Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rami R (talk | contribs) at 18:34, 27 June 2020 (→Irish government formation: s). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 27

Irish government formation

• Nominated by Sheila1988 (talk · give credit)
• Created by 159.134.52.47 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Spleodrach (talk · give credit), Bastun (talk · give credit) and JLo-Watson (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: New PM elected. Sheila1988 (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose on quality too many citation needed tags. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose We usually do not post the succession of a PM. We do post general elections, and posted this one. Removed the errant ITNR tag - Taoiseach is the head of government. Only the head of state (president) is ITNR. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Really? 'Usually' may be technically true, but it seems deeply misleading. It is probably technically true because of such factors as that there are many new PMs in many microstates who don't even get nominated, etc. But it's news to me that we have ever failed to post the succession of an Irish PM, and I know such a failure has certainly not happened in the last 10 years. We certainly posted the last one (Leo Varadkar), even tho I have argued below (in my arguments for Support) that his succession was far less significant for Irish (and British) history. And we had a lengthy debate about precisely when to post that one, but almost everybody then took it for granted that the story should be posted.

Preceding comment posted by Tlhslobus.

• Oppose not ITN/R, we already posted the general election in February. P-K3 (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. I have no opinion about this nomination, but at the time of the elections results it was not at all clear who would form the government. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support on significance (I leave others to judge article quality) - Just because it is not ITN/R does not mean it should not be posted. We posted Varadkar's appointment 3 years ago even though it was far less significant in terms of Irish (and British) history, being merely a change caused by the retirement of the incumbent (OK, he was also openly gay and half-Indian, but that barely got a mention in our discussions here). There was a long debate then about precisely when it should be posted (when he became party leader or when he formally got elected as Taoiseach), but almost everybody then took it for granted that the story should be posted (which was probably why supporters felt they could risk having a debate over when to post it). This will be the first time FF and FG, the traditional main parties in Irish politics, have been reluctantly forced into coalition together, and it leaves Sinn Fein (the party of the supporters of the illegal Provisional IRA, who fought a guerilla/terrorist war against Britain for about 30 years in the Northern Ireland Troubles until 1998, and murdered senior members of the British Establishment and of Britain's Royal Family) as the main opposition party, and thus, in the eyes of many, the likely leaders of the next government in less than 5 years time. (That might be attacked as WP:Crystal, but the fear or worry that results for some (such as me), and the hope that results for others, are realities with significant consequences now - but of course a Wikilawyer can always shout WP:Crystal whenever any news story is argued to be significant, because significance can ultimately only ever be seen with hindsight, as in the claim, variously attributed to Chou En Lai or Mao Zedong, that it's too early to decide on the significance of the French Revolution.) None of this was clear at the time the election results were posted over 4 months ago. Tlhslobus (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – Per P-K3. – Sca (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I didnt even know they didnt have one.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support in principle: the Irish taoiseach is the one who leads, who people from around the world have heard of, etc. I don't know the Irish president's name. This is, in effect, ITN/R as the role with actual power (akin to PM with a monarchy). Of course, if the posting of the election cancels out posting of succession (surely not, since both seem blurb-worthy moments in different ways) then don't post. Kingsif (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Per Kingsif - this is the actual moment power in Ireland changes hands, not the inconclusive 2020 general election (which was on 8th February and not January per the blurb). Our President has only a ceremonial role in this country JW 1961 Talk 18:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. This is Ireland's first rotation government, first time that the two traditionally main rival parties sit together in a coalition (it's been called "the end of the civil war politics"), and has come after a record number of days of post-election negotiations. I daresay that this is a bigger deal than the election. Rami R 18:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing: 2020 China–India skirmishes

• Nominated by DiplomatTesterMan (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Drat8sub (talk · give credit), Trojanishere (talk · give credit) and Kautilya3 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: The buildup of troops on both sides of the LAC is increasing, China is still grabbing land along the LAC. Mike Pompeo has said that the US will shift troops from Germany to Asia to be in position to counter the PLA as needed. Economic response from India is slowly but visibly increasing, etc This was previously an ITN blurb for the 15/16 Galwan skirmish in which at least 20 soldiers died while fighting. DTM (talk) 05:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support for now. This has been getting news coverage and border tensions are at their highest in decades. Article quality is quite good and it is receiving regular updates. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. There has been no actual "skirmishes" for over 10 days as both China and India have publicly stated an intention to de-escalate the conflict, for which it seems both sides are doing. The economic response response to any event is always ongoing and extends beyond the duration of any conflict, which is the topic at hand. Statement from US Secretary of State shifting troops cannot be attributed directly to Kashmir, but as part of a broader tensions between US and China. Correct place is to put this in Ongoing conflicts in the portal: Current events.

The first line of the article says "The 2020 China–India skirmishes are part of an ongoing military standoff between China and India." Standoff is a clear factor in this. DTM (talk) 07:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Please also see the first line in media coverage - "Chinese media have given little to no attention to the dispute and have downplayed the clashes."DTM (talk) 07:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Article may need some light cleanup prior for consideration for ITN, there seems excessive Indian POV and the last 100 edits in past 2 days seem to have come mostly from Indian sources 104.243.98.96 (talk) 06:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC).

About the sources... please add as many Chinese sources as you like to counter balance the Indian, or even add sources from other countries. Currently all the big names are there, Global Times, People's Daily, The Telegraph, The Guardian, CNN, BBC, WSJ, South Morning China Post etc DTM (talk) 07:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose we correctly did a blurb for the June 15 skirmish, there hasn't been any clashes since. What's "ongoing" now is a border dispute between China and India which has been "ongoing" for decades and has had numerous flareups. If the actual violence starts again with some regularity then ongoing would be appropriate. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose well summed up by the post immediately above, I agree with everything said there. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – Per previous. Nothing much new. Sca (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

June 26

(Removed) Ongoing: Hong Kong protests

Nominator's comments: Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't think this article has had more than a single line of added prose in the last week.  GreatCaesarsGhost 20:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support removal I was going to wait till Monday to kick this off. June 2020 protests is a mountain of unsourced text and even if it had refs none of it is about actual protests. It's all statements from politicians and protestors. If the response to the National Security legislation is what's "ongoing" in the news then fine -- it's not received a substantial update in a week either -- nominate it for ongoing and we'll examine it's quality instead. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

There has also been little involvement and no consensus in a discussion to amend the ongoing criteria and omit the criteria that the target article be "regularly updated with new, pertinent information". The target article does not meet the ongoing criteria as currently written. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Even ignoring the state of update in the article, I am struggling to find any significant news beyond small updates on skirmishes that are happening. They are still apparently happening? but like a dull roar and seems to be waiting for the final draft of the security law that affects the statehood of HK relative to China. Hence likely why no updates. We should be acutely aware those that once this security law draft is out there, we'll probably be reading this or at least a blurb. --Masem (t) 23:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Unless someone wants to add information about the US sanctioning Chinese officials today, it's been a few days without an update. The national security law looks like it might come in soon, which will be terrifying and warrant a blurb. Whether the Commonwealth does ship out as many Hong Kongers as they can or not might be attached to that or get its own blurb. But for now, a little quiet. Kingsif (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support it's dropped off the news. Banedon (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support No updates on the protest or news front, information regarding this has petered out. Gotitbro (talk) 04:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Removed Stephen 04:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Glasgow multiple stabbings/shooting

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 Kingsif (talk · give credit)
• Created by Edwardx (talk · give credit)
• Updated by DeFacto (talk · give credit) and Ed6767 (talk · give credit)

• Alternative more accurate blurb: A man goes on a stabbing spree injuring six people in a hotel hosting asylum seekers in Glasgow, Scotland. Ed6767 talk! 17:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Except that's too detailed and suggests that there is some relation between the asylum seekers and the incident, which has not been commented on. Kingsif (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose not even terror-related. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Non-terror related criminal violence with low (likely none) fatalities outside of the perp. Unfortunately knife crime has become a serious problem in parts of the UK. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose not the US so not allowed on the front page- that seems to be the ITN consensus. Also, being less facetious, not that important to be ITN worthy Joseph2302 (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Joseph2302 Please show where a stabbing in the US with two victims was posted. This has nothing whatsoever to do with nationality. 331dot (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

You do realise I'm opposing this? Joseph2302 (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Joseph2302, be less facetious. UK bias here is just as strong if not stronger than US bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I apologize, I did not realize that. 331dot (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu US bias is much stronger in my experience, although there is a far too great US & UK bias anyway Joseph2302 (talk) 19:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment another stabbing in the UK? Thoughts and prayers. Still, if it's true that he was targeting asylum seekers then it'd be yet another case of fanatical right wing terrorism and might be worth a post. Generally I agree with not posting crime blotter, but terrorism comes in more forms than Islamic. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  We don't need your thoughts or prayers. You need to save them for all the daily mass shootings. Police have declared this to not be a terror incident. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Darren-M: if you're in the mood for inflammatory comments... --LaserLegs (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone". Cheers! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  right?? --LaserLegs (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  I don't follow. That was just another mass shooting. As noted, there have been scores of those in the US already this year. It wasn't meaningful in any sense. Your "thoughts and prayers" inflammatory comment is just 100% typical though I'm afraid, and you should heed the warnings of those generous enough to give them to you without taking it further. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  So much sin, so many stones, even back then and many more since. Oh well --LaserLegs (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  I also find it fascinating that you keep claiming there's some kind of "knife ownership" issue, like it's in any way comparable to the state-sponsored NRA-accredited mass shootings that occur every day? Bizarre at best, completely irrelevant at worst. In 2019 there were 242 deaths related to the use of knives in the UK. In the same year, there were 419 mass shootings in the US, and 15,381 deaths from firearms. It's not really comparing apples with apples now is it? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  Well we outnumber you 5 to 1, but you're right TRM, and my apologies. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per above, in addition that NOT#NEWS is policy, and NEVENT is a guideline. Just because its covered by reliable sources doesn't make it encyclopedic, much less ITN. Domestic crime events like this should not be our scope of coverage. --Masem (t) 19:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Eh? I agree that it shouldn't be posted, but I'm seeing no suggestion at all in any of the coverage that this was in any way domestic. ‑ Iridescent 19:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I don’t think Masem was referring to domestic violence, but to the fact that it is not international. P-K3 (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Um, well the prime suspect was an asylum seeker who stabbed a load of other asylum seekers and a Scottish policeman, so it's an "international" incident whichever way you look at it. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
        • With how close and generally free-flowing the borders are there in the UK/EU in general, calling it "international" on the nationalities would make sense, but I'd still consider that a local or domestic crime, particularly as the crime appears to be readily dismissed to have any ties to terrorism. In the US, that would be akin to racially motivated domestic killings (eg gang killings, often) which of course aren't going to get that coverage at all. What I'm saying is we need editors to think about what actually are events that likely will have impact a year, five years, or more down the road, and something like this doesn't have any type of hallmark that it would. --Masem (t) 23:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
          • Oh well that's wrong on so many levels. Firstly we're in lockdown so that hotel was being used to home asylum seekers, not regular paying guests. Secondly the perp was an asylum seeker who sought to stab several other asylum seekers (from all the around the world). Third the Scottish police (a different entity altogether from their English colleagues) felt they needed to kill the perp rather than bring him in. Fourth this will have an impact immediately in terms of protecting Scottish police, asylum seekers in Scotland and no doubt an investigation into the killing of the perp is underway right now too. It's easy to just dismiss this out of hand, and I agree it's not ITN-worthy, but please don't glibly overlook its cultural and historical impact. The police in the UK seldom kill anyone (unlike in the US) so this is deeply shocking no matter what the motive/fallout etc. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 23:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
          • I have to agree with TRM on how wrong that is. In both the UK and US, gang violence is treated about the same - the police probably get involved less in the UK, but gang killings in the UK are unfortunately common and are basically never reported on. The recent stabbings and shooting, since they got in the news, evidently are not so dismissable. The number of other 'attacks' is so comparatively less in places like the UK and Australia than in the US that it's hard to write them off in the same way, and hard to argue that they won't open some sort of precedent. This is the first time the Scottish police have shot a suspect dead since 1969, it's definitely going to have an impact. Kingsif (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
            • And for objective comparison on police shooting perpetrators, in the past 12 months, 1,026 people have been shot to death by police in the United States while in the UK (for 2017/18) the figure was 4. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unusual in that the police shot the suspect which is very unusual for Scotland, but ultimately nothing currently to suggest this was anything more than either an argument that got out of hand, or a lone mentally ill individual. ‑ Iridescent 19:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• It's the second time ever Scottish police have shot dead a suspect, the other time was in 1969. Yes, they didn't even shoot the Dunblane massacre guy. That's half the news here. Kingsif (talk) 01:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Does not appear to be significant enough, even when looking at the casualties. Gotitbro (talk) 04:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose As the one who started the article, it is clearly not significant enough for ITN. Edwardx (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

(Ready) RD: Milton Glaser

• Nominated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support looks alright. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose a few places need sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

  Fixed those. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Joseph2302: & @The Rambling Man: Thank you TRM for your edits! TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support now. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

RD: Munawar Hasan

• Nominated by Ainty Painty (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: politician and the former President of Islamist party Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan. Ainty Painty (talk) 09:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support pretty well sourced. Can't believe it took almost 8 hours for someone to comment on this, I guess this is what happens when it's not about an American..... Joseph2302 (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose until lead is expanded. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

June 25

(Posted) RD: Joe Sinnott

• Nominated by MatthewHoobin (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Tenebrae (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: American comic book artist known for his work with Marvel Comics. —Matthew - (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• I tagged one CN, but otherwise looks fine. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Support Ready now. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support when the citation GCG tagged is fixed. It may only be one, but it's to source info on his flagship Fantastic Four run, which is important. Kingsif (talk) 04:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: I found some sources for that info and added them as citations. —Matthew - (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Should be good to go, it's a good bio and has a decent update. Quite an important figure, but not Stan Lee, so I don't think it will get any real blurb arguments. Kingsif (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support Good RD nom, a single CN tag but the rest of the article appears to be in fine shape for a comic bio. Gotitbro (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support CN tag has been removed. Article is surprisingly well sourced. Sinnott will be remembered for his inks on Fantastic Four, painstakingly bringing Kirby's pencils to the page with unsurpassed vibrancy and precision. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment still READY, 12 hours later. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 08:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Liverpool F.C. win the Premier League

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.

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

• Comment - Do we generally post "mathematically confirmed" or do we wait for the final game?--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 21:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The league and everyone involved consider it a win as of now, and that's been the precedent. Radagast (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

  I think tradition is to do it when the team as an unassailable lead, although the last time it was a concern – April 2018 – we posted Barcelona winning La Liga but not City winning the Premier League (although in that discussion it's pointed out we didn't wait for the previous five seasons). As Joseywales1961, it's in the news now; the title presentation next month (which won't even be at the final game!) is just a formality. Sceptre (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

  I think last EPL the article wasn't up to scratch when the title was clinched so we held it till the season was officially finished. I don't follow soccer, but if now is when it's in the news, post it now. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support - The article is in good shape, I think we should post now rather than wait for Liverpool to play 7 more meaningless games when it would be old news by then JW 1961 Talk 21:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per the rationales of Thryduulf and Modest Genius in this discussion, which did not reach consensus for posting unassailable leads. There's also no prose about the actual season outside of the lede. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Though I maintain my general position described above, for this particular nom I am changing to support due to the unusually long gap between clinching and end of the season and because the article is now in slightly better shape. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Curious how others feel about Banedon's point - "suppose article is rejected now on quality grounds, but a few weeks later when the last game is played, is in good shape. Post or stale?" GreatCaesarsGhost 01:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  This is somewhat missing the point. All reliable sources are reporting that Liverpool have won the Premier League. It's not up to Misplaced Pages to arbitrarily decide that Liverpool have not won the Premier League, that's not how WP:V works. The only issue at stake here is the quality of the target article. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, but if it isn't posted now, it could be nom'ed as ITNR when the season concludes and it would not be stale then. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  No, it won't be news when the season finishes, so it will automatically fail to qualify to ITN. It's ITN now and all RS are reporting that they have won the league. Once article quality is sufficient, it must be posted per ITNR. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  You say that but I wouldn't be surprised if there are a bunch of "stale, should have posted when Liverpool won" type opposes if we wait. It's not like any of the issues still to be resolved - relegation, European qualification etc - would be mentioned in a blurb anyway.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  They might not be mentioned in the blurb, but they would certainly be mentioned in the article - which is supposed to provide full coverage of the topic, beyond the information in the blurb. Modest Genius 14:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  Comprehensiveness is important, but so is being "in the news." It's a question of striking the right balance.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I've added an altblurb as I think the 30-year wait is a significant part of the story. I would like to see more of a substantial prose update to the article before supporting though.-- P-K3 (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support if the final game is more than a week from now, wait otherwise. I would support adding the 30-year drought as well. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose on quality, the target article is junk. But support the news story being posted once that's resolved, exactly as I noted in the discussion that Bzweebl links above. The news story is today, not in a few weeks time when the season concludes. If, for some unknown reason, Liverpool are disqualified, that will be another news story to publish. But for the time being, the article needs serious work, or there needs to be some consensus on pointing at a different target. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support Altblurb2 preferred. It being significantly event to be posted, but i Oppose original blurb because there are some grammatical issues like typo and punctuation. 36.77.93.31 (talk) 23:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Would support on significance per ITN but maint tags need to be addressed and prose is needed for most of the article, a lot of it is just stats including an undue bulk about COVID-19. Gotitbro (talk) 04:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose That football league is not relevant to many other countries. We do not always need to post the winners of each season of major sports leagues, especially if they do not have a wide international following. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 09:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  (A) it's ITNR so your personal thoughts on its notability for ITN are somewhat irrelevant. (B) The EPL is the most-viewed domestic football league on the planet. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

My country's local media had no mention about it. But, disregarding that, why does the blurb not also provide a link to the article about the championship round itself and not just to the article about the entire season? Also, the lead is too long. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 09:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Domestic European football leagues don't have a "championship round" aka playoffs. Teams play each other twice and the team with the best record after all games are played wins the title. So that means a full season summary for this article is the only acceptable update. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Your country's local media is irrelevant. And yes, we've noted that the target article is sub-standard. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose on quality- article needs to be reworked so that not everything is in the lead. Agree that now is sensible time to post it, as suggesting that something could happen between now and the final match to prevent this is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Once article quality is fixed, consider this a support vote. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Wait until the end of the season, per WP:ITNR (which says 'the conclusion ... of the tournament ... unless otherwise specified') and per the precedent of previous years. The league isn't over yet and there are plenty of other issues still to resolve e.g. relegation, European places etc. Modest Genius 11:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  I think it's worth reiterating what I wrote in 2018:

  I think this year's Premier League posting is a great example of why we should wait until leagues finish before posting. It was originally nominated when Man City's lead became unassailable but not posted, then renominated and posted when the season concluded. In that time a) the season summary went from being a couple of uninformative paragraphs that almost entirely concentrated on City, to a detailed summary of the entire season covering all the clubs; b) the European qualification places were settled; c) the relegation places were settled; d) Man City broke a bunch of team records (most wins in a season, first team to 100 points etc.) that were worth highlighting to readers; e) the individual records (top goalscorer, player of the season etc.) were decided. As a result the article improved massively and was far more useful to readers, particularly those who don't already follow the league closely. The ITN blurb led readers to detailed information about all aspects of the season, not just the identity of the winners i.e. clicking on the bold link led to high quality content and more information than what was in the blurb itself. It was much better to wait. Modest Genius 11:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

  As its hard to tell and I think relevant to this point, how many more matches are left to be played, and I assume that will include matches played by Liverpool as well? (I can tell this goes to end of July, but can't tell game -count). I agree on the point about potential records to be named with the conclusion of the season that may come about that we should wait - it would be different if it were one week away and no significant records or the like were at risk. --Masem (t) 13:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  Every club has seven matches left to play.P-K3 (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  Second dumb question: does 2nd place at the end of the event mean anything here? We're too used to "first take all" type tournament formats in the US here. --Masem (t) 14:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  Finishing in the top four ensures qualification to next year's UEFA Champion's League - it makes little practical difference whether you finish second, third or fourth.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  It's even more important who finishes in the bottom three, as they will be expelled from the league (see promotion and relegation). That is unlikely to be decided until the final round of matches. Modest Genius 15:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  No, it won't be in the news when this season eventually concludes. This is certainly WP:IAR territory as far as that guidance is concerned. Given that ALL reliable sources are reporting that Liverpool have won the league, this should be our cue to do the same. Remember, WP:V applies and it is trivial to verify that Liverpool have won the league. It's not up to Misplaced Pages to decide that they haven't. Article quality is a separate issue entirely. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support and don't wait I have to agree that by the time the season is over, the winner will be old news and nobody will care. Imagine if there was no Super Bowl and the same glory as that was given based on points - how big would the news be when a team became unbeatable, and how little would people be reacting to that same announcement 30 games later? If nothing else, posting at the end of the season misrepresents the league: primarily US readers who most likely won't understand football seasons will think that posting at the end means there was a final and Liverpool just won it. But no, they have won it now. Kingsif (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Appears to be fine now that the main issues have been addresses. And post now, its "In the news" after all. No need for formalities just for the sake of it. Gotitbro (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support and run it now- it's the sensible time to do so, as Liverpool winning the league is the most important thing in this article. So we should run it when that fact is the news, not when the final day wimpers round in a month's time. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support now that the article has been restructured to remove the overly long lead, and updated. Looks good to go.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support this is now very much good to go. Good work everyone involved improving the article and removing the final bar to posting. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I don't see a need to wait another four weeks because this story is in the news now as others have said. Calidum 17:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment ATTENTION REQUIRED FROM ADMIN PLEASE. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 23:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Despite not being in any of the suggested blurbs, the posted text ended up being: In football, Liverpool F.C. win the Premier League. "Football" should be changed to "association football". As far as I recall, we always spell out the full name of the code of football being played in ITN, and this adds clarity for readers more familiar with other codes. --LukeSurl 07:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• I see this has now been changed. --LukeSurl 09:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment going forward, I wonder if the winning teams season article wouldn't be a better target. Also I should apologize for opposing the posing of Alex Ferguson's retirement years ago -- I had no idea that LFC couldn't win an EPL until the winningest coach in league history had stepped aside. I wonder if we should include that in the blurb? --LaserLegs (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

RD: Étienne Cerexhe

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

Nominator's comments: Short article, but all sourced. Not that much more information about him, which is a shame Joseph2302 (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment – Thin. – Sca (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Nothing about the judicial career in the article at all which would be the stepping stone into politics, which is bare bones as well. Gotitbro (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Support Really could use some expansion per the above comments. But it probably meets the customary standards for RD (if it were a blurb I'd oppose on article quality). -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I've added as much as I can find, including a sentence on his law specialities. But that's all the decent information I can find (as Google News isn't helping me at the moment). Joseph2302 (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Kennedy Sr. (footballer)

• Updated and nominated by Hawkeye7 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by EpicHawk (talk · give credit) and GuyFromPerth (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Article is rubbish, and a poor tribute to one of the greats, but good enough for the front page. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support One of the greats of Australian rules football. The nominator said the article is rubbish. That's still true, but it was a lot worse this morning. Several editors have made big improvements just today. Kennedy deserves a lot more content than is there now, but what is there is now much better sourced. Because of his fame in the Aussie Rules world, and now his death, more people will now be attracted to the article and make more improvements. HiLo48 (talk) 08:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support now; will probably support of the sourcing is sorted. ——Serial 10:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: - What sourcing needs to be sorted? There are no citation needed tags in the article. I'm willing to work on it, but I at least need pointers on what the problems are you think exist. HiLo48 (talk) 11:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: D'oh! I mis-read the statue tablet as being a load of unsourced sentences, apologies! (No excuse, but it was a long night!) ——Serial 14:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support article is long enough and well sourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support satis, good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per all. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment still good to go, six hours later. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment THIS IS READY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do I have to annoy the Americans here again to get this non-American item posted? HiLo48 (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 03:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

June 24

RD: Michael Hawley

• Nominated by Davey2116 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: American computer programmer and pianist dies at age 58. Article needs more refs. Davey2116 (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

RD: Margarita Pracatan

• Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Sfjohna (talk · give credit)

 Andrew🐉(talk) 17:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Weak support for RD only without a blurb. Certainly well referenced if a little short on content JW 1961 Talk 22:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose marked as a stub which makes it ineligible. Moreover this is never a blurb, a "novelty singer"? Give me strength. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with The Rambling Man. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 23:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I loved her. I watched every episode of Clive James' show during her 15 minutes of fame. However, despite my love and fascination, I know that this nomination just doesn't fly. Sorry! doktorb _words 04:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose she was a good sort, but not ITN material (yet). ——Serial 10:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Article needs more fleshing out and has a citation needed tag. The blurb was going nowhere so I have commented it out to prevent further piling on. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

June 23

Mexico earthquake

• Nominated by King of Hearts (talk · give credit)
• Created by SheriffIsInTown (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Major earthquake in Mexico with several deaths. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose on quality. Article needs improvement, including expansion and refs. Take this as support when article sufficiently improved. Kingsif (talk) 01:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support The Article's quality should improve later on, this was a deadly and powerful earthquake rocked Mexico on June 23, 2020 leaving people dead & injuring others. AbDaryaee (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment – Death toll put at 10. – Sca (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Basic details are there. Brandmeister 20:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment – Haven't seen anything new on this today (6/25). Keep in mind this happened 6/23. – Sca (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there doesn't appear to be widescale damage beyond the initial reports. Gotitbro (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Tragic for those affected, but the impact seems to have been fairly limited and it's received very little media coverage. Modest Genius 11:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Still good to go, Look at titles: "Powerful earthquake shakes southern Mexico, at least 10 dead.", Are these limited impact and little media coverage? AP news, ABC News, National Geographic, CNN, The New York Times, The Guardian...etc!! AbDaryaee (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Liam Treadwell

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

Nominator's comments: 2009 Grand National winner, still trying to expand it a bit more. Hoping obits will give more on personal life, which is lacking Joseph2302 (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support Seems to have been expanded since nom, looks good enough. Obviously would appreciate more details on death but if it's currently unexplained (there's a category for that), the lack is understandable. Kingsif (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support good to go. I think we can understand what's happened from the manner of the reporting. Deeply tragic. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 23:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Post-posting support Good to see a prominent bio with a 'good' article on RD. Gotitbro (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Safoora Zargar

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 Toddy1 (talk · give credit)
• Created by TheChunky (talk · give credit)
• Updated by TheChunky (talk · give credit) and Toddy1 (talk · give credit)

• Oppose. We don't post every step in judicial processes; if this person is convicted of a crime, maybe. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. This news is trending now in India. As hundreds of organizations including Amnesty International etc have supported her. This should be included in news. And with no offense to 331dot my Comment is, that this is not about all of the judicial process only. Zargar and many other students of Jamia Millia Islamia University were arrested. According to the most of the news channels in India, whole India is focusing on these, as North East Delhi riots affected the national capital of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheChunky (talk • contribs)
• Weak Oppose While it is in the news, I don't believe the level of coverage and importance for this specific step in the process is one of the top three or four articles in the news on a given day. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – Lacks significance. Sca (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Bail is insignificant, and the only reason it's covered in some news articles is because of the wider protests (and likely the fact she's pregnant, something which can sell headlines) Kingsif (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) BeiDou-3 launched

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 Banedon (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Now wiki (talk · give credit) and 99.199.175.110 (talk · give credit)

• Oppose another satellite navigation system? And poor quality article. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 06:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Inconsequential and no article. Even the main article here could use some work. Gotitbro (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I am not against this, but the proposed bold link has CNs, is heavy on jargon, has tense problems and many single-sentence paras. If this were a truly groundbreaking system, or if this was a very recent development, then I could overlook those shortcomings. But this is an article that's been around for 14 years. It must be better for the front page.130.233.3.21 (talk) 08:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose nth launch of a similar satellite to complete the second part of an existing working nav system... not really ITN material unfortunately.--Masem (t) 14:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per all. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support on principle, Oppose on quality This is only the fourth global satellite positioning system launched, and the first in four years. However, article has too many citation needed tags to post as of right now. NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Serbian parliamentary election

• Nominated by Bzweebl (talk · give credit)
• Created by Number 57 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by WEBDuB (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: I wasn't planning to nominate this but the article seems to be in particularly good shape, so why not highlight a decent article from a moderately underrepresented region of the world on Misplaced Pages. Official results are still being reported but the outcome is already clear and being reported by reliable sources. Open to suggestions or additions of altblurbs. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 03:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support I spotted one CN, but in a sea of otherwise very good referencing and it seems to be noting a claim that is referenced elsewhere. Article does a good, if overthorough, job of describing the background and issues. Aftermath is entirely opinions of various non-Serb Eurocrats. There's actually not a single mention from any Serbian in there. But a very good election article by the standards of ITN nominations.130.233.3.21 (talk) 08:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Good ITN nom. Though would wait a bit, so that the results become clear in mainstream sources. Gotitbro (talk) 08:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support seems a good option, with the various criteria met (obviously room for improvement, but not problematically so). I'm neutral as to waiting a day or two. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support it is a nice article - besides the one tag, the only source I think is missing is for the "first female and openly gay PM" statement. Kingsif (talk) 13:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Opposition boycott makes it especially relevant. Might wait a day or 2 for the final results but it's a really good candidate This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment- regarding the suggestion to wait before posting this, please note that this election took place two days ago and most reliable sources already reported the results yesterday. I don’t see any merit in waiting even longer. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Thanks for noticing the article. I think the significance of this event can be seen in the statement of a political scientist Florian Bieber, who said said that Vušić's party beat Russia's ruling party United Russia “to the largest ruling party majority in Europe after Belarus.” The opposition boycott and the lowest turnout since the establishment of a multi-party system in Serbia give specificity to these elections, especially for European politics.--WEBDuB (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support in principle and added image. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 01:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

June 22

RD: Steve Bing

• Nominated by The Rambling Man (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Producer and former husband of Elizabeth Hurley. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Lots of referencing needed. Stephen 02:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose still lots more referencing needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

RD: Pierino Prati

• Nominated by Fram (talk · give credit)
• Updated by 2.35.49.152 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Italian footballer, won European Championship and played the World Cup final, was leading scorer in Italian competition. Fully sourced but could of course use expansion from the (many) sources appearing today. Fram (talk) 09:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support Looks good already. Ref 2 supports most of the prose. If English articles cover some of those points they could be added, but it's fine as it is.130.233.3.21 (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see his death mentioned in the prose of the article. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

It's now in the lede.130.233.3.21 (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll remove the oppose but there should really be a personal life section in this kind of article, about him, where he was born, schooled, did he marry, did he have kids, what did he do after football etc. That's where I'd expect to see his death noted too. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Weak oppose going back to marginal oppose. There's literally nothing about his personal life which is a clear gap for me. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support Looks ready to go now JW 1961 Talk 22:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Thomas Welder

• Nominated by Genericusername57 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: The article is short but I believe everything is cited. gnu57 22:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support Looks good. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment lead needs work, what else is there appears alright. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man: I've added a new (fairly brief) lead paragraph. Cheers, gnu57 16:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Support good work. G2G. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 05:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

RD: Joel Schumacher

• Nominated by Jon698 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Donaldd23 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Director of St. Elmo's Fire, The Lost Boys, Falling Down, Batman Forever, and Batman & Robin Jon698 (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Quite a few unsourced statements and the Filmography is also unreferenced. Needs some work.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • As well as the "Collaborators" table looking like OR. Someone like Wes Anderson this can be easily sourced, but I have never seen such an equivalnce made for Schumacher and this would need to be sourced that he had such collaboration. -Masem (t) 18:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

    I almost deleted it when I took a peak at the article. I will now. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Would like to see this on RD but as noted above a lot is unsourced, even whole sections. Gotitbro (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment @Gotitbro: @Pawnkingthree: Hey, I am on vacation until Thursday, but I will get to working on it during the night whenever I am at hotels. The current state of his article is a tragedy. - Jon698 talk 7:05 24 June 2020

June 21

(Posted) RD: Jürgen Holtz

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

Nominator's comments: Found a one-liner about a fascinating actor and artist, between East Berlin and the West. Much more in German, in case someone has the time to expand further. Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Posted Stephen 05:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Angela Madsen

• Nominated by Fram (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Rcb1 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Died 21st, but this only became known the 23rd, so please give this some time. Tragic death of Paralympic shot putter (bronze medalist) and rower (world champion), and record breaker as first woman to row some oceans. Article seems fully sourced (work of multiple people, I'm only the nominator). Fram (talk) 10:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support only a couple of days late, and well sourced except for one sentence. ——Serial 10:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 03:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Anna Blume

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

Nominator's comments: I'm shocked, having known her. The news came only today, so I put it here, but she died on 18 June. I checked the sources of a mostly 2011 article, many were not there anymore, but more could be taken from some external links of when her husband died and I had no time. Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Support article is in good shape, notwithstanding link rot issues. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support per Hawkeye7 JW 1961 Talk 21:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 02:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support nice article, tragic loss. ——Serial 10:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Manchester shooting deaths

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 Kingsif (talk · give credit)

• Oppose This looks like domestic violence and more likely looks like two drunk people accidentally shot themselves and died from their wounds (aka Darwin Award winners). I see no reason why we even have an article on this. --Masem (t) 19:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Because someone opened fire in a car park full of people? Why does it look like domestic violence to you (seriously)? Kingsif (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'm looking at the other articles reporting on this (BBC, Guardian) and none of them talk about anyone opening fire at a car park. They said the shootings happened away from the rave. Only one source suggests even a third-party is involved at this point. --Masem (t) 19:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• The Manchester Evening News is being less conservative (tactful?) on details, but none of those say it wasn't an attack, just they're waiting on more details. There were two parties, which may be where you're confused - it didn't happen at the BLM one, but at the illegal rave later. With a murder inquiry, it seems unlikely they shot each other. Kingsif (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'll just say the way the BBC and Guardian are reporting it are drastically undercutting any "seriousness" of the event compared to how the MEN is covering it between its two stories. Even still, a random shooting at a rave where there was clearly drugs and alcohol involved still would be a domestic crime and the type of thing ITN usually doesn't cover. Barring anything unusual in the reasonings for the shooter, this is not the type of story for ITN (in contrast to the stabbings below which may have terrorist-related reasoning). --Masem (t) 19:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, yeah, I'm not saying this is being treated anything like the stabbings - a lack of media coverage can only be blamed so much on foggy details. But I think our definitions of domestic must differ. Kingsif (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment In which country did this event take place? It's not obvious from the proposed blurb. Chrisclear (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I think Manchester is in Korea. PackMecEng (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
    • No, it's in New Hampshire. Twit.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 21:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
      • If you're struggling to know which "Manchester", then either (a) assume it's the actual Manchester, not some parochial colonial copy or (b) click on the link. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
        • We can't expect global readers to be aware of every Tucson-sized burg on the planet, which is why there is a convention for this. It should read Manchester, England. This business with the neighborhoods is for big cities like London and NY. GreatCaesarsGhost 23:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
        • Readers shouldn't have to click on a link to find out the country in which an ITN event took place. Chrisclear (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Ah yeah, it's the New Hampshire one. My bad! PackMecEng (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

And here I was thinking it was the one in Ing-land. – Sca (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for now While mass shootings with guns are rare in the United Kingdom, this is at least the fifth multiple-casualty attack in the UK since 2017 (with the other four being terrorist attacks), and the second mass shooting in that neighbourhood since 2018. While there is no number of minimum deaths necessary for ITN, I do not believe that two deaths meets notability for a country with a history of multiple-death attacks like the United Kingdom, and I do not believe the fact that the weapon is different is itself notable. Furthermore, the BBC no longer appears to be featuring the story, indicating a further lack of significance. NorthernFalcon (talk) 04:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Shooting at a drug-fueled party surprises nobody, not least the police who apparently knew of this going on and did nothing. I guess laws are only for people who will comply. There used to be a list of cities that were considered notable enough to not require the usual ", Country" description. I can't remember if Manchester was on it, and I can't find it at the moment.130.233.3.21 (talk) 08:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Yes it's unfair that events that happen in one place are treated differently than they would be were they to happen elsewhere, but unfortunately "shooting in Moss Side"—an area that's been the frontline of mob wars for decades—falls squarely into the dog-bites-man category unless there are particularly exceptional circumstances. ‑ Iridescent 11:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• I guess it comes down to whether it was a targeted attack (relatively common) or a random mass shooting. Nearly half of the mass shootings in the UK have happened in Moss Side, yes, but when the complete total is five (four with fatalities), there's some liberty to say it's still rare. Kingsif (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Does not seem significant, for the deaths or place. Gotitbro (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

RD: Zeev Sternhell

• Nominated by Rami R (talk · give credit)

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

• Support. I was sorry to hear of this. It is true that there are two citation needed tags in the article, but at least one of them seems superfluous. I'll try to add some material myself later. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Significant historical figure. – Sca (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support article looks satisfactory for RD JW 1961 Talk 22:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose too much unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Needs some work with refs in a few sections, seems fine otherwise. If someone can fix that it'd be good to do. Gotitbro (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Note - the referencing has been much improved since the nomination was made. It should be reconsidered, or at least the objections made more specific. It seems much better referenced to me than most articles we post. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 Forbury Gardens stabbings

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 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)

• 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)

  Gun wielding maniacs going on shooting sprees is an all too common occurrence in the US but their society is too crippled by incompetence to pass meaningful gun control legislation so all we can do when it happens is insult the victims and the country where the tragedy took place. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 16:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  You had to go back six years to find one that was actually posted huh? Did you read the hate and bile that was spit in the Isla Vista nom? Give it a look -- I'll bet you a coke no one rushed to the talk pages of anyone denigrating the US to advise striking their hate filled remarks. "American bias" though right? LOL --LaserLegs (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  Take this somewhere else.  Nixinova   T   C   04:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  Hilarious, I spat out my coffee. The suggestion that three notable attacks over three years is somehow an "all too common occurrence" is actually hysterical when contextualised with just the six months covered here!! Thanks for the lulz. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support per Pawnkingthree. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 16:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  I strike my support per Bzweebl's persuasive argument. I rushed to judgment. I don't exactly oppose, but I am going neutral. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 21:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support terror attack, murders, unusual and noteworthy. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment- not supporting or opposing yet, but can someone offer me an argument for why the media bias of 3 rich world lives~300 developing world lives deserves to be represented at ITN? For example, Boko Haram killed 81 people in a single village last week and I don’t think that would have been considered here. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 18:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC) My real objection is to the concept of news rather than its application at ITN. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  Where's the article? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  I don’t fully understand the point you’re trying to make, can you elaborate? There are far more editors from the UK than from Nigeria on Misplaced Pages for obvious reasons. This results in systemic bias we should strive to fix, not accept as is. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 18:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  You're making his point for him - there is no article because WP editors write more about what interests them. English language WP is going to be dominated by people from Anglophone countries, so this nothing burger gets an article and the BH attack doesn't. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  Actually, there is a reason we have NEVENT, that we shouldn't be writing articles on every little crime that occurs until we know that crime has a larger impact. This is meant to help to fight the bias of this nature. --Masem (t) 19:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  You aren’t suggesting this is a “little crime” are you? It is not common for a group of people in a park to be randomly stabbed and the counter-terrorism unit to be called in. P-K3 (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  In the larger scheme of world events, to Bzweebl's point, yes, at this point. It may turn out to be more than a minor crime in the long run which then an article would be appropriate. But given that the culprit was caught and believed to have been working alone, this sounds like a very isolated case, at this point. We have to be aware of the global scope WP runs on, and that we're not a newspaper. Something like 2017 London Bridge attack has long-term effects that become clear very soon after the event, something like this does not. --Masem (t) 21:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  Nonsense, it's been declared an act of terror and the individual known to security forces. ITN can't wait for "long-term effects" as they may be more than days afterwards. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Bzweebl: Whilst I agree that there is a problem with bias towards incidents in developed countries in the sources we get our information from, and therefore in Misplaced Pages itself, I also don't think the comparison is quite the same; the Boko Haram insurgency is an ongoing conflict, over a long period of time, whereas this is a single incident. That's not to say that I don't think that the specific killing you mention from last week wouldn't be suitable for ITN - I almost certainly would have supported its inclusion, assuming there were a sufficient number of reliable sources - and quite obviously, it is a tragedy of a grand scale; indeed, by number of lives lost, many times greater than this event, as you rightly point out. It isn't, however, quite a like-for-like comparison in terms of its context, I don't think. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) This is a great point and I thank you for bringing it up. The context of these two events are very different, and that unquestionably affects their notability even if the incomprehensible tragedy of both remains unchanged. My remaining objection to posting this nomination and other similar low-casualty terrorist incidents in the United States and Western Europe is that I don't see how the fact that they take place outside the context of any broader conflict or insurgency is enough of a reason to grant them significantly greater notability without any additional factors that contribute to long-term importance, as Masem describes above. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  Which terror attacks took place in the US? And spontaneous acts of extreme violence are obviously more notable than ongoing trends in killings in a war zone, I don't understand why that would be a consideration. It's like saying we should be posting that a thousand people a day are dying of Covid 19 in Brazil. We don't because it's just "normal" at the moment. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  You're right. Upon reflection, my objection is really to the concept of news rather than the application of it here at ITN. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  Of course. I would vote to post an incident in which 81 people were killed in a heartbeat. But as already noted there is no article for it, and it wasn't nominated here at ITNC at all. So it is really a red herring per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose "Three people killed in a stabbing with possible terrorist intent" somewhere in the world is a ho-hum story. If we are to suggest greater significance BECAUSE of the location, it should be exceedingly rare there. Three notable attacks over three years is not that rare. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

My prior comments notwithstanding, I'm going to flip to neutral as well. The premeditated terrorism angle is now more firmly substantiated. GreatCaesarsGhost 23:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, but subject to change if someone can offer a reasonable answer to my question above. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC) Changed to neutral per Naypta's response above. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  TRM already answered. The way to counter systematic bias is to write an article about the Boko Haram attack and nominate it here. P-K3 (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  You can't oppose on a pure hypothetical. If the article had existed, and if the article had been nominated at ITNC, then, and only then, would we be able to judge the community consensus on whether it was going to the main page. I'm afraid this opposition is invalid and should be disregarded. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Thank you for your response. I appreciate your suggestion, and I apologize to TRM for the implication that his response was not reasonable, I just didn't fully understand it. However, I think your suggestion may be based on a misinterpretation of my question. My main interest was not in comparing that specific attack to this one, but in making a larger point that far more tragic terror attacks against civilians occur in the developing world on a regular basis and these cannot all be notable enough for inclusion on ITN, but posting this particular attack would suggest to me that they are. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  As I said, unless these developing world stories are created, nominated and rejected, your opposition is based in a crystal ball. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  Okay, I agree. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support, many dead. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 21:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Terrorist incidents of this nature are almost always posted, and it is on the main pages of international media such as the NY Times and Le Monde.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Given the limited space, I don't see how this event - tragic as it is - is amongst the most important current news stories in the world. JezGrove (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The only angle that is noteworthy in this is the terrorism angle. Stabbings are otherwise very common in some countries. As a matter of legalese, we would have to use the "suspected terrorism" language, and I'm as uncomfortable putting "suspected" items up for the same reason that we don't put up "planned" or "expected" items. The London Bridge attacks were qualitatively different in that the choice of target and shouting made the intention clear. In this case, we have a random park and someone shouting "unintelligible" things.130.233.3.21 (talk) 08:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support, as per above, terror incident with deaths on multiple international pages of media.- Mg27127 (talk) 08:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per TRM. --RaiderAspect (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: Grim though it is, I don't think it is unusual or large enough to merit ITN status. It's very different in significance to, for example, the Manchester Arena bombing. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Brigade Piron: If the deadliest terrorist attack and the first suicide bombing in the United Kingdom since the 7 July 2005 London bombings is the threshold for ITN entries, then we should almost never have anything on ITN, surely. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Apart from things happening in other countries, Naypta? In any case, that's not what I said - the Manchester bombing was notable for the (i) death toll, (ii) means and (iii) location. This attack doesn't really compare on any metric. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Brigade Piron: Apologies; upon rereading it, my comment came off stronger than intended. What I mean to say isn't that your comment is unreasonable; rather, that a tragedy on the scale of the Manchester Arena bombing may not be a useful benchmark, in my view, simply because same scale is so unfathomably large. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose A tragedy of local or national, not global importance. Nowhere near the top stories of e.g CNN and Washington Post by now. Even BBC has it seventh on their front page. User38453838 (talk) 10:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  Where are you getting "BBC has it seventh on their front page" from? Of the six stories currently above the fold on their main front page, at the time of writing the first two ("American named as second victim of Reading attack" and "Town in shock as tributes paid to victims") are both about this, ahead even of the announcement on pubs reopening; of the seven above-the-fold stories on BBC England, the first four are about this. ‑ Iridescent 10:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

BBC does some awful location-based forwarding that makes comparing article procession very hard. I ran into this recently where I couldn't find anything corona related there and someone here pointed out that I was looking at BBC TV, when I had manually typed in bbc dot co dot you kay in the address bar. Probably what's happening here.130.233.3.21 (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Provisional oppose unless there's something to indicate lasting significance. While the "not in the news" arguments are obviously bogus, at present there's nothing to indicate that this is a "true" terrorist attack as opposed to a single mentally ill individual claiming terrorism as a motive, something that happens frequently enough so as not to be particularly unusual. ‑ Iridescent 10:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose It's not particularly notable at this point. -- Rockstone 19:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Domestic crime. Some reports suggest terrorism though do not signify the impact. Gotitbro (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – Per previous. No evidence to show general significance. Three fatalities is comparatively few. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

June 20

(Posted) Belmont Stakes

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

  'Support as it's updated and evidently ITNR (one of those "backdoor ITNRs" mind you) although not marked as such. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:10, 23 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)
• Oppose As per Kingsif, not even the most important thing going on in horse racing right now. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

What would that be? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Royal Ascot, also June 20, most important UK horse race (arguable with the Grand National), not attended by the Queen for the first time ever. But I don't think I'd put that in ITN, either. Kingsif (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Is the Royal Ascot considered more important than the Epsom Derby? The fact that it lacks a Misplaced Pages page doesn’t suggest to me a high degree of notability.Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Royal Ascot doesn't exist? (The Derby is a big but still run-of-the-mill good-for-betting horse race, AFAIK) Kingsif (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed it doesn’t. The lede of the Misplaced Pages page for Epsom Derby (and to a lesser extent the fact that it’s ITN/R) suggest to me a higher degree of notability. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 18:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

To not kill a point, since we could just as easily argue for posting of Newbury last week (there's a lot in horse racing right now), the Triple Crown article calls the Royal Ascot the most prestigious long-distance races in the British flat racing season, so it's probably the ideal comparison to Belmont. Seems we should wait for the Kentucky Derby and Grand National, or post all of this week's horse races. Kingsif (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Though I still think the Belmont was the most notable of all the recent horse racing events, your point is well taken. Thanks for engaging in this discussion. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 18:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Per other sports, only top leagues/franchises are posted. Gotitbro (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Gotitbro This is an American Triple Crown race, one of the top three races in the US. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Much as it pains me to support a sporting event, the update looks sufficient for me and it's at WP:ITNR#Horse racing. —Cryptic 23:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Not ITN/R. The Belmont Stakes is ITNR iff the Triple Crown is won. That hasn't happened here. The next race, the Kentucky Derby, is ITN/R whatever happens. The Preakness Stakes will be the last Triple Crown race, but it's not ITN/R, even if a horse wins the triple crown. Would be hilarious if a horse does win the US triple crown, then Britishers shoot it down crying "US biazzz". Howard the Duck (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  ITNR does not say if the horse WINS the Triple Crown. It says "only if it is part of a Triple Crown" and it is still. So Justice Gorsuch supports this nom. greatcaesarsghost votes Oppose. GreatCaesarsGhost 23:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support One of the most prestigious horse races in the United States. Article quality is adequate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose If we post this and a horse wins the Triple Crown, we'll end up posting all three, which seems somewhat like overkill. Black Kite (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Normally, these three races occur within five weeks; this year the other two races are much later. 331dot (talk) 23:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. This would seem to be ITNR as it is "part of a Triple Crown", being the leadoff race. 331dot (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  As much as I felt this nomination was worthy of posting and would have liked for it to receive consensus, that particular argument is pretty silly to me. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

How's that? 331dot (talk) 00:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Whoever originally decided on the wording at WP:ITNR could not have possibly envisioned that the Belmont would ever be the first race of the Triple Crown. As the guideline header states, "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Why should this be an exception? What is the benefit to keeping this off the box? 331dot (talk) 01:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you're interpreting the listing at ITN/R differently than I am? I'm pretty sure it means that we only post the Belmont if a horse wins the Triple Crown, not if it is one of the three races in the Triple Crown, which it always is. I apologize, I thought you were making a legalistic argument that because a horse could still technically win the Triple Crown this is ITN/R. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 03:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

We've posted the Belmont if a Triple Crown is at stake, which is not always the case normally. However, it is this year because it was first(which has never happened before and I think is notable in that regard alone). I respect the difference of opinion on this. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

ITNR is about planning for foreseeable events. The order of these races is long-standing and firmly set, and this listing was very clearly written with the understanding that the Belmont is the third race. The clear meaning of "only if it is part of a Triple Crown" means a horse won all three races (or possibly won the first two and contended for the third). Applying this entry to this year's race is not in line with ITNR's intent. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The intent is to post this race if it is part of a Triple Crown. This year is an unusual situation not likely to be repeated where the Belmont, for the first time ever, is the leadoff race. We post the Kentucky Derby as the leadoff race for the TC every other year. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support now that article has been expanded. P-K3 (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Despite the sophistry above, this is indeed an ITNR nomination, and the article is more than sufficient for posting. Changes to ITNR should be suggested there, not here.130.233.3.21 (talk) 09:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Kingsif and many others. - SchroCat (talk) 12:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - Look; it's not up for debate whether this will be posted or not on significance. This is ITN/R. Any opposes in that sense will be discounted, and such concerns should be taken up on WP:ITN/R and not here.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 12:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  It's interestingly one of those dubious ITNR entries with no evidence of community support too. One of those "sneaky backdoor" ITNRs! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  You can't say it's not up for debate when there quite plainly is a debate. The "only if it is part of a Triple Crown" qualifier, to me, says that it's only ITN/R if it's the third race and a horse has won the previous two.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  That's almost certainly the point, but unless someone can actually find the community discussion which both added the Belmont Stakes and the Triple Crown caveat, we're somewhat stymied on a technicality here, regardless of the common sense. Worth a new thread at WT:ITNR if you ask me. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  At a minimum, we should go back to the wording that was removed here, which - unlike the current - isn't actively misleading to people who don't follow horse racing closely. —Cryptic 14:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  That's true if the item is ITNR. However, if we do not have consensus agreement that an item is covered by ITNR, we must allow and weigh arguments of significance. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I just checked the ITNR archives and discovered this which ironically I closed. The proposal was to "Add Belmont Stakes iff a Triple Crown is on the line" and found no consensus. So I wonder when it was added and with what consensus? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  Aha, I discovered that 331dot modified the previous wording around noting a Triple Crown winner to including the Belmont Stakes by name in this edit which appeared to not reference any community consensus, moreover they suggested it was a bold move and could be reverted. Definitely needs discussion. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks like it was initially added by Montanabw here, removed, and then readded by me afterwards as TRM notes. 331dot (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. The opposes are unconvincing to say the least. Calidum 15:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Sufficiently updated and ITNR. ZettaComposer (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Attention needed can we get an uninvolved admin to make a call on this ITNR debate? There are many !votes in both direction that could be thrown out once a decision is made. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment – Very scant coverage compared to the real news out there. – Sca (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Posted ALT1. Narrow consensus in favor of posting; whether this is actually ITN/R is under discussion on the talk page there (and arguments saying that this is just ITN/R no rationale needed were given slightly less weight), but a compelling argument was made here that because it's the first race of the series, there is added notability. Spencer 01:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Conviction of Vital Kamerhe

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)

• 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)
• Support based on the Rappler precedent. This is not "parochial" politics but a major long-running political scandal in one of Africa's largest and most important countries. However, the current angle is wrong. It's not the corruption that is significant but the political implications. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  I could be convinced of that being a reason to post this, but we have to make that clear in a well-written and cited target article. At this point we don't even have a target to judge. GreatCaesarsGhost 23:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with the above. Neither of the linked articles conveys this.130.233.3.21 (talk) 09:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but corruption in Africa is hardly a news story, being caught doing it may be of mild interest, but this is not something I would expect to see in the top 100 stories in the news of 2020. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 06:45, 24 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)

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