Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

Shortcut

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

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

COVID-19 pandemic
Presidential edition of the Russian constitution
Presidential edition of the Russian constitution

view - page history - related changes - edit

How to nominate an item

In order to suggest a candidate:

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

Purge this page to update the cache

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

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

Headers

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

Voicing an opinion on an item

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

Please do not...

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

Archives


July 8

Current events of July 8, 2020 (2020-07-08) (Wednesday)
edithistorywatch

July 7

Current events of July 7, 2020 (2020-07-07) (Tuesday)
edithistorywatch
Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime
  • Censorship in Vietnam
    • In what is seen as an increase in arrests of political activists, a court in Vietnam sentences a 29-year-old Facebook user to eight years in prison for making anti-government posts, including several criticizing communist leader Ho Chi Minh. The man was also sentenced to serve three years of house arrest after finishing his prison term. (Reuters)
  • Tom Meighan, lead vocalist of the band Kasabian, pleads guilty to assaulting his former partner. (The Guardian)

Politics and elections

U.S. withdraws from the WHO

Article: World Health Organization (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United States begins a one-year withdrawal process from the World Health Organization. (Post)
News source(s): Forbes, CNN
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Though this process typically takes a year, its the intention to withdraw during the middle of a pandemic that makes this notable. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment Maybe I'm confusing this with something else but I thought this was a previous ITNC suggest back when Trump suggested he was going to do it... I wanted to find that previous ITNC to review what the consensus was for posting (at the announcement or when the dead's done, in a year from now), but as I said, thre's a lot things Trump wants the US to withdraw from so I cant' easily find it. --Masem (t) 20:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this point, though. The year delay is required, so there's an election between now and then, and if Trump is outed and the next President wants us to stay, that can be undone. If it should be the case that the year goes by and the US does commit to leaving then we can post. --Masem (t) 20:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose post it when they do leave, not when Trump continues to rattle his sabre/saber. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose as per User:Masem although, given the circumstances, another shocking Kung Flu chop at the stability of world health. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Question does anyone know if this is a "Brexit" thing where they can change their minds 100 times or if this is a done deal? If the former then wait, if the latter then we can post now (assuming the article is OK) --LaserLegs (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    What? Brexit wasn't "changing minds 100 times", the government followed the result of the referendum and we're leaving the EU. The deals we're making on the way are changing, but I don't recall "a "Brexit" thing where they can change their minds 100 times". Perhaps find a bit analogy for whatever it is you're trying to say? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    After 4 or 5 delays right? Sorry if I misspoke. Anyway Wait the update is quite good but "it was unclear whether he had the authority to do so.". We'll need that sorted out first. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    Yep, I think a handful of internal amendments hardly equates to a hyperbolic "a "Brexit" thing where they can change their minds 100 times". And as you probably know, if Trump is shown the door in November, this probably won't happen, so it's time to put the crystal ball away and declare this as a "dead duck". Quack. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    Yep, I misspoke and clarified I meant delay and delay and delay and delay glad I was able to clear that up for you. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    No it was clearing it up for yourself. I think those of us living through Brexit have a clue as opposed to some bizarre foreign commentary. How odd. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    Exactly, I'm glad you understand now --LaserLegs (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – I realize it's not done, but I'm tempted by the irony: It's like quitting the volunteer fire dept. when your house is on fire. Unfathomable. But this won't fly here, yet. – Sca (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per just about every comment above. Kingsif (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm pretty sure that the US's temporary withdrawal from WHO happened a month ago. See here and look for the publication date.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: It seems the main issue is the title of the ITNC, since it was really an announcement to withdraw in a year. --Light show (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    • There was a process started today, but there is a mandatory year period before the US can complete it. I'd assume this is to assure all funding commitments can be transferred w/ minimal disruption, etc. So there's an official clock running, but again, there's an election between now and then. --Masem (t) 22:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Why is everyone assuming or hinting that Trump won't get reelected in November? Every president since Bill Clinton has served 2 terms, even George W. Bush! The chances of Trump being elected are higher than everyone here is hinting/indicating. This will very likely take place. Dantheanimator (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
While the incumbent president usually has a good shot, Trump is behind in nearly all polls at the current time. He may still have a second term, but this is clearly far from assured at this point, compared to any of the last 3-4 Presidents at the relative same time. --Masem (t) 23:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
It's definitely not assured but it's more likely than your implying. Consider that Trump's election win was unexpected and against the polls, so whose to say this won't be the same? Also, consider that there will be other individuals running in the election, like Kanye West. I'm certain that Kanye West's presidental bid will take away the support of African-American southerners who usually vote for Democrats. There's also a possibility of another email scandal or of the like happening again, so Trump's reelection possibilities aren't that bad.Dantheanimator (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
    • While it's true that this move in the "middle of a pandemic is what makes this notable," as the nom states, it might be worth considering the move in context, ie. over five months ago Trump offered to send China and the WHO help, and both have ignored the offer, up to the present. So it's hard to guess what even Biden might do differently.--Light show (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all; we can post if/when the actual withdrawal takes place. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Good faith nom and certainly merits mention in the main article. But for ITN this is TOOSOON. Suggest speedy close. -
    Article: Assassination of Qasem Soleimani (talk, history)
    Blurb: ​In an unprecedented statement, Agnès Callamard publicly announces that the U.S. violated the UN charter. (Post)
    Alternative blurb: ​Agnès Callamard, a special rapporteur for the UN, makes an unprecedented statement denouncing the US strike that killed Soleimani.
    Alternative blurb II: ​In a unexpected turn of events, UN special rapporteur Agnès Callamard declares that the US violated international law.
    News source(s): [1]
    Credits:

    Nominator's comments: This event is somewhat historic considering that usually Western leaders are never prosecuted for the crimes they commit. Dantheanimator (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

    • Support Alt blurb as NPOV. That a sitting western leader is directly implicated by the UN is notable and unprecedented. We are used to seeing cases of developing country dictators being charged, never some member of a G8. Whether or not the charges will lead to actual persecution/trial is irrelevant. 104.243.98.96 (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Oppose at the moment. The process here is that Callamard will present the case to the Human Rights Council Thursday, and they will determine what actions should be taken. That will be the point to post when we know what will be charged. --Masem (t) 23:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Oppose for now per Masem. I would also note that, at least for the moment, this is receiving scant attention in the news media. While I don't require wall to wall news coverage for my support of a nomination, if it's something likely to be controversial, then we need a reasonable degree of coverage lest we run afoul of WP:RGW. This forum is for items that are In the News. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Oppose this is like Malaysia (?) prosecuting Bush/Cheney in absentia, and without any further developments or action this seems like a bunch of posturing and saber-rattling. –
      Current events of July 6, 2020 (2020-07-06) (Monday)
      edithistorywatch
      Armed conflicts and attacks

      Business and economy

      Disasters and accidents

      Health and environment

      Law and crime

      Politics and elections

      Science and technology

      (Closed) Chiafalo v. Washington

      Near-unanimous consensus against this. I know I also objected, but it's clear when a dead dog is really dead. So sue me. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
      The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
      Articles: Chiafalo v. Washington (talk, history) and Colorado Department of State v. Baca (talk, history)
      Blurb: ​In the Chiafalo v. Washington decision, the Supreme Court unanimously sides with Chiafalo, ruling that states can get to punish faithless electors. (Post)
      Alternative blurb: ​The U.S. Supreme Court rules that states can enforce elector pledges in the Electoral College.
      News source(s): CNN, CBS News, NPR, Vox, The New York Times, etc.
      Credits:
      Nominator's comments: This article is currently medium-sized. Regardless, SCOTUS ruled that states can penalize faithless electors for not voting for a candidate that they promised to vote. Faithless electors have existed for a very long time. AlphaBeta135 (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Oppose and I did much of the contributions on the article. This was a decision everyone was predicting and it wasn't going to change the election. The number of times people have faithless-ly voted in the EC is so minor that its not a compelling issue to be ITN. There are things wrong with the electoral college, no one seriously thought the route of using faithless electors was the route to fix it. --Masem (t) 18:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Oppose just not significant enough for ITN.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Support in principle I'm going to disagree with everyone here on this one. I didn't expect this at all as per Masem's comment and I think this is significant for inclusion on ITN (as per P-K3's statement). However, there is some missing in-text citations. Once that's fixed up, I'll fully support. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        Dantheanimator I follow US politics and Supreme Court rulings and yet I cannot see how a rarely used quirk of the electoral college system would be of much interest to a wider audience. Perhaps you could explain the significance?-- P-K3 (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
      In my opinion, this is unexpected and interesting. I don't really follow US politics that much (except near the elections) so I never really expected this. Besides, of the Wikipedians/readers from countries other than the U.S., the fact that this quirk existed until know will be relatively surprising to them, considering most other countries don't have this type of political system. P-K3, I'm not saying this will be seen as significant by other people but that I believe it is significant. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
      Maybe for those that are familiar with the Electoral College, the faithless elector concept is rare, and only has been of talk later with the last Presidential elections and was being pushed as a possible mechanism for this upcoming one. From [2] "There has been one faithless elector in each of the following elections: 1948, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1972, 1976, and 1988. A blank ballot was cast in 2000. In 2016, seven electors broke with their state on the presidential ballot and six did so on the vice presidential ballot." (In other words, 15 times for a President on well over 10,000 different elector votes in the last 100 years). That basically this decision maintains the expected status quo makes this a non-story. (If anything, the other case decided, that robocallers can't call cell phones for debt collection payments, has a more pronounced impact, but even then that's not ITN). --Masem (t) 19:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
      Wait a second, there were no faithless electoral votes in the 2004 election? Wow, that is really surprising. Thanks Masem for the info, its always great to get informed on things like this. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Oppose per Masem. Calidum 19:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Weak Oppose on notability which I try to avoid, but this is pretty arcane. These electors are partisan hacks selected by the party apparatus before the popular election and the only thing SCOTUS has done is to affirm that they're partisan hacks. The entire electoral college is a disaster for democracy -- let me know when the constitution is amended to dismiss it. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
      It's always fun to walk up to people and say "There is no right to vote for President in the U.S." and then hear them try to explain why there is. (There isn't.)--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 20:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
      It's the right to vote for the right president that seems lacking. – Sca (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Oppose hyper-parochial, arcane, literally of no interest to practically any of our readers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Oppose Routine court decision likely to have little practical impact in the US and none at all outside it. We don't do domestic politics and routine court cases. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Oppose Zippo effect on any national affairs in the US.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 20:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Oppose per all above.Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Oppose – Unless they're saying that a faithless elector is one who doesn't have a religion. Clearly, such infidels should be burned at the stake. – Sca (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Oppose -- not notable enough. Wouldn't expect a similar ruling in another country to show up ITN. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 21:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      (Closed) Philippines Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 Opposition

      Consensus will not develop to post. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
      The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
      Article: Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 (talk, history)
      Blurb: ​The new Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 in the Philippines receives criticism from two lawyer groups who file petitions to the Philippine Supreme Court. (Post)
      Alternative blurb: ​Two lawyer groups file petitions to the Philippine Supreme Court to question the constitutionality of the recent anti-terrorism law.
      Alternative blurb II: ​Following the recent passage of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020, two lawyer groups file petitions to the Philippine Supreme Court arguing against it.
      News source(s): [3]
      Credits:
      Nominator's comments: Can have some rather significant effects on the HR policy in the Philippines. Dantheanimator (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      (Posted) RD: Charlie Daniels

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

      Article updated

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

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

      • Support. The subject's filmography is the least significant thing to be concerned about. The article is otherwise reasonably well-cited. The importance of the subject nears blurb territory. BD2412 T 18:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        • He's nowhere close to blurb territory. Yes, he's in a few Hall of Fames, but has no awards or other recognition to his name (I'd be comparing to someone like Kenny Rogers who does have a massive body of awards/nominations, and who looks like we never even posted due to lack of improvement but there was opposition even there to a blurb. --Masem (t) 18:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Oppose until the orange tagged section is fixed, and the filmography is cited.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict)Oppose Still needs refs, it seems. And yes, not a blurb by a country singer mile. Kingsif (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Support thanks Bloom Kingsif (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
      • @The Rambling Man: I've just finished referencing the filmography and the remaining "citation needed" tags. How about now? —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Support especially considering the improvements over the past few hours. The sources are now there. Although primarily popular in North America, Daniels has a four-decade-long chart history and was something of a cultural icon in his heyday. —  AjaxSmack  21:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Support well referenced now JW 1961 Talk 22:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Posted
        Article: Ennio Morricone (talk, history)
        Recent deaths nomination
        Blurb: Italian composer Ennio Morricone dies at the age of 91. (Post)
        Alternative blurb: ​Oscar winning Italian composer of more than 500 film and TV scores during a 50-year career, dies at age 91.
        News source(s): The Independent, Hollywood Reporter, , NYT, BBC, LA Times, Italy, Vatican, Sydney Morning Herald, Independent (Ireland), Deutsche Welle (Germany), Japan Times, Tass (Russia), Rolling Stone, China.org, India
        Credits:

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

        • Oppose a wealth of unreferenced prose, works, awards etc. Needs a LOT of work. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
          • @Gerda Arendt:, our music editor, if she's available. Brandmeistertalk 12:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
            • Thank you for the invitation, but I'll decline. While I agree that he'd deserve a blurb, I never edited the article, and am not familiar with the topic. The last two days, I took care (unplanned) of two who recently died and who would NOT get much attention (Nikolai Kapustin on the Main page, too late for the other), while his death will be noticed anyway. I think it's a shame that our rules prohibit to do him justice, but I remember the amount of work Jessye Norman's article needed. Big difference in motivation: she was someone who changed my life, while he just composed great music. You whose life he changed, find the sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
              ... adding: it's pointless to support. As long as teh rulez don't change, every fact needs a ref, or he can not appear. Time spent on supporting what can't happen would be better invested in adding references. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
              By now, I added a book, a ref for his quote, and the Golden Globe obit. All could probably be useful for other facts if someone took the time. Someone is not me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Support blurb in principle. He is definitely the first name of a modern composer that comes to one's mind whose prolific career has exerted lasting impact in the history of modern music and film. There are some unreferenced paragraphs but the article is very well written in general.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Oppose blurb- Very far from being "transformative world leader" among all composers, and if we choose to narrow his field for WP:ITNRD to specifically film score composition, which is very specific and should not have many individuals qualify for a blurb, there are at least two figures that are more notable than Morricone (Bernard Herrmann and John Williams). Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 08:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
          In your opinion. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
          Indeed. I don't find it necessary to clarify that things which I write are my opinion. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 08:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
          Well it's important because people may consider you to be an authority on such matters whereas you are simply stating a personal preference. As far as I am concerned, Morricone deserves a blurb, and I've never heard of Herrmann. Dangerous to go around declaring that some individual is "more notable" than another. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
          You gotta click the link before you self-own like that. As a great Wikipedian once said, "it's always mildly amusing that people think by telling us they've never heard of iconic individuals somehow strengthens their argument where all it does is undermine their commentary as being an exemplar of pure ignorance."[4] GreatCaesarsGhost 12:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
          And one day you'll understand that I was being ironic: somehow claiming with authority that "A is more notable than B" is total nonsense. That was the point here. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
          I do apologise though, I have been reminded that some "cultures" don't understand irony, so please accept my deepest sympathies for any misunderstanding here. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
          I hope that nobody would take me to be an authority on film score composers (which I am certainly not) simply for expressing an opinion about some. By that heuristic, everybody at ITN/C would be assumed an expert on international politics. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
          It's fine, you made a mistake, we probably don't need to perpetuate the issue. Clearly "notability" is in the eye of the beholder. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
          @Bzweebl: I don't think we should narrow his field to film score composition as he composed many other popular compositions and has greatly influenced other music artists (In this vein, the last sentence of the introduction says "Morricone has influenced many artists from film scoring to other styles and genres, including Hans Zimmer, Danger Mouse, Dire Straits, Muse, Metallica, and Radiohead."). As for Herrmann and Williams, the first one lived in another time and is very far from the significance of his contemporary Dmitri Shostakovich, while Williams is great but not as influential as Morricone.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
          This would seem to support my argument, as if we are comparing him to all other 20th century composers then he is not nearly as close to the top. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 18:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
          No, we're comparing him to all composers now (at the time of his death) and he's definitely on the top of the field. You can't compare people from different periods.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
          Fair enough. I meant to emphasize that I was referring to your suggestion that we consider him in the field of music composition in general rather than just film score composition. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
          Uh, he's probably not going to have the impact of Mozart or Beethoven, but I'm pretty sure no-one thought that was the case. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
          By striking 20th-century, I intended to clarify that I agree it makes sense to only compare with other composers of the same generation. Sorry that wasn't clear. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
          Very cool, thanks for the clarification. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        Actually some have called him the "Mozart of film music", while Tarantino considered him his "favorite composer," even compared to Mozart and Beethoven. --Light show (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        That's not "some", it's Richard Mowe, and Tarantino has long been reputed in the press to lack a taste for decent art (and per Google, quite a few composers are considered a "Mozart of film music"). InedibleHulk (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Oppose anything at the moment: way too much unsupported material to warrant any showing on the MP. - SchroCat (talk) 09:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC) On reflection, and only when the referencing is complete, oppose blurb; should be an RD only. - SchroCat (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Support Blurb: This man was a giant in the movie world. His scores were transformative in their uniqueness and distinctiveness, and no other composer has come close to his recognizable style. Listen.--Light show (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Support Blurb: The man was a legend. Easily one of the most well-known film composers in history. And for the record, both John Williams and Bernard Herrmann fit that bill, too. MetaTracker (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Oppose not postable in either RD or blurb in current state. --Masem (t) 09:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Support if/when improvements are made. Currently, the article is a mix of the good, the bad, and the ugly. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Oppose referencing issues and oppose blurb no media circus and NOTMANDELA. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Not ready for RD and oppose blurb. There are numerous entire paragraphs with no references at all. He was certainly a notable film & TV composer, but I don't think he was sufficiently influential on music in general to merit a blurb. Blurbs are supposed to be for the top individuals in an entire field (in this case music), not specialisms within that field (film composers). Modest Genius talk 12:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Conditional Support: Very well known and critically acclaimed composer, and the people who have never heard of him will instantly recognize the music. However the article needs a lot of work, and it's a big article to boot. Support Blurb and Posting, if you can get it properly referenced.KittenKlub (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Support as a bare minimum the insertion in RD. Nick Cordero has 29 references in the article and was inserted with virtually zero discussion, Ennio Morricone is by far much better known worldwide, and by the way the article has >170 citations. I am surprised it's not in RD yet. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
          • It's not the number of references total, it's the number of unreferenced claims. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        There are a few unreferenced claims in the body of the text, but I don't think it's enough to dismiss it completely from RD. If the lede section is fine, it can be listed in RD. --Ritchie92 (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        We follow WP:BLP which says nothing about only applying to the lead. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        Wow, if I had a € for every time someone said "there's no need to worry about all the unreferenced stuff, there are actually 29 references in this article!" then I'd be a Euro-millionaire by now. "It's not how big it is, it's how you use it"...... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        Very funny. Now, the article has no single section that is completely unreferenced. There is only one subsection that is, I would say, largely unreferenced, in the sense that there are currently 8 "Citation needed" templates. While surely the article is not at high standards for Wikipedia, I still don't think that it's so bad that it can't be mentioned in the RD list. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Support blurb It's frankly dumb that we are having this debate.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 12:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
          You mean every famous person who dies should automatically get a blurb? Cos otherwise we need to have a debate.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Oppose blurb – Support RD only (when ready), due to comparatively minor status. – Sca (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Oppose blurb, Support posted as RD only due to minor status of this composer for music industry. This is not like Tchainvosky. i also support posted altblurb it needed. 36.77.93.215 (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Support blurb, you gotta be living under the rock to not know this guy. The Good the Bad and the Ugly theme anybody? 82.26.220.45 (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Support blurb Internationally known, certainly at the top of his field. Davey2116 (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Strong support altblurb this Italian composer is well known abroad. He was a Oscar winning Italian composer of more than 500 film and TV scores by him. 114.125.251.80 (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Oppose blurb The vital articles list [5] is a good place to start consideration of the weight of a person within their field. If we review the section where Morricone is listed, there are 30 names. My feeling is this is too niche to post more than one. The top three is some order of Morricone, Williams and Herrmann, but I'd never put Morricone at the top. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
          GreatCaesarsGhost I appreciate your use of an actually somewhat objective metric in this morass of subjectivity that death blurb discussions have become. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
          To put some context around the "vital articles" claim, that microcosm of Wikipedia is governed by a handful (and I literally mean half a dozen) people. This is really important: if we as a community are starting to look to WP:VA to underpin the notability of individuals going for a blurb, we absolutely have to have that discussion via RFC because somehow relating an individual's importance to a truly minor sub-project with basically no community oversight and a couple of regular users is really contrary to what we're trying to achieve here. The stats for the project and talk page speak for themselves: here so please, until someone can substantiate that that specific pet project is actually a true reflection of notability beyond a consensus of a couple of people and practically no viewership, desist from attempting to use it as an "objective measure" here. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        I did not know that so thank you for bringing it up, but even so it is still a better argument than most in recent death blurb discussions. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        • I'm marking this as ready for recent deaths. There may be a consensus for a blurb, but I will leave that decision to an admin. Calidum 16:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
          • How is it ready for RD? There are still large sections of unreferenced text, which is not up to the article quality requirements. Modest Genius talk 16:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
            I'm unmarking it, but I found a good book which solves perhaps some of the problems, and which was already in the article but cited only for the fact of his birth. I used it more for musical training, but have to go. Feel free to read and cite more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Support blurb when ready, which it is not. I don't believe in the argument that film music is too niche of a field to be the top of, because when you look at the composers at the apex of classical music, none of them got a blurb (like Penderecki and Boulez, and we'll have to see about Philip Glass and Arvo Part when they die). The reality is that film music is the most popular form of classical music today: composers like John Williams and Ennio Morricone have significantly more name recognition than Philip Glass or Arvo Part. Popularity does bias who we choose to blurb; some might argue that popularity is an important factor to consider in selecting blurbs. Either we take steps to balance against the bias of fame or we recognize it as a blurb factor.
        Practically speaking, the RD blurbs that get voted in are transformative world leaders in their field, and Morricone meets that requirement. NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Oppose RD on article quality. There are significant gaps in referencing which are going to need plugging before this can be seriously considered for the main page. Oppose Blurb fails the Thatcher Mandela standard. Beyond which we generally decline to blurb the deaths of elderly celebrities who die of natural causes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        There is no Thatcher Mandela standard.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 20:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Support blurb not niche, per NorthernFalcon - film music is the most popular form of classical music today.Jklamo (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Support in RD in principle It is a very developed/long article which is a definitely a good start. However, there is a lot of missing in-text citations (some sections don't have any in-text citations at all). Once those in-text citations are added, I will 100% support this. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Support in principle - very long impressive article that needs more refs. Support RD, doubtful about blurb: as great as he is, the first score composers I think of are Zimmer, Desplat, Williams, Elfman, and probably even Guðnadóttir. There's no single artist among the six that stands out above the rest, and we probably shouldn't blurb them all. Kingsif (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Support RD, not quite blurb material. I'm likely wasting keystrokes here, but overzealous defense of the front page has created a particularly bad inherent bias that weighs heavily against artists with extensive filmographies, discographies, and bibliographies. This was a major reason why we dropped the ball on Carl Reiner. If the work is named and dated and they appear in the credits that's reference enough. Anyone who questions our report knows where to look. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Support blurb when ready (not yet). Morricone was impressive both for the quantity of his output and his influence on music and he is widely known outside of the Anglosphere. —  AjaxSmack  22:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Oppose Referencing still needs improvement for posting. Weak support on blurb if article is ready. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Oppose blurb with extreme reluctance I love his music, and he's one of the greatest soundtrack composers of all time (probably the greatest alongside John Williams), but if Vera Lynn or Little Richard don't get blurbs neither does he. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Support RD on principle (ie that he's dead). Some articles are good, some are bad, and some are ugly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Support RD only, Oppose blurb due to minor contributions in global music industry. Meanwhile, the article has a good shape. 114.125.46.42 (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Currently 60 citations needed. Stephen 06:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Waking up, can't believe it: 437k views on his article, but Wikipedia too concerned about rules to mention him? What does that tell the world about us?
          • We could ignore all rules.
          • We could add the missing refs.
          • We could split the awards to a separate article.
          • We could drop facts that are not crucial.
          • What we can't do is leave it as it is.
          Once done, I suggest - as done before - no blurb but an image. RIP. I will add what I can - but compare what I said yesterday: others might be better prepared. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
          Gerda Arendt, I tried that with Tariq Aziz and it was postable for almost 24 hours before I got reverted but no one did. Without getting to the main page the article did get 150K+ views and those readers got, well, this. Just last week, we had Hachalu Hundessa whose death apparently caused riots that killed 200+ people in Ethiopia. We didn't post it because all we had was Hachalu Hundessa article, who is not notable enough for a blurb as a person and no one created the Hachalu Hundessa riots for the event. In case of Tariq Aziz, all it would have taken was for an admin to post it while it was ready, or an editor to back my edits to the article (it was superior even if it contained less). The more substantial the article is, unfortunately, the worse the problem is. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
          Digging into it: some things are tough to solve, such as in the Munich Philharmonie when such a thing doesn't exist. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
          .. then finding a YouTube video which confirms there was a concert at the Gasteig, but in 2004, not 2005 as the article says. But YouTube is not a RS ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
          That thing done, comes a quote "If the audience comes for my gestures, they had better stay outside". Help needed: This quote is there multiple times on the internet, but who am I to tell who copied this from whom? Most seem to copy from us. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
          More help needed: source "the oldest person at the time to win a competitive Oscar", - I don't even know what it means. Commented out for the moment. Time to ignore rulez, perhaps? --Gerda Arendt
          We're down to 17 tags, and I need to go, real life, SchroCat, I can't fix more right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
          Gerda Arendt, all issues that have been pointed out have been fixed I think. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
          • One option would be splitting the awards and works into separate articles, as is often common for prominent artists. The text itself is rather well-referenced, after a quick look. --Tone 09:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
            • Go ahead, do it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
              • I'll see how I am with time later today. --Tone 09:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
                Tone, I can start right away if no one minds. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
                • Actually: that part doesn't even have "citation needed" so may be less of a problem than I thought. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
                  There are two tags but, though untagged, there are also entire tables without inline citations, I can't think of a reason why those would be let slide. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
                  The whole section is now tagged. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
                  move it out fast then --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
                  Or fix it, rather than sweep the problems under the carpet. - SchroCat (talk) 11:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Post to RD (soon), image not blurb: Clearly there has been extensive tagging of the article, but I don't think there is much doubt as to the truth of the most of the facts asserted: that he composed music for such and such a film appears in little doubt. There are statements implying judgement or analysis that might deserve attention: " Though sonically bizarre for a movie score, Morricone's music was viscerally true to Leone's vision", for example. (Although I don't really question that either.) Fundamentally, I see no reason why we should be embarrassed by this article in its current state. I also support Gerda Arendt's suggestion to use one of the images. This actually seems like something we could do in general: if someone is "blurb-worthy", there will be a choice of images to post; the image has a natural connection to the subject; and we don't have to think of a blurb. -- PaulBetteridge (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

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

        • Stats The numbers are in and Morricone is getting attention but not quite as much as Charlie Daniels. For an evidence-based perspective, here's the top 10 deaths in June–July. First, note that Joel Schumacher didn't quite make the cut. Most of these people peak at about half a million views but there was one death which was a different order of magnitude. It certainly wasn't Morricone but can you guess who it was ...?
        Top 10 recent deaths by views
        Article 01 June to 6 July 2020 (daily peak)
        Sushant Singh Rajput
        13,684,142(7M)
        Chiranjeevi Sarja
        1,988,366(593K)
        Nick Cordero
        1,421,623(1.1M)
        Carl Reiner
        1,155,890(582K)
        Saroj Khan
        1,068,488(757K)
        Ian Holm
        1,033,054(547K)
        Vera Lynn
        798,997(497K)
        Steve Bing
        637,931(316K)
        Charlie Daniels
        495,794(463K)
        Ennio Morricone
        492,222(437K)
        Andrew🐉(talk) 10:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
        So Hollywood was lying to us about being famous or forever. Figures. Get that man his blurb! InedibleHulk (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Support RD/Ready for RD I have purged the cn tags, as well as IMDB and Discogs cites. AFAICT, it meets the standard for ITN/DYK. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
        Looks good now. Posting. --Tone 13:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
        Thank you. I added some to the credits. --
        Article: Ronald Graham (talk, history)
        Recent deaths nomination (Post)
        News source(s):
        • "The Latest: Ronald Graham, 1935–2020". American Mathematical Society. July 7, 2020. Retrieved July 7, 2020.
        • "Ronald Lewis Graham, 2003-2004 MAA President". Mathematical Association of America. July 7, 2020. Retrieved July 7, 2020.

        Credits:

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

        • Oppose for now with quite a few citation needed tags, but consider this a support when those are taken care of. Between him, Morricone, and Daniels, July 6 was a bad day for deaths. :/ –
          Current events of July 5, 2020 (2020-07-05) (Sunday)
          edithistorywatch
          Armed conflicts and attacks

          Arts and culture

          Business and economy
          • Mercedes-Benz announces that it will be recalling 668,954 vehicles in China over possible issues with oil leakage. (AP)

          Disasters and accidents

          Health and environment

          Law and crime

          Politics and elections

          (Posted) RD: Nick Cordero

          Article: Nick Cordero (talk, history)
          Recent deaths nomination (Post)
          News source(s): Washington Post, CBS
          Credits:

          Article updated

          Nominator's comments: Short article but nearly everything is sourced. -- a lad insane (channel two) 02:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

          • Support Beat me to it. Short but sourcing is there. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

          *Oppose for now Missing some in text-citations. Once the sources are referenced, I will support this. No other issues. *Support Looks good now. For the record though, I was still sleeping when you fixed this and when this was posted. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

          • @
            Article: Bettina Gilois (talk, history)
            Recent deaths nomination (Post)
            News source(s): Deadline Hollywood
            Credits:

            Article updated

             Bloom6132 (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

            • Support Good article with no issues. This is ready. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
            • Comment Just needs a reference to the Kevin Costner/Disney film in the biography section, will change to support once fixed
              Article: Cleveland Eaton (talk, history)
              Recent deaths nomination (Post)
              News source(s): The Birmingham News
              Credits:

              Article updated

               Bloom6132 (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

              • Support Looks good to me. No issues. This should be ready. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
              • Support Short but well referenced throughout JW 1961 Talk 22:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
              • Posted
                Good faith nom, and one day this will go. But today is not that day and consensus to remove is not going to develop at the present time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
                The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
                Article: George Floyd protests (talk, history)
                Ongoing item removal (Post)
                Nominator's comments: I live in Atlanta, so I'm well aware that some protests are still "ongoing" but some facts remain: 1) The size of the mass demonstrations has become much smaller; 2) the media coverage of the protests has waned (COVID-19 is again getting top billing) and 3) the target article has gotten stale (I don't buy into the "sub articles" excuse bandied about in other noms). So, for those reasons, in alignment with the ongoing criteria, it's time to take it down. LaserLegs (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
                • Oppose Between the coverage of Trump's comments from the July 3 speech directed at the protects, the event in Seattle yesterday where a protester was run over by a driver, and more statues being pulled down, they are still ongoing. Not as major, but they are still an event. --Masem (t) 18:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
                  • Yeah I saw that too but the driver wasn't politically motivated and it was what? 50 people on the express way? I mean.... --LaserLegs (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
                    • There was also the removal of the Columbus statue in Baltimore, Maryland yesterday and other statues in the past few weeks. It seems to me this event is still ongoing; there's no reason to remove it. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
                • Oppose Still ongoing, still getting updates, even if more of them are to the subarticles. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
                • Strong Oppose I would keep it up for now. Events related to the George Floyd protests are still occuring, though I do agree with Masem, they are smaller and less talked-about now. Also, as Masem said previously, there are still events related to the protest going on. A woman died during a protest in Seattle yesterday and a Columbus statue was removed. This should stay. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
                • Strong Oppose Per above, a woman died during a protest yesterday, and the protests are still getting daily front-page coverage in North America and Europe. Maybe we can revisit in another 1-2 weeks? 104.243.98.96 (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
                • Oppose. A Columbus statue was pulled down and pushed into Baltimore harbor. Things are still going on. 331dot (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
                • Weak Oppose. I'm in Atlanta too; seems like it is quieting down. I'd think that in a few days we could nom if nothing else happens (but really, only God knows what will happen), but as for now, I think the Baltimore incident shows that it is still very much in the news. Awsomaw (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
                  • Comment. Agree this should be revisited in a week or two. Does it make sense to rename: "George Floyd protests" to "Civil Unrest in the United States" Black Lives Matter protests since there is no blurb?104.243.98.96 (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
                • Should probably be renamed to Black Lives Matter protests, as the anger now is coming from more than the catalyst of Floyd's death. Stephen 23:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
                  • I agree with GreatCaesarsGhost, the fact that it is called the George Floyd protests still is quite arbitrary/irrelevant considering how much the protests have expanded in both scope and area. However, we can't just rename the protests simply "Black Lives Matter protests" per Stephen's suggestion, because: there have been other BLM protests in the past and naming it this creates unnecessary confusion, and naming it the BLM protests excludes many of the other protests that are often cited as part of the movement (such as the protests against Columbus/Cecil Rhodes statues). This issue needs to be further discussed on the George Floyd Protests' page. Dantheanimator (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
                • Strongest possible oppose The notion that the media coverage of protests has "waned" is completely untrue. If anything, coverage is intensifying in most places. And the target article is stale? How? It is true that the "sub-articles" are being updated more frequently, but the idea that the target article is stale is nonsense--sorry. Zingarese talk · contribs 23:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
                Almost everything in the edit history from the last 5 days ago until the time I posted the nom were content tweaks and ref improvements not "new, pertinent information". Why is it so difficult for people to comprehend the difference? If you want to change the ongoing criteria to support "sub-articles" then you can contribute here until then that's a made-up concession. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
                Sure, thanks. Zingarese talk · contribs 02:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
                • Strong Opppose -- we kept the Hong Kong protests on for months, even as they waned. The protests are still going on, and they're still pretty big. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 03:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
                • Oppose per above. Davey2116 (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
                The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

                2020 Dominican Republic general election results

                Article: 2020 Dominican Republic general election (talk, history)
                Blurb: ​Luis Abinader of the Modern Revolutionary Party becomes the new president of the Dominican Republic. (Post)
                Alternative blurb: ​Following yesterday's general elections, Luis Abinader becomes the new president of the Dominican Republic.
                Alternative blurb II: ​In a historic election, Luis Abinader of the Modern Revolutionary Party wins to become the next president of the Dominican Republic.
                Alternative blurb III: ​Luis Abinader of the Modern Revolutionary Party is elected president of the Dominican Republic.
                News source(s): [6]
                Credits:

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

                Nominator's comments: Luis Abinader is the new president of the Dominican Republic, ending Danilo Medina's long time rule. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

                • Comment We generally will post the results (once know) of the presidential part of the election per ITNR, but would be premature to mention that the election is happening. --Masem (t) 18:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
                • Wait for the results; we don't post the mere occurrence of an election, we post the results, as general elections and head of state elections are ITNR. 331dot (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
                • Support per posting but Wait for results, which takes place in matter of time. Thus it can be revised with official results of election 36.77.93.215 (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
                • Oppose until the election results come in. Although, here's a question: if the election takes a week or more to decide, do we mention it ITN? I'm thinking about this November in the US, we may not know who won for more than a week. -- Rockstone[Send me a message!] 03:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
                  The results are ITNR, not the occurrence of the election. If the delay is just the natural result of the mechanics of the election, it is unlikely such a "pending result" nom would garner support here. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
                • Comment Changed the nomination for results, not the election itself.
                  Current events of July 4, 2020 (2020-07-04) (Saturday)
                  edithistorywatch
                  Armed conflicts and attacks

                  Arts and culture

                  Business and economy

                  Disasters and accidents

                  Health and environment

                  International relations

                  Law and crime

                  Politics and elections

                  Science and technology

                  (Posted) 2020 Kyushu floods

                  Article: 2020 Kyushu floods (talk, history)
                  Blurb: ​At least 34 die, including 14 old age home residents, in Kyushu floods. (Post)
                  Alternative blurb: ​At least 34 people are killed in floods in Kyushu, Japan.
                  Alternative blurb II: ​Floods in Kyushu, Japan kill at least 34 people and leave dozens stranded on rooftops.
                  News source(s): NYT, BBC, Guardian, AP
                  Credits:

                  Nominator's comments: Major flooding, tragic deaths, global warming effect on mankind. Chuka Chief (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

                  • Strong support High quality article with lots of information. The rainfall was also unprecedented for these prefectures. Nothing to complain about. This is ready for inclusion in ITN. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
                  • support - ready for posting.BabbaQ (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
                  • Oppose disaster stub but since we pretty consistently post trash like this I added an alt-blurb that doesn't single out causalities by age or gender or any other arbitrary measure. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
                  • Comment Fixed typo of LaserLegs's alt-blurb and made alt-blurb 3. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
                  • Strong support with altblurb 1 While this is stub and needs more pending information which LaserLegs said, this is disaster management which have significant event on earth. The rainfall was unexpected for these prefectures and the country as well. 180.242.9.91 (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
                  • Support altblurb 1 per nomination. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 23:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
                  • Support per nom. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 04:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
                  • Oppose per LaserLegs, we post a lot of natural disaster stub articles here and yet I'm not even sure this one would meet our low threshold. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 08:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
                  • Support - AP puts toll at 34. – Sca (talk) 12:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
                  • Updated blurbs to 34 (+dropped the missing because they are not reported in the 34 tally). I am OK with all the blurbs, reports have been putting a spotlight on the old age home that was a major casualty site, but it's OK either in or out.--Chuka Chief (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
                  • Support altblurb I with update victims as the information can be changed in time many people killed in flood whilst still a stub this is very important natural disasters. LaserLegs and Bzweebl please don't oppose just because of stub article but see any significance of event. 114.125.234.209 (talk) 14:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
                    • On the contrary, I give much greater weight to article quality than I do to the "significance" of 34 irrelevant people killed in a spot of bad weather and I'm rather sick of these stubby disaster articles expressed to the main page and subsequently abandoned -- but rest assured the practice will continue despite my objections. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
                  • Comment Fixed typo. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
                  • Posted Stephen 06:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
                  • Comment Can this be reworded? —Jonny Nixon (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
                    Of course it can.... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
                  • Post-posting comment deaths needed to change to 37 per new BBC source.36.77.93.215 (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
                  • Image suggestion Could the Russian book be replaced with the gif of the floods? It's generally more informative, and in my opinion more interesting. Kingsif (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
                    • Very Strong Support for Kingsif's suggestion Yes! I support
                      Strong consensus against posting. MSN12102001 (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
                      The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
                      Article: Lin Dan (talk, history)
                      Blurb: ​Chinese badminton star Lin Dan retires (Post)
                      News source(s): [7]
                      Credits:

                      Article needs updating
                      Nominator's comments: Sources say he's arguably the greatest of all time. Banedon (talk) 07:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
                      • Oppose I think it's widely acknowledged that the posting of Alex Ferguson's retirement was a poor decision overall, and this guy, at the age of 36, would double down on that error. Plus the latter stages of this BLP are very poorly referenced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
                      • Oppose for now He'll be back. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
                      • Oppose Not the kind of story that ITN is for. P-K3 (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
                      FYI: [Posted_Alex_Ferguson_retires][Posted_Yao_Ming_Retires][Posted_Sachin_Tendulkar]. Banedon (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
                      You’ll notice that all of those were controversial. There is substantial opposition to posting any sportspeople’s retirements, for good reason. P-K3 (talk) 12:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
                      • Oppose as I don't think this is getting the coverage needed; I have no large issue with posting notable retirements in general. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
                      • Oppose Straight-forward retirement like this is not ITN worthy despite the significance of the athlete; we should never have posted the previous cases as they stood. --Masem (t) 12:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
                      • Oppose – Minor sports footnote. – Sca (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
                      • Oppose per PKiii. ——Serial # 13:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
                      • Oppose Posting of any retirement certainly needs more notability than posting a death as a blurb. And, no offense to Badminton, but it's not exactly a sport where major retirements will have much of an impact. Kingsif (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
                      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

                  July 3

                  Current events of July 3, 2020 (2020-07-03) (Friday)
                  edithistorywatch
                  Armed conflicts and attacks

                  Arts and culture

                  Business and economy

                  Disasters and accidents

                  Health and environment

                  International relations

                  Law and crime

                  Politics and elections

                  Sports

                  (Posted) RD: Earl Cameron

                  Article: Earl Cameron (talk, history)
                  Recent deaths nomination (Post)
                  News source(s): Variety
                  Credits:

                  Article updated

                  Nominator's comments: Only filmograph section + table needs sources. Masem (t) 20:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

                  • Support No issues. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
                  • Strong Support High-quality article. This is ready. Dantheanimator (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
                  • Comment Absolutely ready given the state it was in when I nominated it. All the -ography aspects have been properly sourced. --Masem (t) 03:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
                  • Posted to RD.
                    Article: Tyson Brummett (talk, history)
                    Recent deaths nomination (Post)
                    News source(s): The Philadelphia Inquirer; USA Today
                    Credits:

                    Article updated

                     Bloom6132 (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

                    *Weak Oppose High quality article however, there is no in-text citations in the summary. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

                    • @Dantheanimator: per MOS:LEADCITE: "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." Since all the info in this lead is repeated in the main text (and cited there), and it does not contain material that is challenged (or likely to be challenged) or any direct quotations, it is redundant to repeat them. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
                    • Support Thank you Bloom6132 for telling me. Usually in other articles I saw in-text citations in the intro so I assumed it was mandatory. I'm still new so any corrections like these are greatly appreciated. I'm not sure about this but if I change my opinion to support, do I strike out my previous opposition? Thanks. Best regards, Dantheanimator (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
                    • @Dantheanimator: Thanks, and no worries! We're in the same boat – I'm still learning new things even after a decade here. Yes, striking out previous oppose votes once the issue(s) are resolved is the norm. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
                    • Support Looks good to me JW 1961 Talk 20:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
                    • Support no concerns. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
                    • @Spencer, Stephen, and Black Kite: I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
                    • Posted to RD.
                      Article: Saroj Khan (talk, history)
                      Recent deaths nomination (Post)
                      News source(s): india tv
                      Credits:

                       Choreographer Saroj Khan dies at 72 Mr.Mani Raj Paul - talk 01:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

                      • Oppose multiple issues, tagged etc. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 06:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                      • Oppose As per The Rambling Man's reasons. Also is missing some in text citations. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
                      • Oppose as a day and a half after first oppose the article still has 3 orange notices and some cn tags
                        Article: Reckful (talk, history)
                        Recent deaths nomination (Post)
                        News source(s): Forbes, Kotaku
                        Credits:

                        Nominator's comments: Popular Twitch streamer, apparently. Nahnah4 (talk

                        • Oppose achievements unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 06:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Comment Article has been updated. — Ruyter (talk • edits) 09:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • When I'm not familiar with the references used, I like to vet against WP:RSN. For the first time, I'm finding none of these sites there. While this is certainly not a requirement, it makes me wary when so much of the article is based on sources that have not been reviewed by the community. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                        I wonder -- Would we not AFD in these circumstances?--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 13:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                        The BBC are covering his death - he seems to be notable. P-K3 (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                        I wasn't arguing notability, but rather the reliability of sources. Known bad sources are not allowed - what about unknown sources? GreatCaesarsGhost 01:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
                        "The BBC are covering his death", is the BBC an unknown source? I hope not. I think P-K3's comment answers your question or settles your concern GreatCaesarsGhost. Dantheanimator (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
                        Not in the slightest. The entire article must be cited. It is not enough that some of the facts are reported by the BBC, but rather "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source."
                        Article: Ángela Jeria (talk, history)
                        Recent deaths nomination (Post)
                        News source(s): Infobae, La Tercera
                        Credits:

                        Nominator's comments: Chilean archaeologist and activist, detained and tortured during Augusto Pinochet's dictatorship. Mother of former Chilean president and current UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet. Jamez42 (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

                        • Support - short but sufficient within Start-class. Good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Oppose no mention in the prose (that I can see) of her death. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Support Added section on her death as per The Rambling Man's opposition. No other issues with the page for what I can see. I think this is ready. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Support interesting story where you can learn important events. sourcing looks good. KittenKlub (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Posted to RD.
                          Withdrawn by nom. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
                          The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
                          Article: 2020 China–India skirmishes (talk, history)
                          Blurb: ​Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visits soldiers in the Ladakh region amid heightened tensions between China and India. (Post)
                          Alternative blurb: ​Following recent border skirmishes in the disputed Ladakh region, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visits soldiers stationed near the Line of Actual Control (LAC).
                          Alternative blurb II: ​Amidst a revived wave of border hostility between India and China over their disputed border, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visits soldiers in the Ladakh region.
                          News source(s): [8]
                          Credits:

                          Article updated
                          Nominator's comments: I don't know if this is allowed, but I think this would be better and more comprehensive if it was merged with the halting of $2.8 billion worth of Chinese power equipment by Indian Minister of Power R. K. Singh, since they both deal with the China-India tensions. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                          • Suggestion If there's an appropriate China–India relations article, it could be put in ongoing. Kingsif (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                          • Comment Done, changed the nomination into an ongoing one. I'm not sure exactly how ongoing nominations work so if I made a mistake, please tell me. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                          • Oppose relations article not getting regular updates, and the skirmishes article is stale because there are no skirmishes. This really is a thing where we should blurb significant updates instead of parking some stale article in the box for two months. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                          • Comment Reverted my ongoing nomination back to an event nomination as per LaserLegs opposition. Also, the India-China skirmishes article receives decent updates regularly, I don't know why you think the article is "stale" LaserLegs. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                          • Oppose A visit by the Indian PM to the border is not sufficient for ITN. If this was for the purposes of commencing military operations or other actions it would be more appropriate. 104.243.98.96 (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                          • Comment this nom was converted in place from an ongoing to blurb nom. I'm still opposed. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                          • Oppose. A President visiting their country's troops is a normal thing, especially within the country. 331dot (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                          • Comment Should this discussion be closed than? It seems agreed that this shouldn't be put in the ITN. Dantheanimator (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                          If you wish to withdraw your nomination, please indicate that. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                          I wish to withdraw my nomination. Dantheanimator (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                          The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

                  July 2

                  Current events of July 2, 2020 (2020-07-02) (Thursday)
                  edithistorywatch
                  Armed conflicts and attacks

                  Business and economy

                  Disasters and accidents

                  Health and environment

                  International relations

                  Law and crime

                  Politics and elections

                  Sports

                  (Posted) RD: Nikolai Kapustin

                  Article: Nikolai Kapustin (talk, history)
                  Recent deaths nomination (Post)
                  News source(s): official site
                  Credits:

                  Article updated

                  Nominator's comments: Ukrainian-born Russian pianist and composer, playing jazz when it just resurfaced after being banned under Stalin, composing jazz sounds in classical forms, and recorded by leading pianists. The article was tagged for needing more sources, but - nice surprise - rich sources including two dissertations were hidden in the external links. - So far, the date of death appears only on his official website, but Discogs and YouTube picked up the year. I was shocked for a moment by seeing the exact wording of our article in a book (and reworded some), but then saw that the book even mentions Wikipedia as a source. Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

                  *Strong Oppose Missing multiple in-text citations, doesn't have a separate section for the individuals death, and only has one section. All in all, this article needs a lot of work. Dantheanimator (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

                  • ️⃣ All we know about his death is that it happened and a date. No cause. Not even a place, which is only induced from where he lived last. I have no idea how that constitutes the need for a separate section. Which facts do you think are not cited inline? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
                  • Support Short but article is now decently referenced by Gerda and death section added JW 1961 Talk 21:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
                    Thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
                  • Strong Support Thank you Gerda Arendt all the improvements to the article you made, it really shows. I added a section for his early life and personal life so that is would be less clumped together and more organized. As long as there is a source about his death, a separate section for his death can be made. It is likely that more information will be released in the future and which can be used to expand those sections. This nomination should be ready. Best regards, Dantheanimator (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
                    If you really believe that we need sections in a short bio section, please change Ludwig Finscher. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
                  There's no reason to separate Ludwig Finscher's bio into more sections because the section title "Life and career" covers the information in it. In Nikolai Kapustin's article, the section title was only "career" despite it including information on his life. If you want to merge the sections Gerda Arendt, you can, but make sure the section title matches the information contained in the section. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
                  • Support Looks fine to me. Joofjoof (talk) 11:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
                  • Posted to RD. Meets minimum standards.
                    Arrests are not posted, only convictions. Stephen 01:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
                    Article: Ghislaine Maxwell (talk, history)
                    Blurb: ​Ghislaine Maxwell, an associate of Jeffrey Epstein, is arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in New Hampshire and charged by the Department of Justice for enticement of minors, sex trafficking, and perjury. (Post)
                    News source(s): Reuters
                    Credits:

                    Article updated
                    Nominator's comments: A big development in the ongoing Epstein saga. Maxwell has faced persistent allegations of being a recruiter for Epstein. The whole saga in general has international significance (for instance, Prince Andrew had to resign over his connections to Epstein). From what I can tell, the article is well sourced and this would be of interest for the ITN audience. JOEBRO64 22:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                    • Oppose it's a big development and hopefully justice will prevail, but it's not ITN-worthy to report her arrest, once she is convicted then we can post. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                    • Wait for something juicy per TRM. Kingsif (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                    • Strong Oppose We post convictions, not arrests. Posting this would raise potentially serious BLP concerns. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

                    (Stale) RD: Sybil Wettasinghe

                    Article: Sybil Wettasinghe (talk, history)
                    Recent deaths nomination (Post)
                    News source(s): Menafn
                    Credits:

                    Article updated

                    Nominator's comments: Updated and well sourced. The author was awarded the Guinness World Record for her book Wonder Crystal in March 2020 for the most number of alternate endings. Abishe (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

                    • Oppose several works and awards unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                    • Support Has written many childrens books which have been translated into many languages and thus should be included. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                      That's not how it works. We accept her notability by default, all we look at in RD nominations is article quality, and this falls way short. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                    • Oppose for now until references are improved in the areas noted by The Rambling Man
                      Article: 2020 Hpakant jade mine disaster (talk, history)
                      Blurb: ​At least 100 people are killed in a landslide at Hpakant jade mine in Myanmar. (Post)
                      News source(s): BBC, CNN, Reuters, AP
                      Credits:

                      Nominator's comments: death toll expected to rise, possibly significantly. Last count is 120, but recovery efforts have been halted due to conditions with bodies in field. The accident itself is a significant loss of life, Myanmarese lives matter. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 11:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

                      • Support shocking. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                      • Support article good, major world news - the leading item on BBC World Service (not BBC News, but certainly equal). Kingsif (talk) 11:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                      • Oppose disaster stub, and it's not really a "mine collapse" this was a landslide "The miners at the site were freelancing scavengers who were scouring the tailings of a mining company." which is maybe still notable but the current title is misleading. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        LaserLegs, reliable source differ on what is a mine. BBC: "Myanmar jade mine landslide kills 120" [9]. New York Times: "Myanmar Jade Mine Collapse Kills at Least 100" [10]. CBS: "Landslide kills more than 100 in "dystopian wasteland" of Myanmar's jade mines" [11]. CNN: "Jade mine landslide kills at least 100 in Myanmar, with more people still missing" [12]. See also Open-pit mining.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 12:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        I agree, every RS you cited calls it a "landslide". Glad that's settled. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        1. No, New York Times says "Myanmar Jade Mine Collapse Kills at Least 100". 2. What are you objecting to? At the time of your post ([13]), the blurb said landslide as well. The article is titled "disaster", not "collapse". Every use of "collapse" in the article (which I am amenable to change) follows a reference using it as well normal usage of "collapse" and with clear context. (e.g. "collapse of a heap of mining waste"). The blurb and the article do not use "mine collapse" (the sole use is a link to 2019 Hpakant jade mine collapse, a different event).--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 13:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                      • Support - good article and shocking disaster as said above. Sad. CoryGlee (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                      • Support – Major disaster, wide coverage. – Sca (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                      • Posted Article in good shape for posting. Not sure if the pictures on that page are of *that* mine but if we want to use those to show what mining conditions are like there, that would be fair. --Masem (t) 14:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • I'm going ahead to prep File:Jade_Mine.jpg for image protection (as it gives good reason to understand how such a disaster could easily happen). I don't know how best to "caption" it in the blurb, like "(representative mine pictured)"? Suggestions while waiting for protection to propagate? --Masem (t) 14:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                          • User:Masem, my understanding is that the picture is from the Hpakant mining complex, broadly construed, but that the Hpakant mines are spread over a fairly wide area as they are open pit mines. e.g. File:A large company Jade Mine in Hpakant 2018 January .jpg is an organized mine (the collapsed mine is the dump site on the edges of one of the more organized mine, File:Jade_Mine.jpg, File:Jade Mine 2.jpg, File:Jade Mine 3.jpg, File:Jade Mine 4.jpg, File:Jade Mine 5.jpg are good representations how these makeshift sites look like).--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 14:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                            • Sure, I'm not expecting a picture of *the* mine site of the disaster but to show that these are effectively open pit mines (going back up to the "collapse/landslide" issue) and so just a matter of saying "this is what these mines in this same complex look like" but in a concise manner for ITN box. --Masem (t) 15:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                              • User:Masem, "Makeshift jade mining in Hpakant (2018)" ?--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 15:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                                • That works for the caption, I'm looking for what to include in the blurb text for appropriateness, too. But as we just added the HK Protest, doesn't make sense to change for about 24hr here. --Masem (t) 15:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                      • Support, for the record. This went up before I had a chance to see the nomination but clearly a major disaster.--
                        I don't think consensus for posting is likely to arise. El_C 05:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
                        The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
                        Article: Russian bounty program (talk, history)
                        Blurb: ​News media and legislators suspect that the Russian government is involved in the bounty program that pays Talibans to kill American soldiers and their allies in Afghanistan. (Post)
                        Alternative blurb: ​Intelligence agencies allege Russia operated a bounty program paying Taliban militants to kill coalition soldiers in Afghanistan, sparking political controversy among the U.S. government.
                        Alternative blurb II: ​Russia's intelligence agencies operate an alleged bounty program that pays Taliban militants to target coalition soldiers in Afghanistan, causing controversy among the U.S. government.
                        News source(s): The New York Times, The Hill, KSN, Wall Street Journal, NBC News, etc.
                        Credits:
                        Nominator's comments: This article has lots of sources and quite decent. Lots of news media wanted answers from the government about the program. The government called the program a hoax. --AlphaBeta135 (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Support article is decent, topic is in the news, ticks my boxes. We posted Putin's assassination of some blokes in the UK with poisoned umbrella tips or something and it's not like we waited for him to fly the to the UN and confess. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Support in principle. But the blurb needs work. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Support The article looks good and well-sourced, but more photos could be added to help the casual reader understand the events. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 02:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Weak oppose mainly because it's unproven allegations. Still, the media seems to be very interested, so it's only weak oppose. Banedon (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Oppose Only because there's nothing yet of an event here. It's a suspicion and there's no event that's tripped. Its clear what the goal is (chance number 2 for impeachment) but we're dealing with yet-proven (though well-backed) claims. Not appropriate for ITN yet. Its similar to the reported claims about the Chinese gov't-directed genocide a few days ago - what actions are taken will be the news point, not that there's a report they exist. --Masem (t) 03:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Support, but change "pays Talibans" to something in the singular. The article adequately reflects the degree to which the allegation is disputed, and the news is equally significant if it is true, or if it is proved to have been a hoax. BD2412 T 05:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Support has definitely been enduring in the news for past few days which lends more support for ITN. And its looks like there is an active investigation by US government officials right now. It looks like "work" is being done quite rapidly to get to the bottom of this. 104.243.98.96 (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Oppose we don't post "suspicions", wow. This is not a tabloid newspaper. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 06:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Oppose blurb wording per TRM, neutral on blurb itself. NorthernFalcon (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Oppose Shocked this is even being considered. The key word here is "suspect". If this is actually confirmed, maybe it's for the front page, but until then we don't post theories. 88.215.17.228 (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Support with updated wording. Suggest "intelligence agencies allege Russia operated a bounty program paying Taliban militants to kill coalition soldiers" or similar. This is proving to be highly significant to the Afghan War, Russia-US/UK relations, and the Trump administration. The Times is rolling out new details daily. gobonobo + c 09:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Strong oppose We don't post tin-foil-hat conspiracy theories. I also don't see this as a front-page news in the media here in Europe (including the BBC).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        This is hardly a tin foil hat conspiracy theory, soldiers who were on the ground found much evidence about this. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Agree, the time is not yet right for this. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Oppose - If the President feels this isn't worth following up on, then perhaps this isn't worthy for ITN.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 11:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        If the Russians have kompromat on Trump, of course he will allow them to pay people to kill American soldiers. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        The opposite of what Trump does/wants to do is typically the correct course of action in pretty much every scenario, so this specific argument can easily be flipped.  Nixinova   T   C   06:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Comment AlphaBeta135 Note that "launch" suggests the Russians are commencing the program just now, not that it has been going on for some time as is alleged. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Oppose – Per Masem, TRM. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Oppose - Allegations without genuine proof. Suggest close as well. KittenKlub (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        There is some support here, no grounds for an early close. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        There is also plenty of evidence available. Unless we are waiting for Putin(who still denies there are Russian forces in Ukraine) to confess, there is no impartial international body that will make a determination here. We can only go by what RS report. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        Intelligence reports are not RS by definition, and "a red scare" isn't to change my mind.KittenKlub (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        Sources that report on what intelligence reports and soldiers state are RS; I'm not trying to change your mind, but it's factually incorrect to say "without genuine proof". 331dot (talk) 13:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        Three supports after you two "suggested closed" I was thinking to mark it ready. Good thing no one unilaterally closed a nom after just 12 hours when it has 7 days to be considered right? Should probably stop doing that altogether. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Support Decent article and in the news. The nature of these things means there will never be definitive proof one way or the other, but as ever we go with what the sources are saying.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Support per above. The article is quite good. Davey2116 (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Support we regularly post news items that are contested or which there is no definite proof. All a matter of wording and appropriate sourcing in the article. Alt blurb I seems to encapsulate that very well, but the other ones are also ok. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:1D96:7DCA:BC29:BDA7 (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Oppose per Masem and The Rambling Man. Hrodvarsson (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Oppose. I'm not seeing anyone besides the unnamed intelligence agencies and officials stating that this program existed; everyone else is attributing it to them, and does not provide any substantiating evidence. As such, it's still substantially an allegation rather than a statement of fact. Moreover, I'm not seeing this making headlines outside the country affected, which, I find, is a useful rule of thumb. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Oppose As probably mentioned earlier, this is just professional speculation, nothing more. The in the news section should have more than just speculations and allegations. Dantheanimator (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Oppose and snow close per Vanamonde93, and more jingoistic posturing by Hill politicians. We would never post new groundbreaking archaeological findings that are mere "professional speculation" (per Dantheanimator) but lacking in scholarly consensus. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                          Why all the demands to close this? There is plenty of support. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Comment I'm sure if we had unsubstantiated claims of Russia assassinating people in the UK it would be posted --LaserLegs (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                          @LaserLegs: I think this annoys people the most so that they might feel inclined to oppose even if that was not their first thought. You stated your vote well and so be it. Others might agree or disagree with you and a smooth flow of discussion will eventually determine whether this gets a chance or not. Suppose someone wants to support this and doesn't do it simply because of disagreement with your attitude to draw comparison from a past story that went a different way, your view on the Skripal's poisoning or your (mis)treatment of news related to the UK in general.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                          Oh? So we had no evidence of the poisoning except for statements by unnamed officials? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                          Standard tangential non-sequitur I'm afraid. It was beyond doubt that the Skripal's (and others) were attacked using Russian nerve agents. There's even an excellent three-part dramatisation by the BBC to help you learn some more about it, you probably can't watch it but it's here. And attempting to compare the use of chemical weapons by one sovereign state on another who aren't at war with one another is not quite analogous to mercenary activities in theatres (sorry, theaters) of war, now is it? Deary me. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Strong Support -- headline news, and well sourced. --Rockstone[Send me a message!] 20:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Oppose As it's only a suspicion. JW 1961 Talk 21:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Oppose consider the blurb's vague subject and verb - "News media and legislators suspect" or "​Intelligence agencies allege". These sort of stories need a definitive subject and verb, like "The CIA confirms" or "The DNI announces" GreatCaesarsGhost 22:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        Support...and now we have "confirmation" from a "senior Afghan official." GreatCaesarsGhost 13:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                        Even if it is real - there's clearly going to be more to this story than just discovery, and the ITN point would be who's to take blame for not stopping it once it was known... --Masem (t) 13:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                        Can you clarify that? You're saying it's too early to post (I can buy that) but the trigger for when to post would be when? We certainly shouldn't expect the "American" government to confirm. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                        Actually I do expect that there should be some type of investigative action (in this case, it would likely be another congressional investigation here) to verify. It doesn't necessary need to be the US gov't either if the issue is that severe. All reports right now are from media sources, while they are well established for investigative reports, still lack access to the whole picture, and can't be taken as authoritative. Eg: Woodward and Bernstein revealed the existence of what would become Watergate and should be recognized for that, but the key part of Watergate was the impeachment trial against Nixon. We're at the same point here that the existence of something that points at potentially impeachable or other liable actions within the US government, but only from what the media has reported. A full investigation and followup would be need to affirm how true that was and if wasn't part of the story missing or the like. Again, I point to the Chinese genocide story ITNC below as a comparison: it seems nearly factually complete and just as confirmed, but again, the existence of the genocide as stated by a reliable media source isn't sufficient for an ITN story, its what actions come from that story taken by others that we'd be more interested in posting. Now certainly if this was a driven ongoing story for the US and world news, I might consider that, but even today, coverage of it seems buried, under how Trump generally dismissed intelligence reports throughout his term. --Masem (t) 14:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • I would suggest nominating the article for WP:DYK. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 01:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Oppose- Not sure it's a great precedent to post unconfirmed allegations. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 04:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Weak oppose: A case of 'big if true', however I don't think pure allegations should really be on ITN. The article states that "'officials said there was disagreement among intelligence officials about the strength of the evidence about the suspected Russian plot'", so this doesn't seem to be a conclusive claim.  Nixinova   T   C   06:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Comment I found that a senior Afghan official explained to CBS News that the bounty program is real. See here--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Indeed, far from the baseless tabloid speculation that some opposers are characterizing this, we now have a named Afghan bussinessman as a middleman. P-K3 (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Comment Also, the controversy keeps growing as part of the U.S. government keeps downplaying this program.--AlphaBeta135 (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Support This does not seem to be going away after a few days. Its still very much ITN.104.243.98.96 (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
                        The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

                        (Posted) 2020 Russian constitutional referendum

                        Article: 2020 Russian constitutional referendum (talk, history)
                        Blurb: ​The Russian electorate votes to amend the Russian constitution. (Post)
                        Alternative blurb: ​Russian voters pass a constitutional referendum allowing Vladimir Putin to remain president until 2036.
                        Alternative blurb II: ​Russian voters vote to endorse changes to the Russian constitution, one of which allows Vladimir Putin to remain president until 2036.
                        News source(s): [14]
                        Credits:

                        Article updated

                         Banedon (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

                        • Oppose no context at all, what changes? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Oppose. The referendum was not even necessary, the amendments had already been ratified. Copies of the updated constitution were in bookstores before the vote. The result was never in doubt. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        You make it sound like we don't post elections whose results were never in doubt. Banedon (talk) 11:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        This is a referendum, not an election(most of which are ITNR). The referendum was not even necessary as the amendments had already been officially adopted. The time to post this was that adoption(maybe it was, I don't remember off the top of my head) 331dot (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        Are you sure? Do you have a source that says the amendments had already been adopted prior to the referendum? Banedon (talk) 11:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        ABC News: "The vote was already largely symbolic, as Russia's parliament had already passed the amendments into law. But the vote allows for the Kremlin to say the changes have a stamp of public legitimacy." 331dot (talk) 11:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        I'm skeptical about this since it's not in any of the other sources I've seen, and it's not in the article (or 2020 amendments to the Constitution of Russia) either. Banedon (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        BBC. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        The BBC quotes an organization as saying "there was no legal need for it". 331dot (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        Yes, but that isn't the same as saying it's already been implemented. Banedon (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        As I noted, they had already published the changes and made them available for sale. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        I think sources like this one clearly indicate the changes hadn't already been implemented before the referendum. The "already published" part is probably due to people who see the outcome as a foregone conclusion so they might as well start printing books with it - not unlike how long before Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, the media was already treating him as the nominee. Banedon (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
                        The BBC source clearly states Both Russia's houses of parliament have already adopted the changes. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • By the way I oppose alt blurb since it's not known if Putin is intending to stay in power till 2036. Banedon (talk) 11:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        I agree he could be theoretically voted out of office, but do you think he would have pushed these changes through if he didn't have such intention? 331dot (talk) 11:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        It's possible he doesn't run. Plus, are we speculating about Putin's intentions on ITN now? Banedon (talk) 11:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        I don't think it takes speculation to see what his intentions are, but I will stop digressing here. Thank you 331dot (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • I've propose another altblurb, as most RS agree that extending Putin's term was the primary goal of the changes. 331dot (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        Did any of them actually say extending Putin's term was the primary goal, or did they only say it's a possibility? Banedon (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        We go by what reliable sources claim, not what the subject says about themselves. According to Putin, there are no Russian forces in Ukraine, and Russia does not interfere with US elections(despite Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections) Since it seems that the only thing you will accept as evidence is Putin saying his goal is to stay in office, I will stop wasting our time debating it with you. Thanks 331dot (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Weak Support article is ok, topic is interesting. Similar to the HK law posting "totalitarian regime strengthens hold" the vote was perfunctory. Whether it's poisoning diplomats, seizing peninsulas, or paying bounties on dead soldiers you cannot deny Russia has involved itself in global affairs so what happens there has international implications (not that it matters to an ITN nom but it does highlight the significance) --LaserLegs (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Oppose – Foregone conclusion, товарищи. – Sca (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Oppose It's been clear for over a decade that Putin will remain in power for life absent a coup. The specific machinations are not noteworthy. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Support - going to go against the grain here, this is actually important news. Even if a foregone conclusion, I dont think that precludes us from posting it. --Rockstone[Send me a message!] 20:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Support - Altblurb 2 preferred. This is actually important news. so it is worthly to posted it. forgetting any opposer that tends because no important, not involve US/UK in ITN, etc 180.242.5.183 (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                          No, we will not be "forgetting any opposer that tends because no important." That's really the whole point of discussing the nom. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Support any good blurb around the topic. This is former G8 country that just banned same-sex marriage and made it possible for its leader to remain in power for 12 extra years. gobonobo + c 07:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Support, with preference for Alt 1. Fair or not, it's clearly an important development. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Support, with a preference for Al 1. The vote outcome was not a surprise, but this constitutional reform still represents a major change in Russia's political system. Nsk92 (talk) 11:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Support The referendum was not only about allowing Putin to stay in power until 2036. Other provisions were also included, so I suggest Alt Blurb 2. It does not matter now if the result of the referendum was clear even before it was held. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 13:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Support The extension of Putin's rule as President for Life is notable, the method of which this change was brought about doesn't matter. Support Alt 1. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Posting the most basic blurb. Feel free to modify if needed. --Tone 16:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Please use ALT1 or ALT2. The basic blurb is essentially devoid of news. starship.paint (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
                          As discussed above, both alts are inaccurate in suggesting the vote "allows" something, but that thing was already allowed. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
                        • Support alt blurb II
                          Article: EncroChat (talk, history)
                          Blurb: ​In a Europe wide operation, police penetrate EncroChat, a top-secret communications system used by criminals to sell drugs and plan attacks. (Post)
                          Alternative blurb: ​Multiple police agencies penetrate a top-secret communications system used by criminals to sell drugs and plan attacks called EncroChat in a Europe wide operation.
                          Alternative blurb II: ​A top-secret communications system used by criminals to sell drugs and plan attacks known as EncroChat is penetrated by multiple police agencies in a Europe wide operation.
                          Alternative blurb III: ​Combined European police agencies crack EncroChat, a high-level criminal chat system, and subsequently arrest over 800 people.
                          Alternative blurb IV: ​In a collaborative effort European police agencies infiltrate EncroChat, a high-level criminal chat system, leading to the arrest of over 800 people.
                          News source(s): BBC
                          Credits:

                          Article updated

                           Dantheanimator (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

                          • Support in principle but it needs a better blurb. How about something mentioning nearly 800 people are arrested after European police agencies crack a high-level criminal chat? Anything better than the verbose and empty 'police penetrate a communications system'. But, yes, major event. Kingsif (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                          • Support in principle per Kingsif but oppose on target quality. Plus, a better blurb, more aligned with their suggestion, is needed, but notable in any case. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                          • Support in principle but my golly that is a stubby article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                          • Another Support in principle way too stubby at present. Blurb per Kingsif suggestion if article is improved JW 1961 Talk 21:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                          • Would "In a Europe wide operation, multiple police agencies arrest over 800 individuals, intercept over two tonnes of drugs, and seize £54 million in criminal cash following the penetration of the criminal network EncroChat." be a better blurb? Dantheanimator (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                          • Wait – Stub, one source. Needs expansion, more sources. – Sca (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                          • Support, now that article has been cleaned up per comments. Magnovvig (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                          • Comment added altblurb 3- to get to the point quickly and impactfully, but not overdo it. Kingsif (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
                          • Support on Alt-blurb 3 but a better blurb would certainly be welcome. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                          • Comment – Sourcing – Telegraph, Register, Sky News, Motherboard, Phoneweek – still feels edgy. Suggest drawing on Thursday's AP, Reuters reports. – Sca (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                          • Support altblurb 3. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC) Pulling !vote/comment. 19:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                          • Comment Added Alt-blurb 4. It is mostly a rewording of Kingsif's alt-blurb 3. Dantheanimator (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
                          • Opppose we can't post the arrests only convictions, nor can we post "tinfoil hat conspiracies" about unproven suspicions from government agencies. These truisms have both been recently asserted. Perhaps when the trials are concluded, and the suspicions proven in a court, we can revisit. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
                          • Come on, LL, you know the story isn't a person-arrested nor a claim-of-crime, it's the major international event of "Operation Venetic". Kingsif (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)