption Perceptions Index. Though big news in DRC, "corrupt government is corrupt" is not super noteworthy. Awsomaw (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Awsomaw:Well, not only is $48 m a lot, but there is a difference in getting caught and not getting caught. Thank you for your input, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 22:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose parochial politics. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose on quality, the article is nowhere near an acceptable level. On the merits, this seems notable as the most high profile politician there to be convicted of corruption(convictions for which are rare there at least right now). 331dot (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Trump rally

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

• Nominated by P,TO 19104 (talk · give credit)

• Oppose and call close matter of domestic politics that is at best dealt with the COVID-19 banner. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

June 19

(Posted) RD: Vic Gilliam

• Updated and nominated by Jon698 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Former member of the Oregon House of Representatives and actor that died from ALS. Jon698 (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support decently referenced article JW 1961 Talk 22:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – per MOS:LEAD and MOS:OPENPARABIO. A one-sentence lead is insufficient. It should at least highlight key activities and roles of his life. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment the concern of Bloom6132 looks like it was addressed JW 1961 Talk 11:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Bloom6132: @Joseywales1961: Fixed. - Jon698 (talk) 21:11 20 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Posted --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nicolas Joel

• Updated and nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Just had to change tense and add two sources for his death, sad and easy. Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support well sourced, proper tense, and long enough prose length. An important person who served as the manager of a famous opera house. - Jon698 (talk) 22:11 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Decently referenced article JW 1961 Talk 22:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment ready to go. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

  Still ready, 10 hours later. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  ... as it was in the beginning, 2 days ago --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

•  Posted --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

RD: Sachy

• Nominated by JHunterJ (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Tibintoms (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: I came across it trending on Twitter news JHunterJ (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Under cited, poor English, formatting problems, etc. - SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose under-referenced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Facebook acquires Mapillary

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

• Nominated by Eugen Simion 14 (talk · give credit)

• Oppose: Source makes it seem like routine business news, and though I am not big on tech, the Misplaced Pages article about Mapillary makes little noise about how big and important this company is supposed to be. There's not even a price mentioned in the source. It's worth noting that the update on this is one short sentence, while there's a whole article on the Acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney, a huge and complex horizontal merger that would meet In The News notability. Wallachia Wallonia (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Nowhere close to scale of something like Disney/Fox. For tech nerds, we know this is Facebook trying to complete with Google but that's not ITN level. --Masem (t) 14:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose not interesting, and not mentioned in either article either, which would be a basic requirement for even considering it. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment routine sports, routine elections, routine awards shows ... almost everything we post is routine and banal. Working in private industry is how a great many people earn a living so dismissing business news automatically is a bit silly. Weak oppose for now because the Mapillary is pretty thin and there is only a one sentence update about the acquisition. Flesh it out and I'll see about supporting. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

"Routine" awards shows recognize achievement in a field. "Routine" elections are about choosing a government or head of state. This is just a routine business transaction. 331dot (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per all. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. 'Large company buys small startup for undisclosed amount' is uninspiring. Facebook has bought lots of other companies over the years; nothing in the article or the news sources makes me think this one is particularly significant. This transaction is getting no coverage outside the specialist business pages and many of those stories are regurgitated press releases (e.g. the US News link above is largely a copy-paste of the Reuters story). Modest Genius 15:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose posting a routine business transaction that does not set any sort of record(like value of the acquisition). 331dot (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

RD: Ian Holm

• Nominated by Kingsif (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Needs refs; BAFTA and Tony-winning actor Kingsif (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The filmography needs sourcing for sure, that will be the long task to get that sourced. Some places in the article need sources, but that should be easier. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• While I've filled out most of the filmography using the BFI citation, there's a lot of work not on there (which is fine for now), and definitely enough films/tv shows/awards nominations to create a separate filmography article if someone is so inclined. PotentPotables (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• I know most of our celeb bios are in poor shape but I am really saddened by how badly Holm's is here. I don't know why actor articles get passes like this on BLP that would not fly for many politicians and just speaks of a need to stress better sourcing for them across the board. --Masem (t) 14:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Masem Your comment appears to be in the wrong section, it should be in the Holm section. When you move it, feel free to delete this message. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes this was an EC that I pasted back into the wrong section. Fixed now. --Masem (t) 14:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Weak oppose There is still too much unsupported by sources. - SchroCat (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Moving to Support (of RD only) following the work done by several. - SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment the article isn't bad, assuming the referencing is sorted out we could consider a blurb. Seems old Bilbo is headed off to the undying lands --LaserLegs (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose on quality, and certainly nowhere even close to a blurb by any means possible. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I just finished citing the filmography. I agree he's not blurb-worthy, doesn't rise to Christopher Lee's impact even with his best known role in LOTR. Kingsif (talk) 07:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support He was a fine actor (certainly superior to Christopher Lee) but I agree he’s not blurb-worthy. Looks well-referenced enough for RD now. P-K3 (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment most of the awards section is unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 23:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• The Rambling Man I've worked on getting refs for the awards. Some are more difficult, but a lot more than there was now. PotentPotables (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

RD: Carlos Ruiz Zafón

• Nominated by Alsoriano97 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Great Spanish novelist and the most read, worldwide appreciated. Death with relevant coverage in the news. Article needs improving. Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose mostly unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

June 18

(Posted) RD: Jules Sedney

• Updated and nominated by Joofjoof (talk · give credit)
• Updated by KittenKlub (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Sedney was the last surviving prime minister of Suriname from when it was a constituent country of the Netherlands (Dutch Guiana). He started initial independence negotiations, and served as head of the Central Bank of Suriname after independence. Joofjoof (talk) 11:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not opposed to it, but the article just went from a couple of lines to a minimum article and requires some serious copy editing, and I'm not really the best person for that job. I'm not against the idea though. KittenKlub (talk) 11:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• I have added some more material, and given the article some copy editing. Should be in a better shape now. Joofjoof (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Support Let's nominate a pragmatic politician.KittenKlub (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support Brief, but referenced and meets minimum standards. Marking ready. Spencer 15:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
•  Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) UN Security Council Elections

• Updated and nominated by Bzweebl (talk · give credit)
• Created by Mátyás (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: This is ITNR, and I have expanded the article to beyond the typical length for these articles. Though I have yet to write prose for the African Group results, I plan to do that later today unless somebody else wants to do it first. Though ITNR suggests that these are sometimes posted when the new terms begin on January 1 (even though that is less newsworthy) because it is during a slow news period, we are in a slow news period right now due to COVID-19 so I see no reason not to post the actual election results. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 09:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for now WP:ITN/R is clear that they should be posted in 1 January. If you want to do it differently, you can't try and invoke ITN/R. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that it is clear from ITNR. Here is the exact wording: "In previous years, the item has been added to ITN when the new members take their seats (1 January) rather than when the results were announced (during October). This is because the elections are not usually heavily competitive, and 1 January is in the middle of a very slow news period every year." This year there were multiple heavily competitive elections and a slow news period when the results were announced. Additionally, that note seems to be referring to a usual practice rather than a consensus-based policy. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 10:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Not all that competitive, as there were only seven candidates for five spaces. Nevertheless the article is in decent shape, much better than previous years. It would be nice to get some prose into the 'day 2' section, but that's not required. I wrote that footnote on ITNR, which was intended as a guide to convention, not a hard and fast rule. We're in the middle of a slow news period right now, without having to wait until January, so I think it's fine to post early as a one-off. Modest Genius 11:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting, though I’d maintain that two close races with hard-fought campaigns, including one that went to a second round of voting, is “heavily competitive” by Security Council standards. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 16:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Vaalserberg is a very tall mountain by Netherlands standards. Modest Genius 17:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support for posting now, per above. To the extent this is "news," it is now and not in January. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Bzweebl JW 1961 Talk 14:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support that this is a slow news cycle is not a reason for posting, but these elections were more competitive than usual with Western Europe and Kenya and Djibouti, and the article is in decent shape. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Interesting and somewhat significant nom for ITN. Gotitbro (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Posted. Spencer 19:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kirk R. Smith

• Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Died on June 15, but only reported on June 18. Shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his work on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. Bloom6132 (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Weak support article looks fine, but I'm uneasy with the death being a one-sentence paragraph in his career section. Kingsif (talk) 06:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Two sentences actually. I've now placed them in their own section. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment some bare URLs in there, otherwise okay. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support looks good to go JW 1961 Talk 14:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: His career section looks like a rather close paraphrasing from the provided source; maybe it's an example of WP:LIMITED but the whole paragraph reads that way to me. I'm not opposed, but I'm not able to support the nom either. Spencer 16:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Spencer: alright, I've reworded it. How does the section look now? —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Concerns resolved, no need to pull. Best, Spencer 19:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
•  Posted, not seeing the above comment as I had an old version of the page loaded. Let me know if I need to pull — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Astrid Gjertsen

• Updated and nominated by Jon698 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Joseph2302 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Former member of the Norwegian Parliament and Minister of Consumer Affairs and Administration. She resigned in 1986 due to fraudulent taxi receipts. Jon698 (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for someone who was more than 90 years old and entered public life 53 years ago, this is a tragically weak article, pretty much a stub. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  Weak support still pretty bland but much better than when I first reviewed it. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. 1400 characters is a stub, and stubs shouldn't be on RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose; I have concerns over the small size of the article as well – especially given she was named the 9th most important Norwegian woman. — J947 22:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support; in an ideal world there would be more but it's probably enough. — J947 20:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment @The Rambling Man: @J947: @Joseph2302: Some edits have been made and it is now above 1,600 prose characters. I also have some more references for additions to her career. Opinion on its current status? - Jon698 (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I still don't think it's quite enough for RD given how little there is on her parliamentary career – and what is there leans towards WP:PROSELINE territory. She must have had an important career before the scandal, but I don't see much on it in the article. — J947 22:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Smallest articles I've seen on RD have been just over 2k. There is some more content for sure- she changed the laws on opening or closing hours, but Google Translate's Norwegian isn't good enough to explain it properly , . Joseph2302 (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – in light of concerns mentioned above. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reviewed my stance, and it's regretfully still oppose, given the comments describing this as "are" and "still pretty bland". This is most evident in the 2-sentence long lead, which doesn't adhere to the MOS:LEADLENGTH guideline. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment @The Rambling Man: Hey, after some work by Joseph2302 and me the page is now over 2k prose characters. In her early life section the situation of her marriage has been expanded. In her career section I have added some of her actions during her tenure as minister while Joseph2302 expanded on her resignation and conviction. Can you give me your opinion on the article right now? - Jon698 (talk) 05:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @J947: @Bloom6132: Since The Rambling Man and Joseph2302 have changed their stances could you review your stances? Are there any further comments that you wish to make on the article? - Jon698 (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Weak support Bare, but meets minimum standards. Spencer 16:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support I helped add more stuff, doesn't look like there's much more about her in online, available sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Meets RD standards.P-K3 (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
•  Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jean Kennedy Smith

• Nominated by Davey2116 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: American diplomat, U.S. ambassador to Ireland (1993–98), and last surviving sibling of John F. Kennedy, dies at age 92. Davey2116 (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose doesn't seem to mention her death? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: I've added 2 sentences and sources re her death. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support decent. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support I've seen this quite a lot in the news today. Very sad. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support decently referenced article JW 1961 Talk 15:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - article seems to meet the requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Article looks fine and meets notability. All looks good to me. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
•  Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted to RD, blurb discussion closed): Vera Lynn

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

• Nominated by Joseph2302 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Kingsif (talk · give credit)

• Support blurb and please, can a passing admin protect it. Kingsif (talk) 08:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC) Adding reason for support of blurb: Aretha got one. Vera Lynn was definitely on par with Aretha. Kingsif (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose too much unreferenced, including the discography. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: This source has a fairly comprehensive coverage of her discography, I don't have the time to add it all in now, if you want to. Kingsif (talk) 12:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support I was gonna nominate this myself but it looks like I've been beaten to it! REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support RD, oppose blurb. The article is in good shape and generally well referenced. I don't think a few unreferenced entries in the discography should prevent posting of such a comprehensive article. Modest Genius 10:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  To clarify, as blurb is gaining more support than I expected: she was a popular entertainer with a long career, but did not revolutionise her field or have major impacts beyond it. Doesn't meet the Thatcher/Mandela threshold IMO. She died in old age and whilst tributes have poured in, her death has not led to significant events (like George Floyd did). Modest Genius 11:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

  "a few"? It's practically the whole section. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  So just remove it! I've seen far less significant people with much shorter articles posted very quickly. They were people from one particular country of course. HiLo48 (talk) 11:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support in principle, but I am rather concerned about the rather rambling structure of the article. It's rather ironic that the notable aspects of her career (circa 1939 to 1950) receive considerably less space than the "honours" section.—Brigade Piron (talk) 10:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support blurb' - highly significant person from WWII and later, easily blurbworthy. Mjroots (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• RD only. (and also oppose for now on quality per TRM). Once the referencing issues are sorted out. She's something of a household name, but like Kirk Douglas and Daniel arap Moi before her, she's not at the level we would generally blurb for. I know some people don't like the Thatcher/Mandela test, but I personally think it's a good one and it's not met here.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment The discography can't go up like that.130.233.3.21 (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support blurb - It's Vera Lynn! We don't just blurb politicians around here, I hope.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 11:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support RD when the discography is cited inline or gone, oppose blurb (every culture has its beloved icons). Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support blurb simply because she was 'Vera Lynn', a household name in the past 80 years.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support blurb An idol of a generation, and known to most others. Performed just last month, at 103! Extraordinary lady. HiLo48 (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support blurb It's remarkable that she had an album in the charts just a month ago – a successful career of over 80 years. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - needs the discography sorted and references (separate article perhaps?), otherwise support RD only as she definitely doesn't meet the Thatcher/Mandela test - and the support above shows the inherent problem with Misplaced Pages. --Elinor.Dashwood (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support RD once discography is cited. Not quite blurbworthy but certainly a notable figure and fondly remembered. Jip Orlando (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support blurb per most other supporters. An icon for many Britons and "We'll meet again" is an iconic song for many worldwide. Ed6767 talk! 12:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose until the discography; RD only after that: she just isn't at the level of a blurb. - SchroCat (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support RD (once final sourcing issues fixed) The article does not give any impression of why a blurb is merited. "Household name" is not a good reason for a blurb, we need to show top of the field/etc. Just being a key idol for post-WWII while important doesn't make for that importance. --Masem (t) 12:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb not Thatcher/Mandela, mistakes of the past do not mean they need to be repeated. RD is fine with usual requirements. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support blurb when that section is cited. Iconic and hugely transformative figure, at the top of her field, and a household name internationally, which should be sufficient for a blurb. The "Thatcher/Mandela test" is far too restrictive and should not be used. Davey2116 (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Leaning oppose blurb I don't quite think she is quite Little Richard level, unfortunately. I think I would also oppose a blurb for Olivia de Havilland when the time comes. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment It's still not clear what the Thatcher/Mandela test is supposed to be. A more practical test is to compare with the blurb which would be displaced by the new blurb. That would be Pierre Nkurunziza. Did he pass the Thatcher/Mandela test? I suppose not but how do we know? What I can tell you is that his article only got about 5k views yesterday which is small for an ITN blurb and so demonstrates that he is no longer in the news in this sense. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

If their name is Margaret Thatcher or Nelson Mandela, they get posted as a blurb to ITN. Simple.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 14:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

If it helps, Lynn got 500,000 page views yesterday. A few short of Nkurunziza's total. Then again, one day in May this year, Lynn had 100,000, so we can't compare. Kingsif (talk) 07:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

It's quite clear what the test is. It's when there's substantial coverage of the death itself, not just standard obituaries of their life, so much so that we can have a Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher article and a Death of Nelson Mandela article.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Or a Death of Carrie Fisher ... no, wait. Black Kite (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Which is precisely why that one was so controversial at the time and is generally regarded as a mistake now.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Or rather, it shows that the "Thatcher/Mandela test" imposes far too high a bar on the coverage of the death. Under that test, the deaths of Prince and Stephen Hawking wouldn't have been posted because there's no Death of Prince or Death of Stephen Hawking article; but the coverage of those deaths, while not enough to merit separate articles, was very much on par with the non-death blurbs we normally post. That's why I think the test proposed by Andrew above is good, i.e., does the death blurb exceed the blurb it displaces. Davey2116 (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I’m not saying there has to be a separate article, just that if the level of coverage and reaction to the death means there plausibly could be one, that’s a good indicator of the standard. P-K3 (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

My reason for supporting a blurb here in Misplaced Pages terms is that Aretha Franklin had a blurb, and Vera Lynn easily matches her stature and success to meet the blurb criteria of industry impact. If you also consider 'wartime entertainment' as an industry or at least a field of work, Vera Lynn is undeniably the very apex of such and is still the standard for comparison to other singers in the field, like Katherine Jenkins. (In less policy-based reasoning, at least in the UK, the news has overtaken both the COVID-19 news and the 80th anniversary of the Appeal of 18 June, with Lynn's songs basically the only music played on the radio all day, and it seems obvious because it's Vera Lynn). Kingsif (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The death of Pierre Nkurunziza does not reference the Thatcher/Mandela test because the reason it was posted was that it was a change in a country's head of state. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I thought the death of a sitting head of state was blurb-worthy as default? Kingsif (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not codified, but it's a defacto standard. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• • @Andrew Davidson: There is no Thatcher/Mandela "standard" but I use it as a short hand for my criteria (which is very high). My criteria is no more (or less) valid than anyone else's, and someone else might use the same short hand in different ways. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Building on this, given the disputes in the thread above, I've started Misplaced Pages talk:In the news#But, what is the Thatcher-Mandela standard for blurbing deaths? discussion. Kingsif (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support RD only – Elderly singer dies of old age at 103. Historically compelling but, sorry, but I'm having trouble seeing this as widely significant after so many years. – Sca (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support blurb (when sourced). There is no such thing as the Thatcher/Mandela test, we have posted a number of less iconic figures over the years, and Vera Lynn is iconic. Black Kite (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support blurb as very much in the news. She at least deserves to be on RD. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• IAR support blurb if and when the sourcing issues are resolved. Under normal circumstances I'd oppose "elderly person dies of old age" in every case other than current heads of state (and yes, I'd have opposed both Thatcher and Mandela), but this is a unique case; Vera Lynn was the last person still alive who played a significant part in the Second World War, and as such is getting greatly disproportionate news coverage; at the time of writing she's the lead story on literally every UK news site (she's even the top non-financial story on the Financial Times website), and is above-the-fold on all the Aussie and Canadian news sites I've checked. (She's even on the front page—albeit not the top story—on the Irish Times website, and Ireland didn't even participate in the war.) ‑ Iridescent 15:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  If a blurb is posted her role in the war should be mentioned, “singer and entertainer dies” isn’t much more information than an RD entry and doesn’t really convey the significance. If the news coverage is disproportionate, that’s a good sign a blurb may appropriate. P-K3 (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support RD and blurb if the discography refs get sorted JW 1961 Talk 15:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose on quality, oppose blurb. - Indefensible (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Our article does a poor job of explaining why we expect this person to be one of the five or six most significant people to die this year. The proposed blurb doesn't even try to. —Cryptic 16:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I've added an altblurb proposal with a bit more impact. It may be unusual to mention the fact about the single, but I don't think an artist has ever had a single re-release over 80 years after the original and hit the charts, still in the artist's lifetime. It's also a testament to her enduring popularity and success over that time, and still in her lifetime. (edit conflict) Kingsif (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for now on article quality. Once referencing issues are resolved Support RD / Oppose blurb. We have turned down more significant entertainment figures for blurbs because they weren't Nelson Mandela or Margaret Thatcher (a ridiculous standard, but there we are). -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment and discography should all be referenced. Kingsif (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support blurb once up to standard. Definitely top of her profession in her time, and still making the news even last month. As others have said above, the Mandela/Thatcher test is meaningless. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 17:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb- never heard of her & not a world-transforming leader. Guy in the Mall (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support blurb A major Second World War cultural icon who beat out the likes Bing Crosby to be the most beloved entertainer during the war. A British icon . The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb If taking the most recent Little Richard death as precedent, I don't think Vera Lynn is notable enough. Aretha made it, but more recently Little Richard didn't make it. Awsomaw (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Posted to RD as sourcing has been addressed. Blurb discussion should continue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb- the meaning of the “Thatcher/Mandela” standard continues to escape me as those are two individuals of drastically different importance relative to one another, but if Little Richard doesn’t qualify for a blurb then a fortiori Vera Lynn doesn’t either. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 18:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Bzweebl, hopefully my reply helps explain the "Thatcher/Mandela" standard? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb The notion of a "Thatcher/Mandela" standard has been misconstrued here, I think, into some level of "supernotability" that doesn't really exist. As I have interpreted it, it's about the magnitude of response following the death. When Thatcher and Mandela died, there was MASSIVE response. Other deaths that have had major outpourings from society in one way or another include Prince, Bowie, and Carrie Fisher. It's not that the person who died is somehow more important than other notable people who died, but it's about the coverage. What I see for Vera Lynn right now is every publication has their own obit article for her, which are mostly the same thing just written by different people. But what is there beyond the obits? For the five deaths I've mentioned here (and a number of others that are escaping me at the moment), there was lots and lots of coverage. With Lynn, all I'm seeing beyond the obits is this one piece which is more about "We'll Meet Again" has taken on a life of its own. That to me is not a deep enough celebration or examination of Lynn's life to merit a blurb. That's how I'd codify this "standard". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Muboshgu: They literally stopped reporting on COVID-19 in the UK, and barely bothered showing Emmanuel Macron visiting London for the 80th anniversary of a turning point for France in WW2 (somewhat ironically given Lynn's own support for it). The overwhelming majority of songs on the radio were Lynn's, and she got two new reflective specials on TV the same day. The government briefing opened with a tribute, and replays of the recent Queen's Speech that referenced her abounded. Apparently, similar responses in Australia and Canada happened. In short, I think you're somehow just not seeing the lots and lots of coverage that is out there. Kingsif (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• There are currently six articles on the BBC website. There are even four in The Guardian. I daren't look at the tabloids. Black Kite (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• The Daily Mail's front cover is "Queen 'very, very sad' over Dame Vera Lynn's death: Her Majesty sends 'deepest condolences'", and I'm surprised there's not a mention of the war. Kingsif (talk) 06:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb; I don't see how she has the same global significance as most figures who get blurbs when they die of old age. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• If users aren't seeing Lynn's global importance (I'm not going to be snarky about the world war thing), what about a blurb like "Iconic wartime entertainer and life-long military fundraiser Vera Lynn (pictured), the oldest person to have a charting album and single, dies at the age of 103." Guinness WR? Or the fact she was the first artist not from the US to have a #1 in the US? (In-depth tribute/career article in The Guardian) Kingsif (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support blurb clearly someone super-notable as an entertainer whose death has been publicly mourned by the Queen, our future King, the Prime Minister, the leader of the Opposition, Sir Paul, Sir Cliff etc etc etc. I despise "long career = super notable" claims, but this is different, and the tributes are testimony to that. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb It seems the supports here are all going the IAR route, which is fine if there is consensus. She rather clearly does not meet the standards we have set. I'm seeing a strong parallel to Bob Hope. Hope was also a beloved "national treasure" sort, commanding national prime-time audiences across six decades. But he was certainly not a "transformative world leader" in his field, nor was Lynn in hers. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  Good one. Bob Hope died about 18 years before we had RD. If he was nominated now, I imagine it would be blurb all the way to the bank. It's like pretending that if Larry King died, no-one would try to blurb it. Try again! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  Larry King is no Nelson Mandela ... I'd oppose, even if it were pointless. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

  True. I'm not sure why Larry King should have a blurb in particular. No doubt he will get one, because of reasons, but if we are to uphold the principle of blurbs for old-age deaths being very rare, then he shouldn't really get one any more than Kirk Douglas or Vera Lynn. His reach hasn't been international - I've heard of him myself, from across the pond, but don't know really anything more than that he was a talk-show host.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment thank goodness for RD. Do you remember when this was the kind of debate that happened for every single death of a person with a Misplaced Pages article? Wow. No applause required of course....! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support blurb per comments by Kingsif, The Rambling Man, and Voice of Clam and others. Comparable in stature to several of the musicians posted as blurbs. --Inops (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• I don't know her through WWII, of course, just through Pink Floyd. But in a very balanced discussion like this, let's defer to the judgement of the majority of UK editors the way they occasionally defer to US editors about US icons. I trust them that this is a very big deal. Plus, we need a new picture, plus the oldest blurb is more than 10 days old. If nothing else, young editors might see it's a blurb, click, and learn something about a fast-disappearing generation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support blurb per the unusual level of coverage highlighted by Iridescent and Kingsif. If the Prime Minister is leading the tributes, that’s a good sign it’s above the normal RD levels. I prefer the altblurb which explains her significance. P-K3 (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Blurb comment if we are going with a blurb, the current altblurb is far too long + detailed for a RD. I have provided alt2 to try to capture her relevance to WWII which is what I glean as her key importance in what we can say in as few words as possible. --Masem (t) 22:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment IAR blurbing makes it essentially a number's game. US wins out for now, which isn't that big a deal since the rest of the world will have heard to some degree of whatever is huge in the US or the UK. I wonder how Europe/America will feel about it once South Asia gains the numbers to ensure everything Bollywood gets to the main page. On the other hand, if prime minister's tribute is going to be the standard, that would be almost all notable deaths in Nepal, and there are 100 other countries even smaller. Usedtobecool ☎️ 23:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• There seems to be support but not consensus for blurb posting. Blurbs are supposed to be rare and given for "major figures, including transformative world leaders in their field," however it is not guaranteed even then. Compared to the other noted death of the same date, Jean Kennedy Smith, is Lynn clearly more notable in meeting that threshold? It seems Lynn was a major figure in the field of British music, but one could say that Smith was also a "major figure" in the field of the Irish peace process and similarly deserves a blurb. FWIW, Google has 47M results for "Vera Lynn" versus 60M for "Jean Kennedy Smith." There have also been other notable individuals including heads of state who have been in RD without a blurb, and it should be clear that Lynn had more encyclopedic value (i.e. notability) in order to be posted. Based on both lack of consensus and questionable order of notability, it would be better to be conservative and refrain from posting a blurb in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  Agreed. We should always err on the side of not not blurbing old age deaths because that's what RD is for. There might be a slight majority in support, but with the amount of opposition it's not going to fly. Someone should put it out of its misery and close the thread. I say this as a Brit myself, and while there has been the usual tributes and coverage, that will die down fairly quickly, I just don't see this as the major all-encompassing death that would dominate the headlines for days, like Thatcher or Mandela would.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• See, I'd probably listen to blurb arguments for Kennedy Smith, but I have to say I wouldn't support them (based on the fact half her notability is 'Kennedy', which isn't really anything she did. Lynn, on the other hand, had a 97-year career all her own). Kingsif (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb Floquenbeam is very diplomatic, but sort of assumes that ITN is comprised of US & UK editors. If that were the case then yeah, but Misplaced Pages is a global work. UK icons should not be posted per se, and neither should US icons. They need something more. Banedon (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

You too are making an assumption, that Vera Lynn is purely a UK icon. Your assumption is wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Banedon - HiLo48 is correct, think more Commonwealth than UK and you get a better idea of her area of influence. Mjroots (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mjroots: You might have a narrow view of the Commonwealth. For example India is a member of the Commonwealth, and a brief look at an Indian newspaper shows no coverage. Same goes for a Nigerian newspaper, etc. Banedon (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Just saw this, of course a blurb. She's Vera Lynn! Her songs helped win a war. The short blurb should do, although the alternate (by removing "and life-long military fundraiser" for brevity) is a better summary of her historical importance. Not sold on having a photograph but maybe for a day so readers everywhere can either honor or discover her. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment, the "test" is a "yes" answer to the question, "could an article on the person's death and/or funeral be a standalone article?" Abductive (reasoning) 05:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb per Muboshgu. I'm a yank, so feel free to rake me over the coals for this if you wish, but I'm just not seeing enough global coverage or general significance to music at large. Though I would also like to add I think "tests" that come up in these sorts of discussions should be ignored, especially not Thatcher/Mandela, which, in addition to being 7 years old, has been violated enough as to be (rightfully) meaningless. Nohomersryan (talk) 05:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Lynn's fame is for far more than "just" music. HiLo48 (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb This does not rise to the level where blurb is needed, we have RD for this. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support blurb a British icon whose deaths was covered in newspapers in many countries. If she were American, I'm sure she'd have been posted by now, but unfortunately the American-centric bias of parts of Misplaced Pages is one again displaying itself. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Stats As usual on such occasions, our readership doesn't care what ITN thinks and has flocked to the Vera Lynn article in large numbers, so that its readership was greater than all other ITN items combined, including the pandemic and the protests. The blurb about Pierre Nkurunziza was read by comparatively few readers again. "There is nothing as stale as yesterday's news". Andrew🐉(talk) 10:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

  For the popularity section, please see WP:TOP25. This is WP:ITNC. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

  Exactly. ITN is not popular; it is routinely stale and dusty because its primary process is based on personal opinions and this tends to obstruct postings so that its productivity is now pathetic. The only part which functions at a proper pace is RD and that's because it was reformed to eliminate the peanut gallery's pontification. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

  You do realise that Vera Lynn actually was posted to the main page, don't you? Please find the popular pages at WP:TOP25. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

  Andrew is agreeing with you, TRM. I'm not sure what the argument is about.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 12:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

  It may be something to consider that a blurb for Lynn wouldn't be bumping any event out of the box, but a much less newsworthy death with a 100x less trafficked bio. Kingsif (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support blurb An internationally well-known figure in music and politics (just because she wasn't as well-known in the US, doesn't imply the case is the same for everywhere else), was still generating important news coverage merely weeks ago (ironically for reasons related to TRM's signature), and has knocked all COVID-19 and international politics coverage off the majority of UK broadsheet press today. Ritchie333 11:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

  On a point of order, the point about broadsheet coverage doesn't appear to be true. Vera hasn't made the front page of the Times or the FT at all, and is featured on the Telegraph and the Guardian only with a banner and a picture. The main stories are all still about COVID-19 or politics. The tabloids have mostly dominated their front pages to her though. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment A standard I've always found helpful is whether the death in question is making headlines outside the country they came from. I'm not seeing that here, and I have generally seen it when blurbs are justified. FTR I checked the Sydney Morning Herald, the NYT, Al Jazeera, and The Hindu, and this death hadn't made it to the homepage of any. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I think The Rambling Man and Flo make pretty compelling cases for why this should be upgraded to a blurb even if some editors (including myself honestly) are unfamiliar with her. I would note, however, that Vera_Lynn#Death is probably too short at the moment.Calidum 15:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

On second thought, oppose blurb. If Little Richard didn't get a blurb last month, I don't see why Lynn should get one now. (I would argue both should get one, but we should be consistent.) My concern about the quality of the update in Lynn's article still stands as well. Calidum 15:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb Per ModestGenius. While very popular, was not revolutionary in her field. Spencer 16:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb Elderly singer/entertainer dies of natural causes. Not even significant or revolutionary in her own field. 2601:601:1001:E120:682F:942D:C968:EBD (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to log in.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 19:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Opppose blurb This is what the Recent Deaths section is for. "Old woman dies of old age". Never heard of her before this week. Chrisclear (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Ignorance is no excuse, etc... - SchroCat (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not an excuse - it is implicitly saying that she's not so well known ("household name") as other people. Also, to what does the "etc" in your comment refer? Chrisclear (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Do do we only have blurbs on people you have heard of? Lynn is a fairly well known individual with, as has been seen, obits and mentions of her death in papers around the world. Just because you have not heard of her does not make her any less notable, or any more or less deserving of a blurb - and I say this as someone who has opposed a blurb. If we only !vote based on ignorance then we don't do anyone any favours. - SchroCat (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, 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. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

June 17

(Ready) RD: Tariq Aziz

• Nominated by Ainty Painty (talk · give credit)

 Ainty Painty (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support - I got an edit-conflict nominating this one. Everything seems fine but I still get the feeling that this won't be posted because of hello hello - the rampant WP:GEOBIAS here. #BrownLivesMatter Guy in the Mall (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  Why? RDs suffer less from that than anything else on the main page, all we care about here is the quality of the article. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support RD, looks ready. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support looks decently referenced JW 1961 Talk 20:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Weak support a dreadful article but what's there probably scrapes past the quality threshold needed, now I've spent 15 minutes trying to remedy some of it. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Looks OK. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - his date of birth seems to be identical to the Iraqi Tariq Aziz. Coincidence or mistake? Recent refs do corroborate it, but they could just be lifting the info from us. Also, the "Early Life" section is unreferenced so that should be fix before this is posted.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Ready assuming nobody reverts my rather bold trimming and rewriting. Usedtobecool ☎️ 21:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Rayshard Brooks

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

• Nominated by P,TO 19104 (talk · give credit)

• Support blurb I don't think RD is appropriate since the article is about the killing, not the individual. However, the killing, the ensuing protests, and today's charges make this notable enough for a blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Davey2116:Yes, you are correct the article is actually entitled the Killing of Rayshard Brooks, but I think this still falls under R.D. criteria. The R.D. tag could be removed if there is enough consensus. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 20:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I guess the current "Ongoing" riots needs to subsume this event too as the two are intrinsically related now. Maybe we take the ongoing back to a bumped blurb, taking the latest police murder into account? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure exactly what you mean, but I think I agree with you. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 20:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd support this too. Maybe something like

Protests break out across the United States and elsewhere following the police killings of George Floyd in Minneapolis and Rayshard Brooks in Atlanta.

If we're going with this, then it'd be good to have a section in the protests article about Rayshard Brooks. Davey2116 (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 21:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Just the thing is that the George Floyd is a little too old to be in the news. I obviously would be ok with keeping the George Flyod part but what if we made it about the officers involved having warrants issued? Ex:

The officers involved in the Killing of Rayshard Brooks were issued warrants on June 6th.

P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 21:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support RD only Not independently notable from the George Floyd protests in Ongoing. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  Well that is the actual point. The Floyd protests were dying down and now we're back up and running because of more overt criminal activity on behalf of the US cops. The stories are intertwined, so that's why I'm suggesting the "ongoing" gets bumped back up to a blurb again to cover this. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I am open to both! P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 21:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• I wouldn't be opposed to an RD in cases like this - the article is literally about a recent death. It just doesn't get an autopass if the quality checks out the way a preexisting biography would. (On that note, I haven't looked closely at article quality; I have entirely too many protest articles on my watchlist to keep up with already.) I definitely oppose the (now-removed) alt blurb though, since the protests - obviously - didn't break out in response to this killing two and a half weeks after they started. —Cryptic 21:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Note An RD would be stale, as he died on June 12, unless we IAR it. I'd support bringing a tweaked blurb back though, per TRM and others above. Black Kite (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The last RD is also from June 12, so not (quite) stale yet. —Cryptic 23:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Ah yes, missed the last entry as it was on a different line. However, even so, an appearance would no doubt be fleeting. Black Kite (talk) 00:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment – This ugly event is part of the larger story of anti-racism protests in the aftermath of George Floyd. – Sca (talk) 22:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is just a weekly occurrence in America. Unruly/criminal black doesn't co-operate with police, ends up dead, media makes a fuss about it. We don't need a blurb for each one of these. George Floyd was a unique case, but Brooks isn't special. CompactSpacez (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  Well, if you are racist, anything people of colour do is unruly... Absolutely pathetic rationale. Looking at the warning about some of their PA's on their talk page... We have a 'swole alpha-male' that is here to teach all the nerds a lesson seemingly. Even going as far as telling people they have small penises because he does not agree with them or how he would bully them had they been is school together... Maturity of a 12 year old at best, and even a lot of those know better. How on earth does a shit stirrer like that avoid being blocked or banned on this site? What a joke. 2003:D6:2714:37EA:C03F:D51F:D872:84B2 (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  • I agree, unemployed white people arm up, wander into a Synagogue, Walmart, garlic festival, whatever go on a crazy politically motivated murder spree with terrifying regularity. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose this falls under the the George Floyd protests currently in Ongoing. In truth, the subject probably fails WP:BLP1E --LaserLegs (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per LaserLegs. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as they don't have a biographical article, it's about the killing. Misplaced Pages:In the news/Recent deaths says that RD should be for biographical articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Malformed, stale, erroneously dated RD nomination. Reasoning is exactly the same as here. Reformat as a regular blurb if you'd like, but "violent drunk gets shot" probably fails the notability test.130.233.2.200 (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not an RD, and not significant enough to be a blurb. Sadly US police frequently kill suspects, so we could hardly post every one as a blurb. Modest Genius 10:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, per above. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Willie Thorne

• Nominated by Mjroots (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Nigej (talk · give credit)

 Mjroots (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose with regret, missing lots of references. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Cite the red links, scroll back. Sources for the yellow, green, brown, blue, pink, and black... Lugnuts 12:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Poor Willie Thorne, his hair's all gawn. Perhaps I aught to chalk it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 17:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support Much improved, I think everything is referenced now.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support No issues. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Much improved now, and it's now well sourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. The "Performance and rankings timeline" seems to be unreferenced, other than the rankings. If that can be sorted, then it's otherwise good to go. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The events all link to their own articles which are cited. Obviously not ideal, but possibly satisfactory. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

This has, sadly, been a long standing issue with these particular graphs. However, as stated, they are implicitly cited to the articles themselves. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 17:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support - someone did a lot of work on Mr. Maximum. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 17:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Weak support - "Performance and rankings timeline" section is orange-tagged but I'll vote weak support based on comments above by GreatCaesarsGhost and Lee Vilenski. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Posted. OK, I'll strike my oppose based on the reply to me above. Ideally someone should take the refs and put them in the relevant section, but we can IAR for the time being.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

RD: Eduardo Cojuangco Jr.

• Nominated by LSGH (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Editorial Cut (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Former chairman and CEO of San Miguel Corporation. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 00:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose on quality. - Indefensible (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose due to spotty referencing; "political life" section has only 1 ref, "sports patron" section has none, and a cn tag in the "personal life" section also gives me pause. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose too many citations needed. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

June 16

RD: Mohammad Asghar

• Nominated by PCN02WPS (talk · give credit)
• Created by Lordb (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Mozartnut (talk · give credit) and Ghmyrtle (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Welsh politician, died in office. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Weak oppose While referenced, article doesn't have much about what the subject accomplished in his political career. What's there is mostly election results and controversy, so at present, it's a tad unbalanced. Spencer 18:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mike McCormick (pitcher)

• Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Died on June 13, but only reported on June 16. Bloom6132 (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support - article looks decent. - Indefensible (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support article in good shape JW 1961 Talk 22:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Posted. Black Kite (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Bombing of the Inter-Korean Liaison Office

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

• Nominated by Abishe (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Gobonobo (talk · give credit), Phoenix7777 (talk · give credit) and Mccunicano (talk · give credit)

• Support story but oppose article(s) but once the "merge" has been resolved and a substantial improvement in coverage, gets my vote. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – Fairly wide coverage due, apparently, to the 'explosive' nature of the event, but in topical context seems just another pyrotechnical publicity stunt by our friend Kim Jong-un. – Sca (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I truly doubt anything will come of this. Perhaps we can post if there's further escalation, such as troop movement.--WaltCip (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. North Korea is known for loud saber rattling, and that's what this is. As WaltCip suggests, maybe if there is further escalation. 331dot (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Support It's a relevant story and whatever you think about NK saber rattling it might have global implications. Article is not great, though. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

That's fundamentally flimsy crystalballery. Nothing's going to happen. Nothing ever happens. Even with the infamous Singapore summit, nothing got done, and the Hanoi summit was even more worthless. I'm waiting to see boots on the ground enter another country before we can say there's any actual global implications. --WaltCip (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per 331dot. And WaltClip, whose analsis is damning. ——Serial 18:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

No need to get scatological about it, 54129. – Sca (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support with Inter-Korean Liaison Office as target article. This story is clearly encyclopedic because it would result in a significant update to a Misplaced Pages article regardless of ITN, so provided a decent update (which there is), I'm not swayed by the arguments that there needs to be "global implications" as suggested above. The dramatic and politically motivated destruction of an encylopedically notable building seems significant enough on its own. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 19:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, controlled demolition for political grandstanding. Abductive (reasoning) 20:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Not seeing the significance of this. P-K3 (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Madigan

• Nominated by Joseywales1961 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Ivar the Boneful (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Australian, former Senator died aged 53, complications from cancer. Looks a decently referenced candidate for RD JW 1961 Talk 10:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Weak support one unref'd para in there, the rest is satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Fixed that concern The Rambling Man, hope it's all satisfactory now JW 1961 Talk 11:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support fully satis. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support Article looks good now. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Weak oppose While referenced, his political career section only features information regarding election results, and doesn't include information about what he accomplished as a politician. Spencer 19:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  Maybe he achieved nothing. I'm pretty sure under Misplaced Pages's current notability guidelines, such individuals just have to sit in the office considered notable to make themselves notable rather than actually achieve anything of substance. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  While true, something like that for me wouldn't have sufficient depth to meet the 3rd ITN RD criteria of being "of sufficient quality to be posted on the main page". That said, some have died early in their political careers, such as ambassadors Bernardita Catalla and Du Wei (diplomat) (both of which were rightly posted)), and thus a case-by-case approach is reasonable.

  The Political views section seems to contain the information you are seeking. P-K3 (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Woops I must not have scrolled down far enough, thanks for pointing me the right direction. Spencer 01:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Posted. Black Kite (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

June 15

(Posted) Maria Ressa conviction

• Nominated by Bzweebl (talk · give credit)
• Created by Psiĥedelisto (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Psiĥedelisto (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: I'm a non-Filipino who has only read a couple articles about this just now and I understand it is a controversial subject so feel free to correct me if wrong, but it appears that she is the most prominent journalist in the Philippines and this outcome is a new low for press freedom under Duterte. The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines said the verdict "basically kills freedom of speech and of the press." Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 03:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bzweebl: Wow, thanks for including my article in the nom! (People of the Philippines v. Santos, Ressa and Rappler) I wish I had more time to work on it tonight... Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 04:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Of course, thanks for creating it! Watching your Rappler interview now :) Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 05:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, there is a non-zero chance I will become the third person convicted of cyberlibel and the first in absentia. Lucky me—quite the exclusive club! Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 05:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh wow I totally missed that part of the story, I was watching an old interview. I hope there will be change in the Philippines soon and you have the option to safely return in the future. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 06:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment what's there is (mostly) fine but in this case the article would benefit from some background about the cyberlibel law and the disputed article in question. Rappler might have libeled Keng, and Ressa is being held to account. There is an incomplete WP:CFORK to People_of_the_Philippines_v._Santos,_Ressa_and_Rappler which if expanded would be a better target. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I added background about the cyberlibel law to the beginning of the arrest section, and there already is information about the article in question in that same paragraph. I agree that the case would be a better target if expanded, but I don't know of any reason why there would be a problem with using Ressa's article as the target. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 19:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@LaserLegs: FYI, People of the Philippines v. Rappler, et al. was expanded and is now the target. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 23:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not familiar with the Filipino judicial system: is Ressa out of appeals and this is the final judgement? In the past we've posted sentencing, but I'm not sure if this is the notable event for this story. Spencer 19:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The case will be appealed. I understand both positions on this, as right now is probably when the story will receive the most news coverage but if it is not a certainty the verdict will be upheld then it could make sense to wait in some cases. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 19:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Is there a way for us to hint at the "persecution of the press" angle without BIAS? That seems to be the story here. I would support posting now rather than later, but there are a few CNs. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Added an altblurb that vaguely tries to do that. Note that although this is the second conviction, the notability of the event is largely because of her fame. I fixed the CN tags. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment- I may be slightly overreacting, but the fact that this nomination has not received any !votes in nearly 24 hours (notwithstanding the constructive comments above) while four other nominations have been resolved is suggestive of the subtle (though unintentional) ways that systemic bias affect ITN. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bzweebl: You aren't overreacting at all. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 11:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

There's some bias derived from the lack of clarity for foreign editors. Speaking for myself, I would not support a short article with CNs. Separately, I also refrain from meaningless votes, such as opposing an article with no support (as in this case). This is more of a "wait" vote. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah completely agreed, I had no problem with your comment. My “notwithstanding” was meant to be interpreted as “aside from” rather than “despite.” Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Although I admittedly am not super well-versed in this subject matter, this seems to be a fairly notable event, as it's drawn articles from not only the New York Times and AP (as linked in the nomination) but also BBC, CNN, CBS, and plenty of other news sources, and "basically freedom of speech and of the press," as the nominator mentioned, seems to be notable enough for ITN to me. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose On the basis that the finality of the case still hinges on the appeals court. Will support nom if this is being brought back after the appeal is heard and decided upon. – robertsky (talk) 05:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I disagree Robertsky. I edit in the area of Philippine law extensively. Cases drag on for years. This is when it's getting a lot of attention. There is a chance that the case will never be back in the news. For example, Duterte could lose and a new Congress could repeal the law, rendering the case moot and academic. If Duterte remains in power, this case is very unlikely to be overturned on appeal. See Disini v. Secretary of Justice, the Court approves of this law. It will first go to the Court of Appeals, where it is almost certain that Judge Estacio-Montesa's ruling will be upheld. Actually, I'm concerned the CA will find Rappler corporately liable to. Then, the SC will hear it, and they won't be sympathetic. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 11:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support I'm satisfied with the article now. The timing issue here is a blind spot for ITNC that we must be conscious of - we often have consensus for significance, but opinions on timing are so split that no one event garners sufficient support. The way to handle this (IMO) is to consider the possible outcomes (as noted by Psiĥedelisto) and (unless the latter events are clearly preferred) error on the side of posting sooner rather than later. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I am ambivalent about this but would note that neither blurb is very good. It is the effects rather than the conviction that is potentially ITN-worthy. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Brigade Piron and Bzweebl: Please take a look at ALT2. I spent all night expanding People of the Philippines v. Santos, Ressa and Rappler, and hope that this will be posted sooner rather than later. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 15:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: This is about to get stale. § (Posted) RD: Pierre Lumbi was posted by MSGJ after a single vote in support. People of the Philippines v. Santos, Ressa and Rappler has had a lot of work done on it, and Bzweebl, much to my surprise, even made it the bold article, which I was not expecting at all, I just hoped we'd both be bold. (Pardon the pun.) (I hope it's not against the rules to ping previous closers.) Black Kite closed § (Posted) RD: Mike McCormick (pitcher) after three yes votes which took only a few hours. Spencer closed § (Posted) RD: Noel Kelly (rugby league) after two yes votes. Ad Orientem closed § (Posted) RD: William S. Sessions after two yes votes as well. I don't usually come to ITN, in fact, had Bzweebl not basically invited me, I probably would stick to WP:DYK which I know best. However, given that I'm here, I just want to say, this is a WP:GLOBAL project. By population, Philippines has ⅓ the American population, and this is the biggest story in the country right now. It seems like we are not remembering that, unless I'm missing something major about how ITN operates…which is possible, this is my first time. That's all. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 23:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: The standards are different for RD and blurb nominations. RD is more or less automatic assuming that the article quality is up to scratch. A couple of supports with no opposition and the posting admins own review being positive is generally enough. However, blurbs have a higher bar and require a clear consensus that I am not seeing here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Oh, okay. Thank you for that explanation. Excuse my ignorance, turns out I really was missing something major about how ITN operates. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 23:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

No problem and thank you for your contributions to the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• This is my first time participating in ITN, and I got here due to Misplaced Pages talk:Tambayan Philippines#Discussion at WP:ITN/C#Maria Ressa conviction. I agree with the supporters above that this is notable enough to be included in ITN. As the second successful cyberlibel conviction in Philippine history, one of the convicted being a well-known journalist who is critical of Duterte, the case being covered by several local and international news outlets, and the trial finishing in a quick eight months instead of being very lengthy like 3 years, I think it passes my own standard of notability and significance. The article is also well-written and well-referenced.

I prefer Alternative blurb II to be used in the ITN, though it might be less neutral, so I'm also fine with the first Alternative blurb. It might be better anyway for the first Alternative blurb to be used, as I don't want to see another stupid social media post, this time calling Misplaced Pages "delawan" (Filipino for yellowtard). The main blurb is too dull and downplays the significance of this event, so I would oppose using that. --Pandakekok9 (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• Posted Alt 1. Spencer 16:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose current blurb wording I think that the currently worded blurb makes this sound like a typical trial conviction, whereas most of the rest of the world sees her conviction as a violation of human rights, and that isn't represented at all in the blurb. While it is controversial content, choosing not to include the controversy in the blurb is itself biased, as we legitimize the conviction and the government by normalizing it. Perhaps a neutral way to reference the controversy would be to add "In a Philippine court case about the freedom of the press," but perhaps another editor could word that better. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems Stephen changed it to match with the main blurb, instead of alt 1 which is the consensus formed here. Can't blame him though, because he based it on Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors#Errors with In the news (permalink). But it would have been better if they had consulted us first. Pandakekok9 (talk) 02:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 China–India skirmishes

• Nominated by DiplomatTesterMan (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Kautilya3 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: "The deaths are believed to be the first in decades in a confrontation between the two powers"BBC, "not a single shot has been fired between the two countries along the border for over 50 years" (SCMP) DTM (talk) 08:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - has been going on for a month already. If it is possible to improve the article further (and if enough people agree on the notability of the event), then I will support. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 09:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Post-posting Support - RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 05:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Agree with nominator. Sherenk1 (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Support article has some of the usual bad grammar and puffery, but overall not terrible. Would be nice if the update could be expanded a bit. Oppose any blurb with the phrase "hand to hand combat" or which excludes the reported Chinese deaths. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment – Relatively minor compared the main stories of the day. Sort of an 80-pound gorilla. – Sca (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support - But wait a bit. New developments show that at least 10 Indian soldiers have died Breakfastisready (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - article could use some improvement but looks decent. Added altblurb3. - Indefensible (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Looks good, although article might need some work as per LaserLegd. I'd go with Alt Blurb No3. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I feel given that this has been ongoing for a month and this incident is only but part of the cycle, that this feels it should go to ongoing, not necessary posting this blurb. Not that I'm against this blurb for posting, just that it feels like we should have had this to ongoing sometime ago and this would have been covered under that. --Masem (t) 17:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The key distinction is that this is the first time there have been actual deaths among the casualties since 1975 apparently, which is what merits the blurb as it is a major escalation. Otherwise it would be unworthy of mention as there are other conflicts currently with more deaths that should have priority for Ongoing. - Indefensible (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support As the article is now showing at least 25 deaths, with possibly many more than that, this is ITN worthy. NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support- there have been several escalations of border tensions in recent years that may have approached the ITN threshold, but this seems to clearly be the biggest incident yet. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 19:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Posted adapted version of blurb 3. Spencer 19:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) SCOTUS rules on Title VII for gays/transgender

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

• Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)

• Support Article is pretty good and it's a relevant topic in US politics. Looks like a good candidate to me. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Support pertaining to a single country is perfectly admissible per WP:Please do not #2, article is decent but short. I added a CN tag need a ref for the rightists who tried to justify legitimizing firing someone based on their sexuality. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • And those concerns have been addressed admirably. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Note for posting administrator This will put the Floyd protests to Ongoing per our earlier decision. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: could the blurb be rewritten in a form that makes sense to non-experts? Most of our readers won't know what the 1964 Civil Rights Act is, let alone what 'Title VII' means. I don't feel familiar enough with US law to suggest an alternative. Modest Genius 16:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Duh, thanks, Altblurb de-USifies it. --Masem (t) 16:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Much better, thanks. Could '​In a landmark case' be removed? Modest Genius 17:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
      • That's removed, and per Sandstein, "people" instead of "individuals". -Masem (t) 17:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
        • ...but if companies are people, that means... GreatCaesarsGhost 18:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support alt blurb. Due to the surprising nature of the decision - everything I had been reading suggested it would be 5-4 the other way - its topicality in Pride Month, and its significance (some activists are saying it is a bigger deal than gay marriage).-- P-K3 (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Weak support alt blurb. It's country-specific, but landmark SCOTUS decisions often have worldwide impact. Suggest "people" rather than "individuals". (Also, pleasantly surprised to learn of this from ITN/C.) Sandstein 16:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support This is a landmark civil rights decision by the Supreme Court, and is in my opinion on par with Obergefell v. Hodges in terms of importance, which was nominated and posted on June 26, 2015. Phuzion (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Note I should have added that I support the wording of the alternative blurb. Phuzion (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support alt blurb per above. Nihlus 17:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support alt blurb; while only technically about the US, this could have ramifications elsewhere internationally. Seems fitting for ITN. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per the rationale above! TJMSmith (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support alt blurb, maybe shortened to "LGBT" or "LGBT+" for space considerations if needed. Sceptre (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
•  Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Post-posting support per above. Historic decision. Davey2116 (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Post Posting Oppose Internal political legal decision with no significant ramifications outside of the United States. For most of the country it simply codifies existing state and local law. We don't customarily post domestic political and court cases of this sort. Are we going to start posting court cases for every other country? -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I did note the country and concern about additional "country to protect LGBTQ employment rights issue" as a concern. But as a note: only 21 states had some form of LGBTQ employment protections, so no, this wasn't really codifying existing law. --Masem (t) 19:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Those 21 states represent at least 2/3 of the population. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

But half of all LQBTQ people in the US live in states with no employment protection. Whichever way you try and spin it this is a significant ruling.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Support How many people live in Burundi? Maybe we should make a rule that editors shouldn't oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country. This argument applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Ad Orientem. Not of international impact, and only affects a minority of people in the US. Susprised this was posted within three hours of nomination too. That's normally too little time for consensus to form, except in very obvious cases.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • We've agreed a number of times that there is no minimum time an item must soak before posting. If you disagree, I suggest starting an RFC at WT:ITN --LaserLegs (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Post-posting support Would normally oppose internal politics from a single country, but this is on the front page of most news sources over here as well, and we have posted such issues before (i.e. Brexit vote). Issues over and above a simple ruling that lead back to items such as supposed right-wing loading of the Supreme Court. It is unlikely to have major ramifications outside the US but given the influence over world politics, especially in an election year as it related to DT's authority, I think this is worth posting. Black Kite (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Post-posting support! – Very major. This "add the words" debate has been going on for decades. (I speak as one who formerly worked for a U.S. state's Human Rights Commission.) The ramifications transcend U.S. borders, as this long overdue decision may spur change elsewhere, though alas not everywhere. (At least it will nullify various incomplete state human rights statutes.) – Sca (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Post-posting oppose per AO. No international significance. It's hardly on the front page of most news sources either - that is still dominated by the coronavirus. Banedon (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Why do you participate here when you affirm that ITN is a silly place with no purpose and advocate for it's removal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaserLegs (talk • contribs) 00:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
    • What's the alternative? Banedon (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Participate in a part of the project that you think should exist? Continue your efforts to remove ITN via consensus? When you comment here, given your past stated positions, I'm forced to conclude that you're only interested in sabotaging ITN and that your comments should be dismissed as such. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
        • And leave you guys to be silly? Sorry, I'm not going to do that. It's your prerogative to believe whatever you want though, and you can be sure I've drawn my own conclusions about you based on what you wrote above. Banedon (talk) 01:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Post-posting support per above supports. Notable decision that is in major news outlets. ZettaComposer (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Post-posting oppose as per AO. Not of international significance, violates WP:CSB. --Varavour (talk) 01:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  Interesting that WP:CSB states, “this project concentrates upon remedying omissions...rather than protesting against inappropriate inclusions.” P-K3 (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Post-posting confusion Americans supporting this might know, but as a non-American, I still have no idea what this is about. I'm not opposing the posting, again because I still have no idea what this is about. (Maybe I would if I did.) The US-centrism here is in using local political and other language that is not clear to the rest of the world. HiLo48 (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  Workers can no longer be fired simply for being gay or transgender. That’s basically it. I concede there’s some jargon in the original blurb but I don’t see what is confusing about the altblurb.P-K3 (talk) 02:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Post-posting oppose. Surprising ruling, yes, but has little to no relevance outside of American law. — Goszei (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Post-posting support. This is a catastrophe for anti-homosexuals around the world, who rely on financial, "moral", and legal support from US politicians and religious leaders. Abductive (reasoning) 02:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

June 14

(Posted) RD: Pierre Lumbi

• Nominated by Indefensible (talk · give credit)
• Created by Aymatth2 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Congolese politician. COVID. - Indefensible (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support: Quality quite good by standards of Wiki's African political biographies. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
•  Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Noel Kelly (rugby league)

• Updated and nominated by Bloom6132 (talk · give credit)

 Bloom6132 (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support I don't know anything about rugby so no idea if he was someone people would have heard of but the article is well sourced. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

  He meets notability requirements so doesn’t matter who’s heard of him :) P-K3 (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

  Australian rugby league follower here, just commenting for the record. Kelly was well before my time, but that's a very solid and significant career record he has. Anyone who followed the sport in the 1960s would certainly have heard of him. - dmmaus (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support Well referenced. P-K3 (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• Posted to RD. Spencer 18:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sushant Singh Rajput

• Nominated by Mr.Mani Raj Paul (talk · give credit)

 Actor Sushant Singh Rajput Commits Suicide Mr.Mani Raj Paul - talk 09:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment needs references in Television 2008-2012 and Filmography sections, will support when fixed JW 1961 Talk 10:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Looks good now. Sherenk1 (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support RD but I oppose the addition of the image. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• Posted to RD. Spencer 18:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

References

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

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

• Misplaced Pages In the news
• Main Page discussions