Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:41, 16 November 2020

November 8

(Posted) RD: Howie Meeker

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

Nominator's comments: Canadian Hockey hall-of-famer, broadcaster, and politician. Went through a round of edits and added references / sources. Can anyone who is knowledgeable about hockey help with a round of citations / referencing. I think one round by a knowledgeable person and we should be able to get this article close to ready for homepage / RD. Nice job, and this looks ready for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Any hockey fans / knowledgeable folks willing to help on this one to get this page past the last set of references before getting to homepage / RD? Ktin (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support CN tags have been resolved. Joofjoof (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support as nominator. Thanks much Joofjoof for the referencing. This looks ready for homepage / RD. One more pair of eyes? Ktin (talk) 01:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 01:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Chase Elliott

• Nominated by Kobalt22 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by A.lanzetta (talk · give credit) and Dough4872 (talk · give credit)

 Kobalt22 (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Unreffed section, para. Are motorsport ITNRs supposed to bold the event or the winner? For some reason I thought the opposite.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Event article is usually bolded. Stephen 07:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Link comment Blurb and altblurb currently pipe "motor racing" and "stock car racing", respectively, to NASCAR Cup Series , against MOS:EGG. It doesn't help readers like me that don't know much about either sport. Seems that last year's blurb directly linked to the page stock car racing.—Bagumba (talk) 12:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• If we flip the bolding to the event article, I would support posting that one, as 1) that's what we always do and 2) the event article has sufficient prose and is well referenced. --Jayron32 16:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• 2020 NASCAR Cup Series should be the bold link, not the driver, and avoid WP:EGG. I've added alt2. The article is a monster yet is well referenced; the problem is it's missing prose summaries of rounds 35 and 36 (currently stops at round 34). Add a couple of referenced paragraphs on those rounds and it should be good to go. Modest Genius 17:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

  I added paragraphs on the last two races of the year. Dough4872 00:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

  Support alt2, looks good enough now. Modest Genius 11:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Image comment While it's a year older, this image seems better for the Main Page as there isn't that blur on the bottom left.—Bagumba (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support alt2 - looks good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Posted ALT2. Spencer 23:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Seymour Topping

• Updated and nominated by Ktin (talk · give credit)
• Updated by KittenKlub (talk · give credit) and Joseywales1961 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Journalist and pioneering foreign correspondent; Article requires some work but should be there very soon. Edits and some expansions done. Well referenced. Article has shaped up to be a clean C-class biography. I will continue to make minor expansions, but, the article now meets homepage / requirements. Good to go. Ktin (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support when article is ready. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  That's basically meaningless. RDs get posted "when ready", you don't need to "support" until the article is ready. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 15:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose missing citations. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 15:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man:. Article is well referenced now. Article now meets requirements for homepage / RD and is good to go. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support Well sourced (oh, ye of little faith) and turning into a nice small article.KittenKlub (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Big improvements to this article over the course of today, well done JW 1961 Talk 18:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support LGTM --DannyS712 (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 22:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alex Trebek

• Nominated by Nahnah4 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Ktin (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: News still relatively new so article may not be ready yet. It is an incredibly notable death though. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 17:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Commenting that it is the Jeopardy! account (confirmed) breaking the news, not TMZ (as to avoid the usual problems with TMZ rushing to report). --Masem (t) 17:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support when fully sourced / Oppose Blurb Not someone I'd heard of, but clearly quite a long career. Not a bad article, but quite a bit of that career paragraph is unsourced, as are a number of statements elswhere in the article. together with the whole videography. Black Kite (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. This is very sad news. RIP. Thanks Alex for all the shows! I have no clue how we are going to source all the listings in the 'Television and film appearances' section. But, this article absolutely deserves the investment of time, in case someone is available. Ktin (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Extensive coverage on tv. Will hit the papers tomorrow. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • It has already made it into the NYTs as breaking news. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support—of course the article needs its polish, but I would support including him in RD at least, if not in a blurb should others agree. Imzadi 1979 → 17:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support upon update, maybe even a blurb. WaltCip-(talk) 17:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Unfortunately, the film and television appearances still need to be sourced like any other actor/television personality. Also, oppose blurb in any situation. Game show host, may be beloved name, but nowhere near top of the field. --Masem (t) 17:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support when the missing refs are added. Would also support blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I know Trebek is a huge household name in the US, but I'm not sure I support a blurb. I don't think a good majority of people outside of the US even knows who he is. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 18:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Household name in Canada... The Guardian also saw his death as newsworthy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have said North America instead. Regardless, I stay with my stand. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs)

• Support blurb when references added. Trebek certainly meets top of his field, and is practically a household name in North America. - Floydian  _¢ 18:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support great 2020 just got a whole lot worse, could use more refs Mattx8y (talk); idiot from planet earf 18:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support RD but oppose blurb. I'm sad too, but the bar for getting a blurb should be very high, and I don't think Trebek meets it. He's just not on the same level as someone like Sean Connery. Mlb96 (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I didn't know Sean Connery hosted game shows. WaltCip-(talk) 18:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

We're looking at the full area of film and television actors and personalities when talking top of the field, which would include both movie actors as well as game show hosts. --Masem (t) 18:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• The answer is...Support Beloved television (for some reason I struggle to use the term "game show") host and fighter to the end. CoatCheck (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support What a great man. RIP. SoloGaming (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support blurb He's pretty much a household name in the US, having been the host of Jeopardy for something like 30 years. Even those who don't watch the show have probably seen a couple clips of it, even in a movie or another TV show or something. (The article lists several of those appearances.) — Gestrid (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support RD, oppose blurb. He did one big thing, and did it really well for a very long time. BD2412 T 18:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)`
• Support RD - I cannot think of a current game show host who is more notable (for being a game show host anyway) in the United States. Comment in general - There must be some happy consensus that we can reach about extensive filmographies that are not individually sourced preventing articles like this one from being posted to RD. Maybe split the filmographies out to their own articles? KConWiki (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. Can I ask one of you to add tags where citations are required. A bunch of us can go about filling them in, and we should be able to get this to homepage levels of hygiene. Ktin (talk)

• Just the career section now, I think. There's a number of unsourced sentences and one unsourced paragraph. Black Kite (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  Black Kite, gave it one full pass. Can you have a look and tag what you find missing? We can fill any more missing tags post that. Ktin (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Lots of sentences in the "Game show career" section are uncited JW 1961 Talk 18:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  Joseywales1961, gave it one pass. Can you have a look and tag anything more that you find missing? I think we should be good soon. Ktin (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  Ktin, Yes, that section looks great now (you're working overtime today!) JW 1961 Talk 21:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  Joseywales1961, Thanks much. Filmography was difficult. But, now, largely done, I think. Ktin (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Spot checking the TV Guide source used to cover the host/acting lists is not complete. Eg, "Reach for the Top" is not listed. Keep in mind from my own past use of TVGuide as a source is that its a database maintained by TVGuide (so not a USERG problem) but if they don't have shows in their database, then it won't show up for the person in question, which will likely be the case for some of the older and non-American TV works. So additional sources are going to be needed. --Masem (t) 19:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  Masem, Agree. Might need to go through the link and identify missing shows and find sources for them. Ktin (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  Masem, done! Ktin (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb. Blurbs relating to people who died should be the exception not the rule - and a game show host is not someone for whom that exception is made. This is the type of nomination for which the RD was created. Chrisclear (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support RD just came to nominate it myself, but I guess I'm too slow. Don't think a blurb is called for here --DannyS712 (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support – RD only — A charming and brilliant TV personality, but not of blurb standing. – Sca (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support RD, no opinion on blurb Rest in peace. At the time that I'm writing this, the quality of the article does not appear to be poor, thanks to the editors in this thread who have been working to identify and solve issues with sourcing. I typically support blurbs for individuals who are at the top of their respective careers. It's really a question of how we choose to categorize his career. He was undoubtedly at the top of the game show host category and among the most recognizable television personalities. I think it would be odd to include all movie actors in the same category as him, because we seem to arbitrarily believe that movies are somehow inherently more notable than television shows. I wouldn't oppose a blurb given that he is a household name in North America, but I wouldn't be outraged if we only posted it to RD instead, as he's known for only one TV show, so it's hard to know how to compare his acting career to the careers of other personalities.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Posted to RD. Consensus seems leaning against blurb, but discussion can continue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Newyorkbrad: Um, you appear to have posted an article with an entirely unsourced paragraph in the main section and a number of other unsourced statements? Black Kite (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• I see an article with more than 100 notes and no c/n's and I think the quality is reasonable. More importantly, I see a consensus above to post it. Of course adding additional citations would be welcome, but the lack of a cite on things such as Trebek's victory on Card Sharks is not the end of the world, and there is something to be said about getting high-profile RDs onto the main page in a reasonably timely way. If other admins have a huge problem with this being posted, though, feel free to do as you wish with it without further consulting me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, but that isn't how ITN/RD works. Recently deceased people follow WP:BLP and must be sourced if they're linked on the main page. I'm sure none of the unsourced material is contentious but it should be sourced or removed before posting. Black Kite (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Editors in this discussion have previously asked that citation needed tags are added wherever necessary so that sourcing issues can be fixed. These tags were added, and then the sourcing issues were resolved. Since you believe that there are more areas of the article that need to be properly sourced, it would be appreciated if you added more citation needed tags so that other editors can have an easier time sourcing the article.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• I pointed out twice in which section there was an entirely unsourced paragraph and a number of unsourced sentences. The unsourced paragraph has now been fixed and we're getting towards the article being ready to post. It is far better to wait a short time and get it right than to post it before it's ready. Black Kite (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• RD noms have a serious problem with editors weighing in on emotion and not doing their due diligence. Looking at the votes here, there is little indication the article was properly reviewed. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• I agree. There's some endemic issues with things like "Support, once the article is updated" and "Posting, because I'm an admin". Neither are great, both are frequent... The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  The Rambling Man, I definitely appreciate the perspective TRM. There are problems, but the former is not really one. I am sure the posting Admin can see past the former statement. This is similar to the "Support per nom" statement at AFDs. Re: the latter statement of jumping the process to post, the latter is not endemic to RDs alone, this does happen occasionally and we have seen that happen with ITN blurbs as well. Holding RD alone to that statement might not be fair. Cheers and good luck. Ktin (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  Well I disagree in the former point. We have a number of admins who are either incapable of or simply don't try to assess the quality of the article, relying simply on the "votes". Just because an article has 100 citations, it doesn't mean it's "well-cited". Especially with those articles which still fall under the BLP policy. We could have 500 citations and one unreferenced sentence like "he used to fornicate with pigs" goes unreferenced, but "it's good enough because it has tons of references". Nope. Several admins here aren't suitable for posting items to the main page unfortunately. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  The Rambling Man, I do not disagree with the importance of referencing, more so in BLPs. I just think most of the regular Admins here (who post to ITN/RD) do a good job. Anyways, onwards and upwards! Ktin (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb I'll take people who aren't quite blurb material for 500. (But in all seriousness, RIP). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support blurb based on newsworthy reaction. If NFL pregame and halftime programs took the time to mention it despite Trebek having no well-known association with the league or its programming, it follows that the reaction to his death is itself notable. rawmustard (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Pulled Sourcing problems still persist: One paragraph completely is unsourced, and as I noted above, the single ref from the TV Guide does not fully cover all the TV and film hosts and appearances. --Masem (t) 20:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment clearly the Sean Connery of game show hosts. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Sourcing is now Done! All sections are now sourced! Filmography was difficult, but, now done! RIP Alex. Thank you for all the shows. Ktin (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  Tagging Masem to give this one look. Ktin (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support RD Article seems to have been patched up. Trebek is kind of exactly the kind of person RD was designed for (didn't it come out of the controversy over Ebert?). Teemu08 (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Now decent enough article for RD (without blurb) JW 1961 Talk 22:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Firstly, support pull but now, after a period of article improvement, support posting. Good work to those involved, other than the (once again) premature posting. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Posted to RD Notable death and now properly sourced. Lexicon (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• PP comment – Kudos to all who worked on the Alex Trebek article. Comprehensive and nicely written portrait of a compelling personality. And just about the right length. – Sca (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support RD, oppose blurb While wanting to move away from "X didn't get a blurb, Y shouldn't", Regis Philbin's death was recent and we didn't blurb him, no other similar TV host should be able to touch a blurb while that's still in the memory or it would seem like a gross oversight of Philbin. Kingsif (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb As Kingsif mentions above, Regis Philbin wasn't a blurb, and from a search I see neither was Bruce Forsyth, whose career was very long. All three of those men were outstanding in their field, but did not change the world. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb Watched this show since the beginning, so it hurts me to say it. He's just not in the ballpark of people we blurb. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb. I don't think "game show host" is a broad enough category to post someone at the tip-top of that field- and in terms of television in general he was above average, but not at the top. I don't get a blurb vibe here. 331dot (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support blurb Household name in the US and among the biggest gameshow hosts out there. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

U.S. – Sca (talk)

• Weak oppose blurb per Kingsif. Unfortunately, his death was rather expected, and while arguably he is the biggest name in American game shows, others who were close in fame didn't come close to a blurb. I figure if there's several "preemptively oppose blurb" comments before any support blurbs, they're just under the line. -- a lad insane (channel two) 00:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

November 7

(Posted) RD: Jeanne Little

• Nominated by CyclonicallyDeranged (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Aussie legend. I tried to improve the article which was in a dire state beforehand. Don't know what improvements from here for whatever I am unaware of. The point is it would be a shame not to have her on ITN just because Misplaced Pages has a problem with its own article... CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support Article is interesting and well-referenced. A Filmography would be a good idea at some point, but many of her TV appearances are mentioned and cited in the article. Yoninah (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support The article is in good condition. KittenKlub (talk) 04:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Fails MOS:INTRO with a sparse one-sentence lead.—Bagumba (talk) 11:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

  Done--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 12:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

  @Bagumba: helloooooooo???--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 12:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

•  Posted—Bagumba (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bones Hillman

• Updated and nominated by Hawkeye7 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Kylenano (talk · give credit) and Cristabel0 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Oils bassist. Article is short, but it is fully referenced. Date of death is 7 November in US, 8 November in Australia and New Zealand due to the time zones. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support Short article but well referenced, satisfactory for RD JW 1961 Talk 21:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 01:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment — Noticably incomplete for a biography and leans too heavily on the lowest hanging fruit for sourcing. So "it just happens to have citations in all the right places" continues to be the standard for the "article quality"-based sausage factory around here? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 13:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose and recommend pull Insufficient depth of coverage; per above. Spencer 16:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Cándido Camero

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

Nominator's comments: Needs a few more cites and some expansion, I'd say, but noticed it in the news and thought it'd be worth posting. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

*Comment. Citations needed. Also we don't post stubs as far as I know. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• This is at least a start class article. I agree, however, that additional cites are needed. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support Start class biography now thanks to the editors who did the sourcing of his discography. We should post this. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose there is is literally nothing in prose about the final 66 years of his life. I would not consider this to be anywhere near comprehensive enough. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 15:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per TRM. There's no indication as to how long he was active and there's no mention of two thirds of his life - the article is incomplete at present. P-K3 (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Posted to RD. Additional information and references have since been added. Spencer 15:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chief Rabbi Baron Sacks

• Nominated by Sir Joseph (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Jheald (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Jonathan Sacks former chief rabbi of the UK, member of the House of Lords, philosopher, author and speaker, quite possibly good for a blurb, not just RD. Sir Joseph 22:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Good biography. Citations needed. Also please be careful with capitalizations per MOS:CAPS; most should be lower case, thanks. This means words like chief rabbi and gala dinner. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Weak support blurb in principle, but article still has several citation needed tags. Most prominent Orthodox rabbi in the Anglosphere, which to me is good enough for top of his field, and a pretty sudden death given that he just recently shared his cancer diagnosis. That being said, we seem to have raised the bar from “top of his/her field” to “top of his/her field if it’s a field most contributors care about,” so I’m not sure how convincing this will be to others. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Decent article, and one of the leading figures in his field, regarded as "Chief Rabbi to the English-speaking world" ; nationally and internationally recognized, and his passing noted by Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, his ideological rival, Rabbi Tony Bayfied former leader of Reform Judaism in the UK, Ronald Lauder, president of the World Jewish Congress, Israel's president Reuven Rivlin, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and no doubt more to come , . --Chefallen (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• This is not ready. A couple of citations are still needed in the article body. Also 'Awards and honours' as well as 'Appointments' sections are basically entirely unsourced. – Ammarpad (talk)
• Oppose many citations needed, especially around the awards and appointments, and several linkrot URLs in there too. Much work required. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I have added cites to his online cv, for the appointments, also the awards and honours. (It seems to have been the direct original source for these sections). Hope this is considered acceptable, per WP:SELFSOURCE. Jheald (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support. I think the article is perfectly reasonable for WP:RD and that the cn templates are redundant, especially in the "publications" section. There are certainly places which could be improved - I am not convinced that the "appointments" and "awards" sections add value to the article and meet WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I'm ambivalent about a blurb which I could see argued either way per Bzweebl. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

ISBNs now found for the publications. Jheald (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support I think that following todays improvements, this article is now suitable for RD JW 1961 Talk 21:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support - It's hard to express the importance of Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks in Jewish circles around the world. The article is certainly thorough, and I would also support a blurb. --WMSR (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 05:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

(Removed) Remove 2020 Thai protests from Ongoing

Nominator's comments: Emergency measures have been lifted, and from what I can tell the article no longer has updates of new developments. There are only 2 sentences in the article talking about events since Nov 1, being: 1. "an unknown person threw a firecracker at a protest rally in Bangkok" and 2. "a demonstration was held at the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society to protest a block of Pornhub website." Spencer 17:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The 3 November update at 2020_Thai_protests#Strengthened_emergency_powers is still more recent than the oldest ITN blurbs per Misplaced Pages:In_the_news#Ongoing_section.—Bagumba (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I will point out that the Nov 3 update involves about a dozen people protesting Pornhub being blocked. While Ongoing articles don't need to have constant ITN-level updates, I would say that recent updates are marginal to the point that removal is warranted. Spencer 03:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support obviously. A one liner 4 days ago protesting the blocking of pornhub, and a little proseline before that going back a week. Literally the 11/2 update is someone throwing a firecracker. This was stale when it went into the box and it's long overstayed it's welcome. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Tiny updates are not enough to keep it up forever. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Most major media outlets seem to concur. This is no longer 'ongoing'. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Protesters held Pride Parade on 7 November, which has now been update to the article. Reuters coverage here on more protests today.—Bagumba (talk) 09:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The initial protests were 10's of thousands, this is one thousand, and still the only update of even minimal consequence for a week. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

    LaserLegs: Number of protesters is not the sole consideration. In any event, last night's protest drew 7,000–10,000.—Bagumba (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose removing this from ongoing. Re-evaluating this is a good thing, and should be done regularly. However, just this week there were talks of a coup, (NY Times) so it is no the right time to remove this. It is still in the middle of ongoing crisis. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Here is AP coverage on police last night using water cannons on protesters.—Bagumba (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support removal. The recent updates are underwhelming, and the text from RSs could have described low-level weekend unrest from any part of the world right now. This is getting very news ticker-ish: a common fate for protest articles overlong in Ongoing.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Per above. SoloGaming (talk) 01:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• Removed Consensus and lack of significant activity since the removal request was made warrant that this should be removed from ongoing. Stephen 02:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted & Removed from Ongoing) US Presidential Election

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

• Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)

• Obvious support; it's been a foregone conclusion for a few days now, but with everyone except for Fox calling the election, now is the time. Sceptre (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• (Edit conflict) Support I originally want to remove the ITN but apparently Masem has did it earlier. Support due to election being called in several news stations. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support. AP called it. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Finally. Davey2116 (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support but "amid ongoing legal challenges" is too POV. The House and Senate should also be mentioned, although the Senate results will be difficult to clearly articulate. AP is a good enough source for the presidential outcome and I think it is valid to post it. Teemu08 (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Senate is not determined, that won't be until the GA runoff in January, so it doesn't make sense to mention yet. --Masem (t) 16:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
    • I added ALT 4 which includes mention of a run-off, but I'd agree with just dropping it as well. Teemu08 (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support. I have some small issues with the blurb, but I have no doubt that this is CLEARLY international news. I expect this to be posted almost immediately. The Image Editor (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support; fill in the table. AP called it, CNN called it. The "Results by state" needs to be updated, and it's good to go.KittenKlub (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support What Fox claims is irrelevant. Albertaont (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• SupportI dont think we should mention the delusional challenges from the Trump campaign. Post the same blurb as we did in 2016, but with Biden's name instead of trump's CoronaOneLove (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Note Fox News have now called election for Biden as well. -- KTC (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Tentative support Support altblurbs 1 & 4, oppose all others. Seems to have been called by multiple reliable outlets (AP, CNN, ABC news Fox). I'm not a fan of mentioning the legal challenges; IIRC we've only done that with an election result when RS give credence to those challenges or to allegations of malpractice, and in this case, they are not. I've added an altblurb to that effect. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC) Adding; if we mention the senate result, we need to say control has yet to be determined; and if Harris is mentioned, we need to be clear that she's VP-elect. At the moment, the blurb mentioning her almost implies they are joint winners. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• (Edit conflict four times)Support now that AP called it, but do keep the projected winner part in case Trump somehow wins the election whether by recounts or Supreme Court decisions. OcelotCreeper (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Main blurb, the legal challenges are notable about the situation. PackMecEng (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support - notable story. Interstellarity (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support main blurb. Backed by multiple WP:RSes, and is definitely in the news. Chlod (say hi!) 16:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Blurb Remove Ongoing Congrats Joe. SoloGaming (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support with Rewrite, I'd recommend "Joe Biden is projected to win United States Presidential Election". Seems odd to discount it with legal challenges that have little chance. CapitalR (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The chances of the legal challenges are not that important. Just that RS seem to think they are notable. PackMecEng (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support But the legal challenges do not need to be mentioned. They are notable, yes, but they belong only in the article at the moment. Putting them on the moon page is lending them undue weight, given their legally tenuous nature (as supported by reliable sources). WP Ludicer (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Posted by Jehochman. -- KTC (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Removed from Ongoing -- KTC (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment It's been added, but there is no clear consensus on mentioning legal challenges on this page. WP Ludicer (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  WP Ludicer, I deleted the mention of "legal challenges" because they are frivolous. This isn't Florida in 2000. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. (11x ec) We can't mention the Senate yet, its makeup won't be known until January 5th with the two Georgia runoff elections. Don't need to mention legal challenges, he is getting nowhere with them and it isn't even clear he has a cogent legal argument. 331dot (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Post-posting support but remove references to legal challenges. There is no indication they would go anywhere or have any merit, so featuring them so prominently lends undue weight. - LtNOWIS (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose current blurb, support inclusion generally. "Amid ongoing legal challenges", while technically accurate, gives WP:UNDUE weight to a phenomenon that mainstream news organizations have widely described as a sideshow intended as a political tactic (see, e.g., ). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  AleatoryPonderings, yeah so I've already removed it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Why "projected"? When Trump won our blurb just said he won IIRC. Is it because Trump has yet to concede? Nohomersryan (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Technically Biden won't be elected president until the Electoral College casts its votes in December. Teemu08 (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Technically that's correct, but it's a formality of no practical significance or relevance. The whole world now knows Biden won the election by 279 to 213 electoral votes. – Sca (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

PS: See "Why AP called the 2020 election for Joe Biden" – Sca (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support with Rewrite The current blurb feels like it's worded very oddly. Is it precedent to say "projected President-elect"? Seems like a clearer and more straight forward blurb would be something like "Joe Biden wins the US presidential election, defeating incumbent President Donald Trump". I'm indifferent to mentioning the legal challenges, although probably lean towards not including them in the blurb. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Kamala Harris should be added as well, as she has made history here. Trillfendi (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • While I would agree that her being the first female (and several other ethnic-related firsts) VPs is important, that might be a bit too much on this blurb given what the focus of the news has been. Don't mean to underplay her importance, but it could seem to be inappropriate. --Masem (t) 17:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Post-posting strong support – historic day and historic news. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Update to: Joe Biden and Kamala Harris win the United States presidential election Jehochman 17:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - I've tweaked the format to match that which we used in 2016, although obviously it's a bit more complicated than it was then. I think it's right to omit the "legal action" though, because serious sources are not caveating it with anything like that. We didnb't include the VP last time, and the hook is already quite long, so will not add that unless there's a strong consensus here.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Note that this is a historic VP selection. 331dot (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Not a fan of the added verbiage of the house and senate stuff. Especially since that is still up in the air. Also not seeing consensus in the discussion for it. PackMecEng (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah, I see no reason to include the Vice President. She didn't run separately. There's no other possibility if Biden won the Presidency. Natureium (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  There was no possibility of Biden winning separate from a black woman, who turned out to be Harris. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - Two things: First, the "House" link goes to the 2016 election currently instead of 2020. Second, has the House actually been called for the Democrats yet? Google (which uses AP calls as far as I know) has them at 214 so far with 218 needed for a majority, and our own article makes no mention of the Democrats having retained it. 208.124.9.11 (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks to whoever fixed the link. I did some more searching and could not find any major sources that have called enough House seats yet for the Democrats; even if it does seem likely that they'll retain a majority I don't think we ought to be proclaiming it before the RS (and our own article) do. 208.124.9.11 (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• • • AP calls it for Biden. – Sca (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
      

Also NYT, WX Post, BBC, Reuters – Sca (talk)

Those are all referring to the Presidency... I'm referring to the majority of the House of Representatives. Anyway looks like that part of the blurb has now been removed. 208.124.9.11 (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Now that it's been trimmed could we add Harris back into it? Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support — Suggested Alt5: "Democrat Joe Biden is elected president of the United States and running mate Kamala Harris is elected vice president." - Sca (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • That's extremely awkward given it wasn't a separate election. "Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are elected president and vice-president of the United States." ("respectfully" implied). --Masem (t) 19:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, gotta disagree this time. "Elected president and vice-president of the United States" seems very awkward. (And obviously there's no such office as president and vice-president of the United States.) – Sca (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The current blurb is fine, the only thing that might be added is the result of the legislative (Congress/Senate). The Vice-President or other subsidiary positions do not go into ITN blurbs; neither is a mention of "legal challenges" needed here that is political fluff (if anything comes off it that is different matter). Gotitbro (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• At the risk of being trouted, the blurb has been updated to include Harris by me. News coverage of the vice presidential selection is unusually robust, and multiple commentors here have noted its unique historical importance. While there was some opposition due to length, the removal of the House and Senate portions have made those concerns moot. There were concerns about clarity, since Harris was not elected president, but 2020 United States vice-presidential election redirects to the 2020 presidential election article, so I piped the link to include mention of both presidential and vice-presidential elections. Hopefully this is enough to remedy the clarity concerns of editors like Masem and Vanamonde. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Why did you make the determination yourself, when this is being discussed here with no consensus? There is no vice presidential election. She was only elected because Biden was elected. That is what's newsworthy. A trout is for when you make a silly mistake, not for when you decide that you know better than the people you are disagreeing with and act anyway. Natureium (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
    • I oppose that. We always post only the president. See in 2016, 2012 and 2008.--SirEdimon 22:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
    • @Natureium: You ask Why did you make the determination yourself, when this is being discussed here with no consensus? and the answer is because I am an administrator experienced in closing discussions and I saw consensus to include Harris. You are incorrect that there is no vice-presidential election, see Vice President of the United States#Election. The vice-president is elected by the electoral college separately from the president, and in the event of a tie is selected by the senate instead of the house (who selects the president). Minutiae aside, while I agree there is no consensus at the moment, your claim that there was no consensus when I edited the blurb is simply false. The first person to explicitly oppose the addition of Harris was Vanamonde who said if Harris is mentioned, we need to be clear that she's VP-elect which is pretty obviously not a blanket oppose since he included a preferred wording should consensus support inclusion (which, as I mentioned, I took into account). Three minutes after Vanamonde made the comment, Trillfendi explicitly asked that Harris be added. Masem replied, saying that might be a bit too much on this blurb given what the focus of the news has been which is not only equivocating, but rejected by multiple subsequent commentors (and Masem later proposed a wording very similar to the wording I used). Amakuru opined that the hook is already quite long, so will not add that unless there's a strong consensus here but as I mentioned in my above statement, the blurb had been shortened and so that concern was no longer relevant; that's not even my own assessment as Black Kite said Now that it's been trimmed could we add Harris back into it?. You opposed saying I see no reason to include the Vice President. She didn't run separately. There's no other possibility if Biden won the Presidency. which aside from being an WP:IDONTLIKEIT, is factually incorrect according to the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution (. Even if I ignore both those problems with your rationale, multiple commentators gave reasons why it should be included and you can see more comments rejecting your rationale below this comment. The last opposition was Gotitbro who said The Vice-President or other subsidiary positions do not go into ITN blurbs which ignores the fact that consensus can change and that we operate not by precedent but by consensus; at best it is a statement of what has happened not what should happen. At this point I have listed every comment that could be considered an oppose, and the conclusions I drew are based on things that other people had already said. The discussion had been quiet for 2 hours, and seeing this I saw sufficient consensus to edit the blurb to include Harris. Afterwards significant opposition appeared, and KTC rightly reverted, but your claim that there was no consensus or that I made this decision based on my own whims are not supported by the discussion. Finally, your edit removed a comment by Muboshgu which supported my assessment so please be more careful with edit conflicts in the future. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Wugapodes, How is any of this page something other than ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT? The criteria instructions themselves say that it is highly subjective what is newsworthy. If you want to be pedantic, he hasn't won the election yet. It's hasn't been certified and probably won't be for some time. If you're going to start referring to constitutional amendments and say that the vice president is elected by the electors, you would have to consider that Biden hasn't actually been elected yet, because he will be chosen by the electors. Obviously, barring some huge surprise the electors will choose him, and he will be the next president. Still, voters filled in one bubble electing Biden president and Harris vice president. To your point about consensus, I would expect that for something like this, with a lot of political ideas, and serveral changes already, "consensus" would be more than a couple people. Natureium (talk) 02:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  I think the control of the U.S. Senate and House is unquestionably more important than the vice president, so I also oppose this. I also don't like the wording, both because it make it seem like the elections were separate when they weren't, and since it doesn't communicate which of the two was actually elected president (yes, everyone knows, but when our job is to be explaining information, we should assume people already know it). {{u|Sdkb}}  22:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  Sorry, "vice presidential election" doesn't sound right. Preferred it before. P-K3 (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Removed addition of Harris - Head of State and general election of the legislature are the ITNR and what we have always limited ourselves to. Feel free to add it back if there's explicit consensus for that specifically. -- KTC (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I unexpectedly had to step away from my computer and keep edit conflicting (this is like my 7th edit conflict). Thanks KTC for reverting, I'll respond further when I'm back at my desk. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• The removal was completely valid, but it's going to look weird if we don't acknowledge the historic nature of Harris being elected to one of the top two offices in the US. 331dot (talk) 22:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • How does it look weird? Natureium (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
    • We never acknowledged any other vice-presidents. Why is Harris any special?--SirEdimon 23:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Uh, first female VP? That's a big deal IMO. Which obviously wasn't the case in previous years, so it's not comparable. Black Kite (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
        • That's not what's being said. 'Harris is elected as the first female vice president' would be about the notable part of her being vice president. Just mentioning her in the blurb doesn't help. Natureium (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Please review Kamala Harris and look at her picture to learn why this is special. 331dot (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Proposal: Add defeating incumbent Donald Trump to blurb. The media has widely characterized the race as moreso a referendum on Trump than anything else, so I think it's important to note his defeat, not just Biden's victory. {{u|Sdkb}}  23:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  Are you kidding? I think 99.999999999995% of people know who Biden defeated. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  Oppose mentioning Trump; there's already a lot of information we're trying to pack into the blurb(Harris) and people are well aware of who Biden beat. 331dot (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Donald Who? – Sca (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oh yeah, I totally would have forgotten who the election was between if he hadn't said that. Natureium (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  No seriously. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 23:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  99% of people also already know that Biden won. We shouldn't be assuming that people know things when our purpose is to inform them. {{u|Sdkb}}  00:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  Sorry, this is absurd. The news is that Biden won. And no, 99% of people don't know he won. In fact, large portions of America think Trump won still. I'm not sure if this is a joke or not. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 00:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Harris is notable for reasons enumerated above, and now has made history on her own. Her absence from our blurb likely will be seen by more than a few as sexist. Prefer Alt5. – Sca (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  I agree with Sca, Harris' VP-elect status is something special and should be noted in the blurb. To not do it will cause its own set of issues. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:51, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  Sexist, racist and plain ignorant of how new voters rolled. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  From a non-US perspective, the inclusion of the second-in-command seems a bit odd. I can't imagine we'd even be discussing it for any other country? /Julle (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Misleading! — Not a single reliable source states that "Biden wins". It is very misleading to insist that Biden wins the election. He is only projected to win by the media. Stop manipulating Misplaced Pages! 2604:3D08:4E7F:F7E0:3519:78F6:8BB0:2F68 (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  When you're ready to join the rest of us in the real world, we'll be here. WaltCip-(talk) 00:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  Indeed, IP, every reliable source has stated that Biden has won. Sorry if that isn't what you wanted, but this isn't the place to come and complain about things not going your way. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 00:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  NY Times: "The news media projects winners and reports results; it does not declare the winner of the election." https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1323766738509586432. Wait until we have an official declare from the Federal Election Commission, or, in this case, a ruling from the United States Supreme Court. 2604:3D08:4E7F:F7E0:3519:78F6:8BB0:2F68 (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  Like I said, reality is just around the corner. WaltCip-(talk) 02:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• It may be that eventual consensus will override this, but I don't see a consensus yet to include Harris. And I still think it's better that she should not be included in the blurb. It's historic yes, and a great day for Harris and minority women generally, but the VP is is not in itself a massive deal, not is it ITN/R, so unless the significance of her election is specifically stated then it just looks odd to be including it. We did not do this for any prior US election, nor do we for those in other countries. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  Disagree on this one, women (i.e. 51% of the population) and people of colour have been waiting for this kind of acknowledgement for decades. Without wishing to sound patronising, this is a story for all of us. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 00:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  Over two dozen decades, yes. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Add me to those requesting the addition of Harris. It's a ground-breaking event for women and people of colour, and is being reported as such in the UK (eg the BBC & The Guardian). Espresso Addict (remote) (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Harris re-added. Given Wugapodes detailed and thoughtful analysis above, and Espresso's additional support added to the many editors that had already expressed support, it seems like the tide of opinion is heading towards inclusion of Kamala. I have therefore self-reverted myself to reinstate her. I'll be going offline shortly so this will be my last involvement here. Other Admins are free to continue editing the hook as the consensus dictates, and I have no special attachment to any particular formulation at this stage. Cheers all and good night  — Amakuru (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose VP addition because that's just not ITNR and I see no real consensus for Kamala Harris's addition here. This is just more of the American-centric bias. At this rate, I'm seeing that even the inauguration would get posted somehow. Depressed Desi (talk) 03:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

It's going to be centred on America, regardless of which conjoined candidate we pretend didn't draw the same numbers to win the same election; if their inauguration shows up here later, same story, shared news. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Post-posting support. Support posting it now, and support the current blurb; the inclusion of the word "presumtive" may be useful, however, but saying he's "won" isn't inaccurate.  Nixinova   T   C   05:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: The current blurb does not coincide with the proposed blurbs nor with any text found in the article. The article never states that Biden has won, rather they use caveats like:

"All major news outlets projecting the race have projected that Biden has won the election, including ABC News, the Associated Press, Business Insider, CNN, Decision Desk HQ, Fox News, MSNBC, NBC News, The New York Times, Reuters, and Vox. Counting continues to determine the final results. "

and

" Joe Biden, the presumptive winner of the 2020 presidential election, pending the formal voting by the Electoral College in mid-December, is scheduled to be inaugurated on January 20, 2021"

I propose that someone with the capabilities to do so, restore the blurb to any of the 5 proposed blurbs, as these are the ones that were supported by polled consensus, and they accurately reflect the wording of the article. Previous discussion on the subject Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#President-elect --TZubiri (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

We don't vote on particular blurbs. They often change as the discussion progresses. 331dot (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Biden has won, that is self-evident from the vast array of reliable sources reporting as such. When RS start saying he hasn't won then we can change accordingly. Until then, this is accurate. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Elections in the US are a dumpster fire. The objectors are technically correct, Biden is the the "presumptive" winner until the states certify and delegates pledged. That said, it's in the news now and it'd be absurd to wait for some arcane process designed 250 years ago to disenfranchise black people and give slave states disproportionate power. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

In the extraordinarily unlikely possibilities that:

• Recounts overturn results in 3 states for Trump,
• Biden dies between today and December 14,
• Biden states that he would not be taking office in order to focus on his lifelong dream of becoming an ice cream vendor,
• Over 50 electors or whatever is needed become faithless electors and vote Trump,

Then the hook would be wrong. However, I think nobody would fault ITN for not accounting for such issues when even the AP or Reuters already calls the race. Juxlos (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

November 6

(Closed) 2020 Bolivian general election

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

• Nominated by 173.68.165.114 (talk · give credit)

• Comment - What...when did Trump and Biden "self-declare" themselves president? Plus, the source in Spanish don't say anything about Camacho sef-declarimg himself president. Also, this IP is trying to insert this information without RS at 2020 Bolivian general election article.--SirEdimon 06:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I meant self-declare victory. My wording problem. Also I don't understand what part of BBC do you think is not reliable? --173.68.165.114 (talk) 06:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
    • The BBC article is about the "supposed" bomb attack against Arce (supposed because it was reported by his own party).--SirEdimon 06:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Well, if you don't trust the victims, as I said, feel free to rewrite the sentence. I'll try to make it more neutral. But FYI Carlos Orlando Gutiérrez sought help from IACHR but IACHR doesn't take it. Now he died of an attack and the Bolivian opposition declared something like "even if he wasn't attacked he'll still die". --173.68.165.114 (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
        • Only Trump declared victory, not Biden. Whatever you said was false IP. SoloGaming (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
          • Okay fine. If we have to be that cynical and accurate one declared victory and the other declared prospected victory. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see any indication that Arce will not be sworn in.—Bagumba (talk) 07:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • There's no clear sign indicating he'll not, in the sense of there's no clear sign indicating Trump may prevent Biden from taking in office. I don't quite understand the criteria of ITN but somehow the ITN for Bolivian election was posted as a blurb before the official result was out while the US election managed to occupy ITN longer by first appearing as an "ongoing" and later reappearing as a standard blurb after the official result is out. Probably when Trump rejects the official result there will be a third one. I hope it's not due to our system favor the United States over Bolivia and remembered Misplaced Pages had a commitment against Anglo-American centrism so hopefully if this ITN cannot get passed I expect we can reach some agreement on whether (or in which situation) an election dispute meets the criteria of ITN. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 07:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
    • The US election has not had an official winner. Arce is already declared a winner, posted to ITN, and received congratulations from foreign countries. If Trump threatens to not leave office (which I believe he already did) or threatens to stop Joe Biden from taking office through, say, military action, it would not be posted. If Trump actually executes the latter threat, it probably would. However, Camacho seems to still be in the threaten phase. And unlike Trump, Camacho is neither an incumbent nor second place. Juxlos (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the clarification! So basically when our itn posted Bolivian president-elect Luis Arce before the official result is out, it should have been posted to the "ongoing" section (just like what we do now to the US election) but simply people forgot that option, and in the future if a country has a prolonged election with two or more candidates declaring victory it should be put into ongoing like the US/Bolivian one before official result is out. Your mention of execution makes a great point. Domestic violence incited by a candidate should not be classified as an execution. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Wait if I remembered correctly, Arce has been accepted as the winner by foreign countries, the US included. If Camacho actually tries to launch a takeover then we would post it, but otherwise this is just a sore loser's threat. Juxlos (talk) 08:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comment. So presumably if Biden's victory is internationally-accepted and Trump incites domestic violence without actually launches a takeover via military, I suggest it meets the same standard. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Wait Per above, what will happen is still speculative. Gotitbro (talk) 11:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Even in local opposition news, the most solid event is planning protests. Kingsif (talk) 12:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Above. SoloGaming (talk) 14:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose and snow close Can't tell if this nom is a joke or not. Luis Arce has been elected full-stop. Albertaont (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry I didn't discriminated domestic violence incited by a candidate from an execution of power-taking well and probably overestimated the power of the Bolivian-equivalent of Proud Boys. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose and snow close - Per above and my own rationale. The sources are weak and this IP is cleary trying to push his own POV.--SirEdimon 22:33, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: King Von

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

• Nominated by PCN02WPS (talk · give credit)
• Created by Proudpakistani11 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Williamsdoritos (talk · give credit)

• Oppose: some cn tags that need to be resolved.  Bait30   04:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Mostly fine but the cn tags need to be fixed. Gotitbro (talk) 11:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Discography is not referenced, would change to support when cn's are fixed JW 1961 Talk 12:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support A well known Rapper whose Murder made International news, during an election cycle which only serves to highlight his significance and why he should be included on the recent deaths page SPOIronheel (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert Sam Anson

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

Nominator's comments: Only reported today (November 6) Bloom6132 (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support Short but good nom. Gotitbro (talk) 11:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support short but sufficient, decently referenced JW 1961 Talk 11:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Solid C class biography. Well done. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: Would like to see a tad more in the "Career" section; large gap in coverage between 1981 and 2015. Not a "Weak Oppose", but I can't support either. Spencer 03:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Spencer: done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Posted to RD. @Bloom6132: Nice work with the expansion and improvement, the article came a long way. Spencer 06:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jim Marurai

• Nominated by Joseywales1961 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Former Prime Minister of the Cook Islands. Short article but not a stub in fairly good shape. JW 1961 Talk 14:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support Plenty of refs, though the source of death appears to be unknown currently. Gex4pls (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support The article is in good shape. Not many sources on his death yet (only 3 and 1 is a copy) at the moment for specifics, however Cook Island News promised full coverage tomorrow (it's night there), so you might want to keep an eye on that site for some more details.KittenKlub (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. Political Career section needs structure (it could be several sections). -SusanLesch (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Per Above. SoloGaming (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Taut but fine. Gotitbro (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
•  Posted—Bagumba (talk) 07:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Geoffrey Palmer

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

• Nominated by Mjroots (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk · give credit)

• Oppose based on sourcing issues. His career section only has two refs, and the usual issues on the filmography section. Lugnuts 14:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose (edit conflict) "Career" section is missing citations and the "Appearances" section is largely uncited - Dumelow (talk) 14:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. Career section needs citing. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Too much unsourced info. Gotitbro (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

November 5

(Closed) Kosovo's president resigns

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.

{{ITN candidate

• Nominated by Feminist (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Memedhe (talk · give credit), Buidhe (talk · give credit) and 47.20.177.163 (talk · give credit)

• Comment - I see two issues. Thaçi article is not fully updated and Kosovo is not a fully recognized state.--SirEdimon 19:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Nominate the New President's article instead - SirEdimon, this might be WP:ITNR: see this previous discussion. We should probably nominate Vjosa Osmani, as she is now acting President. The article has been updated; it just needs a bit of polishing. Joofjoof (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• The (indirect) election of the President of Kosovo would be ITNR. Acting Presidency isn't. -- KTC (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The court decision from the ICJ would be more relevant than this. Gotitbro (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment If there's indication that election of the new President is soon, then I would wait for that with a combined blurb. -- KTC (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support with a new president article included. ITN/R and the ICJ may take a while to indict or rule not guilty. Juxlos (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

November 3

(Posted) RD: Faustas Latėnas

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

Nominator's comments: Composer of incidental music, film and tv scores, chamber music, also theatre director, vice-minister of culture in Lithuania, advisor to the Prime Minister, cultural attaché - amazing - and had no article. Sorry, I can't read the obits (lt, ru), help welcome. Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Please reduce the number of {{ill}} links in the body, looks a sore to the eye and neither are so many helpful. Gotitbro (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

  There are three interlanguage links, that isn't an excessive number. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

  Better interlanguage link than red link or no link. They are even accepted in featured articles. I they bother you, make stubs yourself. I don't read Lithuanian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

  I agree, I have had articles on RD with 3 or 4 interlanguage links before, and never heard of a problem with it until now. As they encourage article creation, interlanguage links are good, better than no link or red links. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support decent article, well sourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support and good to go. As an aside, for me, the interlanguage links should be encouraged, not removed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Ҥ (talk) 12:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Don Talbot

• Nominated by CyclonicallyDeranged (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Graham87 (talk · give credit) and Aussiesportlibrarian (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Aussie swimming coach responsible for many Olympic successes, legend. CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 11:51, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Support fully sourced now, good to go. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
• OpposeSupport reference work done. Great job! - Dumelow (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment A tiny section and single award need reference otherwise looks good. @CyclonicallyDeranged: please see if you can fix these. Gotitbro (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Support Looks good now, it does not feel good to oppose/not support for a few errors when most of the article is fine but that is how it goes. @Graham87: thanks for fixing the issues. Gotitbro (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment – As one of the major contributors to the article, I've gone and added the requested refs. Graham87 17:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support The article it is in good shape now. KittenKlub (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support good to go indeed.BabbaQ (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 22:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
• Looks like from the page history another user aussiesportlibrarian had updated the article re the RD.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Hurricane Eta

• Nominated by Cyclonebiskit (talk · give credit)
• Created by Destroyeraa (talk · give credit)
• Updated by ChessEric (talk · give credit), Cyclonebiskit (talk · give credit) and Robloxsupersuperhappyface (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Might be a touch early but this is going to be a major disaster for Central America and potentially the western Caribbean as a whole. "Catastrophic" damage is expected in Nicaragua and Honduras as flash floods and mudslides increase in frequency over the next several days. Early reports show extensive damage to coastal communities in Nicaragua even before landfall. I know this is the fourth tropical cyclone put to ITN/C in one week, but unfortunately that's what nature is throwing at the world. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Wait Support I spend 4 hours off wikipedia and the death toll increases from 4 to 70? I thought a bullet was dodged, but I guess I was mistaken. Gex4pls (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• WaitStrong support Hold up. Now 70 dead. Death toll will keep rising sadly. Hurricane Mitch. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
• Wait, support in principle Category 4 hurricane, but it seems that the full extent of the damage remains to be evaluated. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose/Wait Needs a more holistic picture along with a clear death count. Gotitbro (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
• Wait Support Not only do we need to wait until the full extent of death and impacts from the system is revealed, but the future of Eta is still uncertain as well, as to whether or not it will bring more impacts that will be noteworthy. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (chat with me!). 19:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
• Hold Now support – fortunately the hurricane has claimed a low amount of deaths in Nicaragua as of this comment. But the hurricane is not dead yet, and as the news just pointed out Florida is taking heed as the system is forecast to approach the state.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC) Right now the death toll has risen to 57! Perth Now--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Wait Not a very deadly storm, but it could still be worth mentioning with information about flooding and landslides. We do have potential impacts in the U.S, but I wouldn't count on them being very notable. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Article is high quality, news media is giving this story high prominence. Checks all of the boxes for ITN. --Jayron32 18:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

  Comment Most of the "wait" votes above were when the blurb read "three deaths". The death toll is currently up to 13. --Jayron32 18:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• Posted --Masem (t) 15:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• PP Comment Death count now 73 181! The blurb should probably be something general, like "hundreds killed", as the death count rises. Gex4pls (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The "over 70" should cover that, but updates like this should go over to WP:ERRORS. --Masem (t) 16:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• @Masem: blurb somewhat misleading as the article indicates 90% of casuality was in Guatemala. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 04:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: H. G. Somashekar Rao

• Created and nominated by Ktin (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Kannada language actor and theatre artist. Article has shaped up to be a clean start class biography. Meets hygiene expectations of homepage /RD Ktin (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Please can I request a pair of eyes on this one. Seems to meet hygiene expectations of homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 06:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Selected 'ography sections need to include the criteria for selection. I can't remember the policy abbreviation offhand, but the relatively short list in the body clashes with the claim of 350+ in the lede.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for this one, IP Editor. The link to filmography is only a subset of films. The number itself is referenced by RS sources. Ktin (talk) 07:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Not what I meant. WP:LISTCRIT reads Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources and Misplaced Pages should not contain indiscriminate lists. This means, that the the template {{List criteria}} should be filled out, with an explicit reason why these particular works are listed and the other 320+ are not, else the article should be tagged with {{List missing criteria}}. "I could only find references for these works" is probably not a good inclusion criteria, so perhaps list only the works that have been nominated/awarded something. Currently, the article states that it lists the films in which Rao was an actor. Is this an exhaustive list? If so, that would be a suitable criteria.130.233.213.199 (talk) 07:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Got it. I have tagged it now. Hopefully this should be good. If this proves to be an issue, I would rather remove that entire section while we send it to homepage / RD. Article meets requirements even without that section. Ktin (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support The article is well referenced. Personally, I think that the short list of films is appropriate. KittenKlub (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 04:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 United States elections

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

• Nominated by Sdkb (talk · give credit)

• Courtesy link: There is some further discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:In the news#How are we going to deal with the US presidential election?. {{u|Sdkb}}  07:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm relatively new to ITN so perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see what the point is of posting about the U.S. elections before polls close. There is a real chance that there will not be a winner declared on election night and may not be declared for several days, which is something we should prepare a blurb for, but just posting that elections are ongoing when results will be coming in just hours later doesn't seem noteworthy or worth posting. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 06:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose In all elections, the results are published on ITN, not the holding of the same. You can wait. Alsoriano97 (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

  I've presented an argument above against a past precedent that I believe is not serving readers. There are presumably some valid arguments to be made in its defense, but those should be presented here, rather than just dismissing the nom "because that's the way it is". {{u|Sdkb}}  07:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

  You must normalize American elections. In the discussion you mentioned, the users, I imagine most of them must be American, they make that very clear: as blurb must be cited the victory of the candidate, whoever he may be, only this.Alsoriano97 (talk) 07:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support Personally, I support this, thought I think the election for the president should be singled out in the blurb, as that is the election that is in the news across the world, not some local elections or a referendum about marijuana — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoronaOneLove (talk • contribs) 07:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support, it's likely going to be a huge news story with Trump having recruited an army of lawyers to try to stop mail-in ballots from being counted after election day. Count Iblis (talk) 07:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose until the results come in. There's no need to go against what used to be a long-standing practice in the past.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose absolutely no need to do this, just because it's the US elections. If we do it for this one, we should do it for every general election around the world. Pointless. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

  But we aren't doing this just because it is the US elections. This could be the most important US election in 60 years, it is in a UNSC Permanent Member, it is in the middle of a pandemic, Trump keeps on babbling about fraud and so on! 45.251.33.20 (talk) 08:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Unlike other elections in Western countries, what will make this the most newsworthy will be the disputes about the results. Count Iblis (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

  What does that have to do with this nomination? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Wait till polls open in Hawaii and Alaska or close in Kentucky - I am inclined towards opposing the blurb due to tradition (if we can call it that) but I also support it due to the fact that this could be the most important election in 60 years and will be highly contested. So I suppose we could compromise and blurb it when all of America can vote (unless there is some Misplaced Pages rule against this blurb). *prays that the better candidate (not Trump) wins in a landslide* 45.251.33.20 (talk) 08:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC) Last rephrased at 08:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

  7am in Hawaii (when polls open there) would be noon Eastern time or 5pm UTC. The close of polls in Kentucky and Indiana would be 6pm Eastern time or 11pm UTC. The former sounds like an okay enough compromise, but I don't think we should wait for the latter. {{u|Sdkb}}  08:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

  Wow, that is a 6 hour gap. In that case I also think the former would be best. I'm striking out the other proposal. 45.251.33.20 (talk) 08:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose This proposal is absurd and a clear example of systemic bias. Chrisclear (talk) 09:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose blurb as written. Start a new proposal with a blurb about the record turnout where several states already have received a record number of votes before Election Day. News sources are reporting this will be the highest turnout since 1908. Jehochman 09:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Wait until polls close and/or the winner becomes obvious; if there's no winner tonight do not blurb it unless something else comes up related to it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 09:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Having watched the Bolivian election sit here completely ignored and untouched for 22 hours after it was ready a couple of weeks ago, all this nomination achieves is proving the insane US bias of this place. Please kill and delete this nomination immediately to give the US some hope of retaining any respect at all. HiLo48 (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Can we please stop calling this good faith proposal names like "absurd"? I wouldn't want to participate here if my ideas were called that. American here and I would actually agree only the results (or any dispute that may come up) should be posted, but this is a good faith proposal with no reason not to discuss it and no reason to suppress or delete it just because it's related to the United States. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Yes, this is giving the US Election prominence over normal procedures for elections. But there is vast global interest in the US general election that exceeds that in all other elections. I expect a lot of readers worldwide will come to the main page hoping to navigate to information about this election, and currently there is no link for these readers. I think using "Ongoing" would be a better strategy though. --LukeSurl 11:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I accept that American elections have a different status but I do not think this is helpful. The real question here is not whether the election is important but whether the actual voting itself is. Even in the US, the actual date of the election has become less significant this year. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Strong wait for results, like every other election. Furthermore, the article needs to have referenced prose describing the result. We don't post elections while they're ongoing, or when the polls close - what matters is when reliable sources call the result, and updating the article. It's fine to post the House and/or Senate results if those are available before the President, then update the blurb later. But simply saying that there is an election going on isn't blurb-worthy. Modest Genius 12:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Wait Until we find out which of the two old guys (or Kanye) wins. Gex4pls (talk) 12:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Wait until we either have results or have (god forbid) some sort of highly unusual development. If Trump declares victory based on election night data and starts making accusations of massive mail-in voter fraud or something, we should post. If the final count is delayed so long the Proud Boys and Antifa start shooting one another, we should post. But simply that it's election day, no. I don't think this is an absurd proposal. I just think we need to treat this like any other election until (god forbid) it's not. —valereee (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This should be closed for now. Wait until we have (at least some) results.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose until there is a clear result, as we do in other countries. Sheila1988 (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Wait per 331Dot's assessment in the Courtesy Link provided above JW 1961 Talk 13:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Wait – Until gloomsday or bloomsday dawns. There's the usual avalanche of pointless prehash stories out there that are mostly space-fillers. Yawn. – Sca (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose premature nomination. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - It's important for U.S. to be aware of the impact of systemic bias and how it can color perceptions. This is probably the biggest national story in the country, yes. But how do international audiences feel? This does not warrant an early posting. Publish it when the final results are out.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Procedural Comment Please don't re-open this mess tonight, just start a new nom with a clean slate. There is a discussion at WT:ITN if you want to speculate about possible outcomes and how to handle them. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. This was the discussion for posting the article now, while voting is still underway. We should reconvene in a new nomination after the polls have closed. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

At 15:00 Wednesday, outcome remained unclear, with nine states totalling 59 electoral votes undecided. Alas, looks like this situation could continue for quite some time. — Sca (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Pennsylvania will need an addition 2-3 days to count mail in ballots, there will probably be recounts in some states, and everything is going to be a mess. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

AKA 'electile dysfunction.' – Sca (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Should've been a clear SNOW close. Anyway, a new discussion is better which is going to focus on the actual results and condition of the article than whether to post it or not. Gotitbro (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

• Question on Congressional elections Is that going to be posted independently of the presidential election? None of the articles for those are acceptable. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Howard the Duck: We aren’t going to post the Congressional elections, since they happen every two years and putting them next to the presidential election will make most of the ItN box US politics.~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Nope. We have historically posted midterm elections, and included Congressional results in presidential election years. There are just as many UK general elections as US ones since 2015. What I'm asking if we'd be posting Congressional elections independently of the presidential election as the latter may take some time to be decided. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • So should the blurb be something like In the 2020 United States elections, Joe Biden/Donald Trump wins the presidency while the Democrats hold the House and the Democrats/Republicans gain/hold the Senate? (Of course if the Democrats get both chambers, that sentence can be condensed.) Nixinova   T   C 19:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, those were the suggestions from 2016, just that I don't know if those where the blurbs that were posted. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
      • We may not want to post the Senate yet, as the makeup is still unclear(albeit it likely to stay GOP); the Senate could come down to a January 5th runoff in Georgia(the Warnock/Loeffler race). The House will stay Democratic(though with a smaller majority). 331dot (talk) 10:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2

(Posted) RD: Enuga Sreenivasulu Reddy

• Updated and nominated by Ktin (talk · give credit)
• Created by Foodie 377 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by KittenKlub (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Diplomat who led the anti-apartheid efforts at the United Nations. Did a good amount of rewrite. Article has shaped up to a clean C-class biography. Meets hygiene requirements for homepage / RD. RIP. Ktin (talk) 08:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support Well referenced and large enough article. Interesting person as well. KittenKlub (talk) 09:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: this is currently listed on 6 November. Shouldn't this be an earlier date, Reddy died on 1 November and I can see it was reported as early as 2 November? - Dumelow (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Dumelow you are absolutely right. In fact, I edited the talk page on 2 November, and my first impression was that the article looks a lot better now. KittenKlub (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

KittenKlub, Dumelow -- thanks folks. If someone else can get a pair of eyes on this one -- this article should hopefully make it to homepage / RD before the carousel moves past. Ktin (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Posted Stephen 01:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: John Sessions

• Nominated by Drchriswilliams (talk · give credit)
• Created by 213.48.241.118 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Sessions was known for comedy improvisation in television shows, panel shows, as a character actor in numerous films Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support Looks well referenced. Good to go? Jheald (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Appearance tables need to be sourced as per any other actor. --Masem (t) 20:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Completely unsourced filmography. Gotitbro (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
• Stale Stephen 00:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: T. N. Krishnan

• Updated and nominated by Ktin (talk · give credit)
• Created by Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Carnatic music violinist. Padma Shri and Padma Bhushan awardee. Article can do with some edits. Edits done. Article meets hygiene standards for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 06:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support Nicely sourced little article, suitable for RD JW 1961 Talk 13:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. Please can I request a pair of eyes on this one. Seems to meet hygiene requirements and should be good for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support looks to be all sourced. Good length. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Good number of sources, well written. SoloGaming (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 22:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

  Stephen, Thanks! For those interested, here's a clip of what must have been his last performance. Leaves you teary-eyed at ~1:35 into the video. Ktin (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

That was nice. Thank you.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Kabul University attack

• Nominated by ArionEstar (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Someone cancel the year 2020. ArionEstar (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support Like the story below, this one is well referenced, though short it is well above stub level and does appear to faithful cover what is known at this point. News sources are covering the story. I see no reason to hold it off the main page. --Jayron32 00:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support This seems to be fully "complete" (the full extent of what happened is known) , and while still short, seems sourced and ready to go in contrast to the lingering issues over the Vienna attack at the time I'm writing this. --Masem (t) 00:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Article is a bit on the short side but manageable. Would benefit from noting what happened to the attackers (were they killed etc), but this is about as good as it gets for a Kabul terrorist attack. Juxlos (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Mentions in the lead "The three gunmen were later killed during a fight with security forces". --Masem (t) 00:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Article is sufficient to post Sherenk1 (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose People are killed in Afghanistan all the time. Just look at the Portal/Current Events for the last few days This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support if article can be extended further (if there is more coverage) - this is a major terrorist attack in a university (which most of us would expect to be safer). 45.251.33.20 (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Attribution is murky. Infobox states clearly that this was a specific branch of ISIS. Article states that, an NGO based in Maryland states that, it was ISIS generally. Goes on to say that a member of Afghan government attributes it to the Taliban. Both ISIS and Taliban are pretty vocal with their claims. Seems odd we have to rely on second or third parties to get a claim of responsibility.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Large loss of life in what, the 5th(?) terrorist attack in the past month. Gex4pls (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support all over the news. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support and I agree wholeheartedly with the nom. Christ almighty. --WaltCip-(talk) 14:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Posting. Jehochman 16:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Post-posting support Very tragic and significant attack on an educational institution. Gotitbro (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
• Post-posting comment @Jehochman: There has been a red copyvio tag on Kabul University for the last 24 hours or so. This should be resolved by an admin as soon as possible since it's currently linked on the main page via this ITN. — MarkH₂₁ 21:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you. I fixed it, or so I think. Please check. Jehochman 21:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

  @Jehochman: Thanks! I suppose since it seems that has been there since 2012 that a simple revdel can't be simply done. It could need a listing at WP:CB? — MarkH₂₁ 21:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

  I think the simple fix is okay in this situation. Revdel would be overkill. Jehochman 15:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) 2020 Vienna attacks

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

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

• Overwhelming support another anti-Semitic attack, most likely another Islamist attack in Europe. Since we didn't post the previous attacks from the past month, we have to post this one. CoronaOneLove (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Austria’s Jewish community said on Twitter that it was not clear whether the synagogue or adjoining offices were targets of the shooting as they were closed at the time of the incident per Al Jazeera. So, we're not here to presume any anti-Semitic or Islamist motive. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
    • >Per Aljazeera Yeah, into the trash goes your source. Read up on the Qatari support of Wahhabist movements 1980s-2010s. --CoronaOneLove (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Avoid that tone. Here's a BBC coverage quoting the same guy. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 21:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
      • I've read most the al jazeera wiki page and agree with Solavirum that al jazeera is mostly fine as a source, not as reliable if they are talking about qatari issues however--Annemaricole (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
        • did the photoshop in the ANTIFA guy? --LaserLegs (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment also added another blurb.
• Support, an important developement. —-(nob) (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Wait I am not seeing anywhere in sources or in the article where this is being called as an Islamist attack (though that it was centered on the Jewish synagogue is the clear leap of logic for the claim). Details are still developing, and while even if it is not terror related, this is still probably worthy of being posted as an ITN story. --Masem (t) 20:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Wait Stub. There are six references used that have the word "synagogue" in their titles, but the article does not yet contain the word. It needs to be expanded. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Yep, big news. Another islamist (?) attack in Europe This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support A terrorist attack with multiple fatalities is the sort of news story that gets a lot of international coverage and interest. Llewee (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• I’m going to post this. Jehochman 22:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

  Why would you do that without consensus? Are you "supervoting" because you're an admin? Genuine question. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

  At the time that you posted it, the article was claiming that there were eight deaths and a suicide bombing. With all due respect, wtf were you thinking? Thank goodness it was pulled. Mlb96 (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment we don't even have an article for the brutal stabbing of two Muslim women at the Eiffel tower by demented rightists, not sure why this is important. Seems Europe has discovered racism, and the violence has become routine. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
  • If this is true, i will back you in creating an article--Annemaricole (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Wait Developing. TompaDompa (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Too late, routine violence in Europe posted in 90 minutes. I'm sure no one will be frothing at the mouth shrieking about "bias" or demeaning a "minimum wait" either - that honor is reserved for other countries. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Wrong, I vehemently disagree with the premature posting by an American admin. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

(and I guess you mean "demanding" rather than "demeaning", right? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC))

What the does my nationality have to do with it. Your comment is repulsive. Jehochman 04:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I was on my phone. Nice catch and thanks. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

No, what was repulsive was the supervote and abuse of the main page, posting erroneous material with no consensus to do so. Get a grip. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• I am pulling this for the time being, the sources are too conflicting to have an accurate blurb. Wait an hour or so until things get clear. --Tone 22:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Biggest terror attack in europe since 2015. Gex4pls (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support – Has fatalities. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 22:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support – Terror-related and fatalities. BabbaQ (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose BBC is currently reporting one confirmed death as is the article. WAIT. That this was posted nearly an hour ago is absolutely appalling. Thank goodness someone saw sense and pulled it until we have the facts. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support but wait. Tone was correct to pull since the information from various sources at the moment is too confusing and contradictory, and it's not even entirely clear if the event itself has concluded or is still in progress. Hopefully in a few hours a more definitive picture will emerge. However, this was a major coordinated pre-planned terrorist attack involving multiple perpetrators, multiple locations and multiple fatalities. Even from what's known already, definitely blurb worthy. Nsk92 (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Conditional support major attack under large news coverage. Vienna isn't exactly known for its terrorist attacks so this is probably more covered. However if confirmed reports come in that only 1 was killed then it's best to not post. Juxlos (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

  Ah, so you mean wait then? I.e. don't post this until we have the facts established? Jehochman, there you go. That's what we do at ITN. Wait until the facts are established before super-voting and posting fake news. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment It's not confirmed as a terrorist attak as of the time of this post, look at the sources on the article!
• Support Article is short, but sufficiently detailed and well referenced. Story is being covered by news sources. Checks all of the boxes. --Jayron32 00:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Two people dead in something that may be a terrorist attack? There's no there in the confirmed information. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per LaserLegs, TRM and PowerEnWiki. It got a few headlines, and people are quick to cry "terrorism" when an attack fits a particular profile, but overall it's unclear if this is of any lasting impact right now.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose another mostly peaceful terrorist attack. Water is wet. It's like the 5th one in 2 weeks in Europe, better suited for ongoing. 205.175.106.156 (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Infobox casualties are unacceptably vague (4+/15+). There's either RS support for these numbers, in which case they can be reported precisely, or they're the result of WP:OR, in which case they shouldn't be mentioned at all. Article is about the same quality as the one above. I am immediately suspicious of the initial !votes describing this as "the biggest attack since 2015" (it's not) and the immediate Anti-semitic/Islamist bickering (apparently kicked off by a Tweet). Europe's now had 4 (own recollection) terrorist attacks in the last few weeks, with casualties ranging from 0-3. This is, sadly, part and parcel of that part of the world right now. I'm completely unmoved by arguments that this should be posted for the strict rationale that they are "anti-semitic". I notice that no one describes the beheading of Paty as "anti-education" or the killing of an Orthodox priest as "Hellenophobic".130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support article is well referenced to reliable sources. More accurate information has come out and the incident is being covered in a major way internationally. (t · c) buidhe 07:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Buidhe above. Yakikaki (talk) 07:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment a common theme in Europe at this time, with a "terror attack" taking place roughly every other day or so. Please don't use the main page as a personal scratchpad: it's not a tabloid newspaper, it's an encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I assume double voting is not allowed? (t · c) buidhe 08:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

    That's why the above is a "comment".  — Amakuru (talk) 08:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Whatever the exact nature of the event and the fatalities, this is clearly a hugely significant event and should merit immediate posting. It is not a question, as TRM states, of terrorism being "a common theme in Europe". This is an Austrian matter, and clearly exceptional. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Clearly is one of the two most over-used words in the English language. – Sca (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Sca, if terrorism is such a big problem in Austria perhaps you would care to populate Category:Terrorist incidents in Austria. At the moment, it includes only one other incident after 1985 and that was more than a decade ago. I think "clearly" is quite reasonably used in this context, no? —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

No. – Sca (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support Major attack on a major city, article passes quality standards. -- P-K3 (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

What's your definition of major? – Sca (talk) 14:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support per above. Article is fully referenced and isn't a stub. Major attack that is tragically happening more and more in Europe. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – Per TRM. Another apparent 'Islamo-fascist' crime – indiscriminately savage but random and lacking broader significance. – Sca (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support, the article looks to be in good shape. -- Tavix 14:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support terrorist attacks are not common in Austria as some of the dishearteningly apathetic opposers are implying - this is not just "another occurrence". — Ruyter (talk • edits) 16:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

  They are now extremely common in Europe generally, and as much as there haven't been so many in Austria, the lasting significance and impact of this is limited. Also, posting this when we decline to post shootings with vastly more deaths in other parts of the world reeks of double standards. This was a big story yesterday, but it is already relegated to a minor story on the front pages of UK news sites and we are not a news ticker.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Current reports indicate that this was a lone gunman. Summarizing the above, it seems like there is not consensus (based on what is known now) to post this. We have a main page item about a shooting with 22 fatalities and 22 injuries. Does it make sense to close this? Jehochman 16:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment – Hyped. Suggest close. Marked Needs attn. – Sca (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

At 1,900 words of futile blather, it does need attn. – Sca (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jehochman: obviously I'm biased, because I ¡voted to Oppose this item, but if you feel there's no consensus then going ahead and closing seems sensible. As Sca says, the discussion is going around in circles at this point. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The article does not need attention, as the article is sourced and not a stub, though this discussion is getting boring and futile. Close if you want. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 19:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

November 1

(Posted) RD: Dan Kohn

• Nominated by Joofjoof (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Galaktos (talk · give credit), Earl of Arundel (talk · give credit) and Dudek1337 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Former Chief Operating Officer of the Linux Foundation. He was a co-founder and CEO of the company that did the first e-commerce transaction (a credit card payment over the web) in 1994. Joofjoof (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Seems sourced and ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support looks okay. Ҥ (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose CV masquerading as a BLP. There are only 2 sentences that deal at all with his life outside of work, one of which is arguably the "Education" bulletpoint on this CV. Infobox does not even give a location of birth. Article could reasonably be moved to Career of Dan Kohn.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, his work is what made him notable (WP:N). And I have added his birthplace and family info. Joofjoof (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I see IP Editor's point. However, there have been edits made by a few folks including Stephen and Joofjoof. Nothing so egregious that should prevent this article from going to homepage / RD. RIP. Ktin (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support and struct previous oppose. Biographical details are now suitable for RD.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Article is OK, unfortunate death. Gotitbro (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Article is good for the main page. Yoninah (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Posted Stephen 00:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Nikki McKibbin

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

• Nominated by Thechased (talk · give credit)

• Oppose for now. Too much uncited info including personal medical details - Dumelow (talk) 10:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose also, while the entire "American Idol" and "Discography" sections are unreferenced (along with 3 or 4 paragraphs of "Post-Idol career") JW 1961 Talk 13:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Per above and the lead needs an overhaul. Gotitbro (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert Fisk

• Nominated by KittenKlub (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Philip Cross (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: English journalist known for his war correspondence in the Middle East for The Independent. KittenKlub (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support Well referenced article, looks to be ready for RD JW 1961 Talk 22:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment : not ready. The Irish Times subhead describes Fisk as "highly regarded and controversial". If our article is doing its job, a reader ought to be able to understand why the IT led its subhead with those words. At the moment, they don't get that from the article. Why was Fisk "controversial"? If we're going to link the article from the front page, it needs to present a full picture of its subject, and it needs to examine this, with balance and NPOV, even though that may be distasteful. If an article has a deliberate blind spot, or we run away from grasping the nettle, then it is not good enough to be linked from the front page. To be sure, part of what made Fisk "controversial" was that his reporting was often relentlessly critical of U.S., British, and Israeli policies and actions. But people who have expressed reservations about his journalism go beyond just the conservatives and pro-Israel columnists who coined the term "fisking" (former article) -- eg fellow Independent journalist Hugh Pope , as well as others critical of his more recent reporting of Syria. It's difficult to know how to weigh the criticisms, some of which certainly are politically motivated. (Though it may get easier as obituaries start to appear in the following days). But the article needs to do a better job of contextualising why Fisk became so "marmite". IMO therefore, in its current form, the article is not ready. Our reputation is not served if we promote an article that sidesteps why its subject has been presented (at least by some) as "controversial", or could be accused of whitewashing. Jheald (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support Good article quality. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Article looks fine to me at a first glance, Jheald does raise some points that need to be looked into but I don't think they are significant enough to stop this from going to RD. Gotitbro (talk) 03:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. The points Jheald raises should be looked at first. I'm not expecting a "controversy" section, that's generally not advisible, but some mention of this is required. For example, the article is almost entirely silent on his alleged bias against the US and Israel, yet all the obituaries I've seen so far highlight this aspect of his career.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support We're not doing a GA review here. I think it's clear from reading the article why he was controversial, and everything is sourced.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support Well written and referenced. SoloGaming (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as it stands, per Jheald. Fisk certainly needs a "controversies" section to avoid being WP:POV ourselves. The NYT described him as "one of the most controversial journalists of the age", and he was banned from entering the US at one point. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support well written and referenced, no reason to delay for the haters to write a hate section. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

LaserLegs, it's not a question of "haters" but of basic WP:NPOV standards. I challenge you to find a single obituary which does not use the word "controversial" at least once. Your comment seems yet another example of WP:POINT. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm just following the guidelines you can do whatever you want, I suppose. It's strange to me that this still isn't posted. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support per P-K3 and LaserLegs. - AnthonyIreland (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support - ready for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support The sources of controversy are relayed in the body of the article. Links therein (eg. Douma chemical attack) describe the actual controversies of those subjects. There is an outlink to "fisking" at Wikitionary, which notes only that it's a term from "the blogosphere". Not quite the level of notability that should hold this article up. Otherwise a well written and structured BLP.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Brigade Piron, they said it better than I could. (t · c) buidhe 07:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per P-K3. Legendary journalist. I'm surprised this isn't posted already. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per P-K3. NB article used to have a Criticism section, but it was rolled into a new Syrian Civil War section in this edit early this year (plus see subsequent series of edits for expansion of Syrian Civil War section). Rwendland (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: Article at present has an orange tag related to above concerns. Spencer 18:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Well that's how you keep an RD article off the main page it seems. No one can point to an actual guideline requiring a "controversy" section but we sure are keeping the article off the MP. Sad. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

This is simply wrong. If anything, Controversies are to be avoided in BLPs, and the "controversies" that this person was involved in happened to resolve in his favor after time. What is to be written? "Fisk was shamed and ridiculed for things that eventually turned out to be true?" WTF?130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I removed that silly tag. A "controversies" section in a BLP is the opposite of WP:BLPBALANCE. Each relevant section covers what made Fisk controversial. If it's not stale, this needs to go up. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@LaserLegs: if you bothered to read the talk page comments and participating in the discussion before unilaterally removing a cleanup template, then you would know that nobody is asking for a "controversies" section. Just some coverage in the existing sections of an important aspect of Fisk's life and career, with *every* obituary about him has mentioned prominently. The article is incomplete without that information, and the tag should not be removed until the issue is resolved.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• Posted Stephen 04:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

  @Stephen: the article is orange tagged, and the issues raised both here and on the talk page have not yet been addressed. Please remove, as it is ineligible for ITN until this is resolved.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

  A little disingenuous to omit that you added the orange tag after posting. Controversies are referred to in the article, such as the Syria section. But please pull it if you believe it’s the best course of action. Stephen 09:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

  No, I added the orange tag yesterday, and it was removed unilaterally this morning with no response to the talk page comments or attempt to address the issues raised so I have reinstated it. Jheald has given a detailed description of the details that are missing, and it's not about the Syria thing, it's his views on the government policies of the US and Israel, and how these coloured his journalism. The article omits any mention of this at all, other than a vague "he was controversial" note towards the top. To be absolutely clear, I'm not saying we should imply that he was wrong in his views, far from it - on a personal level I think what he said made a lot of sense. But my personal opinion and those of other editors aren't what counts. For NPOV we have to represent the sources, which highlight this aspect prominently, and the fact that his views are disputed. Otherwise the article is simply incomplete.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

  Oh well, I've now added some detail on the controversy myself, in the "Views" section so I've now removed the tag again. I guess from my point of view this now makes it OK, but will also see what others say.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)