Misplaced Pages

:In the news/Candidates/November 2020: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:In the news | Candidates Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:41, 16 November 2020 editCryptic (talk | contribs)Administrators41,572 edits +november 3← Previous edit Revision as of 02:42, 16 November 2020 edit undoCryptic (talk | contribs)Administrators41,572 edits +november 4Next edit →
Line 597: Line 597:
*'''Support''' with a new president article included. ITN/R and the ICJ may take a while to indict or rule not guilty. ] (]) 13:46, 7 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. ] (]) 13:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
{{abottom}} {{abottom}}
== November 4 ==
{{cot|]}}
{{Portal:Current events/2020 November 4}}
{{cob}}
----
==== (Closed) US officially withdraws from Paris Agreement ====
{{atop|Consensus will not develop to post. – ] (] • ]) 01:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)}}
{{ITN candidate
| article = Paris Agreement
| article2 = <!-- Do not wikilink - leave blank if nominating only one article -->
| image = <!-- Name of image only; do not link. Please crop the image before adding, if necessary. -->
| blurb = The United States formally withdraws from the ''']''' related to climate change mitigation.
| recent deaths = no <!-- (yes/no); instead of specifying a blurb the nomination can be for the "Recent deaths" line -->
| ongoing = no <!-- (add/rem/no); instead of specifying a blurb the nomination can be for the "Ongoing" line -->
| altblurb = <!-- An alternative blurb. Leave blank if not needed -->
| altblurb2 = <!-- A second alternative blurb. Leave blank if not needed -->
| altblurb3 = <!-- A third alternative blurb. Leave blank if not needed -->
| altblurb4 = <!-- A fourth alternative blurb. Leave blank if not needed -->
| sources =
| updated = <!-- (yes/no); Leave blank if you aren't sure -->
| updated2 = <!-- (yes/no); only if there's a second article and article2 is filled in! Leave blank if unsure -->
| creator = <!-- Username of the editor who created the article -->
| updater = <!-- Username of an editor who significantly updated the article -->
| updater2 = <!-- if more than one updater -->
| updater3 = <!-- if more than two updaters -->
| ITNR = no <!-- 'No' by default. Only put in 'yes' if the event is listed at WP:ITNR -->
| nom cmt = We did post in 2017 when Trump announced his intentions to have the US pull out of the agreement; today was the today that the action was formally taken, after the paperwork to do so was filed last year (the first day it could be done under the agreement) and waiting the year for that to happen; best as I can tell, we didn't post that point. So this being the finality of the action (recognizing that this could change after the election), this would be a point to post.
| nominator = Masem <!-- Do NOT change this -->
| sign = ] (]) 21:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC) <!-- Do NOT change this -->
}}
*'''Oppose For Now''' Right now we are in the elections, Biden has said that the US will rejoin the Paris Accord. Trump hates the Paris Accord and will get rid of it. If Biden wins do not post it. If Trump wins however, then sure post it. ] (]) 21:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Wait''' Per above. ] (]) 22:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Election saber-rattling at this point. ] (]) 22:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' I'm seriously confused as to what this had to do with an election? ] (]) 01:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
:::*Biden wants back in on the Paris Accord, if Biden gets elected then he will join back in. Wait until election results ] (]) 02:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' absurd timing. ] <small>(])</small> 22:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' no matter what the outcome of the presidential election is. This is simply not notable enough for coverage on the main page.--] (]) 22:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' completely overshadowed by the presidential election. ] (]) 23:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' this might be one of <strike>the fat retards</strike> his last gifts to America but it's still noteworthy. The United States is economically powerful and highly polluting. --] (]) 23:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
*:Not sure "retard" is something we say these days, even about Trump. ] <small>(])</small> 23:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
*::Crude terms for crude people, but stricken none the less as utterly inappropriate for WP. Thanks TRM. --] (]) 00:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' The Paris Agreement is one of the most notable global agreements, the United States is the world's second-largest polluter, and the United States is the first defector from the agreement. ] (]) 01:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' This is widely reported around the world. Also what happens in the elections today is irrelevant to this, which is a separate topic. There is also no requirement that ITN can only post one item from a country. ] (]) 01:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Wait''' Only if Trump wins, as Biden intends to rejoin. ] (]) 02:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' I can totally understand that Biden intends to rejoin. But whether or not Biden intends, or actually does rejoin would only happen months if not years later (i.e. it would need to pass the house and senate, and be signed into law...) ] should apply. This is ITN now, not post-election.] (]) 05:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' This isn't notable plus everybody already knew about this years ago. ] (]) 06:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' Biden says he would rejoin immediately. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> ] </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> ] </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> ] </b> 07:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Could be spun too much since it coincides with the election, and may not even be the end of the story. The US intention to withdraw was already posted, too. ] (]) 07:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Already posted, widely expected, and '''the article is not updated''' in a way that makes this clear. The body of the text states that {{green|On 4 November the US government officially from the Paris climate accord.}} The lede states that they withdrew "in 2020". The imprecise use of "withdraw" is confusing and efforts to clear up my own confusion only reinforces my !vote.] (]) 09:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
{{abot}}

==== (Posted) Ongoing: United States elections ====
{{atop|It will remain ongoing until a winner is decided. When a winner is officially decided, it will move to a blurb. Further discussion is unlikely to change that. When the winner is declared, someone can propose a blurb. Until then, we wait. --]] 15:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)}}
{{ITN candidate
|article=United States presidential election, 2020
|blurb=] (or ]) is ''']''', the ] retains control of ''']''' and the ] retains control of ''']'''.
|altblurb=Vote counting continues in the ''']''' as President ] falsely claims victory.
|altblurb2=] is ''']''', and the ] retains control of ''']'''.
| ITNR = no <!-- 'No' by default. Only put in 'yes' if the event is listed at WP:ITNR -->
| nom cmt = I'm going to place this here because the winner is expected to be announced within a few hours. We should discuss if any qualification is needed due to Trump's disputing the results, and whether this should immediately be added to ongoing due to intense news coverage. The phrases about control of the Senate and the House are optional and should only be added when confirmed. I've copied this blurb format from the 2016 election.
| nominator = Jehochman <!-- Do NOT change this -->
| sign = ] <sup>]</sup> 20:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC) <!-- Do NOT change this -->
}}
*'''Comment''' Maybe I'm stupid, but is this supposed to be for ongoing? If so, we don't need a blurb, and if not can you change the title? Thanks. ] (]) 20:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
*: It's a non-standard nomination because the idea would be to place it in ongoing while the vote counting continues, and then remove it in favor of a blurb once the winner is declared. I did a bit of research and Nevada will not provide any further updates until Thursday at 9 am Pacific time when they will give their final totals. This makes it unlikely that a result will be known before tomorrow. I suggest we post to ongoing until then. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
:::Oh alright, thanks for the clarification.
*'''Comment''' How about posting it with a blurb as usual, and if (let's hope it's if) a whole drama evolves, the drama can be submitted to In the News when it becomes relevant, and judged by its importance. ] was ITN on 4 August 2020 according to the talk page after that drama was finally resolved. I don't know what happened in March, because I wasn't here at the time, but that election could have been submitted twice as well. ] (]) 20:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
*: That's a good alternative. Blurb when ready, then ongoing for the aftermath which might continue for a month, as did ] in 2000. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
*My view remains the same as the one I expressed in ]—this is already "in the news" by any reasonable definition of the phrase, and the sooner we '''get something on the front page''', the less behind the curve we'll be. The "this is U.S.-centric" objections from the nomination below fail to acknowledge in the U.S. election. (For the record, I'd similarly support an ongoing blurb for other massive elections like India, but that's for another time.) <span style="color:#AAA"><small>&#123;{u&#124;</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">]</span><small>}&#125;</small></span> <sup>]</sup> 20:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
*Senate and House election articles are not updated. Would suggest congressional results as a blurb once these are done as per ]. ] (]) 21:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
* I'm listing an altblurb that we could post now. The extremely unusual and newsworthy thing is that president ] has falsely claimed victory. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
** That would be an extremely inappropriate blurb to use for WP. While it is true (falsely claiming victory), it is highly judgmental and non-neutral, and something WP cannot speak to in Wikivoice at all. I know the bulk of most editors here want a Biden win and a Trump loss (me included) but we can't let that cloud judgment here, particularly for something that would be on the front page. --] (]) 21:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
*** I didn't invent this. I found it in every major news source I checked. They are all saying the same thing. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
**** I'm not saying you created it, but it is an unnecessary focus on one detail of the election that is judging Trump. It absolutely should be covered in the election article (as it triggered more of Twitter's labeling and other facts), but in a Main Page blurb about the election, it stands out as a non-neutral facet of the current state of the election. Further, it is not like Trump has been tauting that all day. He said it this morning, then has been on the lawsuit-challenge since. We can't be too eager to post something and cloud our judgement here on neutrality of blurbs. --] (]) 21:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
* Alternative blurb makes sense. ] (] · ] · ]) 21:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''No no and no''' dear systemic bias. ITNR is for the ''results'' of the general election and the ''result'' of the presidential election. '''Aboslutely no flipping way''' to ongoing. Result of votes takes time to count in many elections, there is no reason why the US get a post when we would absolutely never post such for other votes. -- ] (]) 21:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
::Wdym, we post it for other countries as well. ] (]) 22:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support Blurb''' Post after candidate is announced. I also stated how ongoing should go for this below. (Changed This BTW) ] (]) 22:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support altblurb''' If there's a more delicate way to state the fact that Trump has falsely claimed victory, I'm all ears. But it'd be strange if we didn't post ''something'' soon, and altblurb is about the most we can say. A Biden victory is likely, but it won't be official without Nevada (which won't be called until at least Thursday), or perhaps Pennsylvania (at least Friday, barring court challenges). The Senate is likely to stay Republican, but right now it's possible that Senate control is decided by runoffs in Georgia on January 5. We can do additional blurbs when those two results become official. ] (]) 21:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
::I'd also '''support ongoing''', but it'd have to be clear that the election itself is not ongoing, the counting is ongoing. ] (]) 21:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
::: True, but if this becomes crazy then this should be posted in ongoing. ] (]) 21:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
::::Agreed. Probably in that case an article called "]" would be merited. ] (]) 21:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
:::::Yes that would be fine, if the results are not in by... idk tomorrow morning 8AM Eastern, then yes you should. ] (]) 21:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
::Maybe prematurely or mistakenly instead of falsely? ] (]) 21:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' Right now, most major networks/papers have now called both WI and MI for Biden (including Fox!) leaving him a couple states that he was already leading in and unlikely to lose with additional mail in vote counts that are ongoing (AZ+NV) that gets him to 270, and both are likely to have more results in the next 4-6 hrs. So I suggest we just wait until around 04:00ish and if there are no major results coming in, toss something up, but we'll likely have a "press-called" result here really soon, and we just need a blurb that makes this clear this is a press call with legal challenges in the wings. --] (]) 22:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Hold''' until reputable outlets call the election, '''oppose''' including House and Senate results in blurb. ] (]) 22:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
:*Result of a general election is ]. -- ] (]) 22:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
:Honestly, we should only wait until AP (Associated Press) says who won. AP is the most credible source. ] (]) 22:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Wait''' until one of them gets to 270 (via AP/network calls). ] (]) 22:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' There is no need to treat it different than any other election. Wait until a winner is announced, the article is updated and referenced, and then post it. All this crystal ball stuff about ongoing should stop. Again '''update the article before posting'''. ]&nbsp;] 22:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' We are not a breaking news ticker, please be a bit patient this is neither Ongoing material nor are ITN nominations supposed to be ]. ] (]) 22:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Request To Close for now??''' ] (]) 22:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support ongoing''' only. Of course: this is going to run and run and run and it's newsworthy '''now it's happened'''. As long as we don't rush to post erroneous hooks (and after all, posting the title of the target article is relatively safe, even around these parts bearing in mind some '''terrible''' recent decision-making!!) there's nothing really to lose from an ongoing entry. ] <small>(])</small> 22:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support ongoing''' only per The Rambling Man. Trump has already filed a lawsuit for the vote count in Michigan and, frankly speaking, we might end up with Biden winning the election and then the Supreme Court ruling in favour of Trump. There's no need for a haste and the possible righting of wrongs that no-one wants.--] (]) 22:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
*:Indeed, four words (]) in the ongoing section covers all the evils. ] <small>(])</small> 23:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
::We should actually wait for both. Count is now 264-214. Anything could happen within the next few hours. ] (]) 23:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
:::Ummmm, no, the point here is that even if Biden gets to 270, Trump will instigate recounts, legal action etc etc. No one blurb will suffice. So ONGOING is the only way to cover this. ] <small>(])</small> 23:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
::::@] True, Trump is taking legal action... I see your point, especially since nothing is happening right now.] (]) 03:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Ongoing''' the rest of the world is watching . ] (]) 23:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Ongoing''' agree (for once) with Banedon this election is making global headlines and the ] is served by putting this into OG for a day or two until the results are finalized. --] (]) 23:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
*:Just FYI, we're not "holding our breath". In fact, it's like a soap opera. And depressing, at that. Most intelligent Europeans (for instance) knew this was going to descend into a childish shitshow, and lo-and-behold. ] <small>(])</small> 23:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
*::Has it become childish? States ran their elections differently because of COVID-19 and results are taking longer. Biden is being calm and presidential, and Trump is being Trump. Seems status quo really. --] (]) 00:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Wait''' until we have results ''<small>]</small>'' 23:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Wait'''. It seems like a fairly definitive result may come in the next few hours, so I don't see the need to put it in ongoing for now. There's no rush. Wait for for results, as we do with all the other elections around the world. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 00:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*:Honestly, {{xt|It seems like a fairly definitive result may come in the next few hours}} is the quote of the year. This election has ''weeks'' left before it gets announced. If we ''don't'' put it in ongoing, we'll have a month of debate over the "blurb" required to handle all the legal machinations as Trump has called it "fraud" and already placed his Supreme Court judges in place, just in case. Good grief, we should be '''encyclopedic''' about this and just chuck it as a line item into Ongoing thus avoiding any kind of spin/speculation. ] <small>(])</small> 00:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*::Ha, I guess I was being overly optimistic then. Good to get quote of the hear though! I expected to wake up this morning and read that someone was over the line. Ah well, since Ongoing has already been posted I'm not going to object to that. But let's only upgrade to a blurb if something like a result is available. &nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;] (]) 06:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Wait''' for 270. '''Oppose''' ongoing. -] (]) 00:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*:At 270, what do we post? Trump launches legal action? ] <small>(])</small> 00:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*::Assuming its for Biden: "Democratic candidate Joe Biden wins the U.S. presidential election based on preliminary vote counts amid ongoing legal challenges by incumbent Donald Trump." It's not committed (so we're not claiming Biden won, book closed) and informs readers that there's still more coming and could possibly change. --] (]) 00:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*That it is either a tie or trump wins. Stop acting like a child demanding everyone agrees with you. You made your point, let others make theirs, "intelligent European."] (]) 00:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*::], you don't need to attack people for their election predictions. ] (]) 01:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*::I think we ignore Trump and just post whatever the failing New York Times and other FAKE NEWS!1!! outlets publish. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*:::No, it's much cleaner, in such uncertain times, to just push this to ongoing while the meltdown occurs and then publish an ITN blurb once Biden has managed to dismiss Trump entirely. In the meantime, we're just in for a cavalcade of biased blurbs which won't help anyone. ] <small>(])</small> 00:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Only election results are posted to ITN. Not the mere existence of an election in which people can vote. If ITN were to post 'vote counting' for the US election then it should also post the same for the Palau presidential election which also took place on November 3. ] (]) 00:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
** No one has nominated it. Their results are ITNR too, but we need the article up to speed and a nomination to review. --] (]) 00:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Neutral for ongoing and wait for blurb''' I am neutral on adding the page to ongoing, since it is likely the results will be contested for weeks if not months. But if the Associate Press and all other major networks call the race within the next few days (or hours), I would suggest a blurb to that effect. There is no bias if all states have reached the same consensus and reported their counting as complete. It's reasonable to assume for now that large-scale voter fraud is not the case...] (]) 01:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support ongoing''' - Pageviews are already spiking. Our readers are looking for this, so we might as well link to it. ] (]) 01:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Post ongoing ballot counting process'''. As soon as the outcome is known, it won't be as big a news story as it is right now anymore. ] (]) 01:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
:'''Wait''' Nothing is called yet, blurb is mostly ] on the Senate in particular. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa">&nbsp;]&nbsp;</b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> ]&nbsp;</b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff">&nbsp;]&nbsp;</b>&nbsp; 02:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' It does make an interesting statement that a U.S. political election could even be considered for the ongoing section. I must admit, for my part, I never thought to see opposing U.S. protests over "Stop the vote" and "Count every vote". That being said, what with U.S. election laws (by state) being all over the board, maybe it is past time for WP to clarify what, *exactly*, would be acceptable parameters for a U.S. election win -- and keep them for all future elections. In the past, it was usually glossed over with network projections and concession speech, but clearly that is not going to work anymore. Is it when the networks declare it (usually when enough electoral college votes have been network-declared to reach 270 for one candidate)? Is it when all the counts have been stated officially? Is it when the electoral college votes (see ])? Is it when all the court challenges expire? Is it when the president for the new term is actually sworn in? - Tenebris ] (]) 02:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
:: It also happened in 2000. See ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
:::I remember how Bush vs Gore was treated on WP. I also remember that Gore, quoting Senator Stephen Douglas' (1860) "Partisan feeling must yield to patriotism", finally abandoned the nightmare of the butterfly ballot and the hanging chad and did specifically choose to concede (Dec 13, 2000) in order "to heal the divisions of the campaign". Thus in *that* election year, the U.S. did have a presidential election concession speech, as indeed in every other U.S. presidential vote since WP was created. Incidentally, for those who are curious, a full Florida recount was eventually done the following year, the results of which were mostly drowned out by a September story later that year. (Those results btw constitute one of the memories behind "Count every vote".) This year, however, pushes us to recognise the ways in which U.S. presidential elections are significantly different from other presidential elections. For just one example, there were 10 faithless electors in 2016 (seven after state law, *where it exists*, kicked in). It is looking likely that Biden will end up, at least temporarily, with *exactly* 270 electoral college votes (based on current called and leading states). However, the president is not technically elected until all those votes are cast. If WP goes (as usual) with this reliable news agency or that, what of WP's reliability if even one of those voters (from one of the majority of states with no legislation to prevent it) proves faithless? There do exist constitutional fallbacks for this possibility, but it gets very messy, very quickly. Again taking the current called/leading house breakdown, simply put, Biden would almost certainly not be elected president in that case. It would be Trump instead. - Tenebris ] (]) 03:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
::::One of the first edits to Misplaced Pages happened after Bush took office. ] (]) 05:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
:::::WP - launched January 15, 2001. The Bush-Gore issue, resolved only a month before, was still very, very raw. (Remember I mentioned above that a non-binding Florida recount was being pursued and did end up happening?) Although the articles did not come into existence in anything like their current form until near the end of that year, vandalism was happening almost immediately upon creation. ITN did not exist yet, of course. That came about shortly after 9/11, and was originally called "Current events and breaking news". (Yeah, I have been paying attention to this piece of pop culture for some years now.) - Tenebris ] (]) 01:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

*'''Support ongoing''' News coverage around the world, probably the most visited article at the moment. ] (]) 02:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support blurb''' (first alternative); oppose altblurb as US-centric and misleading (why highlight Trump when it's apparent that Biden won?). We routinely report the ''apparent'' result of elections according to ''reliable sources''. By now reliable sources are starting to describe Biden as the apparent winner of the election; hence it would be entirely standard practice for Misplaced Pages to report the result of the election. We don't usually wait for formalities when posting the results of elections in other countries when there is an apparent winner according to reliable sources. --] (]) 02:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*: It's not assured that Biden won. If Trump holds on in Pennsylvania and Georgia, where he's currently ahead, and then wins Nevada or Arizona, which are leaning Biden on thin margins, then Biden will not win. Arizona was called for Biden, but it looks like that was a mistake; the state is still in play according to ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Wait''' - Nothing has been called yet so wait until we have a defined winner. ] (]) 03:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Posted to ongoing''' - ] &#124; ] 05:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''PP comment''' – Since results in several states are being dragged into the by the apparent sore , ''Ongoing'' seems logical for now. – ] (]) 13:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
* Later today major media outlets will probably announce a winner. When that happens, because the significance has already been decided, the final step will be to make sure the article has been updated, and then it can be posted. Let's keep this discussion open, and I'll make a separate section. I believe the item should remain in ongoing after the blurb is removed so long as the result remains disputed. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Pull Ongoing''': the event is bound to be posted once the result is announced thus this American-centric bias is not needed when no other countries' election are ever going to get posted on Ongoing. ] (]) 13:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*: ] is recognized as a bad argument. If you take a look at a newspaper today, any newspaper anywhere in the world, you will find this story on the cover. What matters is whether a story is receiving widespread, ongoing coverage. If that happens with some other country's election, we will also put it in "Ongoing". ] <sup>]</sup> 14:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*:: ITN is not a news ticker, we do not reflect what happens in the newspapers. Yes, the elections are likely the top story in the globe, but we are immune to that artificial elevation. --] (]) 14:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Pull ongoing'''. , there is no consensus here for posting and for ongoing. When the election is called then Misplaced Pages should post the results, just like dozens of other countries in this world. If the Associated Press made a mistake and retracts Arizona, then we might have reason for ongoing. -] (]) 14:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Pull ongoing'''. I don't care how important the U.S. thinks it is. We don't do this for elections.--''']'''-''<small>(])</small>'' 14:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*:Whole world seems to think it's pretty damn important. &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 19:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*::Remarkably I agree with Muboshgu here. There's no doubt at all this feeds the systemic bias, for sure (if this happened in Burkina Faso for example, it'd be laughed out of court, irrespective of what others here have hilariously claimed), but for me (the STAUNCH RACIST ANTI-YANK (TM)) it's an IAR scenario. The absurdity of it all. The complete laughing stock it's making of the American democratic system. The fact that literally a hundred million people voted for Trump ''second time round''!!! It's headline news everywhere and because we can't do a blurb yet, ongoing is the only fit. ] <small>(])</small> 20:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*:::No other country has the long dragged-out electoral system of the U.S. I cannot think of another western country which does not habitually know its presidential / prime ministerial election results, or close enough for victory/concession purposes, within a day -- with occasional exceptions of course, but they are exceptions, not the increasing norm. In most modern elections, the U.S. two-party system reduces the choice to a simple dichotomy, which in turn minimises the overall delay. (The occasional experiments with a third party arising from an in-party split did not survive much beyond Theodore Roosevelt, and they did not give all that good results even then. Lincoln may have been their last real success story, and I think those were circumstances we do not particularly wish to see again.) Here and now, however, support in many key locations seems very closely balanced between the two parties, with little likelihood that either side will budge much. This makes final outcomes much closer to 50:50 in many key areas, so much so that tendencies for one party to vote in a particular way will suddenly start to make a great deal of difference in battleground states. Significant delay in final results is thus increasingly inevitable, and also somewhat unique to the U.S. system. It is important to keep in mind that this is specifically designed into the U.S. system, first with its ongoing emphasis on remote/mail voting, second with its state-based approach rather than a single centralised election authority, third with its attitude toward litigation, fourth with the electoral college. (I leave discussion of per capita state representation and law-based voting suppression to -- somewhere not here -- and less volatile times.) The system originally evolved from frontier requirements and assumed a heavily rural vote away from the east coast cities, and in its essence it never substantially changed to take into account faster transportation and communication, in part because of its ongoing internal resistance to *anything* centralised ... so we cannot expect the results to ever be other than "ongoing" so long as the country remains so close to equally split. - Tenebris ] (]) 01:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Oppose pulling''' – Like it or not, this remains the No. 1 story (or No. 2, behind the virus), in terms of significance, worldwide. As news it's still going on. It wouldn't serve our readers to banish the topic from the Main Page just because the outcome hasn't been conclusively resolved. When the accursed Electoral College formally reports, it'll be an instant blurb. Thereafter, if court cases still drag on, it eventually will go back to ''Ongoing''. – ] (]) 15:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
:::'''PS:''' – DT suits in two of three states . – ] (]) 22:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Comment'''. In evaluating this, I see a consensus for ongoing, including from non-US users to boot. In any event, we may have a winner called later today if Pennsylvania and Georgia finishes counting ballots and this will be moved to a blurb. ] (]) 15:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Leave it up''' – while I certainly appreciate the ongoing efforts of those who make sure the main page isn't too US-centric, the whole world is watching this, and our articles on the election are informative, well-written, and worth reading. – ]] 15:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
::The article I see has a state results section with no results for any state, for any candidate, three days later. That seems uninformative. And cruel to pretend the Green Party (or lower) is still in this. ] (]) 02:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support keeping as ongoing''' I'm struggling to find ANY non-US english language news outlets that haven't had this as a top story for multiple days now. Is it unique to have a national election as an ongoing news story? Yes. But it's tough to argue it doesn't clearly meet our criteria for it, and given the clear global interest would be just silly to say it is too focused around one country's news.--] ] 16:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
::Yup. Examples: — ] (]) 16:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support Ongoing''' Um, almost all media in the world right now are giving this ITN coverage. To say this is US-centric is intellectually dishonest. There is absolutely nothing in the ITN page right now that could be remotely construed as being US centric. ] (]) 18:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose pulling''' Yes this is US centric but with how popular US politics and because of the impact is this is like the #1 story worldwide at the moment. And there should be some final calls 'today', Biden just needs one state, so this (shouldn't) become an eternal ] situation. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa">&nbsp;]&nbsp;</b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> ]&nbsp;</b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff">&nbsp;]&nbsp;</b>&nbsp; 19:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose pulling''' it is certainly ongoing and probably will be for a while, getting worldwide attention (top story here in Ireland) ] ] 20:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

*'''Pull''' This is a very bad precedent. The whole world is watching is a massive over generalisation and just takes the whole systemic bias to a new level. ]&nbsp;] 22:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*:Reminder of the ITN criteria:
*::To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news. {{tick}}
*::To showcase quality Misplaced Pages content on current events. {{tick}}
*::To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them. {{meh}}
*::To emphasize Misplaced Pages as a dynamic resource. {{tick}}
*:It ticks all the boxes. And until it's done and dusted, we can formulate a suitably apt blurb, ongoing is a ''great'' compromise. ] <small>(])</small> 22:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Pull''' Nothing approaching consensus to post. C'mon. ''<small>]</small>'' 22:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Post posting support''' This is big in the news, the article is fine, so what is all this opposition about? &ndash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;(]) 22:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
:::Sheer cussedness. – ] (]) 01:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
::::Hi, ], tonight there were some good answers on the '']''. ] said that Mr. Trump's legal strategy is one he has used for years, "flooding the zone" with information, disinformation, lawsuits, and accusations. I think it was ] who said that strategy is doomed to failure. Alcindor or Yang said that Trump's misinformation machine has Rudy Giuliani on ] saying that Joe Biden has mental problems. Then ] interviewed ] of UC Irvine, who said everything he's seem so far is "small bore", i.e. nonsignificant, litigation, and that it potentially could drag out for weeks or even longer. I do not feel Misplaced Pages needs to give Mr. Trump another venue for ongoing complaint. ] said the whole thing has personal and emotional tolls on people. When the AP calls this we should have a blurb and then the story should go away like any other country. -] (]) 04:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Pull''', not for cussedness, but lack of information on who's won which state's electors (except only Florida). That's important and verifiable, in context. It's purposely absent from the article, but still not there. ] (]) 02:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support blurb''' as proposed, when called by AP ☆ <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">]</span> (]) 03:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support ongoing''' until a president-elect is decided. It's beyond "in the news" and any statements to the contrary are utterly ignorant of the purpose of WP:ITN. Crafting a non-partisan blurb is a bit risky so going with a simple link in ongoing is the safest route for the time being imo. ~ ] (]) 04:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. Pennsylvania is going to Biden, so the race can be called for Biden. The real news is not that Biden won, but that the Trump is getting support for his bogus arguments from senior GOP members. If local legislatures support Trump, they may throw out votes and appoint Trump electors, "So on Fox Gingrich advises President Trump to have Bill Barr arrest election workers in Pennsylvania and then have the state legislature throw out the results of the election.". ] (]) 06:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
::This is a unique case where the provisionary winner of the election may not become president. If this ends up in the Supreme Court, it's likely that Trump will be handed the presidency. We still don't know what will happen but should posting two blurbs with opposite conclusions be allowed?--] (]) 08:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
:::There is not yet an issue to bring to the Supreme Court, despite what Trump says. Even the disputed ballots in Pennsylvania(3000ish I think) may not matter if the margin is big enough. ] (]) 11:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
::::Also Congress has certain powers here that the SCOTUS cannot overrule. E.g. if it were to come down to a vote held by Congress where each State gets one vote which would bring victory for Trump. Pelosi could then intervene and refuse to allow such a vote. There is nothing the SCOTUS can do to force Pelosi to go ahead with such a vote. ] (]) 12:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
:::::I suspect there are enough centrist Democrats to join with Republicans and force a vote, but I digress because it doesn't appear the EC will be deadlocked, one way or the other. ] (]) 12:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
::::::We don't need to speculate. Soon the counting will be largely complete and a winner is likely to be apparent. Meanwhile, could we please get eyes on the target article? It needs updating. A "consensus" of two editors is blocking me from ] as they currently exist. We need more editors to to generate a clear consensus. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
{{od}}
* '''Wait''' – ''Im Moment gibts zu berichten.'' – ] (]) 13:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
*: And now enough votes have been counted to put Biden in the lead in PA. Any moment now the networks will start calling the race in his favor. Are we ready to go? See my comment above. The target article will need an update when PA is called. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
* Biden wins. Can we please work on updating the target and get this posted? I like Altblurb2. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
:: The ] needs to call it, and as of yet, they have not done so.--''']'''-''<small>(])</small>'' 14:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
::: We do not rely on a single source, though I agree it would be better to have multiple sources. That will happen very soon. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Wait''' at least until AP calls it for Biden (this will not stop anybody working on the target article), but preferably also until either CNN or Fox does so too (RT, which gets its data for this from AP, has been showing Biden as having won Arizona for at least 24 hours after Fox withdrew this, so I assume, perhaps mistakenly, that AP has also not withdrawn it, while CNN never called it for Biden, despite CNN being clearly pro-Biden - it might not be good for Misplaced Pages if we jumped the gun and thus made supposedly neutral/unbiased Misplaced Pages appear more pro-Biden than CNN). ] (]) 14:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Belated Post-Posting Support for Ongoing''' pet TRM above (pointing out it ticks all the boxes, and perhaps also because nobody who knows ITN can accuse TRM of pro-US bias). ] (]) 14:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
*:{{thumbs up}} ] <small>(])</small> 15:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''''Wait''''' – hasn't called it yet. Neither has . We should have them in addition to AP. <small>(Fox? Fergit it.)</small> – ] (]) 15:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support ongoing''' as this has become an unusual situation and may continue to be something readers are likely to be looking for, and likely will be for some time to come. As TRM pointed out, this is a good compromise. ] (]) 15:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''''Wait for Biden's opinion''''' IF he accepts himself as president-elect, we post, if he says we should wait, we wait. Simple as that. ] (]) 15:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
::No. For us it's the major media making the move. – ] (]) 15:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
:*'''Comment'''. We have an open ] on Misplaced Pages's source for who wins when. -] (]) 15:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== November 3 == == November 3 ==
{{cot|]}} {{cot|]}}

Revision as of 02:42, 16 November 2020

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;
any comments regarding this page should be directed to Misplaced Pages talk:In the news. Thanks.

November 8

Portal:Current events/2020 November 8
November 8, 2020 (2020-11-08) (Sunday) Armed conflicts and attacks

Health and environment

Politics and elections Science and technology

(Posted) RD: Howie Meeker

Article: Howie Meeker (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBC.ca
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Misplaced Pages article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: 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)

(Posted) Chase Elliott

Proposed image Article: Chase Elliott (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In motor racing, Chase Elliott wins the NASCAR Cup Series. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In stock car racing, Chase Elliott wins the NASCAR Cup Series.
Alternative blurb II: ​ In stock car racing, Chase Elliott wins the NASCAR Cup Series.
News source(s): NASCAR
Credits:
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

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

(Posted) RD: Seymour Topping

Article: Seymour Topping (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Misplaced Pages article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: 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)

(Posted) RD: Alex Trebek

Article: Alex Trebek (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Jeopardy's Twitter account, TMZ, AP, Guardian, BBC, CTV, CBC
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Misplaced Pages article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: 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)

Yeah, I should have said North America instead. Regardless, I stay with my stand. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
Soapboxing.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Oh absolutely. Also the fact that her death was blurbed was a travesty and a peak example of both american nationalist and neo-liberal biases that have become absolutely pervasive on wikipedia CoronaOneLove (talk) 11:32, 9 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

Portal:Current events/2020 November 7
November 7, 2020 (2020-11-07) (Saturday) Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Jeanne Little

Article: Jeanne Little (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC News
Credits:
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Misplaced Pages article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: 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)

(Posted) RD: Bones Hillman

Article: Bones Hillman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Misplaced Pages article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: 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)

(Posted) RD: Cándido Camero

Article: Cándido Camero (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NPR
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Misplaced Pages article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: 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)

(Posted) RD: Chief Rabbi Baron Sacks

Article: Jonathan Sacks (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s):
Credits:
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Misplaced Pages article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: 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)

(Removed) Remove 2020 Thai protests from Ongoing

Article: 2020 Thai protests (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)

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)

(Posted & Removed from Ongoing) US Presidential Election

Closed. Already posted, errors/suggestion should be reported to WP:ERRORS, random discussions should continue elsewhere, please. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Proposed image Article: United States presidential election, 2020 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Joe Biden is projected as President-elect of the United States amid ongoing legal challenges. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Joe Biden is projected as President-elect of the United States.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Joe Biden and Kamala Harris win the United States presidential election amid ongoing legal challenges.
Alternative blurb III: ​ Joe Biden wins the United States presidential election, while Democrats retain control of the House and Republicans retain control of the Senate.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ Joe Biden is elected President of the United States, the Democratic Party retains control of the House, with control of the the Senate to be determined in a run-off election.
Alternative blurb V: ​ Joe Biden and Kamala Harris win the United States presidential election.
Alternative blurb VI: ​ Democrats Joe Biden is elected president of United States and Kamala Harris is elected vice president.
News source(s): NYTimes, CNN, BBC, AP, WAPost, Fox, FiveThirtyEight
Credits: Nominator's comments: Based on my read of the closure of the ongoing, editors wanted to wait for sources like the AP, NYTimes and others to call it. As of a few minute ago, pretty much every major paper including these (Save for fox) has called it for Biden based on the Penns. results. Yes, there are still legal challenges going on, but no one expects these to change that result. Masem (t) 16:40, 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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

November 6

Portal:Current events/2020 November 6
November 6, 2020 (2020-11-06) (Friday) Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Politics and elections

(Closed) 2020 Bolivian general election

SNOW close. Renominate if new events. Spencer 03:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Article: 2020 Bolivian general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Luis Fernando Camacho declares Luis Arce not the president-elect of Bolivia and take part in a strike whose protesters called the Armed Forces to mobilize. (Post)
News source(s): Camacho se suma al paro convocado por cívicos de Santa CruzEl oriente boliviano prepara protestas para la toma de posesión del delfín de Evo MoralesConservatives in Bolivia protest against the inauguration of president elect Arce
Credits:
Article updatedNominator's comments: Given the self-declaring of presidency victory of Trump and Biden meets the criteria, I believe the self-declaration of Camacho, who also incites violence and claimed at least one life (the president of FSTMB), counts for the same reason. 173.68.165.114 (talk) 04:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) RD: King Von

Closed, oldest current RD on the template is 7 Nov - Dumelow (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Article: King Von (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBS, CNN
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Misplaced Pages article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Robert Sam Anson

Article: Robert Sam Anson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times; Vanity Fair
Credits:
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Misplaced Pages article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Posted) RD: Jim Marurai

Article: Jim Marurai (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): RNZ
Credits:
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Misplaced Pages article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: 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)

(Closed) RD: Geoffrey Palmer

No consensus to post. Stale (non-admin closure) SoloGaming (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Article: Geoffrey Palmer (actor) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): (Metro)
Credits:
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Misplaced Pages article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.Nominator's comments: Well-known British actor. Mjroots (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

November 5

Portal:Current events/2020 November 5
November 5, 2020 (2020-11-05) (Thursday) Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Closed) Kosovo's president resigns

No consensus to post. Stale (non-admin closure) SoloGaming (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

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

{{ITN candidate

Articles: Hashim Thaçi (talk · history · tag) and President of Kosovo (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Hashim Thaçi resigns as President of Kosovo amid charges of war crimes. (Post)
News source(s): AP
Credits:
Article updatedNominator's comments: A change to a head of state. Some stray {{citation needed}} tags but the article is free from major problems. feminist (talk) | free Thailand 18:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

November 4

Portal:Current events/2020 November 4
November 4, 2020 (2020-11-04) (Wednesday) Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(Closed) US officially withdraws from Paris Agreement

Consensus will not develop to post. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Article: Paris Agreement (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United States formally withdraws from the Paris Agreement related to climate change mitigation. (Post)
News source(s):
Credits: Nominator's comments: We did post in 2017 when Trump announced his intentions to have the US pull out of the agreement; today was the today that the action was formally taken, after the paperwork to do so was filed last year (the first day it could be done under the agreement) and waiting the year for that to happen; best as I can tell, we didn't post that point. So this being the finality of the action (recognizing that this could change after the election), this would be a point to post. Masem (t) 21:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) Ongoing: United States elections

It will remain ongoing until a winner is decided. When a winner is officially decided, it will move to a blurb. Further discussion is unlikely to change that. When the winner is declared, someone can propose a blurb. Until then, we wait. --Jayron32 15:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Article: United States presidential election, 2020 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Joseph Biden (or Donald Trump) is elected President of the United States, the Republican Party retains control of the Senate and the Democratic Party retains control of the House. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Vote counting continues in the United States presidential election as President Donald Trump falsely claims victory.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Joe Biden is elected President of the United States, and the Democratic Party retains control of the House of Representatives.
Credits: Nominator's comments: I'm going to place this here because the winner is expected to be announced within a few hours. We should discuss if any qualification is needed due to Trump's disputing the results, and whether this should immediately be added to ongoing due to intense news coverage. The phrases about control of the Senate and the House are optional and should only be added when confirmed. I've copied this blurb format from the 2016 election. Jehochman 20:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe I'm stupid, but is this supposed to be for ongoing? If so, we don't need a blurb, and if not can you change the title? Thanks. Gex4pls (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
    It's a non-standard nomination because the idea would be to place it in ongoing while the vote counting continues, and then remove it in favor of a blurb once the winner is declared. I did a bit of research and Nevada will not provide any further updates until Thursday at 9 am Pacific time when they will give their final totals. This makes it unlikely that a result will be known before tomorrow. I suggest we post to ongoing until then. Jehochman 20:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh alright, thanks for the clarification.
  • Comment How about posting it with a blurb as usual, and if (let's hope it's if) a whole drama evolves, the drama can be submitted to In the News when it becomes relevant, and judged by its importance. 2020 Guyanese general election was ITN on 4 August 2020 according to the talk page after that drama was finally resolved. I don't know what happened in March, because I wasn't here at the time, but that election could have been submitted twice as well. KittenKlub (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
    That's a good alternative. Blurb when ready, then ongoing for the aftermath which might continue for a month, as did Bush v. Gore in 2000. Jehochman 20:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • My view remains the same as the one I expressed in the nomination below—this is already "in the news" by any reasonable definition of the phrase, and the sooner we get something on the front page, the less behind the curve we'll be. The "this is U.S.-centric" objections from the nomination below fail to acknowledge the extraordinary level of international interest in the U.S. election. (For the record, I'd similarly support an ongoing blurb for other massive elections like India, but that's for another time.) {{u|Sdkb}}  20:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Senate and House election articles are not updated. Would suggest congressional results as a blurb once these are done as per WP:ITNR. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm listing an altblurb that we could post now. The extremely unusual and newsworthy thing is that president Donald Trump has falsely claimed victory. Jehochman 21:13, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
    • That would be an extremely inappropriate blurb to use for WP. While it is true (falsely claiming victory), it is highly judgmental and non-neutral, and something WP cannot speak to in Wikivoice at all. I know the bulk of most editors here want a Biden win and a Trump loss (me included) but we can't let that cloud judgment here, particularly for something that would be on the front page. --Masem (t) 21:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
      • I didn't invent this. I found it in every major news source I checked. They are all saying the same thing. Jehochman 21:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
        • I'm not saying you created it, but it is an unnecessary focus on one detail of the election that is judging Trump. It absolutely should be covered in the election article (as it triggered more of Twitter's labeling and other facts), but in a Main Page blurb about the election, it stands out as a non-neutral facet of the current state of the election. Further, it is not like Trump has been tauting that all day. He said it this morning, then has been on the lawsuit-challenge since. We can't be too eager to post something and cloud our judgement here on neutrality of blurbs. --Masem (t) 21:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Alternative blurb makes sense. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • No no and no dear systemic bias. ITNR is for the results of the general election and the result of the presidential election. Aboslutely no flipping way to ongoing. Result of votes takes time to count in many elections, there is no reason why the US get a post when we would absolutely never post such for other votes. -- KTC (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Wdym, we post it for other countries as well. SoloGaming (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Blurb Post after candidate is announced. I also stated how ongoing should go for this below. (Changed This BTW) SoloGaming (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb If there's a more delicate way to state the fact that Trump has falsely claimed victory, I'm all ears. But it'd be strange if we didn't post something soon, and altblurb is about the most we can say. A Biden victory is likely, but it won't be official without Nevada (which won't be called until at least Thursday), or perhaps Pennsylvania (at least Friday, barring court challenges). The Senate is likely to stay Republican, but right now it's possible that Senate control is decided by runoffs in Georgia on January 5. We can do additional blurbs when those two results become official. Davey2116 (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
I'd also support ongoing, but it'd have to be clear that the election itself is not ongoing, the counting is ongoing. Davey2116 (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
True, but if this becomes crazy then this should be posted in ongoing. SoloGaming (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Probably in that case an article called "Aftermath of the 2020 United States presidential election" would be merited. Davey2116 (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes that would be fine, if the results are not in by... idk tomorrow morning 8AM Eastern, then yes you should. SoloGaming (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Maybe prematurely or mistakenly instead of falsely? Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Right now, most major networks/papers have now called both WI and MI for Biden (including Fox!) leaving him a couple states that he was already leading in and unlikely to lose with additional mail in vote counts that are ongoing (AZ+NV) that gets him to 270, and both are likely to have more results in the next 4-6 hrs. So I suggest we just wait until around 04:00ish and if there are no major results coming in, toss something up, but we'll likely have a "press-called" result here really soon, and we just need a blurb that makes this clear this is a press call with legal challenges in the wings. --Masem (t) 22:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Hold until reputable outlets call the election, oppose including House and Senate results in blurb. Morgan695 (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Honestly, we should only wait until AP (Associated Press) says who won. AP is the most credible source. SoloGaming (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
We should actually wait for both. Count is now 264-214. Anything could happen within the next few hours. SoloGaming (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Ummmm, no, the point here is that even if Biden gets to 270, Trump will instigate recounts, legal action etc etc. No one blurb will suffice. So ONGOING is the only way to cover this. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man True, Trump is taking legal action... I see your point, especially since nothing is happening right now.SoloGaming (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Ongoing the rest of the world is watching . Banedon (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Ongoing agree (for once) with Banedon this election is making global headlines and the WP:ITN#Purpose is served by putting this into OG for a day or two until the results are finalized. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
    Just FYI, we're not "holding our breath". In fact, it's like a soap opera. And depressing, at that. Most intelligent Europeans (for instance) knew this was going to descend into a childish shitshow, and lo-and-behold. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
    Has it become childish? States ran their elections differently because of COVID-19 and results are taking longer. Biden is being calm and presidential, and Trump is being Trump. Seems status quo really. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait until we have results GreatCaesarsGhost 23:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait. It seems like a fairly definitive result may come in the next few hours, so I don't see the need to put it in ongoing for now. There's no rush. Wait for for results, as we do with all the other elections around the world.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
    Honestly, It seems like a fairly definitive result may come in the next few hours is the quote of the year. This election has weeks left before it gets announced. If we don't put it in ongoing, we'll have a month of debate over the "blurb" required to handle all the legal machinations as Trump has called it "fraud" and already placed his Supreme Court judges in place, just in case. Good grief, we should be encyclopedic about this and just chuck it as a line item into Ongoing thus avoiding any kind of spin/speculation. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 00:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
    Ha, I guess I was being overly optimistic then. Good to get quote of the hear though! I expected to wake up this morning and read that someone was over the line. Ah well, since Ongoing has already been posted I'm not going to object to that. But let's only upgrade to a blurb if something like a result is available.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait for 270. Oppose ongoing. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
    At 270, what do we post? Trump launches legal action? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 00:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
    Assuming its for Biden: "Democratic candidate Joe Biden wins the U.S. presidential election based on preliminary vote counts amid ongoing legal challenges by incumbent Donald Trump." It's not committed (so we're not claiming Biden won, book closed) and informs readers that there's still more coming and could possibly change. --Masem (t) 00:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • That it is either a tie or trump wins. Stop acting like a child demanding everyone agrees with you. You made your point, let others make theirs, "intelligent European."2A02:2A57:173D:0:94C:8AD0:C456:3178 (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
    NPA!, you don't need to attack people for their election predictions. Gex4pls (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
    I think we ignore Trump and just post whatever the failing New York Times and other FAKE NEWS!1!! outlets publish. Jehochman 00:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
    No, it's much cleaner, in such uncertain times, to just push this to ongoing while the meltdown occurs and then publish an ITN blurb once Biden has managed to dismiss Trump entirely. In the meantime, we're just in for a cavalcade of biased blurbs which won't help anyone. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 00:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Only election results are posted to ITN. Not the mere existence of an election in which people can vote. If ITN were to post 'vote counting' for the US election then it should also post the same for the Palau presidential election which also took place on November 3. Chrisclear (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Neutral for ongoing and wait for blurb I am neutral on adding the page to ongoing, since it is likely the results will be contested for weeks if not months. But if the Associate Press and all other major networks call the race within the next few days (or hours), I would suggest a blurb to that effect. There is no bias if all states have reached the same consensus and reported their counting as complete. It's reasonable to assume for now that large-scale voter fraud is not the case...Belugsump (talk) 01:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing - Pageviews are already spiking. Our readers are looking for this, so we might as well link to it. Kaldari (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Post ongoing ballot counting process. As soon as the outcome is known, it won't be as big a news story as it is right now anymore. Count Iblis (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Wait Nothing is called yet, blurb is mostly crystal on the Senate in particular.  Nixinova   T   C   02:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment It does make an interesting statement that a U.S. political election could even be considered for the ongoing section. I must admit, for my part, I never thought to see opposing U.S. protests over "Stop the vote" and "Count every vote". That being said, what with U.S. election laws (by state) being all over the board, maybe it is past time for WP to clarify what, *exactly*, would be acceptable parameters for a U.S. election win -- and keep them for all future elections. In the past, it was usually glossed over with network projections and concession speech, but clearly that is not going to work anymore. Is it when the networks declare it (usually when enough electoral college votes have been network-declared to reach 270 for one candidate)? Is it when all the counts have been stated officially? Is it when the electoral college votes (see Faithless electors in the 2016 United States presidential election)? Is it when all the court challenges expire? Is it when the president for the new term is actually sworn in? - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
It also happened in 2000. See Bush v. Gore. Jehochman 02:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
I remember how Bush vs Gore was treated on WP. I also remember that Gore, quoting Senator Stephen Douglas' (1860) "Partisan feeling must yield to patriotism", finally abandoned the nightmare of the butterfly ballot and the hanging chad and did specifically choose to concede (Dec 13, 2000) in order "to heal the divisions of the campaign". Thus in *that* election year, the U.S. did have a presidential election concession speech, as indeed in every other U.S. presidential vote since WP was created. Incidentally, for those who are curious, a full Florida recount was eventually done the following year, the results of which were mostly drowned out by a September story later that year. (Those results btw constitute one of the memories behind "Count every vote".) This year, however, pushes us to recognise the ways in which U.S. presidential elections are significantly different from other presidential elections. For just one example, there were 10 faithless electors in 2016 (seven after state law, *where it exists*, kicked in). It is looking likely that Biden will end up, at least temporarily, with *exactly* 270 electoral college votes (based on current called and leading states). However, the president is not technically elected until all those votes are cast. If WP goes (as usual) with this reliable news agency or that, what of WP's reliability if even one of those voters (from one of the majority of states with no legislation to prevent it) proves faithless? There do exist constitutional fallbacks for this possibility, but it gets very messy, very quickly. Again taking the current called/leading house breakdown, simply put, Biden would almost certainly not be elected president in that case. It would be Trump instead. - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 03:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
One of the first edits to Misplaced Pages 18:08, 27 March 2001 diff hist +1,820‎ N Shotgun ‎ Help me! :-) I'm a country boy from Alabama, but I've been in the city for a looong time.) happened after Bush took office. Count Iblis (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
WP - launched January 15, 2001. The Bush-Gore issue, resolved only a month before, was still very, very raw. (Remember I mentioned above that a non-binding Florida recount was being pursued and did end up happening?) Although the articles did not come into existence in anything like their current form until near the end of that year, vandalism was happening almost immediately upon creation. ITN did not exist yet, of course. That came about shortly after 9/11, and was originally called "Current events and breaking news". (Yeah, I have been paying attention to this piece of pop culture for some years now.) - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing News coverage around the world, probably the most visited article at the moment. Jklamo (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb (first alternative); oppose altblurb as US-centric and misleading (why highlight Trump when it's apparent that Biden won?). We routinely report the apparent result of elections according to reliable sources. By now reliable sources are starting to describe Biden as the apparent winner of the election; hence it would be entirely standard practice for Misplaced Pages to report the result of the election. We don't usually wait for formalities when posting the results of elections in other countries when there is an apparent winner according to reliable sources. --Tataral (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
    It's not assured that Biden won. If Trump holds on in Pennsylvania and Georgia, where he's currently ahead, and then wins Nevada or Arizona, which are leaning Biden on thin margins, then Biden will not win. Arizona was called for Biden, but it looks like that was a mistake; the state is still in play according to Nate Silver. Jehochman 03:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait - Nothing has been called yet so wait until we have a defined winner. HawkAussie (talk) 03:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Posted to ongoing - Fuzheado | Talk 05:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • PP comment – Since results in several states are being dragged into the courts by the apparent sore loser, Ongoing seems logical for now. – Sca (talk) 13:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Later today major media outlets will probably announce a winner. When that happens, because the significance has already been decided, the final step will be to make sure the article has been updated, and then it can be posted. Let's keep this discussion open, and I'll make a separate section. I believe the item should remain in ongoing after the blurb is removed so long as the result remains disputed. Jehochman 13:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Pull Ongoing: the event is bound to be posted once the result is announced thus this American-centric bias is not needed when no other countries' election are ever going to get posted on Ongoing. Depressed Desi (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
    WP:OTHERSTUFF is recognized as a bad argument. If you take a look at a newspaper today, any newspaper anywhere in the world, you will find this story on the cover. What matters is whether a story is receiving widespread, ongoing coverage. If that happens with some other country's election, we will also put it in "Ongoing". Jehochman 14:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
    ITN is not a news ticker, we do not reflect what happens in the newspapers. Yes, the elections are likely the top story in the globe, but we are immune to that artificial elevation. --Masem (t) 14:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Pull ongoing. Fuzheado, there is no consensus here for posting and for ongoing. When the election is called then Misplaced Pages should post the results, just like dozens of other countries in this world. If the Associated Press made a mistake and retracts Arizona, then we might have reason for ongoing. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Pull ongoing. I don't care how important the U.S. thinks it is. We don't do this for elections.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
    Whole world seems to think it's pretty damn important. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
    Remarkably I agree with Muboshgu here. There's no doubt at all this feeds the systemic bias, for sure (if this happened in Burkina Faso for example, it'd be laughed out of court, irrespective of what others here have hilariously claimed), but for me (the STAUNCH RACIST ANTI-YANK (TM)) it's an IAR scenario. The absurdity of it all. The complete laughing stock it's making of the American democratic system. The fact that literally a hundred million people voted for Trump second time round!!! It's headline news everywhere and because we can't do a blurb yet, ongoing is the only fit. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
    No other country has the long dragged-out electoral system of the U.S. I cannot think of another western country which does not habitually know its presidential / prime ministerial election results, or close enough for victory/concession purposes, within a day -- with occasional exceptions of course, but they are exceptions, not the increasing norm. In most modern elections, the U.S. two-party system reduces the choice to a simple dichotomy, which in turn minimises the overall delay. (The occasional experiments with a third party arising from an in-party split did not survive much beyond Theodore Roosevelt, and they did not give all that good results even then. Lincoln may have been their last real success story, and I think those were circumstances we do not particularly wish to see again.) Here and now, however, support in many key locations seems very closely balanced between the two parties, with little likelihood that either side will budge much. This makes final outcomes much closer to 50:50 in many key areas, so much so that tendencies for one party to vote in a particular way will suddenly start to make a great deal of difference in battleground states. Significant delay in final results is thus increasingly inevitable, and also somewhat unique to the U.S. system. It is important to keep in mind that this is specifically designed into the U.S. system, first with its ongoing emphasis on remote/mail voting, second with its state-based approach rather than a single centralised election authority, third with its attitude toward litigation, fourth with the electoral college. (I leave discussion of per capita state representation and law-based voting suppression to -- somewhere not here -- and less volatile times.) The system originally evolved from frontier requirements and assumed a heavily rural vote away from the east coast cities, and in its essence it never substantially changed to take into account faster transportation and communication, in part because of its ongoing internal resistance to *anything* centralised ... so we cannot expect the results to ever be other than "ongoing" so long as the country remains so close to equally split. - Tenebris 66.11.165.101 (talk) 01:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose pulling – Like it or not, this remains the No. 1 story (or No. 2, behind the virus), in terms of significance, worldwide. As news it's still going on. It wouldn't serve our readers to banish the topic from the Main Page just because the outcome hasn't been conclusively resolved. When the accursed Electoral College formally reports, it'll be an instant blurb. Thereafter, if court cases still drag on, it eventually will go back to Ongoing. – Sca (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
PS: – DT suits in two of three states dismissed. – Sca (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. In evaluating this, I see a consensus for ongoing, including from non-US users to boot. In any event, we may have a winner called later today if Pennsylvania and Georgia finishes counting ballots and this will be moved to a blurb. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Leave it up – while I certainly appreciate the ongoing efforts of those who make sure the main page isn't too US-centric, the whole world is watching this, and our articles on the election are informative, well-written, and worth reading. – bradv🍁 15:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
The article I see has a state results section with no results for any state, for any candidate, three days later. That seems uninformative. And cruel to pretend the Green Party (or lower) is still in this. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support keeping as ongoing I'm struggling to find ANY non-US english language news outlets that haven't had this as a top story for multiple days now. Is it unique to have a national election as an ongoing news story? Yes. But it's tough to argue it doesn't clearly meet our criteria for it, and given the clear global interest would be just silly to say it is too focused around one country's news.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Yup. Examples: — Sca (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Ongoing Um, almost all media in the world right now are giving this ITN coverage. To say this is US-centric is intellectually dishonest. There is absolutely nothing in the ITN page right now that could be remotely construed as being US centric. Albertaont (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose pulling Yes this is US centric but with how popular US politics and because of the impact is this is like the #1 story worldwide at the moment. And there should be some final calls 'today', Biden just needs one state, so this (shouldn't) become an eternal Bush v. Gore situation.  Nixinova   T   C   19:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose pulling it is certainly ongoing and probably will be for a while, getting worldwide attention (top story here in Ireland) JW 1961 Talk 20:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Pull This is a very bad precedent. The whole world is watching is a massive over generalisation and just takes the whole systemic bias to a new level. AIRcorn (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
    Reminder of the ITN criteria:
    To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news. checkY
    To showcase quality Misplaced Pages content on current events. checkY
    To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them.
    To emphasize Misplaced Pages as a dynamic resource. checkY
    It ticks all the boxes. And until it's done and dusted, we can formulate a suitably apt blurb, ongoing is a great compromise. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Pull Nothing approaching consensus to post. C'mon. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Post posting support This is big in the news, the article is fine, so what is all this opposition about? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Sheer cussedness. – Sca (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Muboshgu, tonight there were some good answers on the PBS Newshour. Yamiche Alcindor said that Mr. Trump's legal strategy is one he has used for years, "flooding the zone" with information, disinformation, lawsuits, and accusations. I think it was John Yang who said that strategy is doomed to failure. Alcindor or Yang said that Trump's misinformation machine has Rudy Giuliani on RT saying that Joe Biden has mental problems. Then Jeffrey Brown interviewed Richard L. Hasen of UC Irvine, who said everything he's seem so far is "small bore", i.e. nonsignificant, litigation, and that it potentially could drag out for weeks or even longer. I do not feel Misplaced Pages needs to give Mr. Trump another venue for ongoing complaint. William Brangham said the whole thing has personal and emotional tolls on people. When the AP calls this we should have a blurb and then the story should go away like any other country. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Pull, not for cussedness, but lack of information on who's won which state's electors (except only Florida). That's important and verifiable, in context. It's purposely absent from the article, but still not there. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support blurb as proposed, when called by AP ☆ Bri (talk) 03:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing until a president-elect is decided. It's beyond "in the news" and any statements to the contrary are utterly ignorant of the purpose of WP:ITN. Crafting a non-partisan blurb is a bit risky so going with a simple link in ongoing is the safest route for the time being imo. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Pennsylvania is going to Biden, so the race can be called for Biden. The real news is not that Biden won, but that the Trump is getting support for his bogus arguments from senior GOP members. If local legislatures support Trump, they may throw out votes and appoint Trump electors, see here: "So on Fox Gingrich advises President Trump to have Bill Barr arrest election workers in Pennsylvania and then have the state legislature throw out the results of the election.". Count Iblis (talk) 06:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
This is a unique case where the provisionary winner of the election may not become president. If this ends up in the Supreme Court, it's likely that Trump will be handed the presidency. We still don't know what will happen but should posting two blurbs with opposite conclusions be allowed?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
There is not yet an issue to bring to the Supreme Court, despite what Trump says. Even the disputed ballots in Pennsylvania(3000ish I think) may not matter if the margin is big enough. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Also Congress has certain powers here that the SCOTUS cannot overrule. E.g. if it were to come down to a vote held by Congress where each State gets one vote which would bring victory for Trump. Pelosi could then intervene and refuse to allow such a vote. There is nothing the SCOTUS can do to force Pelosi to go ahead with such a vote. Count Iblis (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
I suspect there are enough centrist Democrats to join with Republicans and force a vote, but I digress because it doesn't appear the EC will be deadlocked, one way or the other. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
We don't need to speculate. Soon the counting will be largely complete and a winner is likely to be apparent. Meanwhile, could we please get eyes on the target article? It needs updating. A "consensus" of two editors is blocking me from posting the electoral vote totals and map as they currently exist. We need more editors to weigh in to generate a clear consensus. Jehochman 13:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
The Associated Press needs to call it, and as of yet, they have not done so.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
We do not rely on a single source, though I agree it would be better to have multiple sources. That will happen very soon. Jehochman 14:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait at least until AP calls it for Biden (this will not stop anybody working on the target article), but preferably also until either CNN or Fox does so too (RT, which gets its data for this from AP, has been showing Biden as having won Arizona for at least 24 hours after Fox withdrew this, so I assume, perhaps mistakenly, that AP has also not withdrawn it, while CNN never called it for Biden, despite CNN being clearly pro-Biden - it might not be good for Misplaced Pages if we jumped the gun and thus made supposedly neutral/unbiased Misplaced Pages appear more pro-Biden than CNN). Tlhslobus (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Belated Post-Posting Support for Ongoing pet TRM above (pointing out it ticks all the boxes, and perhaps also because nobody who knows ITN can accuse TRM of pro-US bias). Tlhslobus (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
    Thumbs up icon The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 15:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait – NYT hasn't called it yet. Neither has WX Post. We should have them in addition to AP. (Fox? Fergit it.) – Sca (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support ongoing as this has become an unusual situation and may continue to be something readers are likely to be looking for, and likely will be for some time to come. As TRM pointed out, this is a good compromise. —valereee (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait for Biden's opinion IF he accepts himself as president-elect, we post, if he says we should wait, we wait. Simple as that. CoronaOneLove (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
No. For us it's the major media making the move. – Sca (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

November 3

Portal:Current events/2020 November 3
November 3, 2020 (2020-11-03) (Tuesday) Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Health and environment

International relations
  • Australia–China relations
    • China is threatening to impose bans on up to $6 billion of key Australian exports such as wine, copper, barley, coal, sugar, timber and lobster beginning Friday, straining trade relations between the two countries. (Australian Financial Review)
  • The United States, Japan, India and Australia begin the Malabar naval exercise, in what is seen as a push to counter China's military and economic power in the region. Meanwhile, China has accused the United States of having a "cold war mentality" and "ideological prejudice". (Reuters)

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Faustas Latėnas

Article: Faustas Latėnas (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): lrytas.lt
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Misplaced Pages article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: 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)

(Posted) RD: Don Talbot

Article: Don Talbot (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC News
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Misplaced Pages article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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

(Posted) Hurricane Eta

Proposed image Article: Hurricane Eta (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Hurricane Eta (satellite image pictured) makes landfall in Nicaragua as a Category 4 hurricane, killing at least 70 people. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, CNN, NPR
Credits:

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)

(Posted) RD: H. G. Somashekar Rao

Article: H. G. Somashekar Rao (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Deccan Herald The Hindu
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Misplaced Pages article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: 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)

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)

(Closed) 2020 United States elections

Strong consensus to wait. Reopen when there will be some idea about the results. --Tone 13:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Article: 2020 United States elections (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Elections are held in the United States for president and numerous other national, state, and local offices. (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits: Nominator's comments: I realize that our traditional approach is to wait for results before updating ITN, so I hope I'm not jumping the gun by posting this, but I think the U.S. election is a significant enough event to warrant a main page appearance even before the results are known, and in the spirit of WP:The deadline is now, I think we'd be justified in posting an item as soon as the earliest day-of polls open (I believe in Vermont at 5am Eastern time, in about three hours). Once the results are known, we will of course replace the item with one describing the results. This is clearly an event of global significance that is already "in the news" by any reasonable definition of the phrase, and that very many readers will be looking to learn about. They will be better served if we add the blurb at 5am than if we cling to past precedent and wait until results are announced. {{u|Sdkb}}  06:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  • 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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

November 2

Portal:Current events/2020 November 2
November 2, 2020 (2020-11-02) (Monday) Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Enuga Sreenivasulu Reddy

Article: Enuga Sreenivasulu Reddy (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Misplaced Pages article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: 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)

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)

(Closed) RD: John Sessions

Article: John Sessions (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC Guardian
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Misplaced Pages article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: 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)

(Posted) RD: T. N. Krishnan

Article: T. N. Krishnan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hindu First Post
Credits:
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Misplaced Pages article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: 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)

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

(Posted) 2020 Kabul University attack

Article: 2020 Kabul University attack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Three gunmen kill at least 22 people and wound 22 others at Kabul University's campus, Afghanistan. (Post)
News source(s): (BBC) (Al Jazeera)
Credits:

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

(Closed) 2020 Vienna attacks

There is no consensus to post this. Jehochman 19:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Article: 2020 Vienna attacks (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Armed attacks in Vienna, Austria, leave at least four people dead. (Post)
News source(s): Times of Israel, Haaretz, Daily Express, Reuters
Credits:  --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 20:39, 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)
  • 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)
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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

November 1

Portal:Current events/2020 November 1
November 1, 2020 (2020-11-01) (Sunday) Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Dan Kohn

Article: Dan Kohn (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): TheNewStack
Credits:
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Misplaced Pages article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: 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)

(Closed) RD: Nikki McKibbin

No Consensus to post, article has not been updated. No sources either. (non-admin closure) SoloGaming (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Article: Nikki McKibbin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Fox News, CNN
Credits:
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Misplaced Pages article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.Nominator's comments: American Idol singer, tragic passing. Thechased (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Robert Fisk

Article: Robert Fisk (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Irish Times
Credits:
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Misplaced Pages article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

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