Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

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

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

Lee Hsien Loong pictured in June 2018
Lee Hsien Loong

How to nominate an itemEdit

In order to suggest a candidate:

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

Purge this page to update the cache

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

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


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pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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

Voicing an opinion on an itemEdit

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

Please do not...Edit

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


July 13Edit

Law and crime

Politics and elections

July 12Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy
  • The McClatchy company, one of the largest and most respected American news publishers, announces that hedge fund Chatham Asset Management won its bankruptcy sale in a court-supervised auction. Chatham, which owns the National Enquirer, has been an investor in the company since 2009. Court confirmation, likely at a hearing on July 24, is required. McClatchy has been burdened by heavy debt from its large pension obligations and the acquisition of newspaper chain Knight Ridder. (Reuters) (The New York Times)

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Kelly PrestonEdit

Article: Kelly Preston (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Wife of John Travolta. Stephen 05:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose a citation needed tag, an uncited end-of-paragraph, and uncited -ography sections. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 06:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

RD: Brad Watson (writer)Edit

Article: Brad Watson (writer) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Boston Globe

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Died on July 8, but only reported in The Boston Globe on July 12. Bloom6132 (talk) 03:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Stale dies on the 8th, was reported on the 9th. We don't date from when the Boston Globe gets around to his obituary. Stephen 04:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Stephen: even if we do date it to the 9th, there's still 3 more days to go before it should be archived. Can this not be put at the very bottom entry of RD (i.e. replacing Mahmoud Reda)? —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Why would it be dated to the 9th, he died on the 8th? We don't micromanage to when the first mention is given. Currently the oldest RD is the 10th, so it's stale whatever date. Stephen 04:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Stephen: Okay, fine, 2 days left then. That still doesn't answer my question as to why this cannot be put at the very bottom entry of RD. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Because the oldest RD is the 10th, so this is older than that. Stephen 04:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

July 11Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Gabriella TucciEdit

Article: Gabriella Tucci (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): La Stampa

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The soprano who holds the record for having sung most Verdi roles at the Metropolitan Opera. Had only 2 offline sources so far, was otherwise acceptable already. Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

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

RD: Jyotsna BhattEdit

Article: Jyotsna Bhatt (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Indian Express

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Article may require some copyediting. Nizil (talk) 09:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Support is a bit short but has the in-text refs. Only possible issue is if the sources are not reliable, which I do not know. Everything else is good. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Frank BollingEdit

Article: Frank Bolling (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): WKRG-TV (CBS); WALA-TV (Fox)

Article updated

 Bloom6132 (talk) 07:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


Article: C/2020 F3 (NEOWISE) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The brightest comet of the 21st century, NEOWISE (pictured), is now visible to the naked eye. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Comet NEOWISE (pictured) reaches naked eye visibility in the Northern Hemisphere.
News source(s): National Geographic; BBC

Article updated

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

Nominator's comments: Great comets are WP:ITN/R and this one is looking good Andrew🐉(talk) 19:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

at dawn over the Californian desert
  • Support ok article, is a bit short but covers everything that a reader needs to know. Missing 1 in-text ref but other then that, this is great. Thanks Andrew Davidson for nominating this, definitely is something I'll be looking forward to. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait – A nice little (200 words) guide with basic info for would-be comet spotters, but any posting on ITN would depend on article expansion, which should be doable as the visible phenomenon peaks in a week or so. – Sca (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. NEOWISE is a bright comet for sure, but it's not the brightest of the century. That distinction belongs to Comet McNaught (2007). However, it might be safe to say that it's the brightest Northern Hemisphere comet of the century since maybe Comet Hale-Bopp. I suggested a second blurb to accommodate these facts. (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks good enough for posting. Updated and good sources.BabbaQ (talk) 08:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – for now. Has gained 40 words; not MP material yet. – Sca (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Image What matters most for this is not the number of words but the image, which is worth a thousand words. I went out last night to see the comet for myself but didn't get a good photo. I've seen some outstanding pictures elsewhere such as over Stonehenge or rising to the ISS. Pictures are accumulating at Commons now and so we should look for a good one. I quite like the dawn images such as the California desert image (right). Andrew🐉(talk) 13:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
    A picture may be worth a thousand words elsewhere, but this here is an encyclopedia. Pictures complement the words, they don't replace them. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
    Am I hearing this straight? Forgo any quality concerns over an article because someone has posted a nice picture of a comet (much like many other comets, i.e. not unique at all) to Commons? Is that the claim this time instead of a WP:TOP25 claim? I can't keep up with the reasons to post things at ITN which aren't what ITN is about but yet Andrew et al seem to be convinced are...... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • How do we know this is a "great comet" if that term has no agreed upon meaning? GreatCaesarsGhost 19:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
GreatCaesarsGhost, "It's the brightest Northern Hemisphere comet of the century since maybe Comet Hale-Bopp" per I think this should make it a "great comet". Dantheanimator (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your subjective opinion, but I was inquiring about the non-subjective matter of whether this is an ITNR nomination. Not all comets are great comets, and only great comets are ITNR. I've no concern about posting the brightest comet in 13 years. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, maybe it's a "great comet" because someone called it "great". WP:V is mandatory in this project. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The issue is discussed in detail already at WP:ITN/RRTFM. Anyway, it doesn't really matter because the existing blurbs are junk like a bus plunge which has no WP:ITN/R standing and just about no readers too. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Why would a bus disaster need a listing at ITNR? Why does the lack of "bus disasters" at ITNR consign this one to being "junk"? I'm sorely confused by you Andrew. One minute it's pageviews, like trying to turn ITN into WP:TOP25, next it's suggesting that items already posted are "junk" if they have no (sic) "ITN/R standing". How bizarre. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 23:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I did read ITNR, Andrew. Did you? There is zero discussion of the problem raised here - that you cannot make a subset of a normally occurring phenomena ITNR without distinguishing that subset. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
GreatCaesarsGhost, the footnote defines "Great comet" as "clearly visible by naked eye even to those who weren't specifically looking for it". AFAICT, this meets the criteria. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – The article is good enough and this is ITNR. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) ABS-CBN franchise renewal controversyEdit

Consensus to post will not develop. Stephen 23:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: ABS-CBN franchise renewal controversy (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The ABS-CBN, the Philippines' largest broadcasting network, is denied of a franchise renewal by the House of Representatives. This is the second time the network has been closed down by the government, with the first during the Martial Law under Ferdinand Marcos. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The ABS-CBN, the Philippines' largest broadcasting network, is denied of a franchise renewal by the House of Representatives.
Alternative blurb II: ​ABS-CBN, the Philippines' largest broadcasting network, is closed by the Philippine government for the second time.
News source(s): NY Times, Inquirer, Yahoo, BBC, Al Jazeera, CNN
Nominator's comments: Big news in the Philippines and is covered by multiple news organizations around the world. This is the largest broadcast network in the Philippines being shut down. This roots from a threat by none other than the Philippine president and backed by his allies in the HOR. HiwilmsTalk 16:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

*Support article is ok, has some missing in-text refs though. Maybe a different blurb though? This one feels unnecessarily long and wordy. Dantheanimator (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC) Oppose per LaserLegs. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

    • Comment: Same thoughts on the blurb I've created. Maybe you could suggest some alt blurbs? I can't think well following this shut down. There's just too many problems in the PH right now. HiwilmsTalk 16:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Both alt blurbs are good. Yeah, same here Hiwilms. This lockdown has definitely had a huge psychological impact on me as well. Dantheanimator (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose We already posted this back in May --LaserLegs (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Legs, we can't keep regurgitating the same problem. If this is a chronic story, Ongoing is the way ahead, but this doesn't feel significant enough for that. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Parochial politix; little general significance beyond reflecting on Duterte. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all. This has been dragging on and hasn't reached international significance except for a few moments. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 01:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Close? I don't think the necessary consensus will develop anytime soon. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Marked attention. – Sca (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
    • If we stop responding, it's the same as closing without shutting out feedback from newcomers. We really ought stop closing noms before they expire --LaserLegs (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't agree that pre-expiration closes are bad, especially when consensus is unlikely to emerge and attention is better served with other candidates, but at that point it should be a natural close without someone expressly asking for one (unless, of course, the proposed item is bound to create a shitstorm in the discussion without any benefit or likelihood of posting, when such calls are appropriate). – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 22:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Jack CharltonEdit

Article: Jack Charlton (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sky News

Article updated

Nominator's comments: 1966 FIFA World Cup winner and manager of the Republic of Ireland football team  The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Support article is GA. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - article looks good Spiderone 08:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Soft oppose given a couple of cn tags, but a definite support once they are cleared up. - SchroCat (talk) 08:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Soft oppose per SchroCat, but good to go when cites are sorted. I was a little concerned about how much was cited to his autobiography, but unlike the Chau example below, it seems to be mainly for verifying objective facts rather than opinions, so that's OK.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support pending the cn's being fixed JW 1961 Talk 09:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I don't really see an issue with cn, the majority of the article is pretty good. Govvy (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment He was such a large figure in English footballing history, can we make this more of an ITN blurb than an RD? Govvy (talk) 10:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose the vast majority of the article is self-sourced, and it should not be a GA Bumbubookworm (talk) 11:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I don’t mean this facetiously, but how much of his autobiography do you think Charlton actually wrote himself? His collaborator, Peter Byrne is a respected Irish Times journalist and presumably did his own research as well. P-K3 (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support an icon of English football. The article is also a GA. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted as the issue with citations has been fixed. Black Kite (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment This should be in July 10, not here (July 11). He died July 10. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • News of his death was not released until 11th, which is the metric we work by. Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh, thanks for telling me Black Kite. I always just assumed it was the day they died. Always appreciate it when veteran editors like you help out us newbies. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

RD: Morris CerulloEdit

Article: Morris Cerullo (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [1]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: American pentecostal evangelist who traveled extensively around the world for his ministry. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

July 10Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents
  • Venice, Italy, tests the MOSE system of 78 mobile floodgates for the first time. Construction of MOSE was authorized by Comitatone, the city's Venetian Lagoon committee, in April 2003. Commissioner Elisabetta Spitz said the project still needs another 18 months of testing. In November 2019, Venice was hit by the worst floods in half a century. (BBC)
  • Tropical Storm Fay makes landfall in New Jersey, causing Tropical Storm force winds over Delaware, New Jersey, and Coastal New York. Minimal wind damage occurred, but flooding closed several roads, and injured a police officer in New York City. (Weather Channel)

Health and environment
  • Authorities in Kazakhstan deny a report published by Chinese officials alleging that the country is experiencing an outbreak of "unknown pneumonia" potentially deadlier than COVID-19. (CNN)

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Mike Ryan (catcher)Edit

Article: Mike Ryan (catcher) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press; The Philadelphia Inquirer

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Died on July 7, but only reported on July 10. Bloom6132 (talk) 11:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lara van RuijvenEdit

Article: Lara van Ruijven (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press; NBC Sports

Article updated

 Bloom6132 (talk) 02:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Bulgaria and Croatia join ERM IIEdit

Article: European Exchange Rate Mechanism (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Bulgaria and Croatia join ERM II, their first major step into joining the Eurozone. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In their first major step to adoption of the Euro, Bulgaria and Croatia join ERM II.
Alternative blurb II: ​The ECB accepts Bulgaria and Croatia into ERM II, the first major step to adoption of the Euro.
News source(s): [2]

Nominator's comments: This is first expansion of Eurozone in over a decade! Congrats Bulgaria and Croatia. Съединението прави силата! Dantheanimator (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose While the proposed article appears to be in good shape, what makes me reluctant to support it is that joining the ERM II is just that; a step in adopting the euro. According to the article linked it would take at least three more years for it to actually be adopted, which in my opinion would be way more notable. Also it seems that the "European Exchange Rate Mechanism" should be the main article here since that is the stage being joined. Mount Patagonia (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I understand your point Mount Patagonia and that's why I said in my comment "first expansion of Eurozone in over a decade". This should make it noteworthy. Changed main article to ERM II per your recommendation. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, I think it might help if you compared this too the granting of observer status in the UN to Palestine, which is a major step towards UN membership to Palestine. The former is seen as significant in the world of international politics. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This is actually significant, because it represents the first notable european event which strengthens/builds the EU since brexit. Also while ERM II is just one of many steps to joining the Eurozone, it's similar to a "path of no-return" for euro adoption in new members, excluding countries which had a historic opt-out for eurozone adoption. (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support for the reasons above. It's technical, dry, a bit procedural, so I get why it's not lighting up like a certain AfD I could mention, cough cough Kanye ahem, but this is news. And it's important news within its sphere. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support decently referenced article, important in the EU per IP above JW 1961 Talk 13:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, basically per Mount Patagonia. As and when they join the euro itself, that would be the time to post.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Amakuru Yes, that would also be significant but this is also significant for the reasons above. These reasons should definitely be sufficient for this to be posted. Definitely also consider that "this is first expansion of Eurozone in over a decade". Dantheanimator (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
It's not though, is it... the ERM is not the eurozone and this is just one of several steps towards membership. I guess the potential accession to the euro itself is still at least three years away though, if the article is to be believed, so maybe it's not a big deal to run it again when that happens. I don't personally consider this a big enough story to post, but will change my !vote to Neutral and leave it to others to decide one way or the other. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Singaporean general electionEdit

Article: 2020 Singaporean general election (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The opposition in Singapore wins its second Group Representation Constituency while the People's Action Party led by Lee Hsien Loong retains its supermajority in the Singaporean general election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The People's Action Party led by Lee Hsien Loong retains its supermajority in the Singaporean general election.
Alternative blurb II: ​In the Singaporean general election, Lee Hsien Loong is re-elected Prime Minister as his People's Action Party retains its supermajority.
Alternative blurb III: ​In the Singaporean general election, Lee Hsien Loong is re-elected Prime Minister as his People's Action Party retains its supermajority, while the opposition Workers' Party wins its second Group Representation Constituency.
News source(s): BBC, NY Times, Straits Times
Article updated

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

 Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 00:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose on quality - there doesn't appear to be a prose update on the results, and the article is generally an unreadable mess of massive unstructured tables. A better blurb would also be needed. Kingsif (talk) 01:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@Kingsif: Would it be better if a large part of the timeline tables are removed and rewritten as prose at a later date? As for the blurb, what problems do you have with it and what would you suggest? Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 01:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Reworking most of the tables into at least manageable tables would be ideal. The blurb should tell me who won, not ramble for a few clauses about different parties before even mentioning the election. Kingsif (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@Kingsif: I don't think there's enough time to do that if it were to be listed on ITN. I'm thinking of significantly trimming to a manageable size and detail and then rewriting as prose after ITN. The timeline is probably way too detailed anyways. As for the blurb, how about the alt blurb? Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 02:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
As long as you don't trim too much, just make it digestible. I've suggested alt2. Kingsif (talk) 02:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Which parts in particular do you think need trimming? Should the "non-official" events in the timeline (not official announcements or registration of candidates but rather political warring) be trimmed or entirely removed and readded at a later date? Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 02:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps look at other election articles? Kingsif (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Weak oppose looking better, but the source tag in the analysis section has been removed without any sources being added? Kingsif (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
The analysis section has been removed by Robertsky. I agree that it was OR. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 23:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Support and marking as ready. Kingsif (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support alt2. – robertsky (talk) 02:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support alt or alt2 can. Sculture65 (talk) 04:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb2 per nom. (talk) 08:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support alt or alt2 -- AquaDTRS (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Either the original blurb (preferred) or the 2nd alt blurb. The Workers' Party winning its 2nd GRC has been noted in international media, like the BBC, the New York Times and SCMP etc, so it would be a bit weird to omit the opposition's performance from the blurb; nevertheless, it seems consensus has settled on the 2nd alt blurb, which is also a good blurb. JaventheAldericky (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Changing preferred support to that of the 3rd alt blurb; however again if consensus prefers the 2nd alt blurb, I'm still good with that. JaventheAldericky (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The mess of the tables pointed out by Kingsif have been removed and most of the relevant events condensed into paragraphs. Seloloving (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb 1 per above. Dantheanimator (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose per Kingsif's point. Although it's good that the prose was updated, and is good to go, there are still too many tables, giving information of dubious interest such as "Sample count accuracies". This seems to be a case of WP:NOTREPO. Also, I can't see sourcing for any of the "Analysis" section.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
The analysis section has been removed by Robertsky. I agree that it was OR. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 23:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted - my objection above has been dealt with, and other than that there was consensus for this.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Hagia SophiaEdit

Article: Hagia Sophia (talk, history)
Blurb: Hagia Sophia mosque becomes mosque again. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan signs a decree annulling the status of the Hagia Sophia as a museum, reverting it to a mosque against secular protests.
Alternative blurb II: ​Turkey's Council of State undesignates the Hagia Sophia as a museum and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan declares it a mosque again.
Alternative blurb III: Hagia Sophia in Istanbul is converted from a museum back to a mosque.
Alternative blurb IV: ​Ataturk‘s 1934 decree transforming Hagia Sophia into a museum is reverted by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
News source(s): aljazeera, [3], CNN, BBC

Article updated

 — Abutalub (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment – Significance? – Sca (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Sca, it is very important for Christians. And also this wikipedia is for English-speakers many of whom practise Christianity.— Abutalub (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Aside from the religious significance, no one has mentioned the huge historical value in this church. Even as an American, where we learn little to nothing about the Eastern world, this church was in my history curriculum. Also, at the time of its construction, it had one of the largest domes in the world, the most buttresses, and was one of the largest Christian churches too. Dantheanimator (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
@Sca: The last sentence of the opening paragraph says all: It is considered the epitome of Eastern Roman architecture and is said to have "changed the history of architecture".--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Said by two people most of us have never heard of, according to the footnotes. – Sca (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Sca how do you not know the significance of the Hagia Sofia? It has a significant purpose historically, as it was the main church of Constantinople (Istanbul). Also, as mentioned earlier, it is the epitome of Byzantine architecture and was an architectural feat at its time. If you want to know more why this is so historically important/significant, please read about Byzantine history and the Hagia Sofia itself. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh, Dan, I was criticizing the weasel-wording "is said to be." No doubt it's an important structure historically. But I don't see how this change makes a big diff. in its significance. It's not as if they were tearing it down. – Sca (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I'm very sorry then. I completely misunderstood you. I thought you were questioning the significance of the church itself, not the event. The event, I agree, is more or less a political ploy and might not amount to much and should not be included in ITN (for now). Again, very sorry for the misunderstanding. Dantheanimator (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
No prob. – Sca (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support Basically, Erdogan here, trying to gain back waning popularity, has been pushing to take the Hagia Sophia, which since 1938 has been a secular museum with both Christianity and Muslim relics, and now with a court's decision, has been able to make it a mosque. While he claims this will not change its UNESCO status, and will remain an open site of worship tourists can still visit and they will protect the Christian relics there, it is setting off some conflicts with Greece and other groups, since they see that as a unilateral action, as well as concerns of scholar of how truthful Erdogan here will be on protecting the relics there. --Masem (t) 15:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Not yet OK, now Like in Oklahoma, this shift in the old back-and-forth seems more like groundwork for the real clincher down the road (even just the reopening day would be more timely a time This is opening day, per Erdogan; the court earlier revoked museum status). InedibleHulk (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait per InedibleHulk's comment. If this decision doesn't get reversed in the next few days, then I will support but until then, wait. Dantheanimator (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm waiting till these rulings take something like effect, not to see if they're reversed/overruled/whatever in a few days. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. One of the most iconic and significant religious buildings in the world being converted to a mosque after having served as a museum for 85 years is a very big deal. I also see this as a headline news in the media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose This only pertains to one site in a large country. Keep in mind Hagia Sophia has already been allowing religious services for some time, and additionally its supposed to remain open to tourists and christian icons aren't going to be removed. Other than that this is a political stunt by Erdogan, I don't see a strong significance. I would expect ITN about AKP/Erdogan to be more appropriate if they were to introduce "anti-blasphemy" laws and the like. (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. per FWIW, as a protestant, this isn't high on my personal list. I am open to new information or comments that indicate more importance than what has been said here. Awsomaw (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Awsomaw It's more about its historic significance, not religious. This is important in Eastern Orthodoxy, not Protestantism (which is generally a Western European sect of Christianity). As I mentioned earlier in response to Sca's question, this plays a very important role in Byzantine culture and history and is the main church of Constantinople (which was one of the most powerful cities on the globe for decades). There is so much more why this church is so important in history but I think it's best if you learn it yourself by reading about Byzantine history and the history of the church itself. I strongly urge you to relearn your ancient history if you don't remember/never learned, about this church. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Dantheanimator, I know all about this church, its role in church history, medieval history, etc. I guess I should've clarified that. Your comment was written very condescendingly btw, not sure if you caught that. Awsomaw (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Awsomaw, sorry if I wrote it in that tone, did not at all intend to. I do have to admit though, out of all the units in my 9th grade world history class, my favorites were Byzantine history, Pre-Columbian South American history, early China (Shang, Zhou, Qin, Tang, and Song; I might've learned about Ming that year but I think I might be confusing it with the Ming unit from this year), and the French Rev/Enlightenment, so I do have a partial bias/interest you could say. Dantheanimator (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Dantheanimator, I take interest in the subject as well, but the ITN nom itself seems more like a political ploy with no real ramifications yet, as others have pointed out. What do you think about that? I think if someone can convince me that there's some real ramifications other than taking your shoes off, then I will be willing to change my vote. Awsomaw (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Awsomaw, I agree with you and others. This is most very likely a political ploy with little to no actual de facto effects, only de jure ones. That's why I'm not full on supporting this yet, considering Erdogan's erratic political decisions recently. I think its best to wait on this for now until definite real effects can be seen. Dantheanimator (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • What is the actual change that is happening? Speaking from a position of relative ignorance here, it seems that designating a building as a mosque is not a material change in the way consecrating a Christian church would be. I'm assuming there is no change to physical building, it still serves as a museum, and access is not hindered. Expanding the prayer that is already occurring does not seem all that significant. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
You're not exactly allowed to wear shoes in a mosque, so that'll slow some tourists down, outright stop others. Also some gender segregation one doesn't typically find in a museum or church. Can't throw around profanity or stink too bad anymore, in theory. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose – Oh I realize it's a historic edifice and all that, but this particular govt. move strikes me as domestic politix writ religiously, and in the big pic. I don't see a lot of significance to it. So what? – Sca (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Everything looks like petty crap if you view it in the big picture, even within a window of the last two million years; zoom into "this week's news" for how it's all relatively significant on our teensy level. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
InedibleHulk What do you mean by "Everything looks like petty crap if you view it in the big picture, even within a window of the last two million years"? The main thing the Seljuk Turks/Ottomans/other regional powers fought for was Constantinople, not the church itself (if I'm interpreting your statement correctly). Maybe are you trying to say the religious struggle? Generations of Christian Byzantine kings (who were viewed as both the patriarch and emperor of the Byzantine state due to the practice of caesaropapism) were coronated/baptized in this church. It unsuprising then that the Eastern Orthodox people/powers would be bitter of the Muslim control over it. This is what I think you saying though, if I'm wrong, please correct me. Dantheanimator (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
You've got it wrong, I'm saying in the grand scheme of things, human existence is Dust in the Wind. Comparing things to vastly bigger things is always going to belittle the former. Gotta look at ITN in the current events picture, no broader. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh...I get it. Yes, that make a lot more sense. Sorry InedibleHulk for my misunderstanding. When I read you comment, I thought you were talking about the church and its role in history not that. Dantheanimator (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
No worries, I confuse a lot of people in a lot of ways. This way's new, kind of refreshing. Cheers to the Byzantine Empire! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: This is an important event in the ongoing reversal of Turkish secularism. However, I think a better blurb than either of the three available is needed. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
This template can handle more than three altblurbs, just need to add the next field yourself (if you want). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: The building is very significant from a religious (Muslim and Christian), architectural and historical point of view. This is an important change in the building's history and it has been covered in international media, so I see no reason why it shouldn't be added to the Wikipedia main page. I also added Alternative blurb III. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Still Weak Oppose, but alt blurb III is best if decide to post. Blurb has some grammatical awkwardness. Alt Blurb I not NPOV since there seems to be genuine support within Turkey at least, which is not really implied with "secular protest". Alt blurb II is awkward since Erdogan as President will likely not be consecrating the mosque but rather some religious figure instead. (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support because of how much it is in the news, and the secular argument. Whether it will have massive real effects on many people doesn't seem to be a consideration for this story. Kingsif (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment the referencing needs work, content is pretty good. Tourists will be fine: shoes off and a loaner scarf just like the Sultan Ahmed Mosque. The "notability" here comes from Erdogan pandering to the religious nationalism. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support What a bad move by Erdogan. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 04:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support because of how much it is impacting Turkish secular history. Altblurb2 is preferred because original blurb is too short. (talk) 08:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support What a good move by Erdogan. ;-) It is an important social action and the article looks good.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Conditional support pending orange tag fixes in some sections. Quite a shocking decision, though somewhat expectable from Erdogan. Brandmeistertalk 11:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Support per nominator. I prefer Alt1 because of the mention of secular protests, but this can be reworded. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ) 15:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Notability seems pretty solid here with widespread coverage. It's rare to have a significant change to a major historic site. Prefer alt 3. Teemu08 (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now at least. There is no real substantive impact to this, and posting seems a bit like amplifying political speech (all the worse, the speech of a dictator). GreatCaesarsGhost 20:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Support (not particular about wording) Perhaps the most significant Roman building outside Rome and easily one of the oldest, largest, most visited, and most important historic buildings in Europe is changing function for the first time in nearly a century (and the first time in Wikipedia's history). This is highly significant and I am amazed that this news has not yet appeared here. It is front-page news, comparable to, say, turning the Lincoln Monument into a Starbucks. Even without its uniquely precious and long histroy, the building is one of the most significant in the history of art, design, engineering, and so on. It's function has changed significantly only twice before: once under Mehmet II and once under Ataturk. Had Wikipedia been around on those occasions, it would surely have appeared "in the news". GPinkerton (talk) 06:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment there's consensus in favour of posting this, suggest an admin assesses this ASAP. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Ready for posting. Sources are good. And news are definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 08:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Not Ready with two orange tagged sections --LaserLegs (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not happy with it saying "Hagia Sophia mosque becomes a mosque again". The word "mosque" need not be repeated! GPinkerton (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – Still opposed, but must admit there's been a lot of coverage. This seems due in part to Covid-news weariness, and in part to the fact that the Hagia Sophia is so photographable, with myriad free images out there. Also, religion (of whatever stripe) is ever a hot topic.
    But if the Turks selfishly decided to remove the venerable Christian icons – which would be a falsification of history – I could support this nom.
    Sca (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose purely on article quality. Serious gaps in referencing. It doesn't need to be perfect, but this page is not up to scratch for promotion on the main page. Support in principle.-Ad Orientem (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Genevieve WestcottEdit

Nominator's comments: Fully referenced MurielMary (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Flossie Wong-StaalEdit

Article: Flossie Wong-Staal (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): San Diego Union Tribune

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Top HIV/AIDS researcher. Article checked and fully referenced. Fuzheado | Talk 11:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vikas DubeyEdit

Article: Vikas Dubey (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Indian gangseter. Article looks good. Sherenk1 (talk) 05:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

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

RD: Ferenc KonczEdit

Article: Ferenc Koncz (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [4]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Hungarian teacher and politician. Cited decently. A bit short, might need some work. It's okay though. Dantheanimator (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

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

RD: Antonio KrastevEdit

Article: Antonio Krastev (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [5]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Bulgarian super heavyweight Olympian weightlifter. Well cited and I updated it. No issues. Should be good. Dantheanimator (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

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

RD: Paik Sun-yupEdit

Article: Paik Sun-yup (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [6]

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Famous Korean War hero and South Korea's first four-star general. Missing in-text refs. Once those are fixed, this is good to go. Dantheanimator (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Mahmoud RedaEdit

Article: Mahmoud Reda (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [7]
Article updated

Nominator's comments: Egyptian dancer and choreographer. Missing 1 in-text ref by the looks of it. Otherwise, its good. Dantheanimator (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

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

July 9Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks
  • Afghan peace process, War in Afghanistan
    • An Afghan government spokesman says it will continue to release Taliban prisoners though disagreement prevails over the release of some 600 of them that are considered a "threat to national security". The Taliban could not be reached for comment and it is not clear whether they are willing to accept to start talks based on the list of prisoners set to be freed. (Reuters)
  • Insurgency in the Sahel

Health and environment

International relations
  • India–Nepal relations
    • Nepal decides to block broadcasts of Indian news channels in Nepal with the exception of Doordarshan News, effective immediately. The move comes in the wake of reports on Nepal carried by some Indian news channels, including their allegedly "defamatory shows" on Nepali Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli along with the Chinese envoy. (Himalayan Times)
  • Chinese intelligence activity abroad
    • In its annual report, Germany's domestic intelligence agency BfV warns consumers that personal data they provide to Chinese payment companies or other tech firms, such as Tencent, Alibaba and others, could end up in the hands of China's government. (WREX)

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Closed) RD: Trần Ngọc ChâuEdit

Closed, stale. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Trần Ngọc Châu (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Washington Post

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Died on June 17, but only reported on July 9. Bloom6132 (talk) 07:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Object The article is well-written, very long and comprehensive, and to the naked eye looks very good. However, on closer inspection, vast swathes of the article are sourced to the autobiographies of the subject, and the overall tone is as a result very skewed towards the subject. For example, in the early Viet Minh section, there are large tracts about the subject's opinions and how he objects to certain things, which gives a big feel of him airing his conscience. Later for instance, in the section about the 1963 coup, most of the sources are either Chau's memoirs giving his opinion on others', or the memoirs of other officers and often is on tangential material. For the first paragraph, the refs are all about who ordered the execution of Diem, not the stuff about Chau trying to make a phone call. Later, in the reeducation camp, there is extreme detail about daily life in the reeducation camp, and then generic information about what happened in VN while he was in jail. The whole article has a strong tone of being about the subject's thoughts and how he disapproves of various other public figures. Bumbubookworm (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Good enough for RD at this point.BabbaQ (talk) 14:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per BabbaQ. This is ready. Dantheanimator (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
    • How is an article that is mostly sourced to the subject, acceptable? Bumbubookworm (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a huge article and it's difficult for me to assess Bumbubookworm's objections without more knowledge of the subject. That said, the bibliography is largely unreferenced and we usually expect to see ISBNs.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
    • In this case, not a great deal of direct knowledge of Vietnam is required. While I have read a lot about 20th century Vietnamese politics, I am not well-versed with this individual specifically, and not a lot is written about him (apart from his autobiographies). Without his autobiograph, it wouldn't be possible for this article to be so long. As a lieutenant colonel, there would easily be 100+ generals and colonels and civilian regime insiders with a high rank than he is, so it's not surprising that there is not actually much info on him in general books. Although it has a lot of refs to lots of books, mostly these are general background info, and then the bits that relate to Chau are his autobios, eg the 'As a civilian politician' section, all four paras have lots of cites. Mostly these have outside refs, but the section is background info except parts of the first para about Chau, which seems to be all cited to Chau. Then the next subsection 'Elected to Assembly' is mostly cited to him, and in the last para, there is an accusation of another person cheating, but the footnote is just another comment, not a reference. Basically a large part is cited to the subject, and while a lot appears to be outside sources, these are almost all for background knowledge. If we removed most of this excessive generic info about Vietnam, the vast majority of the article would be sourced to the autobio Bumbubookworm (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Bumbubookworm. Looking briefly through this article, I have to agree that it seems to suffer quite seriously from neutrality issues, in particular that it repeatedly presents Chau's views on things as if they are established fact. Just to take one example, the third paragraph of the "CIA & CORDS: Redesign" section, which starts: "From Châu's perspective, what had happened was America's take-over of the war, followed by their taking charge of the pacification effort. Essentially misguided, it abused Vietnamese customs, sentiments, and pride. It did not understand the force of Vietnamese nationalism. The overwhelming presence in the country of the awesome American military cast a long shadow." Now yes, this does admit that what's written is Chau's perspective. Yet it is not presented as a quote, instead the entire paragraph is written in Wikipdia's voice, detailing this anti-American rhetoric as if it's established fact, and with no cross-reference to independent reliable sources to establish WP:Due weight. In short, I don't think this article is suitable for presenting on the main page without a major rewrite.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

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

(Closed) RD: Johnny BeattieEdit

Closed, stale. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Johnny Beattie (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [8]

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Scottish actor and stand-up comedian whose career spanned over six decades. No missing in-text refs but has the template. Should be good once template is removed. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose IMDB is not a reliable source and there are other deadlinks, so most of the article is unsourced. Bumbubookworm (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

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

(Closed) RD: Sahara KhatunEdit

Closed, stale. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Sahara Khatun (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [9]

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Bangladesh Awami League politician and a cabinet minister. Missing a few in-text refs and the wording/format could be improved. Otherwise, it's ready. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - dreadful article. I did a random sample and several sources were dead, and many others were government or political party websites. Note that in Bangladesh, while they do have elections, when there is a change of govt, it is common for the opposition politicians to be put on trial en masse, and civil servants and uni professors fired and replaced with partisans from the other side. So govt and party sources aren't reliable at all. There were two other sources that I removed that were a personal website and another that self-identified as 'Islamic Caliphate'. Given the political atmosphere in BD, being interior minister (interior security) has a lot of power and the events depicted are fragmented and out of context. Political exit/downfall isn't explained at all. The English needs a copy-edit but that is the least of the concerns. Bumbubookworm (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

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

(Closed) McGirt v. OklahomaEdit

No consensus to post. Stephen 04:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: McGirt v. Oklahoma (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Supreme Court of the United States rules that about half of Oklahoma is Native American tribal land. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The Supreme Court of the United States rules that half of Oklahoma was never disestablished as Native American tribal land with respect to criminal prosecution.
Alternative blurb II: ​The Supreme Court of the United States rules that half of Oklahoma falls under the criminal jurisdiction of Native American tribal land.
News source(s): Reuters, The New York Times, NPR

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Oklahoma is an FA and has been updated minimally. - SusanLesch (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for now. No (bold) article that refers to this decision at this time. El_C 17:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

*Oppose per above. The article being nominated should be the court case, not the Oklahoma or Indian reservation articles, which include info on a lot of other things as well. Dantheanimator (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

(Pulled from blurb) RD: Park Won-soonEdit

Article: Park Won-soon (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: In Seoul, South Korea, incumbent mayor Park Won-soon is found dead at age 64. (Post)
News source(s): CNN

Article updated

Nominator's comments: South Korean politician and incumbent mayor of Seoul found dead at age 64. Article is in good shape. Possible blurb? It's not every day that the mayor of one of the largest cities in the world (population 10,000,000) dies suddenly in office. Davey2116 (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

*Support - looks good to go for RD.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Support - source calls him the second-most powerful politician in South Korea. Death is well-sourced, and blurb can be updated as more facts emerge. --WMSR (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support article definitely good enough for RD, and looks important enough for ITN too. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Blurb Non-retired transformative figure, death will affect a currently powerful city, not just get a lot of tweets. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    InedibleHulk could you describe how he was a "transformative figure"? His article certainly doesn't give me that impression. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    The guy helmed a megacity, if you can't see the power in that, you never will. But aside from that, the suicide of a major international figure for sexy shameful reasons is big news. At least in Canada. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
    InedibleHulk mis-typed your name.... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, unexpected death of non-natural causes of a sitting politician in powerful office. --LukeSurl t c 17:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per the above comments. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

*Support High quality article. This is ready. Dantheanimator (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC) *Only support as RD and never have or will support this blurb for ITN. Dantheanimator (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Posted. 331dot (talk) 19:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb This the type of "unusual death" we'd consider , given that he was under accusations of sexual misconduct - they haven't ruled out either suicide or foul play but the death doesn't appear natural (despite being 64). --Masem (t) 19:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blurb not even close to notability for a blurb --LaserLegs (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb ??? Hardly near the threshold for a blurb. Banedon (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Switch to Weak support blurb on the depth of coverage in South Korea, even if it's not very prominent elsewhere in the world. Banedon (talk) 06:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb the mayor of Seoul is now equivalent to Mandela/Thatcher/&c? Wow. Just wow. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb The sitting mayor of one of the most important cities on Earth dying suddenly and under mysterious circumstances is huge news, which is supported by the lengthy articles in major publications. -- Kicking222 (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Kicking222, please explain to me how Seoul is one of the most important cities on Earth. Probably if you are an American or some Westerner or person of Korean descent, sure, this city is probably important to you. However, do you seriously think anybody in Africa, South America, or most of Europe care or known much about Seoul? This has got to be one of the most subjective statements I've seen in a while. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. I posted this because of the unusual and likely unnatural death of a prominent official. Seoul itself has a population of almost 10 million, more than some countries. 331dot (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    Nope. I hear this "population" argument all the time (e.g. "California has a higher GDP than 90% of the countries in the world" etc). Nope. To equate the "mayor of Seoul" to Thatcher/Mandela etc is a total joke. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    As I stated, I posted him because of the unusual death, not due to equating him with Thatcher. 331dot (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    I will add that WP:ITNRD states "Death as the main story: For deaths where the cause of death itself is a major story (such as the unexpected death of a prominent figure by homicide, suicide, or accident) ". 331dot (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    A lot people die unusually, doesn't mean they get a blurb on the main page of Wikipedia. The mayor of Seoul!! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    Are a lot of people mayors of large, global cities? I've cited the relevant policy above. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    This is simply not blurb-worthy. If the mayor of London died, I'd expect RD. Terrible decision. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    @331dot: - not criticising your decision to post because there was solid support at the time, but I think there's enough doubt about this now that it should be moved to RD for the time being. You've mentioned the rule regarding "death as the main story", but that doesn't give us any clue as to what calibre of individual would warrant inclusion under that. The mayor of a city, albeit a major one, does not constitute the level required. So this is certainly far from clear cut. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    Amakuru The mayor died under mysterious circumstances(that I won't go into here due to BLP) that are unusual for a prominent politician that is the leader of a large, globally influential city. I appreciate your opinion, but I disagree. If you want to develop specific criteria(which IMO would be instruction creep), that is your option. Thanks 331dot (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, I agree that would be instruction creep, but as has already been said several times this blurb is not clear cut under the present wording of the "rules" either. And the lack of consensus right now means it should be pulled. You say his death was "under mysterious circumstances" but the blurb says nothing about that, and as you also say it is a BLP and we should be avoiding assigning more intrigue to this than is currently reliably known. To add insult to injury I notice below that the second in command of the Ivory Coast, who also died in office unexpectedly, has not been blurbed. Which is also IMHO correct, that's an RD too, but to blurb the Korean guy and not the African seems dubious to me.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    The man you speak of died of a health problem, not circumstances similar to those in this case. 331dot (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    In neither case would there be any objective measure to suggest the individuals were "transformative". After the strawman arguments, and failure to see the questions being asked, this can be declared as the worst RD blurb decision since Carrie Fisher. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    Maybe @331dot:, a seasoned ITN regular, could have waited a bit longer before posting a blurb here, but at the time there was a consensus for it. I'm opposed to the consensus, not the admin who recognized it. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    No, there was a consensus for RD. The blurb came along after some supports for RD. Bad call. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 23:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Support blurb - This is not a clearcut case, but he is the leader of a highly-populated area in a large country, so has control over a large budget/population etc, who died in controversial circumstances while under investigation for a scandal. So the notability is also due to the scandal. He is not being put in per Thatcher/Mandela as that is for intergenerational statesmen/women who died of old age long after retiring; it is clear that he wouldn't be in here if he died of old age at 80, 20 years after leaving office, even if he was impeached Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose blurb and move to RD only per above. Was surprised to see this just now, and given there's probably nothing very remarkable about his death and he wasn't a head of state, I don't think there's a very good reason to blurb it.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment we've hit an all-time low bar with this being a blurb now. A mayor, not a head of state, of a city in South Korea killing himself is not what our blurbs should be about. Perhaps this is the new Carrie Fisher. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    If you want to limit blurbs of unusual deaths to heads of state, you are free to propose that. 331dot (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    That's clearly not what I'm saying. This individual does not rise to the level of "transformative figure". If he does, please explain how. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    I have responded to this point already and don't think it productive to repeat myself. Thanks 331dot (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    No, you've not mentioned anywhere that I'm aware of as to how this individual could be considered "transformative". You've said he was in a position of political power (not a big one) and he died in unusual circumstances (suicide after accusations of sexual impropriety) but you certainly haven't expressed how he was a "transformative figure". The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    There is an "or" between "unusual deaths" and "transformative figures" though obviously, we're not posting non-notable Darwin award winners. I fully agree on 331dot's reasoning that a sitting major of a major ~10M city, embroiled in a scandal, and found dead by non-natural causes, easily meets the "unusual death" bar. If he had died of natural causes even as the sitting major, I would definitely agree only an RD was necessary (64 and natural death is far less unusual). --Masem (t) 22:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    It was posted as a blurb when most votes in support were cast when the nomination was for RD. This is an admin super-vote (as evidenced by 331dot's attempted defence of the posting), as the point being, if we had a clear consensus for a blurb, it would be non-controversial. As it stands, we don't, and we never did, but an individual admin interpreted it as we needed a blurb. Error. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    So I shouldn't defend and justify my actions? 331dot (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    You absolutely should be accountable for them, as you suggest, no-one said otherwise. The problem is you posted a blurb for an RD, and now you're doubling down by using personal thoughts on it rather than just using the community consensus which is what you're charged with doing. Never mind, but this is (as I've said) a new low for ITN. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 23:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove blurb Death blurb are contentious as a rule. To post one after just three hours debate is remarkably poor form, especially for someone as inconsequential as a mayor. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
ON second though, removing the blurb once posted is disruptive. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
That's a good point too, this was posted as a blurb after three hours. We regularly have RDs with 100% consensus sitting there for eight hours or longer. Bad call. Shouldn't be a blurb, poor decision. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Not really very disruptive. You just remove the text, flip the picture back to the previous one, and add him to RD. It happens quite often, but whatevs, your !vote is yours to cast as you wish!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

:::*Support Removal of this blurb in ITN and only leaving it as RD per The Rambling Man's spot on reasoning and rhetoric. Also something not mentioned earlier by anyone but, who in the world cares about the death of a random mayor of the capital of some country. No offense to Seoul but, to many readers, it is rather irrelevant and I doubt anyone even knew this guy before he died. As per Amakuru comment, the 2nd head of state of Cote'd Ivoire should have been included. It baffles me how a admin would fast-track this and post it but ignore my last 2 noms. Dantheanimator (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Dantheanimator There is no requirement that everyone in the world must care about the subject being posted. Every subject is irrelevant to someone. Very little would be posted otherwise. As I noted, the man you speak of died of a health problem, not unusual, unnatural circumstances. I did not "ignore" nominations; I am not the only one who participates here, nor is it required that I or any user comment on every single nomination. 331dot (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
True, not everyone has to care about the subject but it has to be actually significant/relevant. From what I understand, this mayor died from suicide due to some sort of scandal. I'm sure this may be interesting to some, but only a small fraction. I don't think suicide is unusual or unnatural. If it is, Sushant Singh Rajput's death should of had a blurb. His page got 13,684,142 views in June. Dantheanimator (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • 331dot, also, consider that Ennio Morricone, who had thousands of fans, made huge contributions in music and is a pop-culture icon, DID NOT get a blurb. Further, Sushant Singh Rajput's death is SIGNIFICANTLY more contentious than Park Won-soon's. There is no reason that Park Won-soon has a blurb and image but neither Ennio Morricone or Sushant Singh Rajput don't. Dantheanimator (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I can't comment on every past nomination and explain why it isn't the same as this. I considered the nomination in front of me. Neither of those two persons died in circumstances similar to this one. 331dot (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Actually, Rajput also died of suicide under strange circumstances. There deaths are very similar in nature. Dantheanimator (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
My opinion, of course, differs. I don't really have anything else to add. 331dot (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • 331dot, so will you consider re-posting him as RD instead of ITN? So far, there has been some consensus on the removal of him from ITN. As a admin, you should consider this consensus. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I posted this per the guideline I indicated above with consensus at the time(and additional support has come in since). I stand by my decision. 331dot (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Alright then, I concede defeat. I just want to say though, as somewhat previously mentioned by The Rambling Man, this posting does severe injustice to many, many people who died recently. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Dantheanimator If there have been other notable officeholders of large, globally influential cities who have been found dead after being charged with a crime, possibly by their own hand, please point those out. 331dot (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • 331dot Well not an officeholder, but Sushant Singh Rajput death was just as notable and his page recieved A LOT of views, a lot more than this one will ever. Both deaths are so similar in nature, as I said earlier, that it is surprising that they each received different treatment. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. Per 331dot. And I would advocate the same for London and New York. I don't think the RD Blurb fight will ever have a real clear-cut consensus until we more specific rules are established, given the recent discussions on Little Richard, Vera Lynn, and Ennio Morricone. I'd support a stricter measure. But until then, I support this. Awsomaw (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Awsomaw, why would you support this if you think this is a contentious issue? All the people you listed did NOT get a ITN blurb. It seems to me that until now, all the commotion was about posting a blurb for someones death, not removing a posted blurb of someones death. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, if no clear consensus on blurbs like this can develop or there is a debate regarding it, then it shouldn't be posted. It seems to me that we are doing injustice to all the significant people who were nominated for a blurb but only got RD. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Dantheanimator Good questions. I'll try to go one at a time here. commotion. No, the past commotions were about whether or not you should post. If they were only commotion about not posting, then there wouldn't be commotion, it'd be snow. Just as reference, I voted for blurbing Richard, and then not blurbing Lynn off of precedent for Richard, and then abstaining for Morricone (because I don't know the guy). contentious. To me, it's not that it's contentious that we are blurbing stuff, it's that it is contentious because we do not have some hard guideline for posting or not posting. All the people you listed did NOT get a ITN blurb. I think that this death is quite different (maybe even qualitatively different). 1. The impact of his death is greater. Impact on people, politics, and press. 2. The cause of his death is different. It is not natural causes. I think these two reasons are valid reasons to consider blurbing Won-soon over Richard, Lynn, and Morricone, but I wouldn't be opposed to blurbing all of these if sufficient reason was given. At the same time, I see the need to have stricter rules so that we don't have these discussions all the time, so I wouldn't be opposed to a rule that would end up in all four of these people not getting blurbed.
doing injustice. Okay now. I think that 3 hours was a bit fast. But to WP:AGF, there was no opposition at the time, and so it seems to me like 331dot saw no reason not to blurb it then and there. We can argue back and forth about whether he should've waited or not, but let's just assume good faith here; he was not trying to intentionally do anyone injustice or make an admin super-vote, and I don't think that 331dot foresaw this kind of opposition. Now that it is up and there is opposition, I think it's fair for blurb to be taken down and pulled to RD and until consensus or close. (331dot, I hope you don't mind me speaking a little for you, sorry if you'd prefer me not to.) Awsomaw (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Awsomaw, I'm not saying that 331dot posted this in bad faith. Absolutely the opposite, 331dot posted this 100% with good faith but the issue is that 331dot continues to keep it up and defend it. While yes, there was clear consensus for posting it at the time of its posting (I even supported it, only for RD though) but now, the consensus is far different than it was originally, with many including myself preferring this for RD not ITN. As such, this should not remain in ITN since the consensus has developed out of its favor. Despite this, 331dot continues to defend its continued posting. This is my issue, not that it was ever posted but that it is still posted. I don't mind you speaking for me, you said it pretty well yourself. This should be taken down and posted as RD until a true positive consensus emerges. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Dantheanimator, sorry, it seems then that I should AGF for you next time. It did seem to me like the opposition was trying to accuse 331dot, but it's not a big deal. I would like the blurb to be up, but leaving it up is unfair, as you've helpfully pointed out. I think we are on agreement on this then, though you may still disagree with me on the earlier comments. Awsomaw (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Awsomaw Yes, thank you Awsomaw for agreeing. The only issue I have with this is that it is still posted in ITN despite the change among in consensus. This can go back up on ITN but only after it develops a "clear" consensus. Until then, this should remain as an RD. I think this is the best solution for everyone. Dantheanimator (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, regarding the nature of the death, as I said earlier, Rajput's death is very similar to this persons death. Rajput's death had a "great" impact (his page got 13,684,142 views) and the "cause" is not natural (he died of suicide too) and debated (police investigation is ongoing). The fact that Rajput did not get a blurb while this person did is the one of the main issues with this posting. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Just because their nature of death are the same, doesn't not entail that their impacts are the same. I think that the cause and impact together makes this an unusual case that merits a blurb. Awsomaw (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Pull and move to RD. In no way important enough for a blurb (look at the article!!), and posted far too quickly for a blurb. Black Kite (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Black Kite Please point me to the ITN guideline or policy about an arbitrary minimum comment period. When I posted, there was no opposition at all, and at least four comments supported a blurb(with some others unclear). Opposition has come in, but so has support. 331dot (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Well then, let's have a look at the news. BBC News Front page? Thirteen major stories there. Not this one. You need to click onto "World News" and it's the 4th highest story even there. The Guardian? 12 stories. Nope, buried in "Overseas news". New York Times? Need to scroll a long way down the page. Le Monde? - 11th story. Times of India? Nope, buried in the foreign news section in small type. And so on. Blurbs for people should be worldwide top-level news. This one isn't even mid-level. We've posted something to ITN that isn't in the news. Black Kite (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb and strongly oppose removal. The incumbent executive of a major global city (classified as Alpha under the GaWC scale) dying in office is huge news, especially given the circumstances. The story is on the front page of the NY Times and BBC websites, among others. This blurb also helps balance out the ITN section, which has a relatively minor story by world standards (EncroChat) that I have not seen mentioned as front-page news on American websites or TV programs. SounderBruce 01:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
SounderBruce "This blurb also helps balance out the ITN section, which has a relatively minor story by world standards (EncroChat) that I have not seen mentioned as front-page news on American websites or TV programs." HOW IN THE WORLD IS ENCROCHAT MINOR??? Encrochat lead to the arrest of over 800 people, seizure of millions in criminal cash, and much much more. It was also the hugest Euro-wide police operation in Europe in a while. SounderBruce, why does it have to be mentioned in American news? Your opposition is literally because of geographic bias. If you actually looked at international news, you would have seen it very soon. Why does your geographic bias have to affect out coverage on ITN? Dantheanimator (talk) 02:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • It's not on the BBC front page, and it's buried half way down the NYT. Someone needs to tell the media that it's "huge news", because they don't seem to agree. Black Kite (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • News websites can vary their headlines due to location. There is no requirement that something be on X number of front pages to merit posting. 331dot (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Googling "Seoul mayor dead' gives me results from numerous outlets around the world. 331dot (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Googling "Black Lives Matter painted outside Trump Tower", "Trump tax returns", "Aston Villa 0 Manchester United 3" and "Naya Rivera" (amongst others) give me even more. This is not blurb level. Black Kite (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • As I note above, WP:ITNRD gives the following criteria: ""Death as the main story: For deaths where the cause of death itself is a major story (such as the unexpected death of a prominent figure by homicide, suicide, or accident)"(my emphasis). I believe that this posting is in keeping with that criteria, though I respect differing views. 331dot (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • That's exactly my point though - it doesn't appear to be that major a story, because he wasn't a prominent worldwide figure. Even the most-criticised previous RD blurbs (i.e. Carrie Fisher) were at least people with worldwide recognition. How many people would have known this person before today? Black Kite (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • 331dot so does googling Rajput and others mentioned earlier. This is simply un-acceptable for ITN. If you want to put major news on ITN, you should reconsider the aforementioned individuals. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • He was not a mayor of a globally influential city who died after being charged with a crime, possibly by suicide in an effort to avoid that charge. 331dot (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
But he is a popular Indian actor whose page recieved more views in June than any other persons page by a long shot. I agree with you, they aren't exactly the same, but they're pretty close. Why do we keep still arguing about this. Just re-post it as RD, re-nominate it as a blurb and get a proper/up to date consensus for posting. Dantheanimator (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Whilst I agree with you about the RD, can we leave Rajput out of it? He's not really relevant to this situation at all. Black Kite (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I believe consensus existed and still exists as support has come in since I posted it. I'd prefer there not be wheel warring on this, but I'm not going to in retaliation, so people can do what they will. And if consensus changes overnight, then it does. Good night(truly). 331dot (talk) 02:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
On a separate note, there is 4 of us (me, Black Kite (talk), The Rambling Man, and Amakuru) who oppose this ITN posting and want to see it re-posted as RD. How much longer until a clear consensus is developed? Dantheanimator (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Black Kite, According to my version of, the story on mayor Park is the most-read of the day. It is in the second section of the front page, next to stories about Michael Cohen and Chinese sanctions. SounderBruce 02:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb per SounderBruce. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ) 02:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Pull blurb, move to RD No consensus for a blurb, posted far too quickly. I’m surprised that this was not posted as RD first, with blurb discussion continuing, as is standard practice. A mayor is not notable enough for a blurb in my opinion, even if it was not natural causes.P-K3 (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb For Christ sake this man was described as the second most powerful politician in South Korea and was the mayor of the country's capitol. For a man of his stature to presumably commit suicide is rare (as in a high ranking politician). Plus its getting global coverage. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb this was a highly unexpected death of a noteworthy politician which made headlines around the world. This certainly seems like a case where it is the death itself that is noteworthy, rather than it being noteworthy solely due to his status when alive. I can't help but feel users are applying the Mandela/Wicked Witch test incorrectly since the person's accomplishments when alive are not the sole determining factor of whether their death warrants a blurb. --PlasmaTwa2 07:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. We have a prime minister of an African state (Amadou Gon Coulibaly) at RD, but the mayor of a single city gets a blurb? Either both should, or - a must better step - neither should. This inconsistency is a bit of a joke. Coulibaly's was a "highly unexpected death of a noteworthy politician which made headlines around the world", and "a highly unexpected death of a noteworthy politician which made headlines around the world" "the second most powerful politician" in a country, so how come we're happy with one serving politician at RD and one with a blurb? - SchroCat (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
    Indeed. Posted after three hours with a fake blurb consensus and I'm still waiting for someone (anyone) to tell me how this individual was "transformative"? Total joke. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
SchroCat The minister in question died of a health problem, which is not unusual in older people(he was 61), and he did not commit suicide to avoid criminal charges. I've twice cited the policy which permits postings like this one. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, 331dot, but you haven't quoted a policy, just an information page, and even then it's a paper thin justification (the guideline says if it's "a prominent figure" (questionable here) then the blurb "may be merited to explain the death's relevance". (1. "may", not "has to", and 2. I fail to see any explanation of the death's relevance); suicide isn't mentioned in the report - no cause of death is given, so the justification falls apart even further. It's a bullshit situation which has the appearance of a supervote. If you think it's suitable that a mayor gets a blurb and a Prime Minister of an African country gets a RD, then there is something deeply, deeply wrong about the way this is set up. - SchroCat (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that any official who dies of a normal health problem would merit a blurb, while I think that the leader of a globally influential city(which is probably more influential than the Ivory Coast, rightfully or wrongly) who dies under these unusual and unnatural circumstances does. The mayor's daughter reported that she received a message from him that sounded like a will, so he knew he was going to die. Race or nationality played zero part in my thought process. If you feel that the guidelines should be changed, that is your option to pursue. 331dot (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I think the metrics of your decision making are flawed here. We don't know how he died, and although suicide is a possibility, you've jumped to that conclusion based on scant evidence. And seriously, a mayor of a city out-trumps an entire country? Again, that's a judgement call rather than something set into the guideline (not policy). Common sense is a long way away from the decision to have a blurb on a mayor who is dead in unknown circumstances, against a president of a country. It's a shockingly bad decision whatever the paper-thin justification you try and wheel out. - SchroCat (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Mayor of Seoul states that "The position is historically one of the most powerful in the country, charged with managing an annual budget of 23 trillion won. Many Seoul mayors have gone on to hold higher office" which is also usually true of Prime Minsters(in countries with an elected head of state or government). Seoul itself has a population of almost 10 million, more than about half of sovereign countries. Consensus existed when I posted and support has still come in. I don't wheel war so whatever happens with this will happen, but I stand by my decision. Anyway, thanks for the discussion. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Fine. Ignore the Prime Minister of an African country with a population of 26 million who was a candidate in the 2020 Presidential election (and the likely winner of it too); that's OK - Africa is kind of used to being overlooked when decisions are made. There was absolutely no consensus for a blurb when you posted (only two people !voted for one in the first three hours) - and that's why it looks like a supervote. It's a decision lacking in common sense when taking the balance of RD and blurbs into account and the guideline you have followed hasn't even been followed - I'm still trying to work out just how it "explains the death's relevance". Can you explain how it "explains the death's relevance", particularly given we have no idea on the cause of death? - SchroCat (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't appreciate the implication that race or nationality played a role in my decision. The article explains the relevance of the death as does the support in this discussion. When I posted, there were four support comments for a blurb and no opposition of any kind. Additional support has come in since. As I've indicated, whatever happens with this will happen. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

No, there were two three supports for a blurb at the point you posted. There were other !votes, but it cannot be claimed they were for a blurb. I'm sorry but that's either a supervote, or you've misread those !votes as supporting something that wasn't necessarily being supported. As it is, you've left us with a blurb (and image) of a mayor, while a Prime Minister of an African country is relegated to the RDs. Whether it was meant or not (and obviously I assume not), that gives entirely the wrong impression. Given the amount of pushback on this, it would be a sensible step to drop this back to RD. - SchroCat (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I interpret the comments of WMSR, Joseph2302, InedibleHulk, and LukeSurl as supporting a blurb, and the comment of Lugnuts says support based on the above comments that discuss blurbs. So that five, really. 331dot (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Aye, I see five. I also see Seoul's GDP is five times higher than the Ivory Coast's. Anyone given a choice between holding either position of power wouldn't equate them, one's clearly the bigger deal. Likewise, unnatural causes beat natural in news. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Then that's either bullshit or you're a mind reader. Only three of the comments mention the blurb, the remainder (in a discussion headed RD: Park Won-soon, not "RD/Blurb"). Given the clarity of the section heading, votes in support are votes for RD unless spcifically or clearly indicating a blurb. Only three do. You've supervoted and you're now sitting on that without showing any flexibility. I think that tells us all we need to know. - SchroCat (talk) 11:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't have to be a mind reader to read the words in front of me that clearly indicate what I stated. I don't feel any flexibility is needed here. If you can find someone to do what you think should be done, that is your option. I've already said whatever will happen will happen. I do not have anything new to add. 331dot (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
The words clearly showed support for an RD, except for the three that referred to a blurb. It’s fine if you can’t accept you’ve erred - I’ve come across enough admins who suffer from the same flaw, even in those who think super voting then not budging from it are an acceptable course. It speaks volumes. Well, if you won’t do the honourable thing, let’s hope there is someone around who will. - SchroCat (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I can absolutely accept that I have erred and I am offended at you claiming otherwise. There have been many occasions that I admit that. I don't feel that I have erred here. If we disagree about this matter, fine. But that isn't a refusal to admit anything. Very disappointing. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Supervoting is disappointing. As is inflexibility. As is clinging to spurious claims of vote counting when the reality is rather different. If you can't see that you've erred in counting, or won't admit it, then there is little I can say that will get through. Such inflexibility is very, very disappointing. I also wonder why you didn't bother to follow the section of the guideline that reads "In cases where a blurb has been suggested for a recent death, but there is debate about whether to use a blurb or not, but the article is otherwise updated and of quality by editorial consensus, the name may be posted as a Recent Death while the blurb discussion continues." Was this not deemed a worthwhile step? - SchroCat (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
"May be" posted, not "shall be" posted or "is required to be" posted. 331dot (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
So you go with "a blurb 'may be merited to explain the death's relevance" when there is no relevance in the blurb - supervoting after only three hours in the process, then ignore "the name may be posted as a Recent Death while the blurb discussion continues" when it's a dubious call. Do you see how shaky your position is on this? Again, I have to wonder why you are refusing to acknowledge you have erred on this. If you truly believe you've made the right call, then it's a question of competence and flawed judgement, but I hope you just erred. If you can't see that, then we're back to C and FJ, which would be a problem. Why the desparation in having this as a blurb? Given the number of people asking for it to be pulled, do you not think that following the guidelines you should have followed ("the name may be posted as a Recent Death while the blurb discussion continues", etc) would have been a better course of action? I don't understand why you are being utterly inflexible on taking on board the number of complaints on this. - SchroCat (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
You cannot treat a plain “Support” in an RD as explicit support for a blurb. P-K3 (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
If you are referring to Joseph2302, they state that it was "fine for ITN" which I interpret as referring to a blurb, as they mentioned RD separately. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb per the excellent points raised by others. One rule of thumb, I guess, could be: would there have been some support for a blurb if the death was ordinary? Like we had with Vera Lynn. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Usedtobecool I've already said that if he had died from a health problem(as the prime minister mentioned by others did) this would not have merited a blurb. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
There was no consensus for a blurb, especially after just three hours. Even well updated RDs are kept hanging around for half a day to a day these days, but this one was erroneously posted as a blurb after three hours. Not good enough. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose/Comment - I'd say that for a death to be a blurb there has to be either - 1) a personality of top international recognition (like Mandela, Thatcher, etc.) or 2) that the events around the death is a news story in itself with a proper wikipedia article of its own (and then that wiki article is judged on its own merits for ITN). In this case neither 1 nor 2 applies. --Soman (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, you can certainly say that, but in saying that you would be contradicting WP:ITNRD which specifically says unusual causes of death (e.g. homicide or suicide) warrant a blurb posting for a death. Please familiarize yourself more thoroughly with these guidelines.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 12:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Except they are not that clear cut. It says it may warrant a blurb (and even then, we don't know the cause of death at the moment - it's likely to have been suicide, but there is nothing official to say that, just speculation). And when it leaves an imbalance in ITN (i.e a mayor of a city with blurb and image being given more weight than the Prime Minister of an African country who only warrants a mention at RD), then common sense has to be applied to that "may". Sadly common sense isn't that common. - SchroCat (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I'd say my comment is largely in line with WP:ITNRD, albeit not verbatim. I.e. that deaths might be sufficiently significant news stories in themselves to warrant a blurb. In this case, the blurb made no mention of any unusual cause of death and until 10 July the article made no explicit mention of suicide (I didn't revise the entire editing history however, but at least there was no explicit mention in stable article versions of suicide until that point). In fact, even now, there is no material in the article itself whatsover that deals with reactions to the death, nothing to indicate that the event had any profound impact in Korean (and much less global) society. --Soman (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - Are we allowing "unexpected [manner of] death of a prominent figure" as a criteria for blurbs or not?--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 12:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Pull - A blurb about this essentially personal matter is a glaring overweight mistake. – Sca (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
There are very few "personal matters" with prominent government officials. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about a sex act. 331dot (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I think it's time to recognise that this was a bad post and should be pulled, and to stop trying to find each and every way to attempt to defend it. It is most unbecoming. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
There does seem to be an air of desparation and denial in the defence of a poor call. Very disappointing. - SchroCat (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
There is no desperation in my responding to criticism of my actions. I think I made a good call in keeping with guidelines. If you can find someone to do as you request, fair enough. I don't have anything else to say. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
The point you're continually missing is that admins are supposed to be judging consensus, not make up reasons for why something should be posted when after three hours, there was no consensus for a blurb. All the responses attempting to come up with reasons why it should have got a consensus to post are not what an admin should be doing. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Not missing anything. I judged the consensus and explained why I feel this is in keeping with guidelines(even citing the guideline) and explaining why that is. Okay, now I have nothing else to say. 331dot (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
You are supposed to assess if there is consensus for the "unusual manner of death" blurb posting, not just supervote because you personally think it meets that criteria. I'm disappointed that you have not self-reverted after a substantial amount of opposition has been raised.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
+1 The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Ah - the 'head in the sand, I have done no wrong' defence, well beloved by erring admins since the early days of Wiki. - SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
+1 from me too. The original decision to post can be defended, albeit a little earlier than I would have posted given that opposition could well have been predicted and RD/blurb decisions are usually more protracted. But things have changed since the intitial posting, and it is now clear that this doesn't enjoy consensus. There is no shame in accepting that. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Post-posting as blurb support. Tragic and highly unusual anywhere in the world that a leading official disappears and is found dead. We've posted assassinations of politicians. Why not this? (Also, by my count (NOTAVOTE), my vote evens out the supports and opposes to a blurb at 10-10. At this point there should be a clear consensus to remove. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I think I made a good decision, based in guidelines and continue to believe that. However, I don't want my decision to roil this board any more than it already has so I am pulling it. I think it's disappointing that we aren't going to follow our own guidelines but it that's what people think, that's what they think. I'm also going to reevaluate my participation in ITN in general. 331dot (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks 331dot, I think you did the right thing. I get that there are different interpretations of the guidelines, and that some (including yourself) feel this meets the threshold for inclusion as a blurb. But equally there are many who think it does not meet the guidelines. There's no way either of us can argue that this is crystal clear and unambiguous, and in the absence of consensus it's correct that it be left off. I do hope this won't cause you to step away from ITN, because your contributions here are certainly valued. All of us sometimes make what we think is the right decision but later have to retract it. That's just part of Wiki-life. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you 331dot for doing the right thing. Now you can make a proper consensus for re-posting in ITN. As said ealier by Amakuru, we all appreciate you contributions to ITN and hope you don't stop because of this issue. Dantheanimator (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • 331dot, please don't leave ITN. You're one of the sensible ones in a sometimes senseless place. Your contributions here are invaluable. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - I support reinstating the blurb. BabbaQ (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
FYI and FWIW, Mr. Park's demise appears as an RD-only listing (with age, identifier) on today's French, German, Spanish, Swedish and Norwegian Wikis. – Sca (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
What's this? The Paris Peace Conference? The Korean, Bahasa (Malay and Indonesian) and Thai ITNs all are having this as their lead story. I do see Ennio Morricone being the main ITN of many Wikipedias, and not just demoted to RD just like here in Howard the Duck (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb. I don't see how the sudden death of an incumbent mayor of a city of 10 million residents doesn't qualify for a blurb. This seems to be a textbook example of the second example at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Recent_deaths#Blurbs_for_recent_deaths: "Death as the main story...deaths where the cause of death itself is a major story (such as the unexpected death of a prominent figure by homicide, suicide, or accident)." Calidum 15:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose for the blurb as per previously raised opposition. In comparison to previously rejected noms of very notable people, this fall extremely short. It might meet the criteria for posting but, considering previously more ITN-worthy noms got rejected, it would not be fair for this one to be allowed. Dantheanimator (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
You've voted in bold four times on this now, and only struck out one, that seems unfair. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Allow me to raise doubt that your oppose is the "strongest possible". Seriously, what a silly preface.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 18:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
InedibleHulk, the first one was a clarification of my previous vote. The other two were supporting the removal of this from ITN, not the not-posting of it on ITN. WaltCip, how would you like me to word it? Would you prefer me saying "Very, very, very strongly oppose"? Dantheanimator (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
The three each essentially say "RD only", bit visually misleading to a consensus weigher (unless they're astute). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Am I the only one who hears Kevin Pollak when people vote like this? "Objection, your Honor." "Overruled" "No, no. I STRENUOUSLY object." "Oh. You strenuously object. Then I'll take some time and reconsider." GreatCaesarsGhost 19:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
InedibleHulk, I stroke out all my previous votes. This should solve the problem. Lol yes, it does sound very similar GreatCaesarsGhost. Should watch the film again, its been to long since I last seen it. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
"Struck", but yeah, way better than just stroking one out, thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb per nom. -- Tavix (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Currently the count is: Blurb (20-21): Davey2116, WMSR, IndelibleHulk, LukeSurl, (Lugnuts?), 331dot, Masem, Banedon, Kicking222, bumbubookworm, Awsomaw, SounderBruce, Nice4What, TDKR Chicago 101, PlasmaTwa2, WaltCip, HowardTheDuck, BabbaQ, Calidum, Tavix, LSGH. No blurb (11-12): Laserlegs, TRM, Amakuru, GreatCaesarsGhost (?), Black Kite, P-K3, Sca, SchroCat, Usedtobecool, Soman, Dantheanimator, Kingsif. Updated 19:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC) Not sure what consensus really is though, but I don't think things are changing much. Not sure what is enough to post, or when stuff should close, but I thought putting this here might help people get a feel on where the discussion is right now. Awsomaw (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
    You missed Sca. And GreatCaesarsGhost was also initially opposed, although they withdrew that on the grounds that it might be "disruptive" to pull the blurb once posted. But it actually is now pulled, so maybe that still stands? I think it's unlikely this will be reposted, but then I am biased obviously. At some point it's conventional for someone to come and stick a hat on the top with "consensus is unlikely to develop" and we can all move on with our lives!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks Amakuru. Was sure I missed someone. I've updated the numbers now. I agree, we should either just close or post. No use in waiting. Note that GreatCaesarsGhost was in as GCG. I've expanded his name now to avoid confusion. Awsomaw (talk)
Count my nom as a 'support blurb', for much of the same reasons as the other supports above. In particular, we're not using the "transformative leader" criterion here since the unusual death is itself the story, and it also has significant impact on South Korean politics (as he was the incumbent mayor of the largest city) and even the MeToo movement there (due to his scandal). Also in my consideration was Seoul's global importance and the substantial RS coverage of the death. I'll admit that I did expect this nom to be contentious, though not for the discussion to be this long; I agree it's about time to decide this one way or another. Davey2116 (talk) 03:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I'll add that I'm somewhat irked by the excessive criticism of 331dot's decision, which was well within reason, both considering the state of consensus at the time — to set the record straight, there had been 6 'support blurbs' including mine, with no outright 'oppose blurbs' (one 'support RD' was later clarified as 'oppose blurb', while another was later clarified as 'support blurb') — and as an appropriate use of admin discretion on the ITNRD policy. Some users repeated the same points after 331dot had already responded to them. Some of those points, such as how prominently this story is displayed on news sites and which allegedly similar death-blurbs were previously posted, are specifically listed (at WP:ITN and WP:ITNRD, respectively) as being weak reasons to oppose in the first place. 331dot's frustration is entirely understandable; like many, I do hope that this discussion does not cause him to leave ITN. Davey2116 (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment331dot I wouldn't worry about it, it's merely a disagreement. You should have seen what happened when I tried to post an image with an RD! (apparently I was crazy). Stuff happens, please keep working here. Black Kite (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
    An image with an RD? Shocking behaviour, Black Kite. How very dare you!    — Amakuru (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
    Everyone who has dared to post something in the template has been beaten up at some point, take a nice weekend 331dot and we hope you make it back --LaserLegs (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb I can understand the arguments on both sides, but when comparing this with other RD blurb noms that haven't gone up, and considering it is not a too strange/dramatic death, this is a no. Possibly worse than posting Carrie Fisher, when there was at least a big pop culture reaction. It's also barely hit the news, and is not even near the top death story in the news, being beat out by Vera Lynn's funeral and Naya Rivera's disappearance (guess which of the three articles I've been editing). Kingsif (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Late Support It's extremely rare that a news item that already gained its spot at the main page would be pulled because of unfounded rationales for opposition by some. The death of the mayor was under controversial circumstances, and Seoul is the capital city of a G20 economy, so those alone give as much notability for its mayor. It's also a headline that has been given attention by the larger international media outlets. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 03:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I have to wonder if all the fuss about this blurb was really worth it to chase away a long-time contributor to ITN.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 15:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
But Walt, where's your editorial patience? It's a mere 6,500 words – about 25 pages of typescript. Surely you can slog through that.... – Sca (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm counting over 9,300 words, which far surpasses John McCain (7,004 words) as the longest death-blurb discussion, and approaching the Special Counsel blurb dispute (10,241 words), the longest discussion in ITN history. Davey2116 (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
By golly you're right! A second run of my word-counter puts it at 9,446 words, from nominator's comments to Walt 's comment above. I apologize for this disinformation, due entirely to operator error. Doh is me. – Sca (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

July 8Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections


(Closed) RD: Finn Christian JaggeEdit

Closed, stale. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Finn Christian Jagge (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): VG

Article updated
 Count Iblis (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

*Strong Oppose Missing an in-text ref, is a stub, and has no mention of the person's death. This needs a lot of work. Dantheanimator (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)*Weak support it's rather short. Dantheanimator (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Chynybaĭ TursunbekovEdit

Article: Chynybaĭ Tursunbekov (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): 24KG

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Former Speaker of the Kyrgyz parliament. Article seems pretty ready. Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

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

*Oppose for now per missing in-text refs. Dantheanimator (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Support looks good, although short. Sorry for the late correction. Dantheanimator (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Wayne MixsonEdit

Closed, stale. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Wayne Mixson (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [10]

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Served as Lieutenant Governor of Florida for eight years and as Governor of Florida for three days Jon698 (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Several uncited paras need addressing first. - SchroCat (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Dantheanimator (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose (for now) This article is currently decently sized. However, it has some unsourced pieces of information.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I removed some Citation Needed templates to make way for sources that I added.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Still 4 citation needed tags, will support when those are fixed JW 1961 Talk 19:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - citations needed, and the electoral history section is entirely without referencing.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD/Blurb: Amadou Gon CoulibalyEdit

Article: Amadou Gon Coulibaly (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Incumbent Prime Minister of Ivory Coast Amadou Gon Coulibaly dies unexpectedly at the age of 61. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Nominator's comments: Needs a little work first to fill in a few gaps in the sourcing, but I'll work on this shortly. All gaps now sorted. SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

* Support Short but well cited. This is ready. Dantheanimator (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Article in good shape. Question, What about a blurb?. Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Seems a reasonable question, given he was the serving prime minister and possible (likely?) future president of a country of 26 million people. His death in other circumstances would not justify a blurb on his death, I suspect. Perhaps you could create a standard ITN nomination - I think this is being reported by the BBC in a way that might support that -- PaulBetteridge (talk) 07:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
@PaulBetteridge: I just added the blurb, but I'm afraid it might be too late. @The Rambling Man and Bagumba: What do you both think? Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
So the office of the Prime Minister would be equated with the Chief of the Cabinet of Ministers of Argentina? If so, I understand your opposition.Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
But we'll post a blurb for a mayor? I'm not happy with the lack of consistency at ITN. (Not a dig at you, LaserLegs - I know you opposed both, which is my position too) - SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
A longer-serving mayor, with more constitutional, political and financial power and a less-routine death. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
"more constitutional [and] political ... power"? No. Not only was he PM, Coulibaly was a presidential candidate in this years elections and a likely winner. His country holds 26 million people. Having him at RD with a mayor with blurb and image is entirely the wrong stance for ITN (and that's ignoring the tabloid bias ITN has with 'Ooo - a suicide! Let's give them a blurb!') Common sense is to have two political figures, both powerful in their own country, on the same footing, regardless of the possible sensationalist aspect of one of them (and there was no announcement on the cause of death for at least the first 24 hours with Won-soon, just speculation). - SchroCat (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb for reasons cited. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as RD by default, Support blurb if Park Won-soon's blurb gets re-posted per above. Dantheanimator (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb per above. Although not strictly an unusual manner of death as Park's was, this is still unexpected. He was an incumbent in a high office, and also had seemed likely to be elected president in October. Davey2116 (talk) 04:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Per Dantheanimator, Support blurb if Park Won-soon's blurb gets re-posted. Two senior political figures, both powerful and important in their own country, should be on the same footing. Either both at RD, or both with a blurb. - SchroCat (talk) 07:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb. The PM is chosen by the President, who is head of government, so I agree with LaserLegs above. "If we do X we must do Y" is a poor argument for a place where each nomination is judged on its own merits. Same goes for "we didn't do X so we shouldn't do Y". 331dot (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I see the point your trying to make 331dot but you have to understand that some of the decisions made here create long-term precedents. There needs to be concrete expectations for posting on ITN and those expectations are somewhat defined by these precedents. Breaking these precedents does more harm than good unless its a permanent change. ITN needs more consistency as mentioned earlier by SchroCat. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
We don't go by precedent, we go by consensus like the rest of Wikipedia. Consensus can change over time, or from one post to another. Concrete standards just makes this a news ticker. SchroCat (and you) is free to be a frequent contributor here to add to the consensus if they have certain standards they want upholded. 331dot (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry 331dot. Can we just stop debating this? I've mostly forgotten what the main point of this debate is anymore and I'm quite tired of typing up about it. I think it's time we move on and look ahead. Good night from long island, NY. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I am a fairly frequent contributor here, but not as frequent as some, given my interests are wider than just ITN. You appear to have misunderstood what my rationale is with this !vote, but I’m sure that’s just the clumsy way I’ve written about consistency within a set of displayed ITN ‘Headlines’. Never mind. Like Dantheanimator I think we should just move on from this. - SchroCat (talk) 07:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Munah E. Pelham-YoungbloodEdit

Nominator's comments: Prominent personality in Liberian politics Soman (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alex PullinEdit

Nominator's comments: Australian Olympic snowboarder. Died at the age of 32 while spearfishing. HiLo48 (talk) 05:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment The article is very much a stub, and the report looks like a click bait. (I know I just clicked) To make matters worse the report says "may have been spear fishing," so even that part is doubt, however ABC does mention a resuscitation attempt, so the article can be expanded from just that single source. Try to develop the article to Start class first, because there's too little for somebody like me who doesn't know the first thing about Alex Pullin. KittenKlub (talk) 06:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC) Changed to a Support, it's becoming more of an article.KittenKlub (talk) 09:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support it's a start class article already. It is brief, but what's there appears in good order. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I've added a couple more lines, but it does feel like this article covers all the (online) content about him. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - Good enough for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 09:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support looks good. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 09:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Posting. --Tone 10:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Australia has snowboarders? Fascinating. Thanks, HiLo! InedibleHulk (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

July 7Edit

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Brad Pye Jr.Edit

Article: Brad Pye Jr. (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Los Angeles Times

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Died on July 5, but only reported in the LAT on July 7. Bloom6132 (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

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

(Posted) RD: Mary Kay LetourneauEdit

Article: Mary Kay Letourneau (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Died on July 6, but only reported on July 7. Bloom6132 (talk) 05:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

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

(Closed) U.S. withdraws from the WHOEdit

No support so far, consensus to post unlikely to develop. P-K3 (talk) 02:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: World Health Organization (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United States begins a one-year withdrawal process from the World Health Organization. (Post)
News source(s): Forbes, CNN
Nominator's comments: Though this process typically takes a year, its the intention to withdraw during the middle of a pandemic that makes this notable. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ) 19:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe I'm confusing this with something else but I thought this was a previous ITNC suggest back when Trump suggested he was going to do it... I wanted to find that previous ITNC to review what the consensus was for posting (at the announcement or when the dead's done, in a year from now), but as I said, thre's a lot things Trump wants the US to withdraw from so I cant' easily find it. --Masem (t) 20:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this point, though. The year delay is required, so there's an election between now and then, and if Trump is outed and the next President wants us to stay, that can be undone. If it should be the case that the year goes by and the US does commit to leaving then we can post. --Masem (t) 20:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose post it when they do leave, not when Trump continues to rattle his sabre/saber. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose as per User:Masem although, given the circumstances, another shocking Kung Flu chop at the stability of world health. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Question does anyone know if this is a "Brexit" thing where they can change their minds 100 times or if this is a done deal? If the former then wait, if the latter then we can post now (assuming the article is OK) --LaserLegs (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    What? Brexit wasn't "changing minds 100 times", the government followed the result of the referendum and we're leaving the EU. The deals we're making on the way are changing, but I don't recall "a "Brexit" thing where they can change their minds 100 times". Perhaps find a bit analogy for whatever it is you're trying to say? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    After 4 or 5 delays right? Sorry if I misspoke. Anyway Wait the update is quite good but "it was unclear whether he had the authority to do so.". We'll need that sorted out first. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    Yep, I think a handful of internal amendments hardly equates to a hyperbolic "a "Brexit" thing where they can change their minds 100 times". And as you probably know, if Trump is shown the door in November, this probably won't happen, so it's time to put the crystal ball away and declare this as a "dead duck". Quack. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    Yep, I misspoke and clarified I meant delay and delay and delay and delay glad I was able to clear that up for you. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    No it was clearing it up for yourself. I think those of us living through Brexit have a clue as opposed to some bizarre foreign commentary. How odd. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    Exactly, I'm glad you understand now --LaserLegs (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – I realize it's not done, but I'm tempted by the irony: It's like quitting the volunteer fire dept. when your house is on fire. Unfathomable. But this won't fly here, yet. – Sca (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per just about every comment above. Kingsif (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm pretty sure that the US's temporary withdrawal from WHO happened a month ago. See here and look for the publication date.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: It seems the main issue is the title of the ITNC, since it was really an announcement to withdraw in a year. --Light show (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    • There was a process started today, but there is a mandatory year period before the US can complete it. I'd assume this is to assure all funding commitments can be transferred w/ minimal disruption, etc. So there's an official clock running, but again, there's an election between now and then. --Masem (t) 22:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Why is everyone assuming or hinting that Trump won't get reelected in November? Every president since Bill Clinton has served 2 terms, even George W. Bush! The chances of Trump being elected are higher than everyone here is hinting/indicating. This will very likely take place. Dantheanimator (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
While the incumbent president usually has a good shot, Trump is behind in nearly all polls at the current time. He may still have a second term, but this is clearly far from assured at this point, compared to any of the last 3-4 Presidents at the relative same time. --Masem (t) 23:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
It's definitely not assured but it's more likely than your implying. Consider that Trump's election win was unexpected and against the polls, so whose to say this won't be the same? Also, consider that there will be other individuals running in the election, like Kanye West. I'm certain that Kanye West's presidental bid will take away the support of African-American southerners who usually vote for Democrats. There's also a possibility of another email scandal or of the like happening again, so Trump's reelection possibilities aren't that bad.Dantheanimator (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
    • While it's true that this move in the "middle of a pandemic is what makes this notable," as the nom states, it might be worth considering the move in context, ie. over five months ago Trump offered to send China and the WHO help, and both have ignored the offer, up to the present. So it's hard to guess what even Biden might do differently.--Light show (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all; we can post if/when the actual withdrawal takes place. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 22:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Good faith nom and certainly merits mention in the main article. But for ITN this is TOOSOON. Suggest speedy close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

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

(Closed) Legality of the assassination of Qasem SoleimaniEdit

Unanimous opposition – no chance.
Sca (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
(non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Assassination of Qasem Soleimani (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In an unprecedented statement, Agnès Callamard publicly announces that the U.S. violated the UN charter. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Agnès Callamard, a special rapporteur for the UN, makes an unprecedented statement denouncing the US strike that killed Soleimani.
Alternative blurb II: ​In a unexpected turn of events, UN special rapporteur Agnès Callamard declares that the US violated international law.
News source(s): [12]
Nominator's comments: This event is somewhat historic considering that usually Western leaders are never prosecuted for the crimes they commit. Dantheanimator (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

*Support Alt blurb as NPOV. That a sitting western leader is directly implicated by the UN is notable and unprecedented. We are used to seeing cases of developing country dictators being charged, never some member of a G8. Whether or not the charges will lead to actual persecution/trial is irrelevant. (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose at the moment. The process here is that Callamard will present the case to the Human Rights Council Thursday, and they will determine what actions should be taken. That will be the point to post when we know what will be charged. --Masem (t) 23:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Seems reasonable path to wait until case is presented at UNHRC on Thursday and re-evaluate then. (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now per Masem. I would also note that, at least for the moment, this is receiving scant attention in the news media. While I don't require wall to wall news coverage for my support of a nomination, if it's something likely to be controversial, then we need a reasonable degree of coverage lest we run afoul of WP:RGW. This forum is for items that are In the News. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is like Malaysia (?) prosecuting Bush/Cheney in absentia, and without any further developments or action this seems like a bunch of posturing and saber-rattling. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 23:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
John M Wolfson, i'm going to guess you're talking about this. This Tribunal is not recognised by the United Nations with its verdicts being only symbolic. Unlike that, Agnès Callamard is the UN. Completely different situation although, it will probably turn out the same since US law has precedence over UN laws. Dantheanimator (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough, I still think this isn't going to go anywhere, and in the absence of a hubbub about it I'll still oppose. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 02:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose until something other than a "statement" occurs. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is no risk of any binding prosecution of anyone here. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Countries violate international law all the time and this is a pretty de minimis example. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's a statement, and little more. If it escalates then it would be worth further consideration. - SchroCat (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

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

(Posted) Anshun bus crashEdit

Article: Anshun bus crash (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A bus carrying students to an exam plunges into a reservoir in Anshun, Guizhou, China, killing 21 and leaving 16 injured. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​21 are killed and 16 injured after a bus carrying students to an exam plunges into a reservoir in Anshun, Guizhou, China.
Alternative blurb II: ​After a bus carrying students plunges into a reservoir in Anshun, Guizhou, China, 21 are killed and 16 injured.
Alternative blurb III: ​A bus crash in Anshun, China kills 21 people and injures 16.
News source(s): [13]

Nominator's comments: If the Kyushu floods were accepted, this should too! Dantheanimator (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  • LaserLegs Well, strictly speaking yes, you are correct. I actually remember that crash (I wasn't officially with wiki at the time) and didn't think much of it. However, unlike that crash, this crash led to the deaths of mostly students. Arguably, this is as notable as the Umpqua Community College school shooting. You definitely have a point though but consider that if the Kyushu floods made it, this should too, since both are as "notable". Dantheanimator (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what the fact that the victims were students has to do with it - deaths are deaths, and I've never heard of us adding any weighting based on their age or education status. Also you can't compare road traffic fatalities, which happen literally every day, with school shootings. 20 deaths is quite a lot though, and although I note that I opposed the limousine crash, in retrospect that was probably an error and it should have been posted. ITN can be a tricky quagmire at times though. I posted this one because there seemed to be broad consensus, but if that changes we can rethink.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Short article but the content is there and sourced. Normally regular passenger traffic accidents we don't cover but this is sufficiently large to be included. --Masem (t) 23:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    Masem You also opposed Schoharie. Do you believe that 21 deaths is sufficiently large, but 20 is an "unfortunate traffic accident"? (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Very weak support The article is well-sourced but it's pretty short.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I am a little bit convinced per TongcyDai.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support An 8000-byte-long article is undoubtedly long enough to tell the readers all the important information.--TongcyDai (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - long enough. Good sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per LaserLegs. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ) 15:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • No opinion here, but I'd just like to thank ITN editors for putting a bus plunge article (including those exact words!) on the main page. :) Robofish (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I was going to ask if we could adjust the blurb to "A bus plunges into a reservoir in Anshun, China, killing 21 people and injuring 16.". --LaserLegs (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose We just posted an article into ITN about a bus that plunged into a river 4 days ago? Recommend Speedy Close. (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
    • At a minimum, lets try to get the ordering right, it should be 2nd after the Kyushu floods, which are still going on. (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's a literal bus plunge story? We are not even trying anymore, I see. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, GreatCaesarsGhost (talk · contribs) you didn't complain when the Kyushu floods were accepted. I agree with you though, the standards here have been made way to low by very poor precedents. There needs to be reform. Dantheanimator (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Dantheanimator We don't necessarily go by "precedents", we consider each nomination on it's own merits. This is because every contributor has their own opinions. Many people have tried to design a rule to keep out what they see as undesirable, and not often succeeded. That's just instruction creep. 331dot (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
331dot Yes, I get that each article is judged in it's own merit but their exists a minimum bar for inclusion in ITN. This bar is set by the community and sort of defined through its application. Ignoring this bar is akin to ignoring the purpose of ITN. By posting the mayor of Seoul, you more or less lowered the bar to a record low (as mentioned earlier by TheRamblingMan). This is what the main issue is in my understanding. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I would respectfully disagree that it was a "record low" or a low of any kind, but I won't relitigate that here. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment the consensus was pretty weak when this went up, and it seems to have swung in the other direction. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
LaserLegs Maybe wait until 1 or 2 more people oppose and then remove? As it is now, it seems like its 50/50 or very close to that. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep – In general it's bad form to post and then pull, which comes across as dilettantish. Exceptions would be items with serious demerits (such as, IMO, the Park Won-soon suicide). This bus plunge doesn't seem to pose any obvious flaws. – Sca (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment the opposition is, generally, ridiculous: "disaster stub" and "per LaserLegs", who made the "stub" assertion. This is fine, we're not hanging around counting votes to remove an item which had decent consensus to post while opposition is just "I don't like it" and copies of that. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

July 6Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Closed) Chiafalo v. WashingtonEdit

Near-unanimous consensus against this. I know I also objected, but it's clear when a dead dog is really dead. So sue me. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Articles: Chiafalo v. Washington (talk, history) and Colorado Department of State v. Baca (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the Chiafalo v. Washington decision, the Supreme Court unanimously sides with Chiafalo, ruling that states can get to punish faithless electors. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The U.S. Supreme Court rules that states can enforce elector pledges in the Electoral College.
News source(s): CNN, CBS News, NPR, Vox, The New York Times, etc.
Nominator's comments: This article is currently medium-sized. Regardless, SCOTUS ruled that states can penalize faithless electors for not voting for a candidate that they promised to vote. Faithless electors have existed for a very long time. AlphaBeta135 (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose and I did much of the contributions on the article. This was a decision everyone was predicting and it wasn't going to change the election. The number of times people have faithless-ly voted in the EC is so minor that its not a compelling issue to be ITN. There are things wrong with the electoral college, no one seriously thought the route of using faithless electors was the route to fix it. --Masem (t) 18:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose just not significant enough for ITN.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in principle I'm going to disagree with everyone here on this one. I didn't expect this at all as per Masem's comment and I think this is significant for inclusion on ITN (as per P-K3's statement). However, there is some missing in-text citations. Once that's fixed up, I'll fully support. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Dantheanimator I follow US politics and Supreme Court rulings and yet I cannot see how a rarely used quirk of the electoral college system would be of much interest to a wider audience. Perhaps you could explain the significance?-- P-K3 (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion, this is unexpected and interesting. I don't really follow US politics that much (except near the elections) so I never really expected this. Besides, of the Wikipedians/readers from countries other than the U.S., the fact that this quirk existed until know will be relatively surprising to them, considering most other countries don't have this type of political system. P-K3, I'm not saying this will be seen as significant by other people but that I believe it is significant. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Maybe for those that are familiar with the Electoral College, the faithless elector concept is rare, and only has been of talk later with the last Presidential elections and was being pushed as a possible mechanism for this upcoming one. From [14] "There has been one faithless elector in each of the following elections: 1948, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1972, 1976, and 1988. A blank ballot was cast in 2000. In 2016, seven electors broke with their state on the presidential ballot and six did so on the vice presidential ballot." (In other words, 15 times for a President on well over 10,000 different elector votes in the last 100 years). That basically this decision maintains the expected status quo makes this a non-story. (If anything, the other case decided, that robocallers can't call cell phones for debt collection payments, has a more pronounced impact, but even then that's not ITN). --Masem (t) 19:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Wait a second, there were no faithless electoral votes in the 2004 election? Wow, that is really surprising. Thanks Masem for the info, its always great to get informed on things like this. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. Calidum 19:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose on notability which I try to avoid, but this is pretty arcane. These electors are partisan hacks selected by the party apparatus before the popular election and the only thing SCOTUS has done is to affirm that they're partisan hacks. The entire electoral college is a disaster for democracy -- let me know when the constitution is amended to dismiss it. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
It's always fun to walk up to people and say "There is no right to vote for President in the U.S." and then hear them try to explain why there is. (There isn't.)--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 20:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
It's the right to vote for the right president that seems lacking. – Sca (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose hyper-parochial, arcane, literally of no interest to practically any of our readers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Routine court decision likely to have little practical impact in the US and none at all outside it. We don't do domestic politics and routine court cases. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Zippo effect on any national affairs in the US.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 20:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all above.Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Unless they're saying that a faithless elector is one who doesn't have a religion. Clearly, such infidels should be burned at the stake. – Sca (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- not notable enough. Wouldn't expect a similar ruling in another country to show up ITN. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 21:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

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

(Closed) Philippines Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 OppositionEdit

Consensus will not develop to post. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 22:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The new Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 in the Philippines receives criticism from two lawyer groups who file petitions to the Philippine Supreme Court. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Two lawyer groups file petitions to the Philippine Supreme Court to question the constitutionality of the recent anti-terrorism law.
Alternative blurb II: ​Following the recent passage of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, two lawyer groups file petitions to the Philippine Supreme Court arguing against it.
News source(s): [15]
Nominator's comments: Can have some rather significant effects on the HR policy in the Philippines. Dantheanimator (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Charlie DanielsEdit

Article: Charlie Daniels (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post, Tennessean

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Section with an orange tag, unsourced filmography. Spengouli (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

*Oppose for now As per Spengouli's comment, there is some missing in-text citations. Once these are added, this is good to go. *Support Looks good to go now, thx Bloom6132 Dantheanimator (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Support. The subject's filmography is the least significant thing to be concerned about. The article is otherwise reasonably well-cited. The importance of the subject nears blurb territory. BD2412 T 18:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    • He's nowhere close to blurb territory. Yes, he's in a few Hall of Fames, but has no awards or other recognition to his name (I'd be comparing to someone like Kenny Rogers who does have a massive body of awards/nominations, and who looks like we never even posted due to lack of improvement but there was opposition even there to a blurb. --Masem (t) 18:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose until the orange tagged section is fixed, and the filmography is cited.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Oppose Still needs refs, it seems. And yes, not a blurb by a country singer mile. Kingsif (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support thanks Bloom Kingsif (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man: I've just finished referencing the filmography and the remaining "citation needed" tags. How about now? —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support especially considering the improvements over the past few hours. The sources are now there. Although primarily popular in North America, Daniels has a four-decade-long chart history and was something of a cultural icon in his heyday. —  AjaxSmack  21:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support well referenced now JW 1961 Talk 22:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted RD) RD/Blurb: Ennio MorriconeEdit

Article: Ennio Morricone (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Italian composer Ennio Morricone dies at the age of 91. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​Oscar winning Italian composer of more than 500 film and TV scores during a 50-year career, dies at age 91.
News source(s): The Independent, Hollywood Reporter, , NYT, BBC, LA Times, Italy, Vatican, Sydney Morning Herald, Independent (Ireland), Deutsche Welle (Germany), Japan Times, Tass (Russia), Rolling Stone,, India

Nominator's comments: More update in the article currently needed. Brandmeistertalk 07:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose a wealth of unreferenced prose, works, awards etc. Needs a LOT of work. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @Gerda Arendt:, our music editor, if she's available. Brandmeistertalk 12:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the invitation, but I'll decline. While I agree that he'd deserve a blurb, I never edited the article, and am not familiar with the topic. The last two days, I took care (unplanned) of two who recently died and who would NOT get much attention (Nikolai Kapustin on the Main page, too late for the other), while his death will be noticed anyway. I think it's a shame that our rules prohibit to do him justice, but I remember the amount of work Jessye Norman's article needed. Big difference in motivation: she was someone who changed my life, while he just composed great music. You whose life he changed, find the sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        ... adding: it's pointless to support. As long as teh rulez don't change, every fact needs a ref, or he can not appear. Time spent on supporting what can't happen would be better invested in adding references. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        By now, I added a book, a ref for his quote, and the Golden Globe obit. All could probably be useful for other facts if someone took the time. Someone is not me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb in principle. He is definitely the first name of a modern composer that comes to one's mind whose prolific career has exerted lasting impact in the history of modern music and film. There are some unreferenced paragraphs but the article is very well written in general.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb- Very far from being "transformative world leader" among all composers, and if we choose to narrow his field for WP:ITNRD to specifically film score composition, which is very specific and should not have many individuals qualify for a blurb, there are at least two figures that are more notable than Morricone (Bernard Herrmann and John Williams). Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 08:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    In your opinion. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Indeed. I don't find it necessary to clarify that things which I write are my opinion. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 08:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Well it's important because people may consider you to be an authority on such matters whereas you are simply stating a personal preference. As far as I am concerned, Morricone deserves a blurb, and I've never heard of Herrmann. Dangerous to go around declaring that some individual is "more notable" than another. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    You gotta click the link before you self-own like that. As a great Wikipedian once said, "it's always mildly amusing that people think by telling us they've never heard of iconic individuals somehow strengthens their argument where all it does is undermine their commentary as being an exemplar of pure ignorance."[16] GreatCaesarsGhost 12:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    And one day you'll understand that I was being ironic: somehow claiming with authority that "A is more notable than B" is total nonsense. That was the point here. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    I do apologise though, I have been reminded that some "cultures" don't understand irony, so please accept my deepest sympathies for any misunderstanding here. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    I hope that nobody would take me to be an authority on film score composers (which I am certainly not) simply for expressing an opinion about some. By that heuristic, everybody at ITN/C would be assumed an expert on international politics. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 20:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    It's fine, you made a mistake, we probably don't need to perpetuate the issue. Clearly "notability" is in the eye of the beholder. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    @Bzweebl: I don't think we should narrow his field to film score composition as he composed many other popular compositions and has greatly influenced other music artists (In this vein, the last sentence of the introduction says "Morricone has influenced many artists from film scoring to other styles and genres, including Hans Zimmer, Danger Mouse, Dire Straits, Muse, Metallica, and Radiohead."). As for Herrmann and Williams, the first one lived in another time and is very far from the significance of his contemporary Dmitri Shostakovich, while Williams is great but not as influential as Morricone.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    This would seem to support my argument, as if we are comparing him to all other 20th century composers then he is not nearly as close to the top. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 18:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    No, we're comparing him to all composers now (at the time of his death) and he's definitely on the top of the field. You can't compare people from different periods.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Fair enough. I meant to emphasize that I was referring to your suggestion that we consider him in the field of music composition in general rather than just film score composition. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 20:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Uh, he's probably not going to have the impact of Mozart or Beethoven, but I'm pretty sure no-one thought that was the case. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    By striking 20th-century, I intended to clarify that I agree it makes sense to only compare with other composers of the same generation. Sorry that wasn't clear. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Very cool, thanks for the clarification. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Actually some have called him the "Mozart of film music", while Tarantino considered him his "favorite composer," even compared to Mozart and Beethoven. --Light show (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
That's not "some", it's Richard Mowe, and Tarantino has long been reputed in the press to lack a taste for decent art (and per Google, quite a few composers are considered a "Mozart of film music"). InedibleHulk (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose anything at the moment: way too much unsupported material to warrant any showing on the MP. - SchroCat (talk) 09:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC) On reflection, and only when the referencing is complete, oppose blurb; should be an RD only. - SchroCat (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb: This man was a giant in the movie world. His scores were transformative in their uniqueness and distinctiveness, and no other composer has come close to his recognizable style. Listen.--Light show (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb: The man was a legend. Easily one of the most well-known film composers in history. And for the record, both John Williams and Bernard Herrmann fit that bill, too. MetaTracker (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose not postable in either RD or blurb in current state. --Masem (t) 09:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support if/when improvements are made. Currently, the article is a mix of the good, the bad, and the ugly. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose referencing issues and oppose blurb no media circus and NOTMANDELA. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Not ready for RD and oppose blurb. There are numerous entire paragraphs with no references at all. He was certainly a notable film & TV composer, but I don't think he was sufficiently influential on music in general to merit a blurb. Blurbs are supposed to be for the top individuals in an entire field (in this case music), not specialisms within that field (film composers). Modest Genius talk 12:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support: Very well known and critically acclaimed composer, and the people who have never heard of him will instantly recognize the music. However the article needs a lot of work, and it's a big article to boot. Support Blurb and Posting, if you can get it properly referenced.KittenKlub (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as a bare minimum the insertion in RD. Nick Cordero has 29 references in the article and was inserted with virtually zero discussion, Ennio Morricone is by far much better known worldwide, and by the way the article has >170 citations. I am surprised it's not in RD yet. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    • It's not the number of references total, it's the number of unreferenced claims. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
There are a few unreferenced claims in the body of the text, but I don't think it's enough to dismiss it completely from RD. If the lede section is fine, it can be listed in RD. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
We follow WP:BLP which says nothing about only applying to the lead. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Wow, if I had a for every time someone said "there's no need to worry about all the unreferenced stuff, there are actually 29 references in this article!" then I'd be a Euro-millionaire by now. "It's not how big it is, it's how you use it"...... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Very funny. Now, the article has no single section that is completely unreferenced. There is only one subsection that is, I would say, largely unreferenced, in the sense that there are currently 8 "Citation needed" templates. While surely the article is not at high standards for Wikipedia, I still don't think that it's so bad that it can't be mentioned in the RD list. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb It's frankly dumb that we are having this debate.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 12:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    You mean every famous person who dies should automatically get a blurb? Cos otherwise we need to have a debate.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb – Support RD only (when ready), due to comparatively minor status. – Sca (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, Support posted as RD only due to minor status of this composer for music industry. This is not like Tchainvosky. i also support posted altblurb it needed. (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb, you gotta be living under the rock to not know this guy. The Good the Bad and the Ugly theme anybody? (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb Internationally known, certainly at the top of his field. Davey2116 (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support altblurb this Italian composer is well known abroad. He was a Oscar winning Italian composer of more than 500 film and TV scores by him. (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb The vital articles list [17] is a good place to start consideration of the weight of a person within their field. If we review the section where Morricone is listed, there are 30 names. My feeling is this is too niche to post more than one. The top three is some order of Morricone, Williams and Herrmann, but I'd never put Morricone at the top. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    GreatCaesarsGhost I appreciate your use of an actually somewhat objective metric in this morass of subjectivity that death blurb discussions have become. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 20:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    To put some context around the "vital articles" claim, that microcosm of Wikipedia is governed by a handful (and I literally mean half a dozen) people. This is really important: if we as a community are starting to look to WP:VA to underpin the notability of individuals going for a blurb, we absolutely have to have that discussion via RFC because somehow relating an individual's importance to a truly minor sub-project with basically no community oversight and a couple of regular users is really contrary to what we're trying to achieve here. The stats for the project and talk page speak for themselves: here so please, until someone can substantiate that that specific pet project is actually a true reflection of notability beyond a consensus of a couple of people and practically no viewership, desist from attempting to use it as an "objective measure" here. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I did not know that so thank you for bringing it up, but even so it is still a better argument than most in recent death blurb discussions. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm marking this as ready for recent deaths. There may be a consensus for a blurb, but I will leave that decision to an admin. Calidum 16:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    • How is it ready for RD? There are still large sections of unreferenced text, which is not up to the article quality requirements. Modest Genius talk 16:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
      I'm unmarking it, but I found a good book which solves perhaps some of the problems, and which was already in the article but cited only for the fact of his birth. I used it more for musical training, but have to go. Feel free to read and cite more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb when ready, which it is not. I don't believe in the argument that film music is too niche of a field to be the top of, because when you look at the composers at the apex of classical music, none of them got a blurb (like Penderecki and Boulez, and we'll have to see about Philip Glass and Arvo Part when they die). The reality is that film music is the most popular form of classical music today: composers like John Williams and Ennio Morricone have significantly more name recognition than Philip Glass or Arvo Part. Popularity does bias who we choose to blurb; some might argue that popularity is an important factor to consider in selecting blurbs. Either we take steps to balance against the bias of fame or we recognize it as a blurb factor.
Practically speaking, the RD blurbs that get voted in are transformative world leaders in their field, and Morricone meets that requirement. NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose RD on article quality. There are significant gaps in referencing which are going to need plugging before this can be seriously considered for the main page. Oppose Blurb fails the Thatcher Mandela standard. Beyond which we generally decline to blurb the deaths of elderly celebrities who die of natural causes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
There is no Thatcher Mandela standard.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 20:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb not niche, per NorthernFalcon - film music is the most popular form of classical music today.Jklamo (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in RD in principle It is a very developed/long article which is a definitely a good start. However, there is a lot of missing in-text citations (some sections don't have any in-text citations at all). Once those in-text citations are added, I will 100% support this. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in principle - very long impressive article that needs more refs. Support RD, doubtful about blurb: as great as he is, the first score composers I think of are Zimmer, Desplat, Williams, Elfman, and probably even Guðnadóttir. There's no single artist among the six that stands out above the rest, and we probably shouldn't blurb them all. Kingsif (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support RD, not quite blurb material. I'm likely wasting keystrokes here, but overzealous defense of the front page has created a particularly bad inherent bias that weighs heavily against artists with extensive filmographies, discographies, and bibliographies. This was a major reason why we dropped the ball on Carl Reiner. If the work is named and dated and they appear in the credits that's reference enough. Anyone who questions our report knows where to look. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb when ready (not yet). Morricone was impressive both for the quantity of his output and his influence on music and he is widely known outside of the Anglosphere. —  AjaxSmack  22:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Referencing still needs improvement for posting. Weak support on blurb if article is ready. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb with extreme reluctance I love his music, and he's one of the greatest soundtrack composers of all time (probably the greatest alongside John Williams), but if Vera Lynn or Little Richard don't get blurbs neither does he. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 23:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support RD on principle (ie that he's dead). Some articles are good, some are bad, and some are ugly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support RD only, Oppose blurb due to minor contributions in global music industry. Meanwhile, the article has a good shape. (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Currently 60 citations needed. Stephen 06:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Waking up, can't believe it: 437k views on his article, but Wikipedia too concerned about rules to mention him? What does that tell the world about us?
    • We could ignore all rules.
    • We could add the missing refs.
    • We could split the awards to a separate article.
    • We could drop facts that are not crucial.
    • What we can't do is leave it as it is.
    Once done, I suggest - as done before - no blurb but an image. RIP. I will add what I can - but compare what I said yesterday: others might be better prepared. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    Gerda Arendt, I tried that with Tariq Aziz and it was postable for almost 24 hours before I got reverted but no one did. Without getting to the main page the article did get 150K+ views and those readers got, well, this. Just last week, we had Hachalu Hundessa whose death apparently caused riots that killed 200+ people in Ethiopia. We didn't post it because all we had was Hachalu Hundessa article, who is not notable enough for a blurb as a person and no one created the Hachalu Hundessa riots for the event. In case of Tariq Aziz, all it would have taken was for an admin to post it while it was ready, or an editor to back my edits to the article (it was superior even if it contained less). The more substantial the article is, unfortunately, the worse the problem is. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    Digging into it: some things are tough to solve, such as in the Munich Philharmonie when such a thing doesn't exist. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    .. then finding a YouTube video which confirms there was a concert at the Gasteig, but in 2004, not 2005 as the article says. But YouTube is not a RS ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    That thing done, comes a quote "If the audience comes for my gestures, they had better stay outside". Help needed: This quote is there multiple times on the internet, but who am I to tell who copied this from whom? Most seem to copy from us. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    More help needed: source "the oldest person at the time to win a competitive Oscar", - I don't even know what it means. Commented out for the moment. Time to ignore rulez, perhaps? --Gerda Arendt
    We're down to 17 tags, and I need to go, real life, SchroCat, I can't fix more right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    Gerda Arendt, all issues that have been pointed out have been fixed I think. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    • One option would be splitting the awards and works into separate articles, as is often common for prominent artists. The text itself is rather well-referenced, after a quick look. --Tone 09:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Go ahead, do it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
        • I'll see how I am with time later today. --Tone 09:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
          Tone, I can start right away if no one minds. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
          • Actually: that part doesn't even have "citation needed" so may be less of a problem than I thought. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
            There are two tags but, though untagged, there are also entire tables without inline citations, I can't think of a reason why those would be let slide. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
            The whole section is now tagged. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
            move it out fast then --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
            Or fix it, rather than sweep the problems under the carpet. - SchroCat (talk) 11:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Post to RD (soon), image not blurb: Clearly there has been extensive tagging of the article, but I don't think there is much doubt as to the truth of the most of the facts asserted: that he composed music for such and such a film appears in little doubt. There are statements implying judgement or analysis that might deserve attention: " Though sonically bizarre for a movie score, Morricone's music was viscerally true to Leone's vision", for example. (Although I don't really question that either.) Fundamentally, I see no reason why we should be embarrassed by this article in its current state. I also support Gerda Arendt's suggestion to use one of the images. This actually seems like something we could do in general: if someone is "blurb-worthy", there will be a choice of images to post; the image has a natural connection to the subject; and we don't have to think of a blurb. -- PaulBetteridge (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

*I am going to reinforce my oppose on this (note to closer: I have opposed further up in the discussion, this is to reinforce the position, given the citations added since yesterday). Although citations are being added, we now have c.14 refs pointing to and a few using IMDB. Neither of these are considered reliable for any articles, so why they are being used on a BLP is beyond me. - SchroCat (talk) 09:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Stats The numbers are in and Morricone is getting attention but not quite as much as Charlie Daniels. For an evidence-based perspective, here's the top 10 deaths in June–July. First, note that Joel Schumacher didn't quite make the cut. Most of these people peak at about half a million views but there was one death which was a different order of magnitude. It certainly wasn't Morricone but can you guess who it was ...?
Top 10 recent deaths by views
Article 01 June to 6 July 2020 (daily peak)
Sushant Singh Rajput
Chiranjeevi Sarja
Nick Cordero
Carl Reiner
Saroj Khan
Ian Holm
Vera Lynn
Steve Bing
Charlie Daniels
Ennio Morricone
Andrew🐉(talk) 10:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
So Hollywood was lying to us about being famous or forever. Figures. Get that man his blurb! InedibleHulk (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support RD/Ready for RD I have purged the cn tags, as well as IMDB and Discogs cites. AFAICT, it meets the standard for ITN/DYK. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Looks good now. Posting. --Tone 13:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I added some to the credits. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ronald GrahamEdit

Article: Ronald Graham (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s):
  • "The Latest: Ronald Graham, 1935–2020". American Mathematical Society. July 7, 2020. Retrieved July 7, 2020.
  • "Ronald Lewis Graham, 2003-2004 MAA President". Mathematical Association of America. July 7, 2020. Retrieved July 7, 2020.


 —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 00:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now with quite a few citation needed tags uncited paragraphs, but consider this a support when those are taken care of. Between him, Morricone, and Daniels, July 6 was a bad day for deaths. :/ – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 00:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC) Switching to s, see below. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 05:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support and adding to the growing number of those marked "Ready". Oppose (although a relatively weak one). There are some uncited paras in there, but there are only a couple, so this should not be too much of an obstacle if someone wants to take the final steps to allow it to be posted. - SchroCat (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

*Oppose per above. Dantheanimator (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Support Looks good now. For the record, I was not on-line when this was posted/fixed.Dantheanimator (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
    • although it has since then been surpassed by even larger numbers such as TREE(3). is still uncited, but consider this a support once that's done. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 05:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Added. @User:John M Wolfson. (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
        • I already said to consider my previous statement a support when the citation was added, so pinging me was unnecessary. That being said, I am satisfied with the current result and support it, nice job! – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 05:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  •   PostedBagumba (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


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: