" Count Iblis (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and likely Snow close. This is hypothetical conjecture, and unless there's an impeachment or we have the actual election results, we aren't posting blow-by-blow events running up to the election. Spencer^T•C 18:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose till it happens --LaserLegs (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be getting close to time for ongoing for the US election. I know we wouldn't do it for Vanuatu but the US is a nuclear armed economic powerhouse that exerts unequal influence throughout the world. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose (and this from a VG editor). It is a major deal in the VG world, its what everyone in that field is talking about today, but in terms of world changing financial news, nope. It would take me more than one sentence to explain the significance and I feel that makes it beyond the scope of ITN (Also, this is the intent to buy, the deal not expected to close until second half of 2021). --Masem (t) 21:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Added an altblurb to correct for my mistake there. Not sure if we need to explain the significance further for ITN, but let's see what other editors think. 212.74.201.241 (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose the ZeniMax article is "meh" quality and MS acquiring a AAA game foundry seems like an incremental step in the console wars. Per Masem above though it's a big deal in the field. I'll support if it'll get TES 6 released some time before 2025. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - It would take Microsoft buying Apple for an acquisition to make it to ITN. WaltCip-(talk) 00:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would take much more than that, even! A few months back US oil producers were willing to pay customers about $40k per truck to cart away crude, something that hasn't happened since the discovery of naphtha ca. 4000 BC. Still wasn't notable enough to post!130.233.2.170 (talk) 05:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Is there any information re: significance of the deal? The nomination rationale hopefully is more than "we have precedents of posting major deals". That said, I did a quick and random search of the archives (non exhaustive, obviously) and here's a summary for anyone who wants a ready reckoner. Ktin (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Above table is not to be MIS-interpreted as me making the case for a co-relation between the size of the deal and us posting or not. In fact just by the above data points, one could make the case that there is NO co-relation. Anyways, posted a search from the archives if it helps anyone. Happy to delete the table. I have no opinion for or against this article. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • WP:MINIMUMBUYOUT is the same as WP:MINIMUMDEATHS --LaserLegs (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, it's enlightening to look through these old nominations to see if one has been consistent. Banedon (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Is there a reason we are citing a nonexistent policy as policy? 331dot (talk) 07:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose mainly because I don't see it in the news much. It's there if I look for it, but not otherwise; it's only featured on finance websites. The news articles that do cover it refer to the company being bought as "Bethesda" as well, which is not a good sign for linking ZeniMax Media. Banedon (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I reverted the close not because I think this nomination shouldn't be closed, but because the close reason is naive. Microsoft cannot possibly buy Apple because Apple is bigger than Microsoft (Apple is currently worth ~$2 trillion, Microsoft ~$1.5 trillion). Similarly Microsoft buying Google is implausible, while Amazon buying Apple is impossible. Banedon (talk) 01:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Destroyeraa since it is your closure that I'm reverting. Banedon (talk) 01:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Topic is in the news (I have added a FT source to the nom), companies are apparently notable ones that would be familiar to readers, and contra above I feel that both articles are in good shape. The MSFT article needs to be updated, however.130.233.2.170 (talk) 05:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support – Some quality IPs involved in this takeover, including The Elder Scrolls and Fallout from Bethesda with 59 and 33 million lifetime sales, respectively, and Doom from id Software which jumpstarted the first-person shooter genre. The video game industry in general is not well-represented at ITN...e-sports aren't included at ITN/R even tho it has a wider audience than a certain boat race. I guess that one is a discussion for a diff place tho so I digress. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Masem. Though in the news, not much significance or impact on people except those in the affected companies and videogamers.~ Destroyeraa🌀 12:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Per Masem, Destroyeraa. Lacks broad significance. – Sca (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Unless we are in the acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney territory ... meh. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - this isn't really ITN worthy. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 20:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – General opposition; suggest close. – Sca (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Very notable and possibly will cause international incident. Added altblurb for clarification based on my understanding of the current situation (could be wrong though) This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not a total ban. Impossible to enforce. Hyped up news for something basically meaningless - TikTok, like Vine and YikYak before it, was due its death soon anyway. Does anybody use WeChat in the U.S.? There will be no "international incident" - how much do you think China cares about such an impossible to enforce ban, when it's already got a lot of that data anyway? Kingsif (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later today we'll see if it's "impossible to enforce". I'm pretty sure very soon we'll no longer see WeChat on the App Store. Considering the proportion of people using iOS (even if we exclude those minorities who owns a foreign phone number to be able to register a foreign Apple account in order to bypass this ban) in the United States, this ban makes no difference from China excluding Google Play Store in its mainland market. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is rather US-centric news, again, and the blurb is mislead, since WeChat is not really tied to ByteDance (that's Tencent). --Masem (t) 03:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is hardly world news. Natureium (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. However I may reconsider depending on how China responds. For now this is just another chapter in the ongoing spat between the US and Red China. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Natureium and Masem: I want to reminds you the previous consensus over a similar content. Although WP:OTHERSTUFF does not count as a direct oppose yet still please list some reason (such as US market is less import than Chinese market or something) to show that our previous consensus that when a world's largest market bans a product it meets the ITN standard does not apply here. Thank you! --173.68.165.114 (talk) 04:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose more grandstanding on Trump's part per Kingsif and Ad Orientem. (TikTok is still in my Play Store as I type this, although that might be since the ban hasn't gone into effect yet.) While not my sole reason per the "Please do not..." section, this is also too US-centric to immediately follow the RBG blurb. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google is several magnitudes more significant than TikTok or WeChat. --Masem (t) 05:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning oppose. This is largely rhetorical at this point, and may prove to be technologically unworkable. While not wholly unimportant, it doesn't rise to the level of inclusion here. BD2412 T 04:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Besides the U.S.-centrism (not even a nomination here occurred on 29 Jun when India banned sixty apps originated by mainland Chinese companies), requests for injunction for both TikTok and WeChat have already been filed. If a temporary restraining order is granted for either or both on 1st amendment and/or the communications clause under the IEEPA, this Trump / Ross Executive Order is toast. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 04:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the link you shared claiming it wasn't even nominated, there is in fact a nomination for "Ongoing: 2020 China–India skirmishes". Perhaps you should be outraged less and do more? You were free then to nominate the same. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - unless this international incident gets way out of hand. (can you imagine World War III starting because of an app? That sounds like the most 2020 thing ever) -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 04:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- the precedent cited by the IP is from 10 years ago. The stuff that made ITN then would never be included today. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 08:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Trump administration bs that isn't worth posting. I don't think WeChat is even used that much in the US anyway. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support decent articles, and this has been brewing for a while with TikTok looking for buyers so they can operate in the US via a US company (which is also, ironically, one of the things Trump complains the most about US companies operating in China). Large tech company based in the worlds second largest and fastest growing economy is banned from the worlds largest economy as part of a trade war? You'd have to be willfully ignorant to not see this as "globally significant". --LaserLegs (talk) 09:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Know this is closed but to add, the ban has been blocked, so it wouldn't have mattered anyway. --Masem (t) 13:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I had a penny for every time a Trump executive order has been blocked by a judge... WaltCip-(talk) 16:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Nominated by A lad insane (talk · give credit)

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

• Strong support RD at the very least. Would also support blurb. Very high profile figure. 192.196.218.222 (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• NPR also reporting NPR —valereee (talk) 23:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support - GA. And we should also consider a blurb.--WaltCip-(talk) 23:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support - very high profile and article is GA. Added blurb nomination. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb This year is cruel, man. Davey2116 (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Blurb it - good article. Damn. Kingsif (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb - GA and updated. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 23:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD GA class. No opinion on blurb; what's the precedence for top judges?  Nixinova   T   C   23:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• She was an incumbent also massively impactful in law, growth of US liberalism, and pop culture. There's also the fact that most likely whoever is elected President in November will have to replace her, and that will be crucial to American law going forward. Kingsif (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support Very important figure in US politics, support blurb as well, this will have a significant effect on the future of the USA. –DMartin 23:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb. We already post confirmations to the Supreme Court because it is itself notable enough, but for an incumbent justice to pass (especially such a well-known one) is undoubtedly just as notable as a confirmation.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting to RD because the article is top notch and there's no reason not to, unfortunately (meaning I wish she was still alive). – Muboshgu (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Muboshgu: I saw consensus for a blurb but edit conflicted with you. I'm not a regular here so wanted to ask your thoughts before saving. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wugapodes, her death was only just announced, I'd give it a little more time to determine if there really is a consensus for a blurb. In the meantime, it's posted as RD. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh I see the ec you mean. We'll see if anyone wants it pulled. I don't object. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support blurb One of the most notable jurists in history, whose loss at this moment in time could single-handedly alter the face of the USA. Top-line news across the world. -- Kicking222 (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support, immediate promote with blurb to main page: This is a major event. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb due to her prominence on the US Supreme Court and the impact her death will have on the US election. P-K3 (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Would support blurb even if she died next February, but we really cannot exaggerate the gravity of it happening at this moment, especially in light of Garland. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted There appears to be overwhelming support for a full blurb, thus I have gone ahead and posted. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  There really isn't the need to post it so quickly. Give a chance for people in other parts of the world to the subject matter (US) to voice their opinion and possibly disagree about the significance. -- KTC (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Someone else is free to remove it, should consensus emerge. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, we don't really need to hear from the "it's not important if it didn't happen in the British Empire" crowd. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to agree with GCG - massive ramifications for, well, how biased the SCOTUS gets in a time of political upheaval and pandemic that could have apocalyptic effects on US relations with the rest of the world, crisis management, upholding the constitution, and climate change. It's never good to see a legend like RBG go, but now is perhaps the worst time in human history, I mean this without hyperbole. Kingsif (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb - arguably no single human life was more critical to the current state of United States constitutional law. Her death has the potential for sweeping ramifications on American jurisprudence in general. Mz7 (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull - As much as I support a blurb, I recognize the impact of systemic bias on this particular section of Wikipedia. We ought to wait a full 12 hours for Europe and Australia to weigh in.--WaltCip-(talk) 00:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? It's obvious it's going to be a huge news story. Front of the New York Times and the BBC already. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Europe yes, but it's midday here in Oceania. Agree that 20 mins is probably too quick to post something like this.  Nixinova   T   C   00:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull At least wait for sometime for a more general consensus to appear than rushing with nominations like these. Don't blurbs for deaths require some global significance, that is not apparent here at all. As for posting 'confirmations' to the United States Supreme Court that is simply not true, all of the latest nominations were closed with no postings: 1, 2, 3. A lot of votes here also seem to be premised on WP:CRYSTALL. Also agree with User:KTC on letting more users vote in on this. Gotitbro (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not CRYSTAL when all of the potential outcomes are significant. Nominate or not, consider or not, confirm or not. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Pull Not a head of state or government. Not even the Chief Justice. Yes, she was a significant figure in the US mostly due to her being the dean of the left wing of the US Supreme Court. But we don't generally post domestic political news stories. If the Chief Justice of any other country's Supreme Court died, would we even consider posting it? It's significant news in the US and will throw a new issue into the forthcoming election. But in the end this is an 87 year old woman who has been dying for years. Her impact is nowhere near what we would normally look for in posting a blurb for someone who died at her age. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pray tell how one of the most influential members of the highest court of, for better or worse, the most important nation in the english-speaking world, and will also be a huge issue in the election, is not a "globally significant event"? I'd say it's one HELL of a lot more significant than Chadwick Boseman dying and he got a blurb This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Just FYI, a blurb was not posted for Boseman, only RD. Gotitbro (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Everything you just described applied to Scalia's death as well, just on the opposite side of the US political spectrum. We didn't post a blurb then. -- KTC (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  KTC, Scalia was a giant, an amazing intellect, and beloved by those on both sides of the aisle for his intellect and wit. But I bet more people recognize the Notorious RBG. —valereee (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb due to her indisputably high profile not to mention she died while serving on the U.S. Supreme Court. TJMSmith (talk) 00:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb One of the most well-known of modern justices. Possibly outstrips Scalia. Major ramifications. Huge news. —valereee (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb. I would go so far as to add Iconic to the beginning. Historically one of the few justices to break through to the popular consciousness. BD2412 T 00:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb - post posting support. Per Mz7 --DannyS712 (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb - very high-profile figure. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 00:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Blurb the notability here comes not from Ginsburg but from who might be nominated in her place. Routine justice, routine death, this is what RD is for. Scalia got RD so this makes sense --LaserLegs (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Just read the reporting of her death and tell me that's routine coverage. P-K3 (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Election speculation hysteria. Scalia 2.0. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Ginsburg was not, by any conceivable standard, a "routine justice." Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  LaserLegs, lol...it doesn't actually matter why her death is being covered around the world -- and above the headline, in some cases. Yes, probably some people all over the world are very worred about what it means for the future of the world if Trump replaces her with another conservative justice and then wins four more years. What matters is that it's global news, and yes, that could influence the amount of coverage it gets, and yes, it may have been that people weren't as worred about Trump replacing Scalia with another conservative. But so what? That doesn't make the global coverage invalid for use as evidence that this death, this one and not Scalia's, probably needs a blurb. —valereee (talk) 11:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  LaserLegs, are you suggesting Trump might nominate Hannity? That seems...bizarre, at best, since from our article he doesn't seem to have graduated from college much less law school...? —valereee (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I agree, ther eis no evidence that Trump graduated from college much less law school - everything the TV president does seems either bizarre or rational depending on which side of reality you're on. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Wikipedia is about global perspective. For this to be a blurb, it should be the top news story in South Korea, Italy, Congo, Ukraine, and Fiji. Michael Jackson met this threshold without question. No other figure save perhaps Nelson Mandela matched this since. Colipon+(Talk) 00:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ITN says nothing of "global perspective" that's a made up requirement. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It does: "Major figures: The death of major figures, including transformative world leaders in their field, may merit a blurb. These cases are rare, and are usually posted on a sui generis basis". This does not fill that requirement and is clearly RD limited per the other criteria as well, i.e., "Life as the main story/Death as the main story". Seems political sensationalism and systemic bias at this point. Gotitbro (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  SYSTEMIC BIAS KLAXON!!! The RD criteria says transformative world leaders in their fields may qualify for a blurb, it does not say blurb require a global perspective. Thanks for confirming the accuracy of my affirmation AND shrieking about bias in the same response. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Wait, who's shrieking? —valereee (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nikkei —valereee (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Korea Times] —valereee (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    France24 —valereee (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like there is coverage in Korea, Italy, Ukraine... Spencer^T•C 00:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    And this is coverage within literally an hour of the announcement. Not sure how much more we need to prove this is global news. —valereee (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • You forgot Congo.--WaltCip-(talk) 01:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      And where's Fiji? —valereee (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Fiji! ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 08:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC) [reply]

  • Le Figaro - France, El Comercio - Peru, O Globo - Brazil, The Sydney Morning Herald - Australia, Deutsche Welle - Germany, Haaretz - Israel, South China Morning Post - Hong Kong.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 01:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also see this section. Whether a topic is significant enough for inclusion in ITN is often contentious, and ultimately, there are no rules or guidance beyond two: The event can be described as "current", that is the event is appearing currently in news sources, and/or the event itself occurred within the time frame of ITN. There is consensus to post the event.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 01:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am an avid follower of US politics so I appreciate that this is a huge story on the US political scene. My argument merely surrounds whether this should be a blurb or RD - and in my view, while this may be considered "news" in the places I named, they are not headline news. Granted, this was the top headline on the New York Times, and for some time, also on BBC, but I don't think you will find any newspaper outside of the Anglosphere that will treat it as the one top news story of the day. Again, Michael Jackson did in fact meet this threshold. It was literally the top headline everywhere. Colipon+(Talk) 16:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb She was on her way out for the past several years, but this is especially notable given the implications of her vacancy for the upcoming election. RIP. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• From Dem senator Ed Markey "Mitch McConnell set the precedent. No Supreme Court vacancies filled in an election year. If he violates it, when Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress, we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court." Of course he has already said he will violate it. This is not CRYSTAL, folks. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see Mitch is still a man of principle.--WaltCip-(talk) 01:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

McConnell has put out a statement saying "President Trump's nominee will get a vote". And the WH says to expect a nominee in "the coming days". We will have a fight on our hands unless Democrats fold like a cheap suit again. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-posting support for blurb - probably the only news item I've been moved to actually comment on in ... well, ever. Unfortunately, due to POLEMIC, I can't fully explain why, but this has made a dangerous time for the entire world even more dangerous. If the goal of an ITN blurb is providing good content on timely subjects, then I cannot fathom not posting a blurb. On a less screechy note, this was kind of a "Death of Fred Rogers"-level gut punch. I wish I had 10% of her integrity and 10% of her drive. Fuck you, 2020. Fuck. You. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm expecting frogs myself —valereee (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly support retaining blurb. Ginsburg was an exceptionally important justice and for many years was almost surely the best-known judge in the entire world. Even apart from her significant personal accomplishments, her death at this particular time and the debate that will now follow over whether and with whom to fill the resulting vacancy will be a prominent news story both within and beyond the United States for weeks to come. Either of these grounds would be sufficient, in my mind, to justify a blurb; the combination of the two is compelling. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd like to see McLachlin or Lady Hale get a blurb as well when it's their turn, thank you. Like it or not, some degree of systemic bias is at play here, as evidenced by the number of American editors here. feminist (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am somewhat confused by what appear to be conflicting standards here. We did not blurb the death of Justice Scalia four years ago, though he was certainly a far more significant figure on the court. Even his critics admit that Scalia profoundly affected legal jurisprudence and philosophy in ways that few justices have in the entire history of the court. I don't want to denigrate the memory of Justice Ginsburg, but her legacy is likely to be in her dissents. It is extremely difficult to look at the way these two nominations have been received without suspecting a certain level of ideological partisanship. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scalia was probably worthy of a blurb as well, but it's hard to define precise standards about something (the death of a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice) that has happened just three times in the past 50 years. (I also think you err in placing Ginsburg's overall influence on a lower tier than Scalia's, in part because Ginsburg's pre-judicial work had a long-term impact that Scalia's did not, but this isn't the place for such a debate.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition, so far as I am aware, Scalia didn't have his own biopic. See On the Basis of Sex. For the record, I would have blurbed Scalia. BD2412 T 02:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I think we got it right with Scalia. He was a towering intellectual giant of the law in this country. But he was a US Supreme Court Justice. We don't post them for the same reason we don't post justices from other countries. I think we are demonstrating an absolutely breathtaking level of bias here, both US and ideological. If this stands, we are going to have a hard time saying no with anything resembling a straight face when distinguished jurists from other countries die. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ad Orientem, and if those distinguished jurists get their deaths announced the way this is being announced -- front page news with major headlines and top-of-page placement -- we absolutely should blurb them too. Bader Ginsburg was known for more than simply being a jurist. Have you looked at the 'in popular culture' section of the article? She wasn't just another distinguished jurist. —valereee (talk) 11:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly, we would not have posted this even if it was a serving chief justice from another country. The way this was rushed in just minutes after the nom is a classic example of bias of both numbers and admin scrutiny (but we have people here coming at you for pointing that out). This is what RD is for. Gotitbro (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • • • • We could establish a rule limiting blurbs to distinguished jurists with their own biopic (or Lego figure). BD2412 T 02:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb She the leading story on BBC.com (I'm accessing from outside of US). Seems some !votes want to rewrite the cultural impact of this female justice.—Bagumba (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • She is most certainly not the lead story on BBC News; you might be outside the US but you presumably at some point set a cookie to prioritise US news. (Her death does get a one-line mention below the fold, but below "Stolen books found under Romanian floor".) I doubt one person in a hundred outside the US has ever heard of her, any more than a typical American could name even the most prominent member of the Chinese supreme court. ‑ Iridescent 05:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wrote BBC.com. You piped a link to bbc.co.uk.—Bagumba (talk) 07:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • This Northern Ontarian sees it, too, and has never Googled her name from any device. I do recognize it, though only as that of the short Jewish lady with the big glasses. I remain ignorant of her actual accomplishments, though appreciate her general hugeness to Democrats. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The blurb's been up for a few hours now, we're getting to the point where enough people have seen the blurb for its removal to be seen as commentary. Either pull immediately and wait for further consensus, if the support for its blurb is waning, or keep it up until it rolls off.  Nixinova   T   C   03:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Good on you to promote this to the main page in the record time of 23 minutes while most of the world outside of the Western Hemisphere was asleep. I knew Wikipedia had a strong U.S. (and also U.S. Democrat) bias, but this is on a whole new level of r-tardation. --Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.74.201.241 (talk) 03:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose current blurb It has been changed recently to include a note about her activism, without consensus. Call for it to go back to the simplified form. 198.48.143.196 (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull I'm really not seeing the significance here—this seems to be a Prince-style railroading of the process by fans of the subject. As per everyone else, given that we wouldn't even consider posting the death of even the most prominent judge in any other country the onus is on those wanting to break precedent to explain why. ‑ Iridescent 05:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull Great woman with laudable accomplishments (and well written article too), but this is a local news only (not even on the frontpages in my country). Pavlor (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  This. Here in Russia even the business dailies (e.g. Kommersant) that generally follow the U.S. politics quite keenly (for obvious reasons) wrote 2-3 sentences (if any) about her death. Let alone posted the story on their main pages. --Anon

• Strong support the inclusion of the note about her death on the main page. The event is causing undeniable worldwide repercussions. Even the speaker of the Brazilian parliament released an statement on her death, which is highly unusual. Érico (talk) 06:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull 1) Procedural: blurbs shouldn't be posted after 20 minutes, and 2) local news, neither the subject nor her death is significant enough to rise to the level of a blurb. Isa (talk) 06:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb. I think this meets the two RD blurb criteria in that the death, because of its effects, is arguably the main story, and because RGB is a major, transformative figure in her field (and maybe beyond). I'm not sure Scalia is the best comparison here because his death was before the 2016 overhaul of RD to remove the requirement to meet some intermediate level of notability above the typical biography. Since then, both RDs and blurbs have become more common, which is a positive trend, and Scalia would much more likely be (correctly IMO) blurbed today than in 2016. I also don't think that this is necessarily opening the floodgates given the circumstances of the death and the uniqueness of RBG. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Per apparent reasons. Per global legal influence. Per the numerous citations in non-US court opinions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull per Ad Orientem and Iridescent, mostly. This is just ridiculous. I recognise the ramifications this has for the USA but this is still just domestic stuff that has little to no global significance. How this made a blurb and will remain for the foreseeable future amounts to WP:FAIT IMO, and I would have expected the admin/s involved to know better. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If we pull this, we can never again justify posting a death. We would retire the practice of blurbing a death, once and for all. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Consider giving this article a read: Logical fallacy --Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.74.201.241 (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That would include The Queen. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Pull and Oppose, US only.--Joseph (talk) 07:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull This is too much of a domestic issue. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 07:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull and oppose blurb. It is incredibly hard to believe that a Supreme Court judge in any other country would be blurbed if they were to die. This woman is no more special than a judge in other countries. The fact it was posted as a blurb after less than 30 minutes of the nomination is just ridiculous. Chrisclear (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. "Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." 331dot (talk) 07:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull and move to RD. After some deliberation this morning I think I concur with the no-blurb arguments here. It is in the news, certainly, and yes, there may be ramifications beyond the usual Supreme Court deaths in terms of her succession. But such ramifications are not covered in the blurb, and furthermore it's hard to dodge accusations of partisanship, since we did not blurb Scalia and we also pulled the appointment of Kavanaugh to the court, both events of similar note to this one but affecting right-leaning justices. On a personal level I have immense respect for Ginsburg and everything she stood for, and I hope she can be replaced with a similar progressive justice. But as noted above she objectively spent much of her time fighting on the minority opinion, and ultimately her global influence was not of the Thatcher/Mandela level.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Could I kindly request that editors avoid using proper nouns and acronyms such as (but not limited to) "SCOTUS", "Scalia", "Kavanaugh" without providing the context/background/meaning of these terms? Chrisclear (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People should keep in mind that this is a global website, but all of those terms lead to the proper articles in the Wikipedia search bar. 331dot (talk) 07:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, however, it shouldn't be incumbent upon the average reader to do extra reading/research to understand what another editor is saying when they use regional jargon without explanation/clarification. Chrisclear (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. As always this is "not a vote," but for the record as of now I count 25 editors supporting a blurb and 12 opposed. Having read through the comments made after mine, I stand by my thoughts above: either Ginsburg's life and work, or the controversy that will arise from her death, would justify a blurb; the combination of the two make a compelling case for one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  "Her life and work" were no more or less momentous than Scalia's. They were both passionate justices with a long history of fighting for the causes they believed in. (And, as an aside, they were also great personal friends, in one of the rare heartwarming stories of the poliarised political spectrum). Scalia's death also triggered intrigue and drama over his replacement. Perhaps we should post all such stories, I would have said so in 2016 or 2018, and I'm not an anti-US stories zealot. But we cannot be seen to be selective about which ones to post and which to reject, that violates the neutral point of view.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ginsburg was arguably more well known than Scalia was. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 09:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep posted, since there can easily be a stand-alone article on her death and funeral. That is the best metric. Abductive (reasoning) 08:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a very interesting metric; maybe that's been used before but I don't recall it at this moment. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Pull and shift to RD - US-centric news that has very little to no significance worldwide, it would be better off as an RD. Decision to post was done without adequate input from worldwide editors. Droodkin (talk) 08:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Droodkin As stated above, ""Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." There is no requirement for worldwide significance, and no arbitrary minimum discussion time to allow for worldwide input. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it interesting how that is only ever applied to US stories? Fgf10 (talk) 09:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fgf10 I respectfully disagree with you that is the case. I personally support or oppose regardless of the nationality of the story. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support retaining blurb - Ruth Bader Ginsburg is one of the most well known figures in American politics, and the most famous Supreme Court Justice on the bench. I would wager that even many non-Americans know who she is. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 09:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull deliberately prematurely posted in the middle of the night to avoid any real discussion. Not a head of state or similar, not an unexpected death, and domestic navel-gazing in the extreme. Systematic bias in action. This is why ITN is a joke. Fgf10 (talk) 09:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fgf10 It was not "posted in the middle of the night" in some deceptive manner. I invite you to nominate what you see as under-posted subject matter; we can only consider what is nominated. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what counts as "in the middle of the night", as it's always nighttime somewhere on Wikipedia. It certainly wasn't deliberately posted early; Ginsburg's death was announced around 7:30PM Eastern Daylight Time here in the US, or 30 minutes to midnight, UTC. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 09:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wiki operates on UTC, so yes it was late at night. It was posted when most US posters would be around and most European posters wouldn't be. The correct procedure would be to wait till everyone would have had a chance to weigh in, rather than quickly posting it before any opposition would be around. Fgf10 (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fgf10, that is an extreme failure to assume good faith. It was posted quickly because the death got immediate coverage all over the world and the article was in good shape. And FFS, do you understand how "night" works? The death was announced when most US posters would be around and most European posters wouldn't be, I'm sure in an intentional gaming of the ITN system. —valereee (talk) 11:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Combined your misplaced comments) No need to get personal, I didn't either. I'm merely stating facts, posting before people have had time to oppose is a common tactic on ITN to get contintious noms through. The time of announcement is entirely irrelevant, as it is good custom on ITN to allow sufficient time for everyone to weight in, as ITN is not a news ticker. This was clearly not done in this case, as I said in my post, which you conveniently entirely ignored in favour of a personal attack. Fgf10 (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote deliberately prematurely posted in the middle of the night to avoid any real discussion. How is that not assuming bad faith? You literally are saying the poster was deliberately trying to avoid discussion. That's practically the definition of assuming bad faith. —valereee (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep posted It's strange for me (in Britain) to see that so many in the US seem to think this isn't of world importance. Her death is reported above the main headline in the Guardian, and is at the top, but smaller photo and typeface, in the BBC and Times. In the Telegraph the report is further down. For me she was more significant than Scalia and most world political leaders – perhaps that is because I am older than most people here. I'm discounting the US political squabbles that are arising because I don't know how they'll pan out. Thincat (talk) 09:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull and shift to RD This story about his death is relatively unknown outside the United States and other English-speaking countries. Apart from this, this article is relatively good shape and this is a one of many GA nominated articles to be posted in RD. 118.96.188.179 (talk) 09:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Without commenting on overall appropriateness (in regard to precedents etc.), "and advocate for women's rights" makes the blurb unwieldy. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 09:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull - She is just an unheard of judge that died of old age. No way near a world-transforming figure. --119.157.255.15 (talk) 10:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull I fail to see any clear indication that she was a world-transformative figure in any field. There is no information in the article of any famous concepts and ideas that she has come up with and are now globally accepted or any works she wrote and are now considered seminal learning materials in any branch of law. She was definitely an excellent practitioner but blurbs are for people who change the world and impact a large number of people. This is a classical example of an "injustice" to all other famous people who recently died and did not get a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, largely based on her "celebrity status" rather than her strictly legal importance and on article quality. However, I really hope that 30 minute nom-to-post discussions do not become the norm. We are an encyclopedia, not a news ticker. Aside from the global implications, it does not provide an opportunity for all viewpoints to be expressed as supporters will always rush into a nomination like this. Could we introduce a minimum 5 or 12 hour rule, or something? —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very good suggestion. I'd let no minimum time only for ITNR items. For all other nominations, having a minimum time for discussion before posting is strongly required.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Brigade Piron, I don't think 30-minute nom-to-post is actually a problem when we've got an article in good shape. 30-minute-nom-to-blurb probably shouldn't be the norm; in this case we had coverage just that fast in major outlets around the world, including in places it was night lol, so we had evidence it was global news. —valereee (talk) 11:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Valereee, I agree - RD does not have the normative "significance" connotations of other ITN applications and does not need other safeguards. As for this kind of nom, there is a common phenomenon of people hearing of "Event Y" and heading straight here to nominate/support it. The same does not often apply to people who disagree, even though they are more numerous. How would this proposal be raised for discussion? —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  There was never really any question that this would be global news. There are plenty of items we do not post dispite it being global news. The problem here is what has happened was sadly predictable. A well known subject matter related to the US (or even more generally the English speaking Western World), a few support resulting in posting soon after nomination, and then the rest of the world wake up / get home from work crying (not unfairly) systemic bias. There's rarely that many news item that's truly SNOWBALL post blurb. A few hours wait to make sure doesn't hurt the encyclopedia. -- KTC (talk) 11:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong pull per Kiril S. No clear indication of world transformation in the field in terms of technical/pedagogical contributions etc Bumbubookworm (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Ginsburg's importance had little to do with her "technical/pedagogical contributions". Particularly in the latter years of her life, she grew to be regarded as a feminist cultural icon, sombody who, by her life's example and her persona, transformed the relationship between men and women and changed women's place in modern society. Or at least made a damn good run at it. How many other people could we say the same about? True, she was much better known in the English speaking world, or perhaps the western world more broadly, than in places like Russia or China. But I don't think that for an ITN blurb we should require Jesus Christ like fame. Wikipedia is often accused, sometimes fairly, sometimes not, of not doing enough to attract women editors, to promote topics of importance to women, of making them feel welcome here. Well, now is that chance, Let's not blow it. Nsk92 (talk) 11:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Based on the concerns raised regarding the speedy decision-making on nominations and Brigade Piron's suggestion, I have formally proposed the introduction of minimum time for discussing non-ITNR nominations before posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I was one of the first supports for a blurb, and generally oppose things for US bias. Like John Lewis, where there were quite a few quick opposes because people were thinking of that. That is to say, US bias in supporting a blurb here was considered (at least by me) before realizing it was worth blurbing anyway. And a lot of the opposes/pulls are either screaming US bias just because without realizing that her death (the news specifically to be blurbed, rather than the person) has significant international ramifications - not that such is truly required for ITN - or are asking where Scalia's blurb was. It seems he missed out because it wasn't a dangerous time nor did he have the notoriety in popular culture that The Notorious RBG did/does. And I might have supported Scalia, and I would probably support Lady Hale (but I know that she's barely known outside the UK and so a long shot). And, if you have social media, I assume you're seeing what I am: literally nobody is talking about anything else. Kingsif (talk) 11:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Kingsif, also Scalia's death didn't represent a change to the balance of the court. As you say, there's apparently no need for an 'In popular culture' section in his article. :D —valereee (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't blame the rest of us for the poor fucntioning of your overly politcised judiciary. If a nom has to rely on knowledge of obscure legal minutiea of a domestic court system, I don't see why it's of sufficient importance to be posted here. Fgf10 (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nom doesn't rely on SCOTUS balance - that was an additional comment to an additional comment, nowhere near the main significance here and you know it. Kingsif (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fgf10, sorry, not following, whom am I blaming and what am I blaming them for? Oh, I see...you're talking about the fact Scalia didn't change the balance of the court. Well, you don't actually need to know obscure legal minutiae in order to understand that the most powerful person in the free world, who happens to thinks that because he believes something makes it true, unleashed because he no longer has to worry about re-election, unchecked because he has appointed half SCOTUS, is worrisome to many people outside the US. South Korea, for instance. Pretty much anyone in conflict-torn countries south of the US-Mexico border. Europe. Pretty sure he'll ignore Africa except to eliminate any foreign aid. But I don't blame anyone for that except maybe Newt Gingrich. —valereee (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'll stress again that we need to hold back on rushing to post blurbs particularly on figures that are tied to a specific national interest; 20 minutes is far too short and ITN is not a news ticket. RD posting in that time was fine, the blurb can always be delayed. Cases where the nationality is not an issue and a SNOW-like agreement comes to fruition quickly eg like with Stephan Hawking), that's reasonable, but RBG is clearly something that would be of great import to USians but not necessarily to the rest of the world and we should have waited for some input from that side. Otherwise you create bad precedent. --Masem (t) 13:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree - but people thinking that the blurb should have waited shouldn't be calling to completely oppose it based on that expedience. Just a lesson to learn. Maybe a time limit for all blurbs should be set, because there are other issues quick posting of any story can create. Kingsif (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The death of a SCOTUS Justice in most other countries would not be important enough for us to post it. But the case of the US is different, as the SCOTUS has in practice much more power than the constitution courts in most other countries. Count Iblis (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – for retention of blurb – Justice Ginsburg's passing portends the probable creation of a U.S. Supreme Court dominated by right-wing conservative juridical views, and thus is quite significant. – Sca (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb as a non-US editor. This death is critical, not only to the upcoming US election which has the whole world watching, but also to the civil rights movement in general. This is important stuff, worldwide. – bradv🍁 15:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb among other things, the sources on her life indicate a leader on women's rights reaching international proportions, confirmed in the statements by world leaders about the death. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb per the many excellent points raised above. ZettaComposer (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, working to expand. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb Justice Ginsburg is not a typical national judge. As NYB points out, she very well may be (and almost certainly was) the most well-known judge in the world. She probably deserves a blurb for her accomplishments alone; her death and the political fight over her replacement will dominate the news cycle up to and through the U.S. election, and would most likely merit a blurb as well. Regardless of our personal views on the matter, U.S. politics is covered in-depth around the world, and this event is clearly highly significant within that confine. CThomas³ (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Above - I had mentioned that for this to be "blurb-worthy" it ought to be top news in most places in the world. Then I said you'd hardly find any newspaper outside of the Anglosphere that treats it as "the" top news story. Today I checked Canada's national broadcaster CBC and Australia's most subscribed newspaper the Sydney Morning Herald. On CBC it is the ninth story and on SMH it shows up on the sidebar in a commentary article. It is easy for us to assume what this story means in terms of significance in other places around the world. Colipon+(Talk) 16:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]