Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:In the news

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Colipon (talk | contribs) at 16:36, 19 September 2020 (→‎(Posted) Ruth Bader Ginsburg). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Click here to nominate an item for In the news. In the news toolbox
Shortcut

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

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

Paralympics opening ceremony
Paralympics opening ceremony

view — page history — related changes — edit

Glossary

  • Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
    • Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
    • A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
  • Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
  • The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.

All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.

Nomination steps

  • Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
  • Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
  • You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.

The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

  • When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
  • Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
    • If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
    • Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
    • Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).

Voicing an opinion on an item

Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.

Please do...

Shortcut
  1. Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
  2. Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
  3. Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.

Please do not...

Shortcut
  1. Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
  2. Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
  3. Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
  4. Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. Oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. Discuss them here.
  6. Use ITN as a forum for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome and are potentially disruptive.

Suggesting updates

There are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:

  • Anything that does not change the intent of the blurb (spelling, grammar, markup issues, updating death tolls etc.) should be discussed at WP:Errors.
  • Discuss major changes in the blurb's intent or very complex updates as part of the current ITNC nomination.
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Archives

September 19

September 19, 2020 (2020-09-19) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

September 18

September 18, 2020 (2020-09-18) (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Stephen F. Cohen

Article: Stephen F. Cohen (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Prominent scholar of Russian studies. Article appears in good shape. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Proposed image
Article: Ruth Bader Ginsburg (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  American Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (pictured) dies at the age of 87. (Post)
News source(s): NYT, CNN, The Hill
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Very breaking news still. Article is a GA. -- a lad insane (channel two) 23:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • She was an incumbent also massively impactful in law, growth of US liberalism, and pop culture. There's also the fact that most likely whoever is elected President in November will have to replace her, and that will be crucial to American law going forward. Kingsif (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with GCG - massive ramifications for, well, how biased the SCOTUS gets in a time of political upheaval and pandemic that could have apocalyptic effects on US relations with the rest of the world, crisis management, upholding the constitution, and climate change. It's never good to see a legend like RBG go, but now is perhaps the worst time in human history, I mean this without hyperbole. Kingsif (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see Mitch is still a man of principle.--WaltCip-(talk) 01:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
McConnell has put out a statement saying "President Trump's nominee will get a vote". And the WH says to expect a nominee in "the coming days". We will have a fight on our hands unless Democrats fold like a cheap suit again. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support for blurb - probably the only news item I've been moved to actually comment on in ... well, ever. Unfortunately, due to POLEMIC, I can't fully explain why, but this has made a dangerous time for the entire world even more dangerous. If the goal of an ITN blurb is providing good content on timely subjects, then I cannot fathom not posting a blurb. On a less screechy note, this was kind of a "Death of Fred Rogers"-level gut punch. I wish I had 10% of her integrity and 10% of her drive. Fuck you, 2020. Fuck. You. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm expecting frogs myself —valereee (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support retaining blurb. Ginsburg was an exceptionally important justice and for many years was almost surely the best-known judge in the entire world. Even apart from her significant personal accomplishments, her death at this particular time and the debate that will now follow over whether and with whom to fill the resulting vacancy will be a prominent news story both within and beyond the United States for weeks to come. Either of these grounds would be sufficient, in my mind, to justify a blurb; the combination of the two is compelling. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see McLachlin or Lady Hale get a blurb as well when it's their turn, thank you. Like it or not, some degree of systemic bias is at play here, as evidenced by the number of American editors here. feminist (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kommentar I am somewhat confused by what appear to be conflicting standards here. We did not blurb the death of Justice Scalia four years ago, though he was certainly a far more significant figure on the court. Even his critics admit that Scalia profoundly affected legal jurisprudence and philosophy in ways that few justices have in the entire history of the court. I don't want to denigrate the memory of Justice Ginsburg, but her legacy is likely to be in her dissents. It is extremely difficult to look at the way these two nominations have been received without suspecting a certain level of ideological partisanship. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Scalia was probably worthy of a blurb as well, but it's hard to define precise standards about something (the death of a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice) that has happened just three times in the past 50 years. (I also think you err in placing Ginsburg's overall influence on a lower tier than Scalia's, in part because Ginsburg's pre-judicial work had a long-term impact that Scalia's did not, but this isn't the place for such a debate.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • In addition, so far as I am aware, Scalia didn't have his own biopic. See On the Basis of Sex. For the record, I would have blurbed Scalia. BD2412 T 02:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, I think we got it right with Scalia. He was a towering intellectual giant of the law in this country. But he was a US Supreme Court Justice. We don't post them for the same reason we don't post justices from other countries. I think we are demonstrating an absolutely breathtaking level of bias here, both US and ideological. If this stands, we are going to have a hard time saying no with anything resembling a straight face when distinguished jurists from other countries die. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ad Orientem, and if those distinguished jurists get their deaths announced the way this is being announced -- front page news with major headlines and top-of-page placement -- we absolutely should blurb them too. Bader Ginsburg was known for more than simply being a jurist. Have you looked at the 'in popular culture' section of the article? She wasn't just another distinguished jurist. —valereee (talk) 11:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, we would not have posted this even if it was a serving chief justice from another country. The way this was rushed in just minutes after the nom is a classic example of bias of both numbers and admin scrutiny (but we have people here coming at you for pointing that out). This is what RD is for. Gotitbro (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb She the leading story on BBC.com (I'm accessing from outside of US). Seems some !votes want to rewrite the cultural impact of this female justice.—Bagumba (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • She is most certainly not the lead story on BBC News; you might be outside the US but you presumably at some point set a cookie to prioritise US news. (Her death does get a one-line mention below the fold, but below "Stolen books found under Romanian floor".) I doubt one person in a hundred outside the US has ever heard of her, any more than a typical American could name even the most prominent member of the Chinese supreme court. ‑ Iridescent 05:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The blurb's been up for a few hours now, we're getting to the point where enough people have seen the blurb for its removal to be seen as commentary. Either pull immediately and wait for further consensus, if the support for its blurb is waning, or keep it up until it rolls off.  Nixinova   T   C   03:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Good on you to promote this to the main page in the record time of 23 minutes while most of the world outside of the Western Hemisphere was asleep. I knew Wikipedia had a strong U.S. (and also U.S. Democrat) bias, but this is on a whole new level of r-tardation. --Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.74.201.241 (talk) 03:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose current blurb It has been changed recently to include a note about her activism, without consensus. Call for it to go back to the simplified form. 198.48.143.196 (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull I'm really not seeing the significance here—this seems to be a Prince-style railroading of the process by fans of the subject. As per everyone else, given that we wouldn't even consider posting the death of even the most prominent judge in any other country the onus is on those wanting to break precedent to explain why. ‑ Iridescent 05:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull Great woman with laudable accomplishments (and well written article too), but this is a local news only (not even on the frontpages in my country). Pavlor (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This. Here in Russia even the business dailies (e.g. Kommersant) that generally follow the U.S. politics quite keenly (for obvious reasons) wrote 2-3 sentences (if any) about her death. Let alone posted the story on their main pages. --Anon
  • Strong support the inclusion of the note about her death on the main page. The event is causing undeniable worldwide repercussions. Even the speaker of the Brazilian parliament released an statement on her death, which is highly unusual. Érico (talk) 06:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull 1) Procedural: blurbs shouldn't be posted after 20 minutes, and 2) local news, neither the subject nor her death is significant enough to rise to the level of a blurb. Isa (talk) 06:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb. I think this meets the two RD blurb criteria in that the death, because of its effects, is arguably the main story, and because RGB is a major, transformative figure in her field (and maybe beyond). I'm not sure Scalia is the best comparison here because his death was before the 2016 overhaul of RD to remove the requirement to meet some intermediate level of notability above the typical biography. Since then, both RDs and blurbs have become more common, which is a positive trend, and Scalia would much more likely be (correctly IMO) blurbed today than in 2016. I also don't think that this is necessarily opening the floodgates given the circumstances of the death and the uniqueness of RBG. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Per apparent reasons. Per global legal influence. Per the numerous citations in non-US court opinions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull per Ad Orientem and Iridescent, mostly. This is just ridiculous. I recognise the ramifications this has for the USA but this is still just domestic stuff that has little to no global significance. How this made a blurb and will remain for the foreseeable future amounts to WP:FAIT IMO, and I would have expected the admin/s involved to know better. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If we pull this, we can never again justify posting a death. We would retire the practice of blurbing a death, once and for all. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider giving this article a read: Logical fallacy --Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.74.201.241 (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That would include The Queen. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull and Oppose, US only.--Joseph (talk) 07:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull This is too much of a domestic issue. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 07:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull and oppose blurb. It is incredibly hard to believe that a Supreme Court judge in any other country would be blurbed if they were to die. This woman is no more special than a judge in other countries. The fact it was posted as a blurb after less than 30 minutes of the nomination is just ridiculous. Chrisclear (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "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." 331dot (talk) 07:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull and move to RD. After some deliberation this morning I think I concur with the no-blurb arguments here. It is in the news, certainly, and yes, there may be ramifications beyond the usual Supreme Court deaths in terms of her succession. But such ramifications are not covered in the blurb, and furthermore it's hard to dodge accusations of partisanship, since we did not blurb Scalia and we also pulled the appointment of Kavanaugh to the court, both events of similar note to this one but affecting right-leaning justices. On a personal level I have immense respect for Ginsburg and everything she stood for, and I hope she can be replaced with a similar progressive justice. But as noted above she objectively spent much of her time fighting on the minority opinion, and ultimately her global influence was not of the Thatcher/Mandela level.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could I kindly request that editors avoid using proper nouns and acronyms such as (but not limited to) "SCOTUS", "Scalia", "Kavanaugh" without providing the context/background/meaning of these terms? Chrisclear (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
People should keep in mind that this is a global website, but all of those terms lead to the proper articles in the Wikipedia search bar. 331dot (talk) 07:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true, however, it shouldn't be incumbent upon the average reader to do extra reading/research to understand what another editor is saying when they use regional jargon without explanation/clarification. Chrisclear (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kommentar. As always this is "not a vote," but for the record as of now I count 25 editors supporting a blurb and 12 opposed. Having read through the comments made after mine, I stand by my thoughts above: either Ginsburg's life and work, or the controversy that will arise from her death, would justify a blurb; the combination of the two make a compelling case for one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Her life and work" were no more or less momentous than Scalia's. They were both passionate justices with a long history of fighting for the causes they believed in. (And, as an aside, they were also great personal friends, in one of the rare heartwarming stories of the poliarised political spectrum). Scalia's death also triggered intrigue and drama over his replacement. Perhaps we should post all such stories, I would have said so in 2016 or 2018, and I'm not an anti-US stories zealot. But we cannot be seen to be selective about which ones to post and which to reject, that violates the neutral point of view.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually a very interesting metric; maybe that's been used before but I don't recall it at this moment. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull and shift to RD - US-centric news that has very little to no significance worldwide, it would be better off as an RD. Decision to post was done without adequate input from worldwide editors. Droodkin (talk) 08:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Droodkin As stated above, ""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." There is no requirement for worldwide significance, and no arbitrary minimum discussion time to allow for worldwide input. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it interesting how that is only ever applied to US stories? Fgf10 (talk) 09:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fgf10 I respectfully disagree with you that is the case. I personally support or oppose regardless of the nationality of the story. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support retaining blurb - Ruth Bader Ginsburg is one of the most well known figures in American politics, and the most famous Supreme Court Justice on the bench. I would wager that even many non-Americans know who she is. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 09:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull deliberately prematurely posted in the middle of the night to avoid any real discussion. Not a head of state or similar, not an unexpected death, and domestic navel-gazing in the extreme. Systematic bias in action. This is why ITN is a joke. Fgf10 (talk) 09:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fgf10 It was not "posted in the middle of the night" in some deceptive manner. I invite you to nominate what you see as under-posted subject matter; we can only consider what is nominated. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what counts as "in the middle of the night", as it's always nighttime somewhere on Wikipedia. It certainly wasn't deliberately posted early; Ginsburg's death was announced around 7:30PM Eastern Daylight Time here in the US, or 30 minutes to midnight, UTC. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 09:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiki operates on UTC, so yes it was late at night. It was posted when most US posters would be around and most European posters wouldn't be. The correct procedure would be to wait till everyone would have had a chance to weigh in, rather than quickly posting it before any opposition would be around. Fgf10 (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fgf10, that is an extreme failure to assume good faith. It was posted quickly because the death got immediate coverage all over the world and the article was in good shape. And FFS, do you understand how "night" works? The death was announced when most US posters would be around and most European posters wouldn't be, I'm sure in an intentional gaming of the ITN system. —valereee (talk) 11:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Combined your misplaced comments) No need to get personal, I didn't either. I'm merely stating facts, posting before people have had time to oppose is a common tactic on ITN to get contintious noms through. The time of announcement is entirely irrelevant, as it is good custom on ITN to allow sufficient time for everyone to weight in, as ITN is not a news ticker. This was clearly not done in this case, as I said in my post, which you conveniently entirely ignored in favour of a personal attack. Fgf10 (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep posted It's strange for me (in Britain) to see that so many in the US seem to think this isn't of world importance. Her death is reported above the main headline in the Guardian, and is at the top, but smaller photo and typeface, in the BBC and Times. In the Telegraph the report is further down. For me she was more significant than Scalia and most world political leaders – perhaps that is because I am older than most people here. I'm discounting the US political squabbles that are arising because I don't know how they'll pan out. Thincat (talk) 09:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull and shift to RD This story about his death is relatively unknown outside the United States and other English-speaking countries. Apart from this, this article is relatively good shape and this is a one of many GA nominated articles to be posted in RD. 118.96.188.179 (talk) 09:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Without commenting on overall appropriateness (in regard to precedents etc.), "and advocate for women's rights" makes the blurb unwieldy. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull - She is just an unheard of judge that died of old age. No way near a world-transforming figure. --119.157.255.15 (talk) 10:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull I fail to see any clear indication that she was a world-transformative figure in any field. There is no information in the article of any famous concepts and ideas that she has come up with and are now globally accepted or any works she wrote and are now considered seminal learning materials in any branch of law. She was definitely an excellent practitioner but blurbs are for people who change the world and impact a large number of people. This is a classical example of an "injustice" to all other famous people who recently died and did not get a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, largely based on her "celebrity status" rather than her strictly legal importance and on article quality. However, I really hope that 30 minute nom-to-post discussions do not become the norm. We are an encyclopedia, not a news ticker. Aside from the global implications, it does not provide an opportunity for all viewpoints to be expressed as supporters will always rush into a nomination like this. Could we introduce a minimum 5 or 12 hour rule, or something? —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very good suggestion. I'd let no minimum time only for ITNR items. For all other nominations, having a minimum time for discussion before posting is strongly required.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brigade Piron, I don't think 30-minute nom-to-post is actually a problem when we've got an article in good shape. 30-minute-nom-to-blurb probably shouldn't be the norm; in this case we had coverage just that fast in major outlets around the world, including in places it was night lol, so we had evidence it was global news. —valereee (talk) 11:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Valereee, I agree - RD does not have the normative "significance" connotations of other ITN applications and does not need other safeguards. As for this kind of nom, there is a common phenomenon of people hearing of "Event Y" and heading straight here to nominate/support it. The same does not often apply to people who disagree, even though they are more numerous. How would this proposal be raised for discussion? —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There was never really any question that this would be global news. There are plenty of items we do not post dispite it being global news. The problem here is what has happened was sadly predictable. A well known subject matter related to the US (or even more generally the English speaking Western World), a few support resulting in posting soon after nomination, and then the rest of the world wake up / get home from work crying (not unfairly) systemic bias. There's rarely that many news item that's truly SNOWBALL post blurb. A few hours wait to make sure doesn't hurt the encyclopedia. -- KTC (talk) 11:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong pull per Kiril S. No clear indication of world transformation in the field in terms of technical/pedagogical contributions etc Bumbubookworm (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Ginsburg's importance had little to do with her "technical/pedagogical contributions". Particularly in the latter years of her life, she grew to be regarded as a feminist cultural icon, sombody who, by her life's example and her persona, transformed the relationship between men and women and changed women's place in modern society. Or at least made a damn good run at it. How many other people could we say the same about? True, she was much better known in the English speaking world, or perhaps the western world more broadly, than in places like Russia or China. But I don't think that for an ITN blurb we should require Jesus Christ like fame. Wikipedia is often accused, sometimes fairly, sometimes not, of not doing enough to attract women editors, to promote topics of importance to women, of making them feel welcome here. Well, now is that chance, Let's not blow it. Nsk92 (talk) 11:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Based on the concerns raised regarding the speedy decision-making on nominations and Brigade Piron's suggestion, I have formally proposed the introduction of minimum time for discussing non-ITNR nominations before posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kommentar I was one of the first supports for a blurb, and generally oppose things for US bias. Like John Lewis, where there were quite a few quick opposes because people were thinking of that. That is to say, US bias in supporting a blurb here was considered (at least by me) before realizing it was worth blurbing anyway. And a lot of the opposes/pulls are either screaming US bias just because without realizing that her death (the news specifically to be blurbed, rather than the person) has significant international ramifications - not that such is truly required for ITN - or are asking where Scalia's blurb was. It seems he missed out because it wasn't a dangerous time nor did he have the notoriety in popular culture that The Notorious RBG did/does. And I might have supported Scalia, and I would probably support Lady Hale (but I know that she's barely known outside the UK and so a long shot). And, if you have social media, I assume you're seeing what I am: literally nobody is talking about anything else. Kingsif (talk) 11:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Kingsif, also Scalia's death didn't represent a change to the balance of the court. As you say, there's apparently no need for an 'In popular culture' section in his article. :D —valereee (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't blame the rest of us for the poor fucntioning of your overly politcised judiciary. If a nom has to rely on knowledge of obscure legal minutiea of a domestic court system, I don't see why it's of sufficient importance to be posted here. Fgf10 (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The nom doesn't rely on SCOTUS balance - that was an additional comment to an additional comment, nowhere near the main significance here and you know it. Kingsif (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fgf10, sorry, not following, whom am I blaming and what am I blaming them for? Oh, I see...you're talking about the fact Scalia didn't change the balance of the court. Well, you don't actually need to know obscure legal minutiae in order to understand that the most powerful person in the free world, who happens to thinks that because he believes something makes it true, unleashed because he no longer has to worry about re-election, unchecked because he has appointed half SCOTUS, is worrisome to many people outside the US. South Korea, for instance. Pretty much anyone in conflict-torn countries south of the US-Mexico border. Europe. Pretty sure he'll ignore Africa except to eliminate any foreign aid. But I don't blame anyone for that except maybe Newt Gingrich. —valereee (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll stress again that we need to hold back on rushing to post blurbs particularly on figures that are tied to a specific national interest; 20 minutes is far too short and ITN is not a news ticket. RD posting in that time was fine, the blurb can always be delayed. Cases where the nationality is not an issue and a SNOW-like agreement comes to fruition quickly eg like with Stephan Hawking), that's reasonable, but RBG is clearly something that would be of great import to USians but not necessarily to the rest of the world and we should have waited for some input from that side. Otherwise you create bad precedent. --Masem (t) 13:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree - but people thinking that the blurb should have waited shouldn't be calling to completely oppose it based on that expedience. Just a lesson to learn. Maybe a time limit for all blurbs should be set, because there are other issues quick posting of any story can create. Kingsif (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 17

September 17, 2020 (2020-09-17) (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

(Ready) RD: Joe Ruklick

Article: Joe Ruklick (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Chicago Tribune, Northwestern Athletics
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Basketball player was credited with an assist on Wilt Chamberlain's last basket in his NBA record 100-point game. —Bagumba (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support seems fine. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kommentar. Clean and nice citations. Article doesn't have much details on the playing career other than that short paragraph. Can do with some additional player statistics - seasons records, personal performance, records. Seems like most basketball profiles have this information. Once this is added, the article is good for RD. This is completed, per the below thread. Ktin (talk) 04:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ktin, I expanded on his college career and added a newspaper he worked at. His pro career numbers were already in the prose. Understand, that he was a limited role player as a pro, only played three years, and it was in the 1960s. Coverage there is scarce, and not a core part of his notability.—Bagumba (talk) 03:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bagumba, greetings! I see some season by season stats at these links [1] and [2]. I don't know the game well enough to pick up the most relevant stats. Can we bring the best season by season stats into the article? Most the basketball player profile articles that I landed on had some of these season by season stats. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ktin, there's already a link in the "External links". Do you think it's essential for ITN (as oppose to WP:GA) as it's more for basketball fans and will be inaccessible to the average reader.—Bagumba (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ktin, also my feeling is that picking stats from a primary source database to place into prose can lead into WP:UNDUE/WP:OR issues if they weren't mentioned by secondary sources as "important". Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bagumba, I will admit that I might not know the game as much as others here. But, when I posted my comment, I had checked a few links of basket ball players Chick Halbert, Paul Hoffman (basketball), and Ed Sadowski (basketball). Almost all of them had a season by season summary. It made sense -- I was able to follow along the last column (points per game) to get a good sense of their journey. So, I thought it was useful. Just my two cents. Ktin (talk) 04:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bagumba, Done. Added to make it consistent with other articles (links above) which have a season by season summary. Should be good now. Give it a look to see that nothing is off. (PS: Editing Wikitables is harder than I thought.)Ktin (talk) 04:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 16

September 16, 2020 (2020-09-16) (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Sports

RD: Maxim Martsinkevich

Article: Maxim Martsinkevich (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Moscow Times
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Russian far-right agitator and real-life internet troll. Found dead in prison cell. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: P. R. Krishna Kumar

Article: P. R. Krishna Kumar (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hindu
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Padma Shri awardee, and Indian Ayurveda proponent. Article meets hygiene checks, but, I can take a look later this evening. If there are any recommended edits, we can have them covered.  Ktin (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would need some updates regarding the death on the article. Juxlos (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Juxlos, Done. Updated with details on death; segmented the article for readability. Well sourced / cited. Ktin (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Bahrain+UAE–Israel agreements

WP:NAC: Consensus to post will likely not emerge. First article was already rejected two days ago, while second article was already posted less than a month ago. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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: Bahrain–Israel normalization agreement (talk · history · tag) and Israel–United Arab Emirates agreement (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Bahrain and United Arab Emirates sign peace agreements with Israel (Post)
News source(s): NYT Guardian NPR White House
Article updated
 A few days ago Bahrain one was rejected as too early. The treaty was signed on the 15th together with the actual signing of the UAE one. Articles are adequately expanded now. 2601:602:9200:1310:59E3:615D:B40F:3822 (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Strikes me as mainly political grandstanding. The UAE and Israel weren't at war, so how can they now proclaim 'peace'? – Sca (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I'm not a Trump supporter, but these are the first peace agreements signed between Israel and an Arab country since 1994, and these are first Arab nations to recognize Israel without being under the pressure of securing their own border with Israel. It's also a significant diplomatic development as the Arab nations had previously committed to refusing to recognize Israel until Palestine was independent. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We posted the UAE agreement already and rejected the Bahrain agreement already. Why are we discussing this again. The Bahrain agreement article is all background and reactions with very little detail on the actual agreement. Both are vassal states doing what they're told. Let me know when the 1948 partition is restored and Syria gets the Golan Heights back. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That rejection was because it was too early, not because are not notable. No wonder u think Bahrain and UAE are vassal states. You probably hate the fact that there is peace. 2601:602:9200:1310:59E3:615D:B40F:3822 (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
About half of the original opposes were because of length (current article is mostly filler). As for your aspersions, there was no conflict so there isn't any new peace. Let me know when a country like Lebanon that's been repeatedly invaded by Israel piles on. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just like ITN posts gay marriage-related material repeatedly. 2601:602:9200:1310:59E3:615D:B40F:3822 (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean ITN has posted like 20+ gay marriage-related legalizations already. This is similarly official, and if you think the 4th such peace agreement is already not newsworthy... 2601:602:9200:1310:59E3:615D:B40F:3822 (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I easily found four which were nominated and not posted: no Germany no Denmark, no Pitcairn islands no UK perhaps you could cite the 20+ which were posted? Or find some other WP:OTHER to complain about. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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: Saefullah

Article: Saefullah (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [3]
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Highest-ranked bureaucrat in Jakarta for the past 6 years or so. COVID-19 caused. Article is fresh off the presses but I think it should be long enough. Juxlos (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yes. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 00:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lamine Diack conviction

Articles: Lamine Diack (talk · history · tag) and Doping in Russia (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former president of the International Association of Athletics Federations Lamine Diack is convicted of corruption and coverup of doping in Russia. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Former president of the International Association of Athletics Federations Lamine Diack is convicted of corruption and coverup of doping in Russia and sentenced to four years in prison.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Former president of the International Association of Athletics Federations Lamine Diack and five other people are convicted of corruption and coverup of doping in Russia.
News source(s): Telegraph, Guardian, Euronews
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Although the prison term is short, this involves a high-ranking sports official and bribery to cover up doping. The conviction and sentencing occurred simultaneously, it seems. Brandmeistertalk 16:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • There seems to be a larger story here, per the Guardian, "Several other senior figures in track and field, including the president’s son Papa Massata Diack and the sport’s former head of anti-doping Gabriel Dolle, were also given jail sentences for their part in a scheme in which 23 Russian athletes had their doping sanctions waived so they could compete at the London 2012 Olympics and 2013 world championships in Moscow." I'm not sure if just focusing on Diack here is the only story. --Masem (t) 16:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't see any long-lasting impact of this news amidst country's four-year ban from all major international sport competitions and after having missed the latest Winter Olympics and the last two World Championships in Athletics. Four years after the McLaren Report was published and all the sanctions imposed, this is really run-of-the-mill news in the whole story.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, though I don't think Diack's article is good enough to be the target so Doping in Russia might be a better choice. This is anything but run-of-the-mill news. It's a conviction (which is what we usually post for legal stories) in a years-long story with major international coverage and importance. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I don't know if we covered Russia getting banned from the Olympics, but that was big news and I'm pretty sure we covered it. The prison term is a bit too short for this, and it won't have any lasting effects. 20 yrs in prison is more noteworthy, along with more famous people getting convicted. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The blurbs make it sound like the trial was in Russia. The target link does not need to match the article name precisely. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Diack article makes clear that this is yet another conviction for corruption generally, and at least the second that concerns Russia and doping specifically. The article is not in great shape. The Russian article makes clear that the impact of this decisions is already in effect.130.233.3.21 (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good enough to use Doping in Russia. Tradediatalk 08:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Fallout from old news. So Diack goes to the slammer for two years. So what? – Sca (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights abuses in Venezuela

Nominator's comments: Human rights report by the UN about an arguably rogue state. Seems like ITN material This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • What? This is about the article being COATRACK, which it isn't, because human rights abuses in Venezuela certainly happen. Nobody disputes the US sanctions are CAH, but it's a different story when it's a systemic government against their own people, which makes this declaration significant. Kingsif (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not much about the UN report. The whole article is a mess and not easy to read. Plus, what can the UN do about it? ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle but weak oppose on article quality. Article needs updating and has too many "section needs expansion" tags. On a side note, the article is not a COATRACK as claimed above. Sometimes governments, even leftwing governments, end up as repressive de-facto dictatorships. The article is well sourced and the accusations against the regime are not coming from fringe or far right entities. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose sorry but we all know that whatever the United Nations declares is usually summarily ignored by certain nations on this planet. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Even if we occasionally disregard an orange tag once in a while, there are too many in this case. The article structure is very poor, and seems to be a portal or scratchpad for Human Right abuses in Venezuela. On my quick read, there were two (2) sentences delineating the actual human rights of Venezuelans, and a couple links to International conventions. That's the extent of actual content apropos the article title. As for impact, this is the Nth+1 time that such a report has been made. The bar for getting this topic into ITN is and should be a little higher.130.233.3.21 (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even if this was to go through the blurb is very vague and needs to detail the exact happenings in Venezuela. Gotitbro (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – At 9,000 words, the article is overlong and diffuse. The occasional use of the present perfect continuous verb tense ("has been") is unencyclopedic. – Sca (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Ongoing: September 2020 Western United States wildfires

Article: September 2020 Western United States wildfires (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Procedural nomination to confirm that the Wildfires remain in ongoing where I just moved it to as it dropped off as a blurb. Stephen 07:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

September 15

September 15, 2020 (2020-09-15) (Tuesday)
Health and environment

International relations
Law and crime

(Posted) RD: Faith Alupo

Article: Faith Alupo (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [4]; [5]
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Ugandan woman MP, died of COVID-19 at the age of 36. Career section needs a bit more flesh and bones, but will try to work on that today.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 14

September 14, 2020 (2020-09-14) (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
  • Four soldiers are killed during a raid at a house in north Lebanon in pursuit of a militant wanted in connection with a fatal shooting last month. The militant is killed during the raid, and is identified as Khaled al-Talawi, a former Islamic State member who formed a splinter terrorist cell. (Reuters)

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Bill Gates Sr.

Article: Bill Gates Sr. (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): GatesNotes; Business Insider
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Father of Bill Gates. Death announced on Sept 15 (15mins ago).  Nixinova   T   C   22:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ralph Gants

Article: Ralph Gants (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Boston Globe, Boston Herald
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Another judicial-related article that is admittedly on the short side. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) United Kingdom’s Internal Market

WP:SNOW close. Continued trickle of Brexit changes, but nothing is happening immediately. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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: United Kingdom’s Internal Market (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Britain’s plan for a post-Brexit settlement which deepens divisions. (Post)
News source(s): [6]
Credits:
Nominator's comments: It is a big topic in the United Kingdom, as well as a major event that will have a major effect on the functioning of the United Kingdom. It is also very controversial with both strong support and opposition creating tension within the United Kingdom, as well as causing collisions internationally with the EU causing making it a majorly polarised topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChefBear01 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The United Kingdom’s Internal Market is the overall topic and you cant talk about one without the other, this is an ongoing topic that has been talked about since July 2020 and most likely to feature multiple times as it is something likely to need tweaking and therefore will fall into the news again in the future as well.
ChefBear01 (talk) 02:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I chose the June news article as it provided the greatest clarity and information available to ensure that people would be well informed, it is happening now with news providers talking about the United Kingdom’s Internal Market.
ChefBear01 (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - many thanks to the nominator for nominating this item, and for your interest in the in-the-news section. Personally I don't quite see this as being noteworthy enough for us to post though. I'm seeing stuff about this in the news, and apparently the bill may break international law in some way, but we've posted quite a bit of Brexit stuff already and this is really just one more stepping stone on that path. If the bill is passed and it sets off an international incident, then sure. Similarly, if talks break down completely and no-deal Brexit is suddenly the only way forward then maybe? But those would be things to assess on their own merits. For now let's wait and see. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kommentar
United Kingdom’s Internal Market is mentioned in the news alongside UK Internal Market Bill, and is a significant change to the U.K. structure and the way intergovernmental relations work. The core of this is constitutional and an “internal matter” that is separate from Brexit, it has only recently been minutely connected to Brexit through 3 clauses deep in the schedules of the U.K. Internal Market Bill.
ChefBear01 (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The UK Internal Market Bill specially covers the legislative process and the [UK Internal Market]covers the History, principles and governance of the UK Internal Market.
ChefBear01 (talk) 02:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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) Phosphine detected on Venus

Articles: Venus (talk · history · tag) and phosphine (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A team of astronomers reports detecting phosphine, a known signature of organic life, in the atmosphere of Venus. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A team of astronomers reports detecting phosphine, a possible signature of organic life, in the atmosphere of Venus.
Alternative blurb II: ​ A team of astronomers reports detecting phosphine, a possible signature of organic life, in the atmosphere of Venus.
Alternative blurb III: ​ Astronomers report detection phosphine, a possible signature of extraterrestrial organic life, in the atmosphere of Venus.
News source(s): BBC, Wired Science Magazine The New York Times The Atlantic MIT News Nature Astronomy
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Notable discovery that's getting a lot of play both on science news sites and mainstream news sites. Not a conclusive discovery of life, but the most significant development pointing to extraterrestrial life in many years. Kudzu1 (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per now phosphine does'nt always have an organic origin, as it has been detected on planets like Jupiter and by an inorganic origin. In my opinion, there has to be more evidence that can confirm the finding as a possible biological origin.Alsoriano97 (talk)
  • Oppose per Alsorinao. Many possible sources for phosphine that do not require a biological origin, and the popular media is jumping on that link (similar to when we have discovery of water aspects on Mars, doesn't mean life is there, but there's conditions for possible, etc.). --Masem (t) 16:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except this is different because that sort of thing happens all the time with Mars,but this is a first for Venus, and alters our perceptions of both Venus and the prospects for extraterrestrial life as a result. As such the media are right to hype it, and we are wrong to ignore it (at least in my view).Tlhslobus (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Wait until the discovery is peer reviewed. Wait until any significant impact has happened to the people of Planet Earth. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is: the news is per publication of a Nature Astronomy article today: [7]. (This is nearly a requirement for any sci or med study to be based on a peer-review publication to start. The impact is the question then...) ---Masem (t) 16:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • And the new angle about waiting until an impact has happened to the people of Planet Earth is moving the goalposts. First, Joe Schmoe doesn't have to be directly affected by an astronomical event in order for it to be newsworthy. Second, there's no way to measure the actual scientific impact of what this means for humanity without sending probes to Venus, which won't happen in the window of time it takes for this blurb's newsworthiness to expire as far as Wikipedia is concerned.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is unexpected news that has just made Venus a much more interesting place, and altered many people's perceptions of where life might exist, which is why it's in the news, and that is presumably why I got to hear about it from RTE (here) and rushed here to find out more about it, even though I was well aware that it will likely be years before its true origin is known. (Incidentally, those who claim the acidity of Venus's clouds is some kind of insuperable problem for life might want to give some thought to extremophiles in general, and to the Nobel-Prize-winning discovery of Helicobacter pylori in the supposedly impossibly acidic environment of our stomachs in particular) Tlhslobus (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is interesting news. While it doesn't have to have a biological origin, it is known that microbes survive and reproduce in our atmosphere. Also it is known that impacts can cause rocks containing microbes to transfer microbes from one planet to another.S o, it's possible that microbes from Earth are alive in the Venusian atmosphere. Also it could be that life evolved on Venus and that Venus later became an inhospitable planet, bu with microbes still alive in the atmosphere. Count Iblis (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is interesting news and excellent ITN material of high encyclopedic value.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Fascinating news story and the article is FA. What's not to like? -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kommentar While I would welcome more science news at ITN in general, I would really want editors who are knowledgable about this subject to weigh in on this discussion and evaluate the significance of this, much like Modest Genius did at the Ceres nomination a month ago. As WaltCip said back then, It's really a good thing we have actual scientists here who can let us know when we're falling prey to pop science journalism. TompaDompa (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The paper that elaborates the discovery is available here.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly oppose the current blurb which implies there's life on Venus, which the article does not state. The abstract says that the concentration is unusually high and that they do not know the pathway how it formed. "PH3 could originate from unknown photochemistry or geochemistry, or, by analogy with biological production of PH3 on Earth, from the presence of life." So, if we post this, we should water down the hype a lot, which would make the blurb not very interesting (definitely not mentioning life in the blurb). Although this is a very interesting science story itself. --Tone 20:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the current blurb, per Alsoriano97 and Tone, as it is sensationalist and implies a potential discovery of life on Venus. NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but with a slightly more cautious blurb. BlackholeWA (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I like the alternate blurb(s) better than my original blurb. Would support them over the one I wrote up as nominator. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either of the alternate blurbs. They communicate the discovery without sensationalizing. Radagast (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the potential discovery of a substance known to only be produced in high quantities by living matter is definitely something newsworthy. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 00:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't see why not. Sure it's not confirmation, but it's a big signpost and it wouldn't be surprising if this causes a mission to Venus to be launched in the future. Banedon (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Important news that may renew interest in Venus. A slightly less implicative blurb should be used, however.  Nixinova   T   C   04:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative blurbs. Phosphine has been found on other planets, but my understanding is that those discoveries are explainable by something other than life and this one, so far, is not. The Moose 04:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurbs. A very cool discovery, and although I suspect we're going to learn more about exotic chemistry than we will about aliens, I still support it. Very nice articles both for Venus and Phosphine, and the similarity of those two names in antiquity piques my locutionophile side. Not mentioned in the Phosphine article is that the atmosphere of Venus is especially suited for reacting phosphine into other products, and the fact that any steady-state phosphine could be detected means that it is being constantly produced in abundance.130.233.3.21 (talk) 05:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support huge deal in astrobiology, even if it turns out to be a dud. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A major discovery. If a biosignature like this was detected on an exoplanet 1,000 lightyears away it would still be a pretty big deal and definitely newsworthy, but to find one in our own Solar System is beyond incredible. GWA88 (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support what's wrong with people here? This is the first not-so-subtle, actually credible, evidence of that "Earth is not special really". How can people oppose this but post "recurring" disasters that happen at a faster rate? Is this still an encyclopedia? 2601:602:9200:1310:301E:BD4D:7004:87B7 (talk) 06:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 06:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting. Just wanted to mention that the carbon-based life is not quite up to standards of the main page. I suggest Life on Venus as a much nicer alternative. 2601:602:9200:1310:301E:BD4D:7004:87B7 (talk) 06:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Was about to say that unbolded links don't need to meet the quality criteria but yikes that page is a mess, agreed.  Nixinova   T   C   07:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree. The "possible" is deployed exactly for this reason. The only reason such an assertion passed muster in peer review was because there is no known route to phosphine in the Veneral atmosphere. Phosphine is not exactly a niché compound; it has a very long history within chemistry and industry, lots of work has been put into producing and studying it. The Veneral atmosphere is loaded to the gills with sulfur oxides which should very aggressively react with phosphine. By all known chemistry, there should be no phosphine on Venus. The fact any could be detected means that it is being produced, and aggressively so, because the bulk atmosphere is perfectly suited to transform it to something else. So, we're left with two options: 1.) this discovery leads to a heretofore unknown mechanism to produce phosphine, or 2.) this discovery confirms what is known about phosphine, which also happens to suggest life outside of Earth.130.233.3.21 (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull Agree with Vorbis here, Wikipedia is not a popsci publication [where this news has gained traction], even stating "possible" seems to be stretching it based on current research. Gotitbro (talk) 05:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - agree with supportive comments above - "Alternative blurb" seems the current best - after all - seems phosphine was detected in the Venusian clouds, and, as far as anyone seems to know at the moment, phosphine may be a possible biosignature - Drbogdan (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support. This has certainly been in the news this week, and I don't agree that the blurb is overstating the matter. It reflects what sources are saying, which is that the discovery reflects a "possible" sign of life,no more than that.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I came here after seeing DV's post at AN. But I have to agree with Amakuru; the current blurb seems not to overstate the gist of what I've been reading about it. DV will have to elaborate, please! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the blurb is neutral and factual, and in the News. People will mostly definitely come looking for it. You can't explain why it's in the news without mentioning that it's a possible biosignature. ADS says I've never co-authored a paper with Jane, so I don't think I'm too in the tank. WilyD 08:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although, yes, grammatically it needs to say possible. Phosphine is a known biosignature on Earth, so it is a known biosignature, but it needs to be worded carefully enough so it doesn't imply it's a known biosignature on Venus. WilyD 08:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is a biosignature also for Venus, but no single biosignature is absolute proof for the presence of biological processes. Ultimately, biology is nothing more than chemistry, and from only one biosignature it's difficult to rule out some alternative complex abiotic pathway that can explain the observation. Count Iblis (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, I would say "A biosignature is something that is proof of biological processes", similar to the definition here: https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/ast.2017.1729 ) It's a problem, that we don't really know what might be a clear biosignature, but that's something we're working on. Maybe it's just astronomer jargon, but it's clear that without qualifying it as "possible" or "potential", several people understood the phrase to mean proof of life on Venus had been discovered. WilyD 11:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Yoshihide Suga

Proposed image
Articles: Yoshihide Suga (talk · history · tag) and 2020 Liberal Democratic Party (Japan) leadership election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Yoshihide Suga is to become prime minister of Japan following his victory in a party leadership election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Yoshihide Suga becomes Prime Minister of Japan, replacing Shinzo Abe. (For when he becomes PM)
News source(s): NYT, The Guardian
Credits:

Both articles need updating

Nominator's comments: We posted Abe's resignation, but precedent suggests we should also post Suga's inauguration, which will take place on September 16. (We posted Theresa May's resignation in May 2019 and Boris Johnson's inauguration in July 2019.) Davey2116 (talk) 06:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no "Johnson precedent", we judge each nomination on its own individual merits. There are also powerless/puppet PMs. In Russia it depends on which office Putin decides to hold. There are reasons that we post heads of state that I won't repeat here. We post most changes in head of government as part of a general election, those that aren't part of one get evaluated on their own merits, and a party uncontroversially changing its leader, who will presumably carry out the same policies, counts for less IMO. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no insanity here other than expecting different results from revisiting the same issue over and over. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, people come and go, or they stick around long enough to see that the status quo doesn't make sense. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The status quo may not make sense, but it doesn't follow that it makes sense to try to waste everybody's time trying to change it with little or no prospect of consensus on new wording, when any agreed new wording would likely just make a bad situation no better, and likely even worse. And especially not in this instance, because a new Prime Minister of Japan will almost certainly be posted regardless of what ITN/R says (the only question here seems to be when to post it, not whether to do so),provided it reaches the required quality. However you might be right to try to change ITN/R if and when it fails (for reasons other than genuine lack of quality). Tlhslobus (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 13

September 13, 2020 (2020-09-13) (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment
  • COVID-19 pandemic
    • COVID-19 pandemic in Asia
    • COVID-19 pandemic in Portugal
      • After twice in a single week reporting the biggest daily increases in new cases since the national lockdown was lifted in May, with 646 on Wednesday and then 687 on Friday, Portugal reports another high increase of 673 new cases and seven deaths, bringing the cumulative totals to 63,983 confirmed cases and 1,867 deaths since the first infections were detected in the country on March 2. The 2020/2021 school year is set to start in-person classes between September 14 and September 17 nationwide. (DGS) (DGEstE)

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Aline Chrétien

Article: Aline Chrétien (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC News; CTV News / Canadian Press; The Globe and Mail
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Blurb/Ongoing: September 2020 Western United States wildfires

Article: September 2020 Western United States wildfires (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 28 people have been killed and nearly 5 million acres burned by wildfires in the Western United States. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Wildfires in the Western United States kill at least 28 and displaces thousands, while burning millions of acres of land.
News source(s): CNN Express.co
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This article is of much better quality than the 2020 California wildfires. Now burning in California, Arizona, Utah, Oregon, Washington, and Montana. Nominated per Coffeeandcrumbs and Cryptic. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 23:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change to square miles (km²) cause we're in size of Wales territory here. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's moot now because we've got an enhanced image of Venus in the box, but a satellite photo was just fine for the Brazilian fires we featured last year --LaserLegs (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 12

September 12, 2020 (2020-09-12) (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Closed) RD: Jack Roland Murphy (AKA Murph the Surf)

Stale. SpencerT•C 03:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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: Jack Roland Murphy (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Notorious criminal. Article is not in dreadful shape but a few cites needed. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, "ib"?130.233.3.21 (talk) 04:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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) 2020 California wildfires

Superseded. Stephen 00:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: 2020 California wildfires (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ 28 people have been killed, hundreds of thousands displaced and thousands of property destroyed by wildfires burning in California, Oregon and Washington State (Post)
News source(s): CNN, BBC News, Guardian, AP
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: It's a huge current event affecting millions of people in USA and Kanada with wildfires and smoke. Efuture2 (talk) 02:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree re the article cited by Masem, and with removing "September" from the title, since the CA fires have been going on for two-plus months. We also could change "United States" in the title to "U.S." or just drop it. (Where I live, in SW Idaho, we've been plagued with varying degrees of "smaze" for weeks. It's gotten worse since Oregon blazed up. This too shall pass, but not soon.) - Sca (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In titles, we should always spell out "United States" unless it is part of an official abbreviation or the like. --Masem (t) 16:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's really not necessary. Cf. 2020 California wildfires. – Sca (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for a range of reasons. As noted above by Cyclonebiskit, there are numerous redundant content forks resulting in 19 articles, many of which lack the content that one should see in a standalone article. The proposed nomination is for a blurb which links to wildfires, California, Oregon and Washington State. The Wildfires link is problematic as it is a redirect, and the Washington State link is problematic as it is a disambiguation page. Regardless, none of these four articles are particularly notable to the specific 'news' under discussion, ie, wildfires in those locations. Finally, the blurb does not mention the country in which this weather event is taking place. Chrisclear (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My my, such a litany of offenses! – Sca (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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) U.S. Open

Proposed image
Article: 2020 US Open (tennis) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In tennis, Naomi Osaka (pictured) wins the Women's Singles and Dominic Thiem wins the Men's Singles of the US Open. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In tennis, Naomi Osaka (pictured) and Dominic Thiem win the Women's and Men's singles events at the US Open.
Alternative blurb II: ​ In tennis, Naomi Osaka (pictured) wins the Women's Singles event at the US Open.
Alternative blurb III: ​ In tennis, Naomi Osaka (pictured) and Dominic Thiem win the Women's and Men's singles events at the US Open.
News source(s): CNN
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Men's winner will be added to blurb tomorrow has been added. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mark Newman (baseball)

Article: Mark Newman (baseball) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Yahoo Sports
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Navid Afkari

Stale. SpencerT•C 03:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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: Navid Afkari (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN, BBC
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: I only just heard about him, and the article is not great. I'm trying to look up things on his wrestling career. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately the article has devolved into an NPOV train wreck. There is no possibility of it being posted in its current state. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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: Terence Conran

Stale. SpencerT•C 03:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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: Terence Conran (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Guardian
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Noted designer, businessman and restaurateur. 2A00:23C5:5082:6101:C8AC:F359:9B4A:FA9E (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose – a few places where sourcing could be improved, including several unsourced paragraphs in "work" section. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Agree with PCN02WPS, sourcing needs to be improved across the article. It also suffers from what Amakuru pointed out in one of the other articles, rather than coherent prose the article has a list of disparate bullet points (across sections). E.g. In 2008, the subject did this. In 2010, he did this. Ktin (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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) Cuties

WP:SNOW. Good-faith nomination, but consensus will not develop to post this. TompaDompa (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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: Cuties (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ #CancelNetflix trends in the US over the release of controversial film Cuties in Netflix. (Post)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Thr film is even criticised by US Congress. Congress asked Netflix to premiere the film before them. 175.157.70.238 (talk) 06:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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: John Fahey (Australian politician)

Article: John Fahey (politician) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-12/former-nsw-premier-john-fahey-dies-aged-75/12657882
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Premier of New South Wales in the 1990s. Credited with bringing the Olympic Games to Sydney. President of the World Anti-Doping Agency. HiLo48 (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2020 Peruvian political crisis

Wait for outcome. Stephen 04:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Proposed image
Article: 2017–2020 Peruvian political crisis (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Peru's congress launches impeachment procedures against President Martín Vizcarra (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Peru heads into a political crisis as congress approves impeachment proceedings against President Martín Vizcarra
Alternative blurb II: ​ President of Peru faces the possibility of removal after impeachment proceedings are approved by the Congress of Peru
News source(s): New York Times, Bloomberg, Washington Post El Comercio
Credits:
Nominator's comments: May be too insignificant? DoctorSpeed ✉️ ✨ 01:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar @User:power~enwiki It is the correct article. Please read it completely. DoctorSpeed ✉️ ✨
A two-sentence mention in an article about Coronavirus is really the best coverage there is, or is supposed to signify this is In The News? power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a bit of a mess. The article identified at the top of the nomination as the one we are supposed to be looking at, is not actually linked in any of the proposed blurbs. What are we talking about linking on the main page in bold? -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose article is missing refs and has a stubby update. Clean it up, when the trial is concluded either way we can post a blurb --LaserLegs (talk) 09:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on the basis that Peru works like the US, this is only the start of a process, no former declaration of impeachment charges have been made (has had been for Trump). --Masem (t) 12:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Trump, they would not have started the process in the first place if they did not think they had a decent chance of success at impeachment(not the subsequent trial). The same may be true here. 331dot (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so let's wait until the impeachment actually happens. --Rockstone[Send me a message!] 07:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=979239704"