Open main menu

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/July 2014

< Wikipedia:In the news‎ | Candidates

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

Contents

July 31Edit

Portal:Current events/2014 July 31

[Ready] Argentina in defaultEdit

Article: Argentine debt restructuring (talk, history)
Blurb: Standard & Poor's declares Argentina in selective default.
Alternative blurb: Argentina defaults on its US$29 billion in government debt.
News source(s): New York Times
Nominator: Thue (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: A national default will affect everybody in Argentina, and obviously have large consequences in the international financial markets. Thue (talk) 08:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support once updated, breaking news now. Brandmeistertalk 08:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. A nation in default has many effects, and this is getting decent news coverage. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - This will likely do serious damage to Argentina's economy.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
"Likely" is the same speculation the below was rejectedLihaas (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • strong oppose S and P don't determine shit, they just give their opinion (same as the declaration below). If you follow the facts argenitina wmarket /bonds raised yesterday on speculation of an imminent deal. For gods sake, this is an encyclopaedia THINKLihaas (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Standard and Poor's is one if the Big Three (credit rating agencies), so they do actually determine shit. The rating of bonds are directly determined to the Big Three, with various laws saying which actual consequences those ratings have. Thue (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
      • On that evidence, one would hope Lihaas would change his vote...um and yes, it's an encyclopedia but this is ITN/C Lihaas. You know it's special. --Somchai Sun (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm stunned at how ignorant this !vote is. I think it's an important milestone as it greatly affects global perception of economic stability. If nothing else, it's making headlines all over the place.--WaltCip (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- My thinking is actually somewhere along the lines of that of Lihaas, what he's saying isn't actually so ridiculous. Would we post S&P declaring Argentina to be in default, then Moody's declaring Argentina to be in default, etc? Where does it end? As far as I can remember we've never posted anything like this, and I don't really don't think this is the type of milestone that belongs on ITN. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 17:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Fitch has cut Argentina's rating as well. [1] Moody's is reviewing their stance, which could take up to 90 days but much less. [2] Is there reason to believe Moody's might act quickly? I'd support this if all three major agencies acted, but I'm not sure about two of three. 9kat (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support with update. Argentina has defaulted on $29 billion on debt, which the NYT ref doesn't note.[3][4] I'm suggesting an altblurb with that stated more prominently, since it's a number that the average reader will understand, and it's notable even without mentioning S&P or Fitch. Maybe add ", triggering credit downgrades" if needed. 9kat (talk) 03:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support with altblurb. Huge story, all over the news here in Europe. Lihaas being his usual tactful self notwithstanding. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I prefer the altblurb too. Thue (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb — Most media (such as AP) now call it default. When a sizable country defaults on debt, it's a significant story. Sca (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)  
  • Support with altblurb. Story has fundamentally altered now that it has become universally accepted. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support once the richest country in SA, now one of the only 1st world countries to default, post it already. μηδείς (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Marked Ready--article is untagged and support almost unanimal. μηδείς (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The article mentions neither the $29 billion figure or S&P, so neither blurb makes sense right now. The lead doesn't address the latest stuff either. I tagged the article as outdated and removed the [Ready]. 9kat (talk) 01:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
The posting admin determines the blurb--the fact you have a problem with a blurb while not suggesting an alternative is between you and a licensed professional. μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Er, I suggested the current altblurb... My problem wasn't with the blurb itself, it's that the article doesn't reflect either blurb at the moment. The IP editor below me has some good further suggestions that I don't have time to properly evaluate right now. 9kat (talk) 03:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Not quite. Government debt should read Government bonds, since other debts (direct loans, multilateral groups like the Paris Club, bonds issued under European or Buenos Aires Law) are not affected. Keep in mind also that "default" as a verb is just too misleading, since payments to regular bondholders were made -as they have since 2005- but are being stopped by the Griesa court (the NYT article used here states that The case wound its way through the United States courts until 2012, when a federal judge in Manhattan issued a ruling that said Argentina could not make payments to exchange bondholders without paying the holdouts). The phrase should perhaps read: Payments to bondholders with US$13 billion in Argentine government bonds were stopped by District Court Judge Thomas P. Griesa at the behest of holdout bondholders. ([5])

Please consider using the link above, as it is also from the New York Times (same day, same co-author) - but is far more complete than the earlier snippet, and specifies among other things that the funds are being held by court order at the Bank of New York Mellon (the New York transfers agent for Argentina). Readers might want something with some context and a little background. Thank you. 98.166.157.157 (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - Big story with international impact. A worthy ITN addition. Jusdafax 05:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I have marked the article as now updated. Thue (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Should be pulled This item really confused me, because I can't find any mention of the default in the linked article. Because of that, I think this item should be pulled, at least until the article is actually updated. User<Svick>.Talk(); 21:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, pulled my own post. On a quick inspection, I saw no obvious update either. My apologies. Perhaps User:Thue could clarify which article has been updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
      • The "judicial rulings" section had been extensively updated, but I apparently missed that the actual default was somehow not mentioned. I have added some text mentioning the default. Thue (talk) 08:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Re-noted as ready but waiting for independent admin to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

In any case, R.M., it would be selective default per S&P's own definition [6] (and only on New York-issue bonds, the only ones affected by the Griesa ruling -[7]). I might add that as of today Griesa was forced to lift his freeze on payments on all Argentine bond trustees except Bank of New York Mellon (JP Morgan Chase was the last remaining bank, besides BONY, to remain under the stop payment order - [8]). To be up to date by the time it goes up tomorrow, then, the blurb should perhaps read:

A $539 million bond interest payment deposited by Argentina at BONY was blocked by District Court Judge Thomas Griesa. Standard & Poor's declares Argentina in selective default as a result.

98.166.157.157 (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Needs Attention and Support. Is this go to go back up? The article looks good to me but it looked good to me before it was pulled too. Rhodesisland (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

July 30Edit

Portal:Current events/2014 July 30

[Posted] RD: Dick SmithEdit

Article: Dick Smith (make-up artist) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NY Times
Nominator: Connormah (talk • give credit)
Updater: Philip Cross (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Well-known makeup artist, winner of an Academy Award and Honorary Academy Award. Highly notable in his field, nicknamed the "Godfather of Makeup", USA Today describes him as "legendary" [9], BBC Connormah (talk) 05:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose- Close, but I'm not sure it could be universally claimed he was at or near the top of his field. For example, this random list made by some random blogger doesn't even make mention of him, and none of the comments suggesting others note him either. Maybe if Pat McGrath died I'd support her for RD, though I know that's not exactly the same world, fashion vs. movies. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 06:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Academy Award-winning makeup artist with an impressive resume. Article looks like it's in excellent shape with proper referencing from top to bottom. Challenger l (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Huge thanks to User:Philip Cross for this - I've been extremely busy as of late and it's great that he took it upon himself to clean the article up. I've added his name as the updater. Connormah (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • That Academy Award has been given about 40 times and there are even a few multiple winners, and Dick Smith is not one of them. There do not exist 40 makeup artists whose death we would post; there is not enough evidence to say he was at the top of his field. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support certainly one of the top in his field, worked on seminal movies. His work on The Exorcist and The Godfather was unparalleled at the time, the pioneering use of foam latex (game changer for the industry) an Oscar and an honorary award from the Academy in 2011 (which is given for "extraordinary distinction in lifetime achievement, exceptional contributions to the state of motion picture arts and sciences, or for outstanding service to the Academy") so yes, top of his field. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This seems like an easy post. Two Oscars is a decent shout and people like Rick Baker describe him as legends. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose until we get a rationale that tells us more than he won an oscar. Did he do the makeup for Star Wars and Planet of the Apes? μηδείς (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support He did iconic makeup for Marlon Brando in the Godfather and Linda Blair in The Exorcist, just to name the most well known. He pioneered aging makeup and was in general a massive influence in all stage makeup before the age of CGI. His obits in Time, NPR, and NY Times should help everyone here understand his importance a bit more. Makeup artistry might be a dying artform, but this man definitely deserves props for all he's done over the years.99.42.165.162 (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, 99, I have removed my opposition. μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Two Oscars, one Emmy, a BAFTA, lifetime achievement recognition by his "guild" and his work has been called was considered revolutionary but is now considered the standard. All this seems to me to put him at the "top of his field." Rhodesisland (talk) 02:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Marked as ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Suggest posting. I know we're not supposed to vote count but there is only one standing oppose; the nomination has been standing for a while so those who want to comment have had time to do so; the article looks good. All seems in order. Let's post it. Rhodesisland (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. Would someone kindly double-check my work [10]? That part of the template is a little different than I'm used to with the recent addition of the Ongoing section, and I saw there was some sort of issue with the coding a week or so ago. It looks fine as far as I can see. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Looks good to me. I find the whole coding bewildering, we need a better solution than the current one.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 Malin landslideEdit

Article: 2014 Malin landslide (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In the Pune district of India, a landslide triggered by heavy rains kills at least 50 people.
News source(s): ABC News
Nominator: Jinkinson (talk • give credit)

 --Jinkinson talk to me 20:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose- Not a lot of international coverage, and the dreaded imaginary and arbitrary death toll bar isn't reached here. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, pending article improvement. As things stand right now, the death toll (around 20, I think) isn't exactly insignificant, and that number is expected to increase significantly. Article needs some expansion, however. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support death toll has passed fifty and article is fit enough for ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. BBC is now putting the death toll at 60.[11] Article could do with keeping up to date but is adequate. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Marking as ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 15:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Ongoing: 2014 Libyan conflictEdit

Worst violence in the country since the 2011 uprising. The Guardian and The New Indian Express called this conflict a civil war. The US closed its embassy four days ago [12] and French and British nationals were evacuated today [13] and some British diplomats were attacked during the process.[14] At the moment, the article is outdated but I'm currently trying to expand it. Any help would be appreciated. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Recently there was an airpot seizure attempt and one aircraft was burning there. I've heard in the news that Libya has requested international help. Brandmeistertalk 16:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - an escalation of violence indeed.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- I would support iff the article is expanded to include July in the same way that May was done, not like the way June was done. Also, wouldn't the article be more aptly titled Timeline of the 2014 Libyan Conflict, because that's how the article is structured. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 17:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, those two articles need to be sorted out. What each article is supposed to be and the way they are formatted is a real mess. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 18:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Well I don't really get that part, but yes, the nominated article is pretty outdated. We already have the needed content but it's in the post-civil war article and I intend to move it, but first I must politely inform the current updater there about my intentions, which I already did. As for your concern about the title, I don't know why we should rename it to Timeline of [main article] because in that case we will have to split some stuff to avoid being left without a main article. I believe it is too early to decide on that because we don't have any WP:SIZE issue yet. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The problem is that as is, the entire article is a timeline. Read any other decent war article, and you'll see more than just a timeline of the conflict. There needs to be background, responses, etc. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've significantly expanded the foreign reactions section with Algeria, Egypt and Tunisia's involvement so that it becomes more that just a timeline article, although I personally don't see any problem if 90% of a war article was in timeline format. Hope this satisfies, and I'm still working on it. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Ok it's not amazing, but I appreciate the work you've put into it and am willing to support now. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 17:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Suggestion - Clearly, there is not enough room for every ongoing armed conflict to be listed in the template. What we can do is in the "ongoing" section, replace all the links to armed conflicts with a link to List of ongoing armed conflicts.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I do not like that suggestion. I think it's rare to have more than one or two wars which constantly have major stories, which is what ongoing should be for. However if you read the newspapers in most parts of the world right now, there are two and maybe even three conflicts (Libya being the questionable one) that are getting significant stories nearly every day. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with the statement that there is not enough room for every conflict, but the link to the list isn't really workable since that article isn't being updated with new information; the articles for the individual conflicts are. SpencerT♦C 15:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I still oppose due to article quality though. If it's fixed up (just a little, not too much needed) to look more like a full article and not just a timeline, I will support. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
oppose using that logic we should post Iraq, Syria and Ssout SudanLihaas (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Using that logic we shouldn't post anything. Do you see any Iraq or Syria articles around here that are good candidates for Ongoing? Also, did anything significant happen in South Sudan recently? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes. Talks recently reopened in South Sudan, and they delayed the start of South Sudanese gold production a year which is incredibly important because one of the reasons the country has been faltering is because it's economy is too one-dimensional (based entirely on oil) and that one natural resource is currently the center of many of the battles they are waging with the insurgents. So a whole lot is going on in South Sudan actually. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 17:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The talks were delayed [15] and I think the halting of gold production could warrant a full blurb. Not the kind of stuff for Ongoing in my opinion. However, I'm not saying that I oppose any item on South Sudan. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
And both Syria and South Sudan were recently rejected for the same reasonsLihaas (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Fastest serve in women tennis historyEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2014 (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.

Nominator's comments: In 1998, Williams hit a 127 mph serve on match point in the Zurich Open quarterfinals, now we have 131 mph. EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 11:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: not really a major news story. Thanks, Matty.007 11:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Interesting news. Noteworthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • We actually have an article on this topic so the record is somewhat notable. However, until they impose biological passports to prevent doping, I highly doubt these records will be that meaningful. Nergaal (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Worlds records can always be broken later, and thus do not make for good ITN here. Ideally it would be better if it was some theorhetical limit - ala the 4 minute mile - that was broken. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- I actually think that world records are much more notable than arbitrary numbers, but I have to oppose this because the real record is 164 miles per hour. In my mind this is about as relevant as fastest serve by a Canadian or fastest serve by a Croatian. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm willing to bet this wasn't posted when it was last broken in 2007. And I'm pretty sure we didn't post the overall record in 2012.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.224 (talk) 16:28 30 July 2014

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 29Edit

Portal:Current events/2014 July 29

[Closed] Zhou YongkangEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 19:49, 30 July 2014 (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: Zhou Yongkang (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Communist Party of China announces that former Politburo Standing Committee member Zhou Yongkang is undergoing investigation.
Alternative blurb: ​The Communist Party of China officially announces the corruption investigation into former official Zhou Yongkang
News source(s): (New York Times), (BBC)
Nominator and updater: Colipon (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is the most highly ranked official in post-1949 Chinese history to fall on corruption charges, and was the top story on the New York Times and BBC, not to mention a large number of Chinese publications. We have previously posted the downfall of Chen Liangyu, Bo Xilai and Xu Caihou, all of whom were of a lower rank. I updated the article today to make it more encyclopedic and interesting to the reader as well. Colipon+(Talk)
  • Question In Chinese law, presumably being under investigation means that it's undecided whether he's guilty of not? If so, I think we should wait until the investigation is resolved and post if found guilty. CaptRik (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    • In Chinese politics, "announcing" that a high official is under "investigation" is essentially a 'nail on the coffin', in other words, a done deal. They only 'announce' such a decision when there has been sufficient evidence gathered against the subject to ensure their conviction. The case will follow a formulaic investigation by party authorities followed by a trial in the courts, then a conviction which will result in jail time (see Bo Xilai above). There is no coming back for the man, thus the significance. Perhaps a comparable example is, say, if Dick Cheney or Condoleeza Rice were indicted (and not yet tried).

      Perhaps another way to put it is, while the semantics of "being placed under investigation" seems rather insignificant, effectively this news item marks the official "purge" of Zhou; in fact the highest ranked official to be purged since 1978. Colipon+(Talk) 19:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC) it,

      • I get it, but once again, it's not what we normally post. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose we don't post "under investigation" items. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Indeed, we don't post "under investigation" items. Especially not from a ridiculous regime.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Investigation was launched, he could be innocent for all we know. Plus, I can't find any evidence we posted Chen Liangyu. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 20:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It's one thing when the rarest of rarities happens, as it did earlier this year, when a very senior official was booted out of not only his position but the Party itself. I don't see "under investigation" as notable or significant in this context. Challenger l (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Even if the investigation is a formality or the outcome is otherwise predetermined, it is still just an investigation. When this man is formally punished, it may merit posting(as with the last Chinese official we posted). 331dot (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2014 (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.

PangolinEdit

Articles: Pangolin (talk, history) and Asian cuisine (talk, history)
Blurb: ​All eight species of the pangolin are being “eaten into extinction” to satisfy the demands of Asian cuisine.
Alternative blurb: ​The International Union for Conservation of Nature adds four more pangolin species to its list of species threatened with extinction.
News source(s): {Starits Times), (ITV), (Independent)
Nominator: Martinevans123 (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Another species bites the (Asian) dust? Martinevans123 (talk)

  • Comment According to the sources all eight species of pangolin are threatened by their deliciousness (not just the Indian species). Mmmmmmm, pangolin. Belle (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Many thanks, have adjusted, although unsure which species Gonzo is. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
      • They don't look that tasty. Put me right off my bottlenose dolphin soup and koala bear steaks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Once you get past the revolting thick scaly skin, they're really quite tender inside. Just like many Admins (allegedly). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We have posted confirmed extinctions in the past (e.g. Western Black Rhinoceros) as well as the discovery of new species, but this item is just a warning by conservationists. SpencerT♦C 15:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
So, wait for them to become extinct and that will be real news? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, actually. For ITN, these "arbitrary points" (not just for extinction but for things like trial cases, business mergers, government actions, etc) could each be their own ITN entry, which would flood nominations. We have decided to only acceptable to post a "final" point of such stories - which would here be the case if the species is labelled "extinct" - yes, it seems like too late, but we're here to highlight quality articles that happen to be in the news, not be a news ticker. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Sadly I concur with Masem here. We'd have a permanent ticker for super-endangered species like the Javan Rhino if we kept reporting they were near extinction. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Man, I could really go for a slice of Javan rhino pie right now. Nice thick crust and plenty of gravy. Mmmmmm. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Very nice with the Dodo dumplings, Baiji-burgers and Tarpan toast, I hear. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- This is a case of newspapers deciding to take the time to feature an article about this, nothing's really happened yet. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 19:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Posted a support earlier today, it seems to have disappeared down the memory hole. Gamaliel (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Many species are on the verge of extinction and are reported as such. 331dot (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This is an entire order of mammals, comparable in taxonomic level to all bats, all whales, or all primates, not just some "species". μηδείς (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per 331dot, and my previous comment. This just makes the papers because of the Asian food angle, more tabloid than a bunch of poachers just killing rhino for their horns. Besides that, several of our articles on the various extant pangolin do not list them as critically endangered, in fact one (tree pangolin) is just "vulnerable" (the IUCN agree). Finally, according to our article, there are nearly 2000 animal species that are "critically endangered", there seems no reason to single out these scaly fellas. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
... shucks, am now getting mixed feelings about this one. You know, like "sweet and sour"... Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Altblurb proposed and support per Medeis and because of the recent shocking numbers we have. More than a million pangolins are believed to have been snatched from the wild over the past decade. This is an alarming number and it's not just papers wasting time because the same article also quotes an IUCN specialist who says that the practice "has left very few in China, Vietnam and South East Asia" and that the poachers are now turning their attention to the "rapidly diminishing" species in sub-Saharan Africa. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • An excellent altblurb which I fully support. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Listen, my heart is entirely behind the story, but it's really not ITN-worthy. If species of Pangolin are still being categorised by IUCN as "vulnerable" there's no immediate threat of extinction (which I believe this story is revved up to make us all believe). As I said above, over 2,000 animals are critically endangered, is this the precedent we want to set that when one or two species are added to that red list, we must post it? We'll need a wildlife ticker for sure... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Now that would be titillating! Would open many eyes. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
    • My problem with the story is what are we reporting? That something has been going on for a full decade? What is the one big event that is being reported here, seems more like an ongoing thing. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 18:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, there is that too. Nothing newsworthy seems to be being suggested here other than a marked decline in pangolin numbers (apart from the unpleasant-to-eat tree pangolin). It's a tabloid story that's titillating and saddening, but ultimately not Wikipedia ITN-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, as I thought, a tabloid story. Not that titillating for the pangolin, though. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, a blog at Scientific American could be considered more than tabloid, but my point was that the headline of the pangolin being eaten into extinction is a tabloid approach to a widespread problem of endangered animals. That some have the misconception that this means all species of pangolin are suddenly critically endangered is just one erroneous side effect of such a "headline". People don't eat rhino so that's not as "important" as pangolin. As noted, there are thousands of species close to extinction, this is only of "interest" because people have eaten a lot of them. We ought to be concerned over all critically endangered species (i.e. we can exclude some of the pangolin species because they're ok for the moment), yet most won't get the salacious tabloid headline treatment because they're not thrilling and tangible like a pangolin. Disclaimer: I have seen a pangolin "in the flesh", while tracking leopard in Namibia, and it was certainly a highlight, more so than seeing an actual leopard (which are commonplace and "not threatened", perhaps we should BBQ them instead). It was an unrepentant scaly sod, the size of a 16 pound bowling ball, with the strength of ten men. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Choose whatever "headline" you like. Pangolins are endangered - because they're considered a delicacy on the restaurant tables of Asia. If it goes on, they'll be extinct. Enjoy your BBQ. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Martin, I agree with you entirely. ITN isn't used to right great wrongs. But the pangolins are no different from the Javan rhinos. Or the other thousands of critically endangered species. Or am I wrong? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
... you can't get a rhino on the barbecue. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
True, and only two species of Pangolin are listed as critically endangered. Four of them are vulnerable so the bizarre "eaten to extinction" claim for the whole order of Pangolins is at best purely erroneous, at worst, complete fabrication. It's worth those who are under the misapprehension that the article title is the truth to actually read the IUCN definition of "vulnerable" etc, here. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I had thought The Independent a WP:RS and that I could believe "(IUCN) has just added the four African pangolin species to its list of species threatened with extinction." A bit of WP:OR never goes amiss, does it? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose They are only vulnerable, and wow that main blurb seems to be taken right out of a magazine head. Don't see the point in posting trends. Besides, if we post this do we have to post about the hundreds or thousands of possible insects who are becoming even more endangered? Someone think of the insects!75.73.114.111 (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support with altblurb- My original problem is gone now that there is an actual story to report, not just a trend. Plus this is an extreme minority topic, which I know doesn't exist anymore as ITN policy but I still take it into account. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

July 28Edit

Portal:Current events/2014 July 28

RD: James ShigetaEdit

Article: James Shigeta (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): E! Online
Nominator: George Ho (talk • give credit)
Updater: Coretheapple (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: He was a Japanese American singer and actor. Well, not well-known, but readers at main page should be aware of this person. --George Ho (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose- By no means a superstar, but I am familiar with him and he did have some memorable roles. Based on our usual threshold for RD postings, I feel he falls just below the bar, but others might disagree. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 20:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article looks like it's in good shape, but sadly, I don't see him as being notable enough for RD. Challenger l (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Recognized actor, but not "top of his field". --MASEM (t) 20:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support OK I have a conflict of interest (I added his birthdate), but I wanted to point out that he was a rare Asian-American star and we should have a bit more diversity on the main page. That's all. Coretheapple (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • How is adding his birthdate COI? Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I completely understand this, but the standards of notability don't have anything to do with ethnicity or national origin - they have to do with how well known someone is, and far more to the point, how much they stick out in their field. Challenger l (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
FYI NY Times obituary today[16] described him as "an actor who challenged social boundaries when he emerged in the late 1950s as one of the first Asian-Americans to play leading roles in Hollywood." Come on guys! Coretheapple (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Being one of the firsts is not necessarily equivalent to importance. In contrast, Sidney Poitier (should we ever lose him) not only was one of the first, but also help led for advancement of African-descended actors in Hollywood. Without exploring too much there are other Asian-american actors that I think would be the equivalent to Poitier, such as George Takei, that not only were first from that diversity group but also actively helped to pave the way for more. --MASEM (t) 19:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem, hardly top of his field. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I love his work and it's clear that ITM has diversity issues, but he doesn't meet the notability bar required here. Gamaliel (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment- It's important to note that our diversity problems have almost nothing to do with race. The problem is focusing too much on certain places, for instance too many Americans on RD. So this wouldn't do much to combat that, because he was on American shows and is known to Americans. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 19:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed. A while back I attempted to get a well-respected and widely-known figure in the Spanish-speaking world listed, and it was resoundingly ignored because she had no US presence. I suspect had Shigeta had the same career in Japan and was never in Die Hard, he wouldn't have gotten nominated here. Gamaliel (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I must regrettably come down opposed on this nomination. "He just doesn't meet the notability bar required here." Per Gamaliel. Rhodesisland (talk) 02:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Possible Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty violation by RussiaEdit

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2014 (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: Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United States accuses Russia of violating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which they had signed in 1987, by testing a ground-launched cruise missile.
News source(s): New York Times
Nominator: Jinkinson (talk • give credit)

 --Jinkinson talk to me 12:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support but suggest a more concise blurb: The United States accuses Russia of violating the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty by testing a ground-launched cruise missile. Gamaliel (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support with Gamaliel's blurb. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Since when do we post mere accusations? Redverton (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose apparently this has been long-known and it's not a coincidence that the US have chosen this point (in the context of Ukraine) to rattle the sabre. Plus, as Redverton says, j'accuse? Not really ITN stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose until it's confirmed that the violation took place. CaptRik (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- I didn't carefully read the story, you're all right. It's just an accusation, we don't know what's true. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 20:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the same reason as Bzweebl. Didn't think this through. Gamaliel (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Just an accusation, not a formal determination by an impartial body. 331dot (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2014 (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] YukosEdit

Articles: Yukos (talk, history) and Baikalfinansgrup (talk, history)
Blurb: The Hague's court rules against Russia, awarding the majority shareholders of Yukos Oil Company $50 billion. The court found unanimously that an expropriation had taken place, breaching Article 13(1) of the Energy Charter Treaty.
Alternative blurb: ​An international court orders Russia to repay $50 billion to shareholders of the Yukos Oil Company for breaching the Energy Charter Treaty.
News source(s): (Reuters) (NYTimes) (The Moscow Times) (BBC)
Nominator: TarzanASG (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: The most important judgment in the history of Russia after 2000, when Vladimir Putin came to power. --TarzanASG (talk) 07:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support $50 billion! Blurb is way, way too long. Thue (talk) 08:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support pretty major fine by an international court against a country that is front and centre these days. Added an altblurb and slightly tweaked the grammar of the first sentence in the original blurb. - Floydian τ ¢ 09:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Highly significant ruling; if only by the enourmous amount of money involved and the authority of the insitution. The “Hague court” should however absolutely be changed to “Permanent Court of Arbitration”, as there is some degree of ambiguity wether a “court of arbitration” is a court and (more importantly) a “Hague's Court” suggests it is a municipal court. L.tak (talk) 09:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb as a notable international judgement/court case, but suggest parentheses be removed from the blurb. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thats an optional addendum to the altblurb, since there's no altblurb2 parameter. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ? I personally support this, I've boycotted the company since it's fraudulent seizure, but under current circumstances, can we assume this judgment will ever be effected? μηδείς (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support a notable judgement, making the front of the Financial Times offering an indication of its global financial significance. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the alt-blurb and personally agree with 331dot about the brackets not being necessary. CaptRik (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Pacific Islands ForumEdit

Article: 45th Pacific Islands Forum (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 45th Pacific Islands Forum opens in Koror, Palau with climate change as the central theme.
News source(s): AFP, Radio Australia
Nominator and updater: Bzweebl (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: I know this particular summit is not ITN/R and there is a general sentiment against posting the mere occurrence of summits on ITN, but let me explain why this is particularly important. This year's major topic is climate change, and this is due to the fact that many islands in these countries are very close to sinking. According to the AFP article, some of these Pacific islands are a few meters above the water. This article about the danger of most of Kiribati sinking in the near future emphasizes how big of a concern this is for them. The USA, China, India, and other major powers are all sending representation to this year's summit. --Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose while this is more important than the Cook Islands election, there would be too much reverse-systematic bias if such a remote/irrelevant part of the world gets so much ITN coverage. Nergaal (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Australia, New Zealand and some 40 million people are remote and irrelevant? Stephen 23:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    And if it's irrelevant why are the US, China, India and other major power sending representatives to this summit? China, for one, has been quite active in recent years in attempting to extend its influence in the area with various aid and diplomatic initiatives. Neljack (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    They will be joined at the forum, running from July 29 to August 1, by observers from countries including the United States, China and India. Do we know who these "observers" are? The ABC article does not say, but my guess is that if they were government representatives, they would be identified as such. Probably a few of the attendees come from these nations. They could be tourists looking for a tax break, for all we know.
    Your guess is wrong. The observers include John Podesta and Catherine Ashton.[17] Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks. I don't know about government representatives per se, but they certainly seem to be in with the heads. --Pete (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I might support this if there was an article for this year's event. Formerip (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I might do that either tonight or tomorrow morning. I know I haven't written anything yet like I said I would but if this looks like it might gain consensus for posting I'll definitely make sure to either add an update or write a new article. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm in agreement with FormerIP; it seems a notable enough international gathering, though. 331dot (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose because this is just a propaganda grab. Sea levels in Kiribati are the same as they are twenty years ago.[18] Let's save our front page for real news stories, not made up ones. Otherwise we might as well just get a random feed of media releases. --Pete (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Your personal view on the science of climate change is not really relevant. What is relevant is that the international community is taking this seriously, as seen by the representation from major powers - probably because there is a scientific consensus that there will be sea level rise as a result of climate change. Neljack (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've got one of those minds that retain trivia - but not the important stuff, as my dear wife reminds me - and I remembered a news article on the subject from years back. I see this as a stunt, designed explicitly to grab media attention. My personal views on climate change aren't worth a tinker's cuss, but I do know a little bit about tricks used to steal headlines and publicity. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Support - atleast something new and important and not another dumb war...--Stemoc (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Updated- The article should be ready to go now. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 19:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. "Reverse systematic bias" is OK by me. Formerip (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. A notable international gathering of a good chunk of the world is notable. 331dot (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Would it be preferable to hold off until the forum ends, and base the blurb on the closing press release? As I recall, the last summit we posted (BRICS) got several "so what" comments in main-page errors. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The practice on ITN for years has been to post at the beginning of summits. See ITN/R for the list of summits that are always posted; those are posted at the beginning. If there is a consensus to post at the end of the Forum that is fine too, but the precedent is to post at the beginning. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I think practice has most commonly been to post at the end. Formerip (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It's not clear from ITN/R that there's consensus to post at the beginning, though I'm not arguing that that has been the usual practice. The negative response to posting the BRICS summit suggested that it might be time to reconsider existing practice. Further, this is not an ITN/R event, so we're presumably posting it on the grounds that it is more significant than average for these summits (and we're having a light news week). I'm easy either way, but having made a few edits to the article it would probably be better left to another admin to post. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • True, I didn't realize it doesn't explicitly say that at ITN/R. Either we could open a discussion on the talk page on not posting at the beginning of the summit, or the easier way to do it would be to judge it on a case-by-case basis, in which case an admin decide whether to post this now or after the summit is finished. If the latter I could repost the nom and all the discussion on it on July 1. And this would presumably be posted on the grounds it's more important than average for these summits, as I indicated in my nom comment. And I'm not sure what the connection is, but you are welcome to exclude yourself from posting this due to having edited the article. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's my view that we have too many summits even on ITN/R - the case for adding one in addition to those needs to be particularly compelling. In this case it's a relatively niche forum on the world stage compared to some of the others. The climate change element makes this additionally problematic since it risks becoming POV by selective coverage - would we be as eager to post an OPEC summit dedicated to rubbishing climate change? I wouldn't have thought so, even if it's clearly a more significant organisation. 3142 (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Umm, yes.Lihaas (talk) 14:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Why? A 5 to 3 does not constitutes consensus to me. Nergaal (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Consensus was not overwhelmingly strong, but to me was in favor of posting. Additionally, the article as a whole was of a high enough quality (in the context of multination conference articles) to push this toward posting. SpencerT♦C 20:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Zillow and Trulia mergerEdit

no consensus to post this merger of two US real estate websites. Stephen 02:54, 30 July 2014 (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: Zillow (talk, history) and Trulia (talk, history)
Blurb: Zillow, the largest real estate website in the United States, announces its intention to buy the second largest such website, Trulia.
News source(s): LA Times
Nominator: Jinkinson (talk • give credit)

 --Jinkinson talk to me 15:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Interesting. Deal needs analysis in secondary sources. Have any? Abductive (reasoning) 15:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose First, we should be waiting until the deal is finalized. Second, I'm not sure if being in webspace only really makes this as big as it seems. --MASEM (t) 16:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Hyperlocal business story (pertinent to the U.S. only, lacking worldwide repercussions for the future). Run-of-the-mill acquisition; nothing extraordinarily different or noteworthy about this. 184.146.109.91 (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Just to prove my point, this deal is for $3.5 billion. Another acquisition/merger by Dollar Tree of Family Dollar for $8.5 billion occurred today. Neither are significant enough to post - unless it's the largest acquisition to date ever of any business or there are particular events surrounding the acquisition that are noteworthy. 184.146.109.91 (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- No records are being set and the international reach of these companies is lacking. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:26, 28 July 2014 (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] Canadian OpenEdit

No consensus to post this particular golfing event. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2014 (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: Tim Clark (golfer) (talk, history) and Canadian Open (golf) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In golf, Tim Clark wins the Canadian Open.
News source(s): REUTERS ABC
Nominator: Nathan121212 (talk • give credit)
Updater: Sxg169 (talk • give credit)

 --Nathan121212 (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- 5 golf events per year is enough. This certainly isn't as big as the Player's Championship, and arguably some events on the European Tour as well. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Bzweebl. Notable lack of any major news coverage too (barely promoted by the Toronto Star for instance) Somchai Sun (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: per the guidelines set in WP:ITN/R. 184.146.109.91 (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • What guideline in ITN/R prevents the Canadian Open from being posted? Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (to the IP user) ITNR does not prohibit other stories from being posted; it is a list of stories that the community has decided merit posting without debating the merits of doing so. 331dot (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is no limit on the number of golf stores that are posted, but I don't see a great deal of coverage here, nor see why this tournament is notable or significant enough for ITN. 331dot (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2014 (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] EidEdit

An OTD, not an ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2014 (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: Eid al-Fitr (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Muslims around the world mark end of Ramadan with Eid al-Fitr Celebrations.
News source(s): [27]
Nominator and updater: Teaksmitty (talk • give credit)

 --Teaksmitty (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: Already at OTD. –HTD 14:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think we include annual holidays (irregardless of political nature/religion) as ITN. If it were a holiday celebrated, say, every few decades or something, that would be different. --MASEM (t) 14:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Close per WP:SNOW. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:43, 28 July 2014 (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 27Edit

Portal:Current events/2014 July 27

[Closed] Costa ConcordiaEdit

No consensus to post based on unanimous opposition here and the lackluster support from the discussion on 14 July. Stephen 06:35, 28 July 2014 (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: Costa Concordia (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Costa Concordia completes her final journey to the Italian port of Genoa, after which she will be demolished for scrap.
News source(s): Irish Times
Nominator: Jinkinson (talk • give credit)

 --Jinkinson talk to me 21:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- I don't think the ship is inherently notable, just lots of people happen to have heard about it because of the accident. And even if it was, cruise ships finishing their career isn't something important enough for ITN. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The salvage was the real story. There's no need to keep spinning this out. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not exactly an incredible end to the tragedy, is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I am not seeing this as a notable story, honestly. Challenger l (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - nothing more really than the previous story we also rejected outright. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:25, 28 July 2014 (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.

Hungarian Grand PrixEdit

Article: 2014 Hungarian Grand Prix (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In Formula One racing, Daniel Ricciardo wins the 2014 Hungarian Grand Prix.
News source(s): Guardian, ABC
Nominator: Brandmeister (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Not strictly on ITNR, which lists only Monaco GP, but still looks notable. --Brandmeistertalk 20:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I quote: "Please do not... add simple "support" or "oppose" !votes. 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."131.251.254.110 (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Allow me to elucidate since you have asked so kindly: so what is the significance of this GP win over any other? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose without also agreeing to The Rambling Man, regardless to what my comment last year, let me point this out to the nominator, the Monaco GP have more provenance to every other GPs out there and is one of the few pre war GPs that is still running. Regardless how Mr. BCE treats it nowadays as they are no different to all other rounds, it even have the provenance to rival every other major races in the world and that includes Le Mans and Indy 500. So to have something to say to this nominator, do that answer the reason why Monaco is included in ITN/R? Donnie Park (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Hungary have an F1 race? Wow. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Since 1986. Stephen 22:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Time window's closing on this one quickly, but I don't find the significance in the race world for this to be posted. Rhodesisland (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

2014 Tour de France ChampionshipEdit

Article: 2014 Tour de France (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In cycling, Vincenzo Nibali wins the 2014 Tour de France
Alternative blurb: ​The Tour de France concludes with Vincenzo Nibali of Astana Pro Team winning the general classification.
Nominator: HonorTheKing (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

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.

 
  – HonorTheKing (talk)

  • Support: ITN/R sports event. ends today. could include in the blurb that he now won all three grand tours, becoming the sixth rider to do so.
      – HonorTheKing (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment- Incredible tour by Nibali throughout. Now all that's needed is an update. Anyone interested in writing one? Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 17:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Alternatively we could do the lazy approach, where we run a blurb that looks like this:
In cycling, Vincenzo Nibali wins the Tour de France.
That article is clearly updated, so this nomination should be ready to go. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I am concerned that there is virtually no prose to discuss the win, just the one unreferenced line in the lead (and the unreferenced standings in the table), unless I'm mistaken. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    I've added references for that line in the lead. It seems to be a general style to discuss the Tour in terms of the overall structure and omit any details of the competition. It makes for very dull articles. Belle (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Perhaps a more suitable target article which discusses the result in more detail would be more appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Vincenzo Nibali is updated, but the bulk of his earlier career appears completely unreferenced. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the short blurb once the intro of the article is expanded in a similar manner to the lead of the 2013 article. Nergaal (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support and needs attention. The lead never got expanded but it is pretty well referenced and other than the lead compares nicely with last year's article.Rhodesisland (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

July 26Edit

Portal:Current events/2014 July 26

[Closed] 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict ceasefireEdit

Part of the point of the Ongoing section of ITN is to highlight ongoing issues, this is one such, which clearly is transient. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2014 (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: 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A twelve-hour humanitarian ceasefire takes place between Israel and Gaza in the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict.
Alternative blurb: ​Israel proposes to extend a ceasefire by four hours relative to its original twelve-hour duration, but Gaza rejects the offer.
News source(s): Fox News, USA Today
Nominator: Jinkinson (talk • give credit)

 --Jinkinson talk to me 15:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I do not think that is significant enough to warrant an entry separate from the "Gaza conflict" ongoing item; it's just a 12-hour reprieve (assuming neither side violates the ceasefire) in an 18-day war. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose There was a ceasefire on 17 July as well. This is minor and somewhat routine, and Ongoing covers it fine. 9kat (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- In some conflicts a ceasefire is quite notable, but when it comes to Israel and Gaza, a 12-hour ceasefire means things are back to their usual ugliness in not a minute over twelve hours. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 04:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If it was a much longer term I'd support easily, but this is far too short(and now over). 331dot (talk) 08:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment- And now Hamas broke the ceasefire before its expiration and Israel followed suit shortly thereafter. Israel and Hamas are great at keeping agreements with each other... NOT. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 17:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose see Ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2014 (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.

European Court of Human Rights decision regarding Poland and CIA black siteEdit

Article: Black site (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The European Court of Human Rights ruled that Poland violated the European Convention on Human Rights when it cooperated with USA allowing CIA to hold and interrogate Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri on its territory in 2002-2003. The court ordered the Polish government to pay each of the men 100,000 euros in damages.
News source(s): Poland 'helped in CIA rendition', European Court rules
Nominator: Olegwiki (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is major news regarding the controvercial CIA practices. 21:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering why the Poles are being blamed for something that U.S. spooks did at an obscure site in obscure Masuria. Sca (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support with a shorter blurb - something like Gamaliel's one. Significant as the first court decision to confirm the existence of the black sites. Getting plenty of international news coverage. Neljack (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose a laughable verdict and a judgment without jurisdiction. Poland might as well sue England and France for WWII and get a $1,000,000.00 settlement. 01:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Your personal views on the correctness of the decision are not terribly relevant, Medeis. But perhaps you'd like to explain how the Court lacks jurisdiction in a case against Poland - a party to the Convention - for acts done on Polish territory? Neljack (talk) 03:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support obviously significant, but the blurb needs work and the target article has a maintenance tag (although that seems to be less of a worry these days). The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

July 25Edit

Portal:Current events/2014 July 25

[Posted] Ongoing: 2014 West Africa Ebola outbreakEdit

First confirmed death in Nigeria. More and more serious, in the "deadliest outbreak ever". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support- Good to have one that's not war or sports related, not sure why it was removed. Recent deaths is low right now (fortunately), so no reason not to add a fourth ongoing. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 20:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    • It was removed because the article was not being updated. Outside of number changes to the tables and other statistical changes, little if any information from July events was being added to the article. SpencerT♦C 23:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

L:Dang, another visionary article creayted by yours truly ;)Lihaas (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. The number of suspected cases has recently gone over a thousand, the article appears reasonably current, and the outbreak is getting coverage every few days by the BBC. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Seems to have recieved sufficient updates for Juli. Thue (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: There are a lot of events in the news for this item (e.g. this) but not much is being added consistently to the article, as is a requirement for ongoing. SpencerT♦C 22:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the link. I'm following the outbreak for the Viruses portal and will try to be more proactive in adding material. (There's a tension in these articles between news sources & sources that meet WikiProject Medicine's stringent requirements for reliable sources; often editors prefer to wait until official WHO reports are in before adding material.) Espresso Addict (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

July 24Edit

Portal:Current events/2014 July 24

[Posted] Central African Republic ceasefireEdit

Article: Central African Republic conflict (2012–present) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Séléka and Anti-balaka militias agree to a ceasefire in the Central African Republic civil war.
News source(s): BBC, Reuters
Nominator and updater: Bzweebl (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is major news for everyone closely following the conflict, a pretty significant step towards reaching peace. --Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Significant conflict sadly under-reported in Western media. A ceasefire isn't always a milestone (witness Israel-Gaza) but this seems to be the result of detailed negotiations so I'm willing to grant it some credence. 3142 (talk) 04:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. A significant step in resolving the conflict. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Thue (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • 2 peeps in 6 huirs is hardly consensus..Lihaas (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    • 2 supports and no opposes in 10 hours is good enough, IMO. We should be able to make such decisions in 10 hours. Also, counting my own (non-expressed) support for it gives 3-0 support-oppose. Thue (talk) 07:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't think that there was anything wrong with the decision to post 12 hours after the nomination, in light of the support for the item; however, the original news report may have been inaccurate—see WP:ERRORS. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
      • The original news report was not inaccurate. The Séléka representative in Brazzaville, General Mohamed Moussa Dhaffane, reached an agreement with the anti-Balaka and signed off on it. However, now that news has returned back to CAR, another major Séléka leader has refused to accept the ceasefire and is now calling for the very same proposal for a partition that was proposed at the beginning of the talks in Brazzaville but was quickly shot down by the President of the ROC and the anti-Balaka. So all-in-all, the only thing that really changed is maybe the ceasefire is not having as much of an effect as was hoped. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 06:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] ISIS blows up Jonah's tomb in IraqEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 23:37, 25 July 2014 (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: Jonah (talk, history) and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (talk, history)
Blurb: ISIS blows up Jonah's tomb in Iraq.
News source(s): CNN
Nominator: Count Iblis (talk • give credit)

 Count Iblis (talk) 02:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Queries. What is the age of the tomb? What was its architectural/historical value? What is the likelihood of it being Jonah's burial place? Abductive (reasoning) 03:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    It is one of at least four sites claimed as the resting place of Jonah (and these vary by religious tradition). The now destroyed mosque dedicated to Jonah (also known as the prophet "Yunus" in Islam) dated from the 13th century, but it was built at the site of ruins from the Assyrian city of Nineveh. The ruins at the mosque site are at least 2700 years old, but have never been properly excavated due to religious concerns about protecting the site and it may be thousands of years older than that. Dragons flight (talk) 03:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose although I admit I am not best placed to judge the real significance of this. It strikes me as being fundamentally disputable and qualifying it appropriately would take more space than the longest possible blurb. Antiquarians often comment that there are enough splinters from the Cross of Crucifixion to build an entire galleon: at first sight this appears very similar. 3142 (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    Holy relics are said to have the ability to multiply miraculously, so don't let the fact that there appear to be too many of any particular relic put you off believing. Belle (talk) 11:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Surely, the veracity of the claim the site is connected with Jonah is quite irrelevant. It's the fact that it was venerated as a holy site that makes it significant? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - A single video that CNN has not been able to verify. A site of extremely debateable significance. (Also a terrible CNN article, talking about separate 'Islamic' and 'Judaeo-Christian' traditions.) AlexTiefling (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not enough verifiable independent coverage (yesterday ISIS were mandating FGM, except it later turned out that they weren't) Belle (talk) 11:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
But if confirmed, it's a whale of a tale. Sca (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This needs much better coverage than just a few frames of video that even CNN isn't sure is accurate. Challenger l (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Support This is a site that's believed to have existed longer than Ilsam itself. The act is no different from the destruction of the shrines of Timbuktu and the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan one month before 9/11. Debating whether this is "the" tomb of Jonah is about as relevant as asking whether the Twin Towers were "the" world trade center. This is an extremely widely covered encyclopedic event that will be remembered and researched long after the results of the latest basketball playoffs. μηδείς (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- However, encyclopedically important this may seem, there is just isn't nearly enough coverage in general media for ITN. Additionally, it's hard to say this is even the most notable event of the ISIS insurgency, so giving it it's own blurb is strange when everyday other major events are occurring in northern Iraq. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 18:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose made up character who has multiple tombs has one of his made up tombs destroyed. Barely a sniff in mainstream news. Add it to an ongoing ISIS story. Next. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2014 (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] 2014 Herat shootingEdit

10 hours, six opposes, and an open AFD is enough of a blizzard for me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:29, 25 July 2014 (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: 2014 Herat shooting (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Two Finnish women are shot and killed in the Afghanistan city of Herat.
News source(s): Al Jazeera
Nominator: Jinkinson (talk • give credit)

 --Jinkinson talk to me 22:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose- If two Afghan women were shot in Herat, would anyone even contemplate nominating it? Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Bzweebi, that argument is weak and speculative. In this case there were two Finland born women shot. Anyhow I also agree that it is not for ITN so I also say Oppose.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's a good chance that this article will be deleted per NOTNEWS. There is nothing significant about two people being shot dead. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Re-opened I'm not supportive of this nomination but 54 minutes and only three opposes is far too early to assert SNOW - it isn't carte blanche to close any nom you disagree with. If 331dot wishes to oppose he can do so in the usual manner. 3142 (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose And...? Are there political implications here? In the current scale of events between the Ukraine and the Israel/Gaza, this is a blip on the radar. --MASEM (t) 06:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose tragic yet minor. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the reasons above, just not significant enough for the main page. CaptRik (talk) 07:48, 25 July 2014 (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] Arseniy Yatsenyuk resignsEdit

Events have moved on and we have the Ukrainian events as Ongoing right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2014 (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: Arseniy Yatsenyuk (talk, history)
Blurb: Arseniy Yatsenyuk announced his resignation as Prime Minister of Ukraine.
News source(s): NY Times
Nominator: BabbaQ (talk • give credit)

Article updated

 BabbaQ (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not really seeing anything huge in this, as it isn't out of the ordinary in terms of politics around the world. I'm open to reconsidering, but I really don't see anything notable about this here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Wait for an election to replace probably. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment'. It seems like the whole cabinet has resigned/offered to resign and there will be a vote of confidence tomorrow. We should at least wait for that. Formerip (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The chatter around this move suggests that it is merely a political maneuvering by the Euromaidan leaders so that they call for an early election, where they hope to eliminate the remaining opposition in the Ukrainian parliament (they banned the opposition Communist Party yesterday for some context). --Tocino 04:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Given the unrest in Ukraine, the fall of the government is notable. Thue (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, make sure it's in the Ukrainian unrest ongoing item. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
strong support per Thue. its not ITNR but circumstances make it highly notable.
Also I don't get what TRM is saying.Lihaas (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm saying don't put it in a blurb, but make sure the news story is covered in the exiting Ongoing Ukrainian item. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 26 July 2014 (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.

[Withdrawn] Forced female genital mutilation in IraqEdit

Withdrawn by nominator. 331dot (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2014 (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: Mosul#After_Saddam.27s_fall (talk, history)
Blurb: ISIS issues a fatwa that all females between 11 and 46 in Mosul must undergo female genital mutilation.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Thue (talk • give credit)

Article updated

 Thue (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
udumber fucker's as they are I don't warrant this as ITN.Lihaas (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Forced violence against 4 million women, against the wills of their families. Assuming a (completely made up, but probably underestimated) 1/1000 death rate as a direct result of the operation, that is 4000 deaths. Why is that less notable than an airplane crash killing 51, which you supported below? Thue (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment This is horrific, but unfortunately a local event which is not unexpected given the nature of ISIS. It's also a very small fraction of the number of females affected by this worldwide. 9kat (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn It seems that the UN and BBC propagated a lie [28]. Thue (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
To be fair, the BBC only reported the UN claim, and prominently mentioned in its article that its veracity was being disputed. The blame is on the UN alone, it seems (if the fatwa indeed doesn't exist, as your last reference claims). --Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The current BBC article does not look like it did when I linked it, where it accepted the claim fairly unquestionably. BBC must have done a ninja-edit. Thue (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn, so next admin that walks by here should close. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 17:58, 24 July 2014 (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] Air Algerie Flight 5017Edit

Article: Air Algérie Flight 5017 (talk, history)
Blurb: Air Algérie Flight 5017, en route from Ouagadougou to Algiers, crashes in Mali, killing all 116 people on board.
Alternative blurb: Air Algérie Flight 5017, en route from Ouagadougou to Algiers, crashes in Mali with 116 people on board.
News source(s): Mirror, Huffington Post
Nominator: Eugen Simion 14 (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

 EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 09:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Air Algérie loses contact with a plane flying from Ouagadougou to Algiers. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 09:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Wait losing contact is not an ITN story. If this pans out to be another aircraft disaster, we can assess it, and the article then. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait and support if it has actually crashed etc ..--BabbaQ (talk) 09:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Losing contact actually is an ITN story after nearly half a day, although it seems like the wreckage has been found now. We need to wait for the article to be more than a stub, though. Formerip (talk) 10:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Agree that we'd post it as "missing" after such a period. It wasn't clear to me that it had been reported as such since 2.55am. Can you link me to the article claiming wreckage? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Various lesser news outlets (e.g. CCTV, IBT) have been reporting that it is confirmed to have crashed in Niger. Could be a false alarm though. Formerip (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
BBC reporting that an Air Algerie spokesperson has confirmed the crash, no more details. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
THREE air disasters in a week? Damn! get the old bike/canoe out.. Lihaas (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmm....disappeared over a conflict zone yet again...don't tell me it was MNLA/MOJWA?Lihaas (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support iff it turns out to have crashed with significant loss of life. That it will be the third aircrash on ITN is not a reason to bar it from appearing. These things happen that way sometimes. Mjroots (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: added blurb with additional information. Replace "X" number of people as reports come out. Airline officials have now confirmed the airplane crashed. Support. 70.26.174.115 (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as soon as it's confirmed where the crash occurred. (Or we could just use the # if it remains unconfirmed, added as altblurb.) I changed the location to X in the blurb, because it's also unclear if it happened in Niger or Mali. 9kat (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • SupportIt has been confirmed as crashed by the Algerian officials. 146.185.150.122 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Quite a big death toll and another crash. Nathan121212 (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support in principle per User talk:Nathan121212, since Reuters quotes unnamed Algerian official as saying plane with 116 "has crashed," [29] but wait until there's more definite word on a death toll. Sca (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support pending better confirmation of location/loss of life estimates. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: If posted, use alt blurb for now as the number of deaths is not yet known. Blurb can be updated with the # of deaths at a later time. Location has now been confirmed as Mali, indicated by more recent sources and the article page. 70.26.174.115 (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I also support posting now. If for anything the fact that three major plane crashes has occurred so close to each other.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The plane is still not "officially" crashed. RSes are tenuously quoting sources, and all still using terms like "apparently", "probably", "feared" (or attributing to an anonymous Algerian source.) We could post it as missing and update. 9kat (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Now confirmed as crashed with the loss of all 116 on board. Blurb updated. Mjroots (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait based on article quality. The problematic element is the claim it was lost with all hands - the article makes this point but I see no reference to that. Having looked at half a dozen sources I don't see any making that assertion. If this is ITN ready headline facts such as that need to be substantiated and I'm not seeing it. I'll admit I haven't read through every reference in its entirety (I'm suffering hand injuries at the moment making navigation very slow and tedious) but that is beside the point - principle claims such as that should be referenced in the article. 3142 (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • UpdateGuardian reports wreckage of AA 5017 found near Tilemsi, Tombouctou in central Mali. [30] Sca (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Posting alt blurb. SpencerT♦C 21:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
AP quotes a Burkina Faso official as saying wreckage found "near the village of Boulikessi in Mali." [31] Sca (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
There are several claims of wreckage, including that one. See AH5017#Claims_of_wreckage. 9kat (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Update required Article now says 117 people were on board. Blurb needs to be corrected. Nathan121212 (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
117 might be a mistake. The article still says 116 except for one table, and the few news sources I just glanced at all say 116. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] President of IraqEdit

Articles: President of Iraq (talk, history) and Fuad Masum (talk, history)
Blurb: Fuad Masum is elected President of Iraq.
News source(s): (The Washington Post), (BBC News)
Nominator: Shiite (talk • give credit)
Updater: Bzweebl (talk • give credit)
Other updaters: Shiite (talk • give credit)

One or both nominated events are 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.

 --Shiite (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support per notability of event. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, but only because of the significance of him being a Kurd. Under most circumstances I'd probably oppose because he is just a figurehead who was chosen by the Council of Representatives of Iraq and not elected by the people. I think the blurb should also be changed to reflect that so it doesn't mislead the reader into thinking he was directly elected. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 17:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Alternative blurb: Fuad Masum is elected President of Iraq by the Iraqi Parliament. How about this? Shiite (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - notable. significant.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. The suggested target article is a stub that doesn't mention Fuad Masum. Masum might be a better target but it's a microstub of 70 words. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment- writing Wrote an update for Fuad Masum. And BTW, I prefer the altblurb. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Thue (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

July 23Edit

Portal:Current events/2014 July 23

Typhoon MatmoEdit

Article: Typhoon Matmo (2014) (talk, history)
Blurb: Typhoon Matmo kills at least 13 people in China.
News source(s): Boston.com
Nominator: Jinkinson (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: This may belong under a later date, but I'm not sure what date the deaths happened on so I'm putting it here, because this is when the typhoon made landfall in China. --Jinkinson talk to me 23:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Execution of Joseph WoodEdit

No consensus to post; the 'debate' was not ignited by this and has been going on for some time; even if it was still a local policy matter. 331dot (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2014 (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: Execution of Joseph Wood (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The execution of Joseph Wood by lethal injection ends after Wood gasped for more than an hour before dying.
News source(s): Newsweek
Nominator: Jinkinson (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: This has ignited a significant debate about whether lethal injection violates the US Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. [32] --Jinkinson talk to me 16:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose not a major or significant event. After the initial news burst I doubt people will be coming back to this Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 16:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose It has sparked debate, I don't question that, but unless it leads to a change in law or the result of a court case, this is too narrow a focus of a topic for ITN. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    • The death penalty debate has been ongoing for many years, so I find it hard to credit even the idea that this has "sparked" debate. At best, it is a minor footnote. Resolute 16:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
      • It's not so much the death penalty with renewed debate, but whether the lethal injection system used by AZ here is really appropriate or not if it leaves the person alive for more than an hour (above and beyond the whole death penalty to start). Still not ITN, but there's a renewed debate emerging today as new get around. --MASEM (t) 16:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think this will have non or little impact on the death penalty debate. considering what he did to his victims no one will feel sorry for him anyway.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Close the discussion. Not the first time this year American executioners screwed up executing someone "as humanely as possible". –HTD 17:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as primary author of article on Wood. His execution was horrible, but it's not ITN-worthy, since it's just another in a string of executions. 9kat (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Hasn't the collective noun now changed from string to eyeful? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2014 (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] Commonwealth Games Opening CeremonyEdit

Closing as the games have an Ongoing link. The opening ceremony article is still rather light, and, while the main article could have been bolded, an ongoing link is more appropriate than an entry that will seem rather stale in a couple of days. Stephen 01:26, 25 July 2014 (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: 2014 Commonwealth Games opening ceremony (talk, history)
Blurb: Queen Elizabeth II opens the 2014 Commonwealth Games in Glasgow.
Alternative blurb: Queen Elizabeth II opens the 2014 Commonwealth Games in Glasgow.
News source(s): [33]
Nominator: Neljack (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

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: This has just happened, and it is ITN/R. I'm not sure which article we should target. I'm not sure whether people think it's preferable to highlight the opening ceremony article or the article on the Games itself - I don't think our practice is uniform on this. Whichever it is will need work - the opening ceremony article is a stub and the Games article doesn't have a section (or indeed any prose at all) about the opening ceremony. --Neljack (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support with the inclusion of Queen Elizabeth in the blurb. There might be opposition to that, but the only thing unifying the countries participating in this event is Queen Elizabeth. The bolded article should be 2014 Commonwealth Games, just like Olympics blurbs have had the event bolded and not the opening ceremony. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Just on a point of fact, the Queen doesn't unite the Commonwealth countries, in that she is only head of state in a handful of them. Membership doesn't even require a historical connection to the UK (e.g. Rwanda). Just saying. Formerip (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
They all acknowledge her as Head of the Commonwealth though. So in a sense she is the unifying figure of the Commonwealth. Neljack (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, yes, but in that sense she's only "unifying" in the same way as Ban Ki-moon or Sep Blatter. Formerip (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
That's an exaggeration. On a world event there is something else that really unifies the countries and brings them all together and that is geography, i.e. all the countries are on planet earth. However when it comes to the Commonwealth, there is no similar geographic element like there is in a world event. Therefore, Queen Elizabeth's connection to the Commonwealth is of far more significance than Ban ki-Moon or Sepp Blatter to the World Cup. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support - If the Queen Elizabeth blurb is used then I can accept. Even though I think the Commonweatlth Games has no global appeal. It is not really a world event, but a former colony game. --BabbaQ (talk) 07:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    • What exactly is a "former colony game"? What qualifies as a "world event" exactly? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
      • World Series baseball for sure... It's in the name... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Like Billy Connolly's World Tour of Scotland. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'd prefer to use the opening ceremony (rather than a potentially precedent-setting sticky) but the stub on the opening is barely improved from last night and the main article still doesn't seem to mention the opening ceremony. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Ongoing: Operation Protective EdgeEdit

Article: Operation Protective Edge (talk, history)
Blurb: Ongoing: Ukrainian unrest - Israel-Gaza conflict
Alternative blurb: Ongoing: Ukrainian unrest - Gaza conflict
Nominator: Bzweebl (talk • give credit)
Updater: Galatz (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This has been getting equal to more coverage with Ukrainian unrest and Flight 17. I'm guessing there won't be much argument over adding it as a sticky as a replacement for the current blurb, because it has turned out to be an ongoing event more than a one-time thing. --Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I support this, but - per the discussion when we previously posted this to Ongoing[34] - it shouldn't say "Operation Protective Edge", which is the name used for it by one of the parties to the conflict. There are obvious neutrality issues with that. I believe "Gaza offensive" was what was used in the end,[35] and that seems suitable and neutral. Neljack (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Towards which side is Operation Protective Edge biased? If you look at the article, you will see that it is the article where all the information we would want to point our reader to is found. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The Israeli side. They chose the name and unsurprisingly they made it sounds protective, which feeds into their narrative about this highly controversial offensive. As we did before, we can simply link to the article like this - Gaza offensive. Neljack (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Gaza offensive sounds just to be the opposite, making it sound sympathetic to Gaza. Is there anything we can include that doesn't call it something defensive or offensive? How about Israel-Gaza conflict? Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see that it makes it sound sympathetic to anyone. I wouldn't have thought "offensive" was pejorative term - I could see what you meant if we said "invasion", but we aren't saying that. Neljack (talk) 02:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
And "Protective Edge" is pejorative? I don't think it's a question of whether or not the term is pejorative. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
No, on the contrary the problem with "Protective Edge" is that it sounds positive. Neljack (talk) 06:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Personally i'd go with Gaza Conflict as the most neutral name, as the sides that are fighting are really Israel and Hamas, not the Gaza peoples themselves. CaptRik (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as ongoing with as neutral a name as possible. CaptRik (talk) 07:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as "Gaza conflict", "Israel-Gaza conflict", or similar. More familiar to readers when it's in Ongoing form without a full blurb. 9kat (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment- I have changed the wording in the suggested "blurbs" for neutrality as suggested. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 17:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I've now moved the blurb to Ongoing, as it was the bottom item and we needed to balance the Main page. Gaza conflict, as suggested above. --Tone 11:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] TransAsia Airways Flight 222Edit

Article: TransAsia Airways Flight 222 (talk, history)
Blurb: TransAsia Airlines Flight 222 crashes in Taiwan causing 51 deaths.
Alternative blurb: TransAsia Airways Flight 222 crashes in Taiwan, killing at least 47 people.
Nominator: Eugen Simion 14 (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: At the risk of having 2 plane crashes on ITN, this is still noteworthy for its casualty numbers Lihaas (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

At least 51 people were killed after a plane crash in Taiwan. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 13:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

support per notability on deathsLihaas (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, just read about it the news seconds ago. Brandmeistertalk 14:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, the accident is receiving international coverage. Heymid (contribs) 14:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, major aircraft disaster. Wouldn't worry about having two of these on ITN. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: blurb probably needs a comma before the participle, per en.wn. It Is Me Here t / c 14:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Alt blurb displaying the correct name of the airline: "TransAsia Airways" as opposed to "TransAsia Airlines" and indicating that the number of deaths is at a minimum of 47 and could increase, also taking into account the suggestion of It Is Me Here (talk · contribs). 184.146.109.234 (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Might be worth tossing Typhoon Matmo (2014) into the blurb since it was likely the cause of the crash. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support with image as used in article. Use this.Nathan121212 (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Marked as ready 184.146.109.234 (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

July 22Edit

Portal:Current events/2014 July 22

[Posted] Ongoing: 2014 Commonwealth GamesEdit

Requesting this now, as I know how long people take to come to any decissions here. The 2014 Commonwealth Games will start tomorrow. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support second only to the Olympics really in terms of international athletics tournaments. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Tentative oppose. I believe we should stay with the Olympics and FIFA World Cup. These two are trully worldwide events while the Commonwealth Games, Asian Games, UEFA European Football Championship etc. are limited to the continent/Commonwealth or similar. We can feature the opening ceremony as a blurb, though. --Tone 20:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Actually, the FIFA World Cup finals include 32 countries, while the Commonwealth Games have 71 nations involved. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, but in principle any country (190+) can qualify for the World Cup finals. Or for the Olympics. Not the case with the Commonwealth Games. I'm kind of conservative when it comes to sport events on ITN, especially the ongoing. --Tone 20:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
        • We posted the World Cup finals, 32 teams, not the qualifying. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
          • In Denmark, people watch the FIFA world cup finals, even though we didn't qualify. I am pretty sure that is the case in most countries. Not so the Commonwealth Games. Thue (talk) 10:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
            • After the World Cup, this is the second largest sporting event of the entire year featuring 4,500 athletes from 71 countries. It's significant. You don't watch it? So what, hundreds of millions do. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
              • While I don't deny it is big, I was merely refuting your argument that it was directly comparable to teh FIFA world cup. Thue (talk) 09:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
                • I compared the number of nations only. I don't recall making an "argument that it was directly comparable" to the World Cup. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
support per trm, but we should link it to a chronology type page a la olymoics. (although Asian games is up there too)Lihaas (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Support A reasonable large international event (going by # of countries listed on the linked page). --MASEM (t) 20:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for ongoing. Ongoing was not intended to be for sports events in progress. WC was posted without discussion. The opening of the Games is ITNR; that should be sufficient. I'd even be open to posting the closing. 331dot (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's being used as a sports ticker. We posted the World Cup, and this encompasses a heap more countries, many of them more niche than the WC finals. It'd be nice to use the spare Ongoing slots when we can. What's the harm in that? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    • No, it was envisioned to be about news stories in progress to avoid having otherwise "routine" coverage of those stories being repeatedly submitted for ITN. Mind you, it needs to be big enough - we did not post the Tour de France (a very niche event) but the Olympics, World Cup, and these Commonwealth Games all seem like reasonable topics that fit the concept. --MASEM (t) 22:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose As Tone says, we should stick to the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup. There are heaps of sports events that one could make a case for if we lower the bar. Our present coverage of sports is quite sufficient, in my view, without them colonising the "Ongoing" ticker. Neljack (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Next largest sporting event in the world after the FIFA World Cup, Olympics and Paralympics. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The next sports event that comes along will be the "next largest after WC, Olympics, Paralympics, and Comm Games". Where is the line? 331dot (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Presumably the Asian Games, which has a larger "default" audience that the Commonwealth Games should be ahead of this, right??? –HTD 23:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Presumably you'll nominate it when it starts, simple as that. Or do we now have to suffer the endless original research about perceived global interest, viewership, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Either me or someone else would nominate it. Heck, South Korea forgoes mandatory military service if their guy wins a gold medal (nope, winning the World Cup would lead you straight to the barracks). If this is listed in "ongoing", damn sure the Asian Games should too, as per the Commonwealth Games article: "The games are the fourth largest multi-sport event in the world, after the Olympic Games, the Asian Games, and the Maccabiah Games." –HTD 19:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Looking forward to it. Now what does that have to do with this nomination? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Like I said, if the first and fourth (I don't think the second-largest was even suggested), logically and if we have some semblance of fairness, the third should go in too. –HTD 23:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • An interesting and reasonable thought. But what does that have to do with this nomination? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • This nomination shall be the precedent. –HTD 12:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No, not at all, we don't post A because we posted B because of exclusively C. We'd need to discuss it here first. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support because this is a big multi-sports event where gold medals are won on a daily basis, as opposed to events (such as the grand slam events in tennis or golf, or even the football World Cup) where the one winner is decided on the final day. BencherliteTalk 22:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Question Did we post a lot (aside from the opening & closing ceremonies) of blurbs from the 2010 Commonwealth Games? –HTD 22:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Ongoing is not specifically supposed to be a sports ticker but, then again, it's not specifically supposed to be an anything ticker. This is a major sporting event with an international audience, and anything reasonable that dilutes the death count on ITN is OK by me (I don't see what would have be wrong with posting the Tour de France, BTW). Obviously, inclusion in ongoing should be revokable if high-quality content is not being maintained. Formerip (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose- This is really just a diluted version of the Olympics. What's next, Maccabiah? Or maybe the Pan-Am Games? What sets this apart from other limited multi-sport festivals like those? And that's not a rhetorical question- if there actually is something about the Commonwealth Games that's put it on or near the same level as the Olympics, I'll consider. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Possibly the estimated worldwide TV audience of one billion? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I don't see any reason to exclude the opening and finish of the Commonwealth Games for notability grounds, and the article looks pretty good too. Challenger l (talk) 07:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and this is not the third, its the fourth, the Maccabiah Games had more atheletics and nations than the CW games. 7,500 plus/minus.
      – HonorTheKing (talk) 12:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
@Bzweebl/HonorTheKing this item is ITNR and will thus be posted regardless. If you think it should be removed from ITNR then by all means bring that up at the ITNR talk page. Oh and, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The Maccabiah Games are a racially exclusive event that doesn't get anywhere near the level of media coverage the CW games do, and using the Olympics/world cup as some kind of benchmark is just absurd.--Somchai Sun (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a discussion for its inclusion in the "Ongoing" ticker, not a normal ITN blurb. I presume a blurb would have been automatically supported by everyone. –HTD 12:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh right OK, well, neutral then. --Somchai Sun (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, oppose because it's not as "big" as the Jewish-only Maccabiah Games? You could always nominate it for Ongoing when it starts in 2017. Opposing because it has fewer competitors than a Jewish-only games in 2017 is really odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
What was that 7,500 plus/minus again? Events? Participants? Worldwide TV audience? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with Tone stick with olympics and World Cup for ongoing. Those two are the biggest sporting events and ones that are truly worldwide. It's not like we don't have enough sport coverage in front page already. SeraV (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - to my mind , this is much bigger than the World Cup, as it encompasses many different sports, not just one, and as already been stated, has over twice the number of competing nations.  — An optimist on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 13:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - don't care how many people or "nations" (1) participated in the Prejudice Olympics, this is the third largest multi-national sporting event held on a regular basis. It is big in the news right now, and it would be a nice alternative to a ticker full of death and destruction, as it currently is for the most part. The Pan-Am Games only affect one hemisphere of the globe, so they would be better off presented with blurbs for the closing and possibly opening ceremonies (but I got my Toronto bias in there). - Floydian τ ¢ 14:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
note- Chronological summary of the 2014 Commonwealth GamesLihaas (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, seems that there are more people for inclusion than against. However, remember that if we list the opening ceremony as a full blurb, the ongoing ticker only becomes active when the blurb rolls out. Also, do not post before the games actually begin. --Tone 17:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment- If this is posted, I expect there will be no trouble posting a sticky when Maccabiah rolls around. It is more popular and a bigger event than the Commonwealth Games, the problem is more people on Wikipedia are familiar with Commonwealth than Maccabiah because the Commonwealth includes much of the English speaking world,. Calling it the Prejudice Olympics is a pretty bad reason to exclude it. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 19:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Harping on this is getting pretty tiring. We're not going to commit to posting Maccabiah when it "rolls around" because:
  • We don't have hard-and-fast rules, we operate by consensus.
  • Consensus can change. Even if we pinky-promised now to post Maccabiah when it rolls around, it would be irrelevant if there was then a consensus not to post it.
  • It doesn't roll around for another three years. That's quite a long time for consensus to change.
This argument isn't even other stuff exists - it's other stuff might exist in three years' time. Give it a break. GoldenRing (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
@Bzweebl: By what standard are the Maccabiah Games more popular or bigger than the Commonwealth Games? If we're going by number of "athletes", why not post the World Scout Jamboree. The Commonwealth Games has a global tv audience of 1.5 billion, the Maccabiah Games only started broadcasting outside of Israel in 2009. How about the standard of competition? I ran Category:Maccabiah Games competitors and Category:Commonwealth Games competitors through Category:Summer Olympics competitors with CatScan. The results: 19 Maccabiah Games participants have won medals at the Summer Olympics, while 701 Commonwealth Games participants have done the same. That's no shock though – the Maccabiahs have a pool of maybe 20 million people to draw from, the Commonwealth Games have a pool of 2.3 billion. Low TV audience, low spectator numbers, low-quality participants, only ever held in one country, limited to one race – there's no way in hell the Maccabiah Games should be posted here. 106.69.85.211 (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, why does it matter whether the nations participating in the Commonwealth Games are spread across the world while in the Asian Games they are not? Geography is fairly meaningless, it should be more about the amount of countries participating. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 19:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Should they be nominated for inclusion on ITN/R along with the already included CW games? --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Asian and Pan-Am Games are already in ITN/R. This discussion is for a stint at the "Ongoing" ticker. A blurb nomination about the opening ceremonies would be ceremonially supported. By everyone.HTD 19:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Good idea, but that's unlikely right now because I don't think there's enough precedent for Maccabiah passing to justify ITN/R, the threshold for that is pretty high. I would say wait until 2017, and at that point if ITN still operates the same way, hopefully it will pass on ITN/C and then be discussed for ITN/R. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 20:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is far below the Olympics in any sporting significance--not world class in most of its events. Big enough for a blurb entry. We're not listing the TDF or teh Tennis majors as ongoing events and those are top class sporting events.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • To put everything in context, the best substitute we can find for interest amongst Wikipedia readers, the immortal page view stats:
  • Comment Dear bastards. Please post. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know whether to kiss you or drag you to ANI. Perhaps I'll do both. Formerip (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
As long as there are no tongues. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It isn't so clear what the consensus is here whether it deserves a sticky. I think an admin should decide. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 17:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted to Ongoing The main article for now, and switch over to the chronological event summary if and when that starts getting updated. We've missed the boat on the opening ceremony as that article is rather light. This is not a precedent for any major sporting event to be posted, each should be judged in its own nomination, and I eagerly look forward to the discussion on the Maccabiah games in 3 years. Stephen 23:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Good decision. I opposed this nomination, but you present a good rationale and I'm glad that article quality was placed at the forefront. However, I would like to note that the main article for the event also would have been used if the opening ceremony was posted. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Good point. I also considered that if we posted the opening ceremony there's a fair chance it would have remained for most of the duration of the games, which only run for 11 days. Stephen
Please move the link to Chronological summary of the 2014 Commonwealth Games per the Olympics. it is updated Lihaas (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
That page has no prose at all, and the primary reference used doesn't include what's being cited. This should have been tagged but... –HTD 13:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
There has been another reference to the BBC which lists all the results which has been there for some hours. As it's a timeline, it doesn't need prose. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
What the? Where did "as a timeline, it doesn't need prose" came from? The very definition of timeline implies prose: "A point in time, followed of a description (prose) of what happened. This doesn't even surpass the definition of timelines, as this is just a list of gold medalists ordered chronologically. Have you seen the Winter Olympics equivalent? Now that has prose. This one doesn't. This and this don't have the results on the same page. Come on, as someone who's into sourcing, you'd never pass a DYK sourced this way. –HTD 15:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Indonesian presidential election, 2014Edit

Article: Indonesian presidential election, 2014 (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Joko Widodo is elected President of Indonesia following a close race
News source(s): Sky News, ABC, MSN, New York Times BBC
Article updated

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.

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Still controversial (one candidate has withdrawn/not withdrawn, depending who you believe); official announcement is in an hour and a half. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Results are in, Joko Widodo wins. No news on if Prabowo will challenge. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Prabowo will not challenge, but report the Election Commission to the police (source). Widodo's victory looks as clear-cut as anything can be in Indonesian politics. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support- ITN/R and a two paragraph update. I don't see any problems with this one. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 20:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support listed in WP:ITN/R Yogwi21talk 02:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, Nsk92 (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Please change the wording as we never mention subjective eterms like close race. Jjust say he wins the electionLihaas (talk) 05:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but ITN election blurbs don't make that call. Th ereader or media can,.Lihaas (talk) 05:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I believe the Widodo article has some POV/Tone problems by being overly positive, tending to tell Widodo's narrative in Wikipedia's own voice, sometimes bordering on hagiography: "While the other children went to school on a bike, he chose to walk", "With honesty and his hardworking attitude, he was trusted and could go around Europe which opened his eyes", " "He wanted to lead humanly and make a city friendlier to its citizens" "The evictions he experienced three times in his childhood affected his way of thinking and his leadership later on" "Jokowi defended the popular KJS program and counseled patience" etc. Iselilja (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    • One of the reasons why it wasn't bolded. Note that Widodo's lower-class upbringing is thoroughly documented in English and Indonesian sources, so the issue is mostly how we present it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Normally we don't patrol unbolded articles in detail unless there's a clear violation of the BLP policy, but I do see what you mean. I've removed an uncited paragraph with a couple of the worst offenders; do feel free to edit to improve the others. The article is likely to change radically over the next few weeks as more reference material becomes available. This discussion might be more productive on the article's talk page. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • There's also the possibility that someone (perhaps me) will translate the Indonesian article. In fact, based on the recent IP edits, I suspect that this is already underway. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

July 21Edit

Portal:Current events/2014 July 21

[Posted] RD: Karl AlbrechtEdit

Article: Karl Albrecht (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Guardian [36]
Article needs updating

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Richest man in Germany, huge impact on consumers across Europe.

  • Tentative support This would be the equivalent of Sam Walton, the founder of Wal-Mart, and I know Aldi's has international presence. Article, however, needs updating to discuss the death and past-tense the language. --MASEM (t) 19:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose A stub article with few references or citations. Challenger l (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Clearly important enough, but article needs expansion and work before this could appear on the main page. It's basically a stub right now, which is a shame given this man's importance... --Jayron32 19:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support rich German businessman dies, nothing changes, but Aldi is massive. Article is pathetic, but these days that's not a consideration for some editors, having said that he's not an American actor/writer so this one will be left alone. I'd support unreservedly if we had a decent article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support; seems notable enough, but article does need improvement. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The article is in better shape than it was last night. Still short, but the Albrechts (and German business owners in general) were very secretive. Would be good to see a reference for the claim that there are no more of his family in Aldi Süd though. Smurrayinchester 07:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Thue (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose - I'm still not sure that 'being old and rich' is a field of achievement. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    • He created a store that hundreds of millions of people use every year. I agree with opposing the generic rich guy opposes, but this guy actually created stuff. Thue (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Dan BorislowEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 23:44, 23 July 2014 (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: Dan Borislow (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ABC News
Nominator: Jinkinson (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: More than 10 million Magicjacks, which he invented, have been sold (see ABC News article above). This article also seems to indicate he was an important inventor in the field of making phone calls over the internet. --Jinkinson talk to me 21:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but oppose. Not really a leader in his field, in my opinion - as inventions go, the magicJack isn't exactly the bikini or the internal combustion engine. I doubt we would post the inventor of the Snuggie or the Slap Chop, either. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Article has some issues and doesn't meet the notability bar for RD in any case. Gamaliel (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not seeing this one for notability, and the article is in need of work. Challenger l (talk) 07:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Suggested field is too narrow; in telecommunications in general I don't think this man is "very important"; there are many ways to make phone calls over the internet, some more innovative. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I wouldn't really call the inventor of the MagicJack a "leader" in VOIP any more than I would refer to Lycos as a "leading" search engine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.223 (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2014 (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.

The InternationalEdit

Article: The International 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Team Newbee win The International 2014 Dota 2 tourney, sharing a prize pool of over 5 million USD .
News source(s): IGN, NYTimes
Nominator: 121.210.252.131 (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Biggest event in Esports, was on ESPN, 10 million total prize money.121.210.252.131 (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak support eSports are become legitimized as equal to more athletic sports, and this is equivalent to the World Cup or Super Bowl for this field. However, I'm a little disheartened to find coverage outside of typical video game sites, outside the fact ESPN broadcasted it. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- I had never heard of this until this year and was surprised by how much coverage of a video game event there was. However, this is a newly growing sporting event that hasn't quite reached the same level internationally as more traditional sporting championships. Maybe in 5 years the biggest video-gaming event will be big enough for ITN, but I don't think it is quite yet. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: The_International_2014#July_21:_Grand_Final needs to be updated. SpencerT♦C 23:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Bzweebl. Neljack (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

July 20Edit

Portal:Current events/2014 July 20

[Posted] British OpenEdit

Article: 2014 Open Championship (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In golf, Rory McIlroy wins the Open Championship.
News source(s): [37]
Nominator: Bongwarrior (talk • give credit)

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: I don't particularly care about golf, but it's something to post. ----Bongwarrior (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Article is updated and in fair shape. I think the "Field" section probably needs cleaning up (I understand why the empty categories are there, I think, but it looks strange), but I don't know enough about how the Open works to fix it. Smurrayinchester 08:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support updated adequately for an ITNR item, marking ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Change blurb to "British Open" instead, with pipe link. Everyone around the world, including in Ireland and the United States, this thing is called the "British Open" and not the "Open Championship". The insistence by the Brits to use the 'official' name of the tournament everywhere, not just the article title itself, is in my view contrary to the global mission of this encyclopedia. Colipon+(Talk) 13:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Didn't we have this conversation a few months back about the US Open? By the way, where is this "insistence by the Brits"? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

July 19Edit

Portal:Current events/2014 July 19

[Posted] RD: James GarnerEdit

Article: James Garner (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Sydney Morning Herald [38]
Nominator: Jheald (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Major film and TV star, known worldwide --Jheald (talk) 09:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - highly notable actor, hugely lengthy career. Article is seriously under-referenced (including whole unreferenced sections, it's not the number of references that's important, more the quality of them, and the need for them to accompany large sections of this biography) but that no longer appears to be a concern for ITN following the recent posting of Stritch. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Lengthy career of film and especially TV. Challenger l (talk) 10:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Notability is strong per nominator and The Rambling Man. Number of references is reasonable although more would always be welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support But article needs work. I'm seeing sections lacking references (Maverick, 1970s, 1990s, Later Years), and while these appear mostly factual, that should be improved before posting. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — Notable for a lengthy career that made him familiar to generations of viewers. List in RD now; article can be fleshed out later. Sca (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
easy support for notability...but ti needs a few more sentences in the sectionLihaas (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Should be posted IF AND ONLY IF the article has better references. He's easily worthwhile as a subject for the RD list, but the article needs many more references in his biography section. Entire sections are unreferenced, and that should be fixed before it is posted. I'm not so concerned about the lists like the filmography section, but much (if not most) of the prose in his biography has little to no way for us to verify what is written. --Jayron32 15:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    • No, we no longer require referenced sections per User:Newyorkbrad's unilateral decision to ignore the ITN instructions and post Stritch. So this should be posted immediately following that precedent. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
      • This was clearly not the case. With Stritch, the state it was in when I nominated it was poor for ITN. It got improved before posting enough for a featured item on the Main Page - enough references to show quality of validation (particularly anything about personal life that is harder to document) as to provide enough fence posts for new editors to know how to add new material; the sourcing can certainly be better but it's not a point where the crediability of the information in that article would be a problem. When I made my nom above for Garner, it wasn't as bad but it has unreferenced sections and those should have been filled before this was posted, but they were mostly in career sections, which , for an actor, is relatively easy to document and the least worrisome about verification. I would have preferred to see those sections with at least a source or two but given that much of the time, the obits for such people help to fill in the gaps. So references are still required, just that we should be aware that the fundamental referencing (anything involving direct quotes or personal life that is not readily obvious) is taken care of. --MASEM (t) 18:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Yep, ignore those maintenance tags. It's a free-for-all, so let's reduce ITN to the lowest common denominator of the main page (i.e. DYK) and have a laugh when we push unreferenced nonsense to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh oplease, DYK is way above ITN. Tthey have higher standard for sourcing and they don't post non-encyclopaedic recentism articles created with crap, they actually have historical article tooLihaas (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support without argument — One of the better known actors, The Great Escape is amongst those to his name. Donnie Park (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Support pending the usual need to do a bit of referencing. Frankly if this goes up now I won't be upset, but some work won't hurt. Jusdafax 16:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Marking as ready, references are not needed any longer at ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. Mjroots (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I think your tongue-in-cheek comment may have been misinterpreted, TRM.--WaltCip (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Not at all. We no longer consider unreferenced sections to be of any consequence as a result of User:Newyorkbrad's recent interventions. I'm more than happy to post garbage unreferenced BLPs to the main page because we appear to have one of the members of Arbcom's backing to do so. Who am I to argue with that approach? Certainly makes the regular admins' jobs easier, we can post anything with no quality control and aim to be as good as DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
These sorts of discussions belong on the talk page. Beating this particular drum on each RD nom is starting to become disruptive and tiresome. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, it's not a drum, up until recently, it was considered to be our "instruction". I have already asked Brad (and others) to formulate an RFC to allow us to post articles with serious referencing issues to the main page, but instead of doing that, there was just silence, followed by an WP:IAR posting. You may consider it disruptive and tiresome, I consider it to be a wholesale undermining of the quality that ITN have strived to achieve. Of course, we now need welcome back the admins who are happy to post unreferenced articles. There are a few. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In particular instances, I've opined that a given article about a recently deceased person was acceptable for RD given the article's relative strengths and weaknesses (such as one or more isolated unreferenced but non-controversial sections) balanced by the notability and importance of the recent death. It is a serious and uncivil distortion of my position to parody it as "we can post anything with no quality control" or as supporting "garbage unreferenced BLPs" and I would appreciate if such lies about me were not repeated again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Certain items get posted if Brad wants them to be posted. Simple as that. You set the precedent Brad, now live with the consequences of driving ITN quality to the pits. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
This is starting to get pointy. Even if you have a legitimate point, this manner of making it isn't helpful. 331dot (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. Brad was invited to instigate an RFC to remove the requirement on admins to take into account maintenance tags and unreferenced sections of ITN articles. He declined, suggested he'd post an article with tags if I didn't, and then posted one with tags in any case. That's really pointed behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment As the subject is deceased, BLP no longer applies. There were no tags on the article at the time I posted it, unreferenced sections or no unreferenced sections. Mjroots (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
(to TRM) You don't fight fire with fire- if someone is behaving badly or improperly, then take it up in the appropriate forum; don't behave badly yourself. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually there is some aspect of BLP that applies to the recently deceased - you can't suddenly, for example, claim a recently deceased person as gay if there's no sources for that - the requirement to back that information up for a recently deceased person will be as strong as if they were still alive. This is basically to prevent people from trying to tarnish a deceased person that BLP would have prevented them from doing while alive. --MASEM (t) 19:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
331dot, I'm not sure what I've done wrong other than call Brad's behaviour out a couple of times. It's disconcerting seeing someone think they own the place and override all long-held instructions because he chooses to do so. An unhealthy precedent has been set which we now must follow to maintain consistency and that includes posting articles like Garner which are woefully under-referenced. Thanks Brad. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
You're starting to be fairly notorious for pushing and trying to push admins who disagree with you or make few mistakes away from INT. Tariq comes to mind especially. And then rambling on and on and on about these mistakes forever and forever, even in completely different nominations. Seriously this sort of behaviour is far more disappointing than anything your saying here. SeraV (talk) 10:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
To say I'm heartbroken is an understatement. To berate me while allowing Brad to run roughshod over well-established rules that multiple admins have advised him of is simply wrong. Thanks for the feedback though. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I have removed this per WP:POINT violation blatantly committed by The Rambling Man. He has a singular personal feud with another editor over the posting of (about) two articles in the past which he disagreed with, and he's now decided to sabotage the standards of ITN based on that fued, just to make some point. Instead of doing this, lets improve the article... --Jayron32 19:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I didn't post it. Perhaps you should read things more clearly before firing off at the wrong person. I have no "fued", just an issue with people over-riding ITN standards. Once that's done, we have no way back. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
        • I never said you did post it. You marked it ready, causing it to be posted. I have removed it. Also, don't be so frigging melodramatic about this. That one or two articles got posted in the past that you happen to disagree with doesn't mean you now get to sabotage the process for all future articles. Let it go. We have a way back. It's called "Stop being an asshole, and just let the discussion work itself out." Do that for every nomination, and it'll all be OK. If you find that you can't do that, you will not be missed. --Jayron32 20:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
          • Funny, "let it go", let the fact that ITN has been undermined by Brad, and has the support of simpering idiots? It's called "don't be a dick". I'm happy to allow quality to be third or fourth on our list, but I'd prefer the community to have decided that, not just Brad. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
            • Brad didn't make that decision for the whole community, and you will not either. Brad made a reasonable decision that you disagreed with on one or two postings. There's no need to change anything on any other postings based on that. --Jayron32 20:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
              • Wrong, Brad went directly against our instructions and guidance. Which, if you knew them, you'd understand. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I'll not contest the removal. Mjroots (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support posting once issues have been fixed. Mjroots (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment there's no tangible difference in this article and the Stritch article that Brad posted. So many sections are unreferenced, check, paragraphs have tags, check. Brad himself has happily supported the posting of this article to RD with no caveat other than a luxurious "it'd be nice". What's the difference? @Jayron32:, if you have real beef with me, take it somewhere that counts, not simply to edit summaries which make you look like a petulant dick. All I want is consistency. We either don't post articles with serious referencing concerns (i.e. maintenance templates etc) or we do. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Putting aside The Rambling Man's strident tone and pointy comments, which are becoming intolerable, I see no reason that this article shouldn't be posted to RD. It has 55 references strewn liberally throughout the article, including all sections that could potentially be considered contentious, and is of a high enough standard for the recent deaths section, which after all is focused on recent deaths and doesn't necessary have the ability to wait around indefinitely for additional referencing that, while clearly desirable, may take long enough that the death won't be "recent" by ITN standards any more. The logical corollary to requiring that every statement or every section in the article be referenced is that the article would be of higher quality if it were shorter or if, as a matter of formatting, it had fewer section breaks. I dispute the removal and believe the article should be re-posted; I am considering whether it would be permissible for me to do so, but I hope consensus will rapidly develop for someone to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Brad, the issues with this article which probably keep it from being posted are the large swaths of the biography section which lack any referencing at all. The raw number of refs is not the issue, per se, it is the way in which the references are used (or in this case not used) which is the issue. For just one example, other than a single quote at the end, the entire section titled "later years" is entirely unreferenced. The 1990s section is unreferenced. The Awards section is unreferenced. An occasional "cn" tag will not keep something off the main page, but it's a matter of degree. While TRM (prior to his hissy fit today) generally took a harder line than most, his usual requirement of FA-level referencing is certainly not required; however it is my opinion that this article has too much unreferenced text. A sentence or two here or there, fine, but when we have no idea where more than half of the text of the main prose section (a rough estimate based on what I can see), that's too much. An occasional, uncontroversial "cn" here or there is one thing, but if half of the article (as this one is) is entirely without any source, it's a problem we don't want to highlight on the main page. If the bulk of the prose could be given refs, it would be a slam dunk, as far as I can tell. --Jayron32 21:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
        • My hissy fit relates to the "strident" and "over-riding" "power" that certain editors seem to believe they wield, despite community concern, despite being asked to start RFCs, despite being asked to contribute to a community discussion. I don't ask for FA references, I ask for no maintenance tags and for most claims to be referenced per WP:V. After all, if we don't do that, we're not following policy. Brad's intolerable and unilateral actions are becoming a nuisance and disrupting a section of the main page which previously held quality as one of its highest aims. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
          • I should note that you are not equal to community. That you have disagreed with something Brad did in the past does not necessarily mean that the community did. --Jayron32 21:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
            • There's a balancing involved, as The Rambling Man and I discussed here. My take is that posting James Garner to RD would not affect anyone's perception of Wikipedia's quality and could, in fact, help bring about the additional referencing you are looking for. And as I said above, this being the recent deaths section, timeliness is a significant consideration. Since it sounds like you (Jayron32) are in genuine disagreement with posting the article now, I won't re-post it, but I believe that we are leaving a gap in our coverage without sufficient reason for it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
              • Jayron, you are so wrong it's shocking. I believe, last count, five separate admins refused to post Brad's last failed attempt to take poor quality to the main page. Perhaps you aren't aware of those previous attempts by Brad to post (and threaten to post, as he has done here again) reduced quality under-referenced articles to ITN. I'll find the discussions tomorrow if you can't be bothered to do the research. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • What a bunch of twaddle. Mentions of primary works like TV episodes that are named by episode, movies, and his Simon and Schuster autobiography all count as perfectly acceptable WP:PRIMARY sources. If other matters need tags (like "well-reviewed") then tag' them. Otherwise these section tags where dozens of movies, episodes and books are mentioned as having no references are simply blatant ignorance of wp policy. μηδείς (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Ready section tags indicating a lack of sources when dozns of primary sources are given are simply ignorant invalid violations of WP:PRIMARY. This is ready to go unless there is synthesis which needs tagging. μηδείς (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Holding back in such cases of great fame is silly because people will read the article regardless. For example, the James Garner article has already had over 500,000 hits - more than twice as many as Elaine Strich. Keeping someone like Garner out of RD makes Wikipedia look stupid. If people want the article improving then they should go do that rather than bickering here per WP:SOFIXIT. Andrew (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose until issues are fixed, as per Wikipedia:In_the_news#Updated_content. Frankly I think this is tempest in a teacup. Garner had a long and distinguished career but he's not exactly loaded with top awards. I don't think at any point in time he was really a 'leader in his field'. Celebrity hollywood actors are generally getting too easy a pass here. I'd probably support if the issues are fixed but I certainly think Garner's notability isn't nearly enough to override said issues. This isn't someone like Clint Eastwood or Dustin Hoffman.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know that Garner's career could be described as "distinguished," but he certainly was high-profile and recognized by millions. It makes little sense to delay his RD listing due to shortcomings of the article, IMOJO. Sca (talk) 01:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
'High Profile' and 'recognized by millions' can be said about lots of actors. It's in the general nature of the acting profession, particularly Hollywood actors, that they are easily recognizable. That doesn't necessarily mean notable.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
We delayed posting a former Soviet Union foreign minister's death who played a leading role in the end of the Soviet Union for a week until the article was properly referenced. Surely we can delay the lead actor for The Rockford Files for the same reason.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
THAT was a mistake, too. Shevardnadze was conspicuous for his week-long absence from ITN, and when a blurb finally was posted it amounted to an admission of WP's inertia. Sca (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support It's getting tiresome seeing these obviously notable people, recent examples including Casey Kasem and Eduard Shevardnadze, being held up from posting just to satisfy some undefined article-quality benchmark that a handful of overzealous editors keep promoting. --Tocino 03:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I have again removed the ready tag. The referencing is mostly pretty good, but it's not quite there yet. This is obviously going to be posted, so we may as well do it right. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I continue to be bewildered by the reluctance to post to recent deaths in a timely fashion to be most useful to our readership. The "unreferenced" sections are full of links to articles (mostly the shows and films Garner appeared in) that corroborate the mentions. No one has identified any statement in this article whose truth there is any doubt about. If this were DYK or GA or FA "we can wait until it's near perfect" would be fine (though IMHO even FAs shouldn't read like footnote salad), but for RD there are additional considerations that, as discussed above, should be applied. It's time to post this. Stepping back to first principles, references in articles serve two fundamental purposes: the first is to help ensure accurate content; the second is to link interested readers to sources of further information. This article is, compared to many of its peers, above average in both categories. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
      • There should be a minimum standard for any ITN posting, RD or not. To me, there are three basic rules I look for: 1) any quotation is immediately followed by an inline cite, 2) any section of an article that would require "transformative" information (such as legacy or reception) should have more than a citation per paraphrase (but not at a one-per-sentence level) and 3) for all other sections, one citation per paragraph should be had. The reason is not to have these at GA quality but to stress the importance of citations to editors that may see the topic at ITN and want to contribute. In the case of Garner here, it was the lack of #3 that is the problem, and is also a trivial matter to cite. --MASEM (t) 03:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
        • For the record, I agree with NYB and Tocino above. The article as it stands of course could be improved, but is decent and posting it should not be detrimental to Wikipedia; as many have said, often times these articles get worked on after posted on the main page. This isn't a FAC or a Good Article review. Connormah (talk) 04:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support. The man is a legend in his field. He played iconic characters in two equally iconic TV shows. I'm surprised his name isn't there already and that we have to go through *this* process just to add it. Does Wikipedia not have a common sense policy? --ThylekShran (talk) 05:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    As a main page item yes, there does need to be process to add something to the main page that includes a review of the quality of the article itself. It doesn't need to be perfect but it has to be in a form to make it useful to readers and encourage editors to participate to improve it. This applies to ITN, DYK, FAC, and anything else. To what degree, that't the debate here. --MASEM (t) 13:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I perceive the consensus to be in favor of posting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    @Newyorkbrad:; when, a few months ago, I suggested "In the news" might be "the news" and hence not following WP:NOT I was assured that this was not the case, and rather than reporting or aggregating the news it was for showcasing articles that were the subject of recent news events. Therefore we aren't "leaving a gap in our coverage" as we have an article on James Garner, we just aren't posting it to the main page until it is of the standard agreed by the community. You shouldn't be posting articles based on your own obvious preferences and I hope the above statement isn't a prelude to doing so. The Rambling Man very reasonably (the suggestion was very reasonable; the tone, of course, was The Rambling Man's own individual brand) invited you to open a discussion on whether the rules should change; why didn't you do that if you think the rules are incorrect or outdated? Belle (talk) 11:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    I'm not seeking a wholesale change in the rules, which indicate that gaps in referencing weigh against posting; I'm suggesting that this article, despite minor deficiencies, satisfies the criteria in the particular context of RD, and that the arguments to the contrary lack force. I'm too embroiled in the discussion at this point to make the decision to post this article myself, but I still hope that some other administrator will assess the consensus in favor of doing so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    Can you point to that in the "rules" please? I see a requirement for "B-class" (which Stritch wasn't). I see "Articles that are subject to serious issues, as indicated by 'orange'- or 'red'-level article tags, will not normally be accepted for an emboldened link." (which Stritch had). If we have "rules" we should generally follow them. If we keep not following them, we should seek to change them. Please do something about pro-active here that would help the community, not just help you get the articles you want posted. It's not fair on other nominations that you're disinterested in for you to keep doing this. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    "Normally" does not mean "invariably," the context of RD needs to be taken into account, and in that context the importance of isolated tags accompanying uncontroversial sections in otherwise well-written and well-referenced articles is slight. I am refraining, with some difficulty, from re-posting this item unilaterally both to address the coverage gap it creates and to avoid rewarding your attitude, but it remains my fervent hope that someone else will immediately do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    My attitude is that you need to stop cherrypicking the items you personally wish to see at RD, stop posting them yourself against instruction, stop pleaing for others to do so, and to formulate a discussion where we can revise/improve the wording of the instructions we have all followed for many months before your recent and heavy-handed interventions. Normally means normally, it's not a carte blanche to ignore this guideline twice a week to ensure we post dead Amerian actors. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

--- Arbitrary section break. So, the issue with the article was that there are not enough references. I see now that this has improved since, with only one section still marked as cite-improve (but not that bad either). Time to re-evaluate? --Tone 13:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes. Indeed, time to post. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Per a request somewhere in this wall of text, I've started tagging claims in the article which aren't referenced directly or indirectly (i.e. in a target article). Hopefully that will help those so keen to get the article posted up to scratch. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    • The attentional "cn" tags are fine, but have no bearing on the fact that this RD should be posted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Your opinion is noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Isn't it true that virtually every article of significant length has some additional sentence that could support a tag if one looked hard enough? Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
          • I'm sure. But that hasn't stopped you trying (and actually posting) against the instructions in the past. What has stopped you once in the past has been half a dozen regular ITN admins who still cherish quality on the main page and who follow the current instructions you are so happy to ignore twice in a week to post American actors to RD. I didn't see you wading in on the dozens of other RDs that didn't make it as a result of lack of quality. Is this a sign of things to come I wonder. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
          • When such an entry is added to the recent deaths line on the main page, the only new fact which is being presented to the reader is that the person has died. Notice that this fact is not normally accompanied by an inline citation to an external reference - the wikilink is considered adequate. As we're only considering the addition of this terse link, the sundry other facts about the person which are covered elsewhere seem irrelevant. Andrew (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
            • Bizarre non-sequitur. Nothing on the main page is referenced on the main page. But items going on the main page have had a review of their quality to ensure that they are up to the standards required by the instructions of the various processes that govern the sections of the main page. The other facts in the article are as relevant as the death, particularly in the majority of cases where death has come as not so much of a surprise. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The remaining section has had a few references added. I've removed the tag and marked the article 'ready' since there seems to be a clear consensus to post this. I still think Garner's actual notability is barely over the line if even that--I have a hard time really calling him a 'leader in his field'.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Still seeing reference problems in the earlier sections. For example, the "Maverick" section, the last two paragraphs are dire need of more than primary sources; it has this unsourced sentence "When Charlton Heston turned down the lead role in Darby's Rangers before Garner's departure from Maverick, Garner was selected and performed well in the role." That is not an obvious statement and needs a citation. --MASEM (t) 14:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    It seems that there's a minor cluster of editors who believe that all these kind of claims can be referenced by assuming the claim is referenced in a linked article. This is not recommended. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    Saying the wikilink has the source is okay if we're talking what otherwise should be simple facts, but like the statement about, that Heston turned down the role, you can't just link to WP articles for that. That's fine for building up an article at start or C class, but for anything from the Main page, we need better sourcing so that new editors drawn to that page can be encouraged to maintain that level. That's the whole point here. It's not the filmography section that's the issue but the prose of his timeline in this specific case with a lot of claims that go beyond a filmography. --MASEM (t) 15:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    It's not okay to rely on other articles to reference this BLP really. If the articles relied upon aren't referenced (and I can categorically promise you that this is not adequately checked), it's still unreferenced. There are a few people here who simply don't understand referencing or quality control or bother reading the RD instructions at all. Some are admins... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    An article of this length contains several hundred referenceable statements. It is not reasonable to hold off on an RD posting while we flag each one. This should be posted immediately; it should have been posted yesterday. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    Once again, if you continue to attempt to mandate the inclusion of all American RDs despite the instructions we've been following for years, I recommend you look into changing the instructions. It's becoming somewhat transparent that you have some kind of agenda, we don't see you doing this kind of thing for the many non-American RDs after all.... Please stop trying to flex your "muscles". You've been advised before by half a dozen other admins. For what it's worth, the quality of the article is significantly improved thanks to those who actually want to improve the encyclopaedia, not just pretend to own the place. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    Posting a RD (or any ITN) post-haste because of "importance" (which is not in doubt here) over article quality basically turns ITN back into a news ticker, which we carefully have been avoiding completely. There are several hundred potentially sourceable statements in that article, but for a reasonable first step to meet ITN, it's the ones that are far from obvious that need it more than those. For example, a statement saying "Garner starred in film X" isn't a problem if it goes unsources because verification is easy (just look at the film credits); the Heston statement above, however, is. If the linked article contains references to support that, those references just have to be copied over, which takes only a few minutes. It's not a very difficult metric and assures the quality that Main Page featured items are expected to have. --MASEM (t) 18:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    To add, a quick scan/read of the article shows that only about a couple dozen statements at most in the article need referencing for ITN quality; the rest are statements that can be worked on in time but appear obvious/unquestionable/easily verified. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Given the above comment, it's clear that this is not ready for posting, so removed ready tag. --WaltCip (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment now then @Newyorkbrad:, do you finally see that it would be easier and more productive to formulate an RFC to modify our instructions than to continually attempt to strong-arm the process? I've asked you several times to do this. Why wouldn't you do that? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Because change to the rules or process aren't necessary, just a sensible and realistic interpretation of them. I've restored the "ready" tag, as I believe its removal was against consensus. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
      • You clearly have an agenda, a vested interest in scoring as many dead Americans on RD as possible, I have never seen you advocating for genuine and serious RD nominations. Once again you're acting outside your own miniature universe of control, let it go, wait for others to help out. And if you actually care about this process which you've attempted to circumvent three times in a month, you'll help us refine it, rather than just pretending you can't hear it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support posting as of now. My objections further up regarding referencing seem to have been fixed, this is a quality article we should be proud to put on the main page. --Jayron32 19:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Pretty much agree with that, the community have done what was asked, to improve the article to a point where we could justifiably post it at ITN. I'm glad we didn't concede. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted, thanks to everyone who worked on the article. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the posting. I think I'll respond to some of the process concerns raised along the way at a later date. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, it would be helpful that you contribute to the process rather than work so actively to circumvent it. Needless to say, your last four forays at ITN (in how long, years?) have involved four American popular culture RDs that you have been absolutely determined to post regardless of any existing processes. That speaks for itself while we have had plenty of other opportunities for you to assist other truly significant global RDs. Looking forward to your treatise, should you bother with it. You should be inordinately grateful to the editors who have worked tirelessly to make this formerly poor article up to scratch, to spare your blushes. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
        • As a general observer here, I agree it has been concerning to see Newyorkbrad seemingly attempt to push through articles he happens to be interested in, despite it the variations in quality to other articles posted. This is not necessarily an opinion of the quality that should be idealised, but an opinion on Newyorkbrad's behaviour. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for comments: I have initiated a request for comments about article quality on the talk page. The discussion that has happened here is unfortunate and I can only imagine it happening again in the future. I urge you to establish a more precise guideline to avoid these types of situations. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You'll all be glad to know that the preceding discussion comprises 6,200 words. Sca (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for what it's worth at this point. Under what criterion does this guy qualify for RD? James who? What awards has he won? What is his impact on the world? He's got one nomination for an award he didn't win for an actual role in a film, plus a bunch of, "Oh, you've been around a long time and haven't won anything; here, have an award." AFAICT, the rationale for the nomination is that a bunch of people remember him being on TV lots when they were kids. GoldenRing (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Egypt attackEdit

Article: July 2014 Al-Wadi Al-Gedid attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Militants attack a checkpoint in Egypt's western desert region, killing 22 soldiers.
News source(s): (Reuters) (New York Times) (CNN)
Nominator: Fitzcarmalan (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: This is a major attack and is considered one of the deadliest since the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état. The article is currently a stub but I'm working on it. --Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support (conditional), following article expansion/improvement. The BBC reports that the attack "marks a significant victory for the militants" (source), but our article is too short currently (see ITN criteria). We need at least another two paragraphs of content. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am still expanding the article, but I believe it looks fair enough right now. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    I agree. There is more than enough content now to merit a posting. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Solid article update, marking ready. SpencerT♦C 12:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. The Rambling Man (talk)

Last Christians ordered to leave MosulEdit

Article: Mosul (talk, history)
Blurb: Islamic State orders all Christians to leave Mosul.
News source(s): New York TimesPress TV
Nominator: Thue (talk • give credit)

Article updated

 Thue (talk) 10:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. I don't think we need two Iraq stories, essentially about the same conflict, at the same time. If a lot of this sort of news is coming out of there then we should have an Ongoing listing. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
    • IMO we could have two items ITN without problems, before aggregating. Thue (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
      • That might be true if this is judged to be a significant enough story, but if not, that is precisely what Ongoing is for. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ditto, and I support the bottom one if widely in the news...anyways per ITN precedence "an order" is not the same as something that happened.Lihaas (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
    • You disobey an order by ISIS at your peril. Per the New York Times, practically all the Christians obeyed. Thue (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
That's speculation until it has happened...as we don here a la the MH17 "shootdown". same logic
That said the order is widely reported across the media spectrum...though its just an HRW report at the moment and we don't publish reports. Still the below is more game.Lihaas (talk) 11:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
If it is good enough for New York Times, it is good enough for Wikipedia. Thue (talk) 12:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Being in the New York Times is not a criteria for posting an ITN item(which is different than criteria for something merely being on Wikipedia). They publish many stories, not all of which are suitable. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Ditto, and thanks ;)Lihaas (talk) 08:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose not seeing this really in the news at all, sure a passing note in the NYT but so what? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Systemic bias towards first world problems. Thue (talk) 08:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
      • It's not our systemic bias if this isn't being reported on widely. We cannot control what the media reports on. If this is widely reported anywhere(first world or third) it is up to you to demonstrate that. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Oh, don't start banging that drum. I actively searched for this news story. I couldn't see anything much on it. We're not here to counter your perceived bias, we're here to post items of notability that are in the news. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The standards of notability should be strict for conflict zones. Otherwise, INT would be full of conflict-related blurbs. This event is relatively minor compared with the ISIS takeover of swaths of Iraqi territory.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Battle of TikritEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 23:50, 23 July 2014 (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: Battle of Tikrit (talk, history)
Blurb: Islamic State defeats the Iraqi government at the Battle of Tikrit.
News source(s): Miami Herald
Nominator: Thue (talk • give credit)

Article updated

 Thue (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose minor, particularly given the nomination note of a few troops captured and a few choppers destroyed. Appears to me that you might like to consider nominating an "Ongoing" thread for Iraq if you can find a suitable (and suitably updated) target article. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • btw support per aboveLihaas (talk) 08:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Failure to capture a city is a non-event.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose (for now). The failure of an attempt by the Iraqi Army to retake Tikrit, a city of 260,000 people, that resulted in the deaths or capture of 850 soldiers would be highly significant, in my opinion. However, this is presently disputed, with the Iraqi government reporting only a minor attack by ISIS and low casualties (source). -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:43, 21 July 2014 (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 18Edit

Portal:Current events/2014 July 18

[Posted] Cook Islands electionEdit

Article: Cook Islands general election, 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Cook Islands Party retains its majority in the Cook Islands general election, 2014.
News source(s): [39]
Nominator: Neljack (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

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: The Cook Island is on the list of sovereign states and therefore this election is ITN/R. Since I suspect many people may not have realised that it is a sovereign state - indeed, I had not until recently - perhaps I should explain. The matter has been exhaustively debated over at the list of sovereign states (see the talk page archives there if you have a few hours to spare!) and the consensus has been that reliable sources establish that it is. In particular, it has diplomatic relations with a considerable number of states, it has been admitted to international organisations and treaties that are only open to sovereign states, the UN Secretariat regards it as a sovereign state, and both the High Court of the Cook Islands and the Court of Appeal of New Zealand have affirmed that it is a sovereign state. Its relationship of free association with New Zealand - the source of the confusion - does not stop it being sovereign any more than those of Palau, the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia with the US do in their cases - nobody doubts that they are sovereign states. In any case, if you disagree with this you are free to propose its removal from the list of sovereign states, but in the meantime it remains ITN/R. Neljack (talk) 13:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Can you post a source demonstrating that this is in the news? 331dot (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
    • 331dot, I've added a source to the nomination template. My apologies - I was doing this late at night and somehow forgot to include a source. Neljack (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
      • No problem. It might seem like it was a demand, but it was not, just a request. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Working on the presumption that we are considering the Cook Islands a sovereign state, the way I read this is that this election result was not a surprise to those watching and thus, the fact that this election in an otherwise small country ends up as projected before the election is not really news. --MASEM (t) 20:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • There is nothing in ITNR which says the result has to be surprising or unexpected. 331dot (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ITNR is not a guaranty of posting, only that the core facet of the ITNR shouldn't be too much of an issue, as to prevent repeated discussion of the merits of a given topic. --MASEM (t) 22:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It isn't a guarantee of posting, but it is a guarantee of notability. We don't need to debate the merits of posting this here as it is already presumed notable. The listing of elections of sovereign states doesn't list additional criteria other than being a sovereign state; if you want additional criteria(such as a surprising result, or a floor for a state's population in order to be listed) feel free to suggest it. As long as this is updated, the blurb agreed to, and shown to be in the news, this can be posted. 331dot (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No, this was discussed recently (within the last year). ITNR items still require discussion for both article quality and appropriateness of the specific instance. A result may be very unsurprising as that it really isn't news at all. --MASEM (t) 23:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Masem, I'm not sure where you get the idea that this result was expected. There was a great deal of uncertainty before the election about the likely result, particularly since the emergence of a third party that had broken away from the governing party made the election hard to predict. Indeed the preliminary results available on the day after the election indicated a plurality for the opposition Democratic Party, and certainly all the talk was that there would be a coalition government with the new party as kingmakers. So it was a quite a surprise when the Cook Islands Party retained its majority after all the results had come in. Neljack (talk) 23:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The articles I scanned before seemed to indicate the result wasn't that much of a surprise, but I think the fact that the status quo is maintained, it seems, that's another strike against posting in addition to how significant the Cook Island politics are to the rest of the world. --MASEM (t) 02:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support While notability for a state this size is more questionable, the article is much more than a few charts of the final results (compared to other election articles of much larger states that are nominated here). I'm willing to support based on article quality and size of the expansion. SpencerT♦C 22:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. On the question of whether it is a sovereign state or not, consensus on the talkpage of a Wikipedia list article is not conclusive. But a quick Google fails to turn up any controversy on the question. So, it seems like it's ITNR, and the article is in good shape. No more time needs to be wasted. Formerip (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
The ITN/R listing does actually refer specifically to inclusion on the list of sovereign states as the criterion, presumably in order to prevent arguments about whether X or Y is a sovereign state. But I agree that the Cook Islands' status is not disputed. Neljack (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
It is NOT ITNR for the same reason we don't post NKO, Transnistria, South Ossetia, Akhasia and kosov automatically. See the archives that it needed discussion. This is far less notable, opposeLihaas (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Lihaas, "all states on the List of sovereign states" are ITN/R. It also says that there should be case-by-case discussion on "disputed states", but - unlike those that you mention - the Cook Islands is not a disputed state. No other state claims sovereignty over its territory. New Zealand certainly does not. So this is ITN/R. Neljack (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Neljack is quite correct. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Marking as ready ITN/R and has a well-referenced six-paragraph update. Also has majority support, not that it needs it. Neljack (talk) 07:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Not a UN member state. Not recognized by the UN as an independent country, the gold standard for sovereignty. That is regardless of whether it's "too small", which should not be a concern, Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 18:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
As stated by the nominator, this nation has been judged to meet the criteria for listing on the List of Sovereign States. It is a member of several UN bodies (despite not having full membership) and its territory is not disputed. If you don't think it should be listed there, please discuss that there. 331dot (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Bzweebl, it is considered by the UN to be a sovereign state. It has never sought UN membership, but then neither has the Vatican, which is unquestionably a state. Fifteen years ago Switzerland was not a UN member - its statehood could surely not have been doubted on that basis. The Cook Islands has been admitted to UN specialized agencies, which are only open to sovereign states - for instance, it is a member of the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, UNESCO, and the International Civil Aviation Organization. These decisions have been taken by a membership that is representative of the whole international community. When the UN Secretary-General had to determine whether the Cook Islands was a sovereign state and thus could become party to international treaties only open to sovereign states, in his capacity as depository of such treaties, he concluded that it was because "the question of the status, as a State, of the Cook Islands, had been duly decided in the affirmative by the World Health Assembly, whose membership was fully representative of the international community. The guidance the Secretary-General might have obtained from the General Assembly, had he requested it, would evidently have been substantially identical to the decision of the World Health Assembly. The same solution was adopted by the Secretary-General when Niue, in 1994, applied for membership in the World Health Organization." (See paragraph 86 of this document)[40] So the international community and the UN Secretariat have accepted the Cook Islands as a sovereign state. Neljack (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment- I'm not sure where the idea came from that this is on List of sovereign states, but it's not. It's on that secondary list of "other states" from which many elections have been proposed on ITN and only Taiwan has ever passed. This is not ITN/R. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 18:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The ITNR listing doesn't make a distinction; it says "all states on the List of Sovereign States". The territory of the Cook Islands is not claimed by any other nation or otherwise disputed(as with South Ossetia which would be excluded per the "disputed states" line). 331dot (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Bzweebl, it is on the list of sovereign states, under the non-UN member state part of the list. Neljack (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • From their post I think they are aware of that, but are asserting it is somehow "secondary" or otherwise invalid for purposes of this discussion, not seeing the full ITNR listing (which says "all" and excludes only disputed states) 331dot (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, I was remembering the rejections of Abkhazia and South Ossetia a few years ago, but you're right, those are different under ITN/R because they are "disputed states". I really don't like that guideline because the situation is different for the Cook Islands in that it's not that their statehood is universally recognized and no one disputes it, it's that their free association with New Zealand, which isn't quite the same level of statehood but is considered as such on the List of sovereign states, is not disputed. However, I'm sure if the Cook Islands claimed full independence from New Zealand, and New Zealand refused to recognize it as such, then it would be listed as a "disputed state" even though it's arguably closer to full statehood in that situation because it would be, in that scenario, recognized by some countries as being completely independent of New Zealand. But the way the guideline is worded now you are technically correct, so I have struck my opposition. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 20:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pull really? 2 opposed and 3 supports consists consensus? While Junker is still not posted? This is, or should not be ITNR, and probably the most common topic for ITN items are elections. Since there are plenty of such items posted, extending these to dependent territories is... let's just say plain boring. Nergaal (talk) 09:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • As stated in the above posts, the Cook Islands has been judged over at the List of Sovereign States page to warrant inclusion on that list. for several reasons (can make its own treaties, member of UN organizations, recognition by 40 or so countries, etc.) If you feel it shouldn't be there, or there should be some sort of qualifiers for the ITNR list (which says "all" states on the list) feel free to open that discussion. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
And should we post elections in Alabama now since it is a state? Or you can't possibly suggest that North Cyprus should also be posted? Also, that list is not featured in any way, so an IP's random edit can pass without having a multiple set of eyes judge its inclusion. And if you can't read further, it says "Disputed states and dependent territories should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits." Nergaal (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Is Alabama a sovereign state? Are the Cook Islands disputed? Are they "dependent territories"? Not according to the relevant articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
What is an associated state? What is the difference between Realm of New Zealand and British Overseas Territories? Nergaal (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Nergaal, the difference is this: the British Parliament has full authority to legislate for a British Overseas Territory and the British Government can direct and even dismiss its Government (as happened a few years ago in the Turks and Caicos Islands),[41] whereas the New Zealand Parliament has no power to legislate for the Cook Islands and the New Zealand Government has no power to dismiss or direct its Government. That is because the Cook Islands is a separate sovereign state, unlike a British Overseas Territory. Neljack (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
(ec) North Cyprus is a disputed and 99% unrecognized territory, and would be excluded from ITNR consideration due to the "disputed states" clause in the ITNR listing. Alabama is not on the List of Sovereign States. Cook Islands are on the List; it is not a "disputed territory" as it is not claimed by anyone. It is not a "dependent territory"; it is in free association with New Zealand, much like the Marshall Islands and some other territories are in free association with the United States. As I said, if you feel that it shouldn't be on the list, take it up over there. 331dot (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pull on the grounds that no consensus was established. I routinely oppose elections of very small countries on ITN mostly because they are of very little encyclopedic value and are very much inconsequential most of the time even to their neighbouring states. Colipon+(Talk) 13:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Colipon Consensus is established by this item being on the ITNR list. If you feel that the listing (general elections of those on the List of Sovereign States) should be altered to exclude this, please propose such a restriction at the ITNR discussion page. 331dot (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pull: I agree with Masem and 331dot - Putting aside the argument of whether Cook Islands are a sovereign nation, this story is not evidently in the news. A fundamental part of Wikipedia In The News is that whatever we post is broadcasted in mainstream media in different countries around the world with significant implications. 184.146.105.140 (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • That is a part, but another part is highlighting decent articles, which is being done here. While those events with wide news coverage stand the best chance of being posted, that's not the only criterion. The nominator also fulfilled my request and posted a news story. 331dot (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It is in the news: [42][43][44][45][46][47][48] I could hardly have written a large prose update if there were no news sources. Neljack (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • You are certainly free to do so yourself, if you wish. 331dot (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support all these pulls fails to argue that this particular nomination actually is in the INT/R which makes them irrelevant. Sure our rules could be modified here if people wish to but as they currently are this belongs in the news section and arguing othervise is pointless. SeraV (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Why is this archived? The ITNR criteria EXPLICITLY states that "Disputed states and dependent territories should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits." Isn't this a dependent territory? Even if it was ITNR, there have been plenty of cases where because of the overwhelming opposes the ITNR was overulled and I am counting more opposes not than supports. Nergaal (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • As stated above, this isn't a "dependent territory" any more than Micronesia or the Marshall Islands are dependent territories of the United States. In any event, that's an issue for the talk page of the Sovereign States List. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Except that irrelevant countries like Micronesia, Marshall Islands, or even Liechtenstein at least have technically the right to vote in the UN. What does a person elected in the Cook Islands get to do or influence in the international politics? Nergaal (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
That's not really relevant to this page; take it up at the List page. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think you know what you're talking about Nergaal. It's not a "dependent territory". Stop being disruptive. Take the argument elsewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:ITN/R#Elections_and_Heads_of_State basically states that all general elections that all general elections of UN members + Niue + Cook Islands get a no-discussion ITNR slot. Am I reading it wrong? Since this is about one of the two exceptions, somebody please show me where such a choice was discussed (even implicitly) and agreed upon. Nergaal (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
There is no special carve-out here. It states "All states on the List of sovereign states". The only qualifiers given are that disputed states and dependent territories are not ITNR, neither of which is the case here. 331dot (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
And if you comb out the entries for disputed territories, ALL that you are left with is UN members plus Niue and Cook Islands. What makes this two cases particularly notable out of the wide variety of non-UN members to get them the same ITNR status as any UN member? Nergaal (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Full UN membership (Cook Islands are a member of some UN bodies) is not a prerequisite for listing here. Are you proposing that as the criteria instead of "all states on the list of sovereign states"? If you don't like that the Cook Islands are on the list, I again urge you to bring it up over there. 331dot (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
What I am saying is that the inclusion of Niue and Cook Islands was an unintended side-effect of the current formulation [which to me doesn't seem to be any more than a personal choice of the person editing that section]. The two choices are then that the UN member list is an internationally acknowledged list, while the entries at List of sovereign states is a list of entries chosen by various editors here which has NOT EVEN been passed through the rigors of FL. The only difference between the two [one official, one not even here agreed upon] is Niue and Cook Islands. Nergaal (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
How do you know it is "an unintended side-effect"? That might have been exactly what was intended. You are free to formally propose that the "all states on...." be changed to "all UN members". 331dot (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
That's not true - the Vatican would also be excluded by limiting it to UN members. Neljack (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Vatican has no general election, and the Pope is the head of a religion [we post other religions such as say Syrian Catholics]. Nergaal (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The Pope is also a head of state, and in charge of Vatican City. 331dot (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
And that exception is currently explicitly covered under the "Indirect elections, including papal elections, are also included" line. The Cook and Niue elections are not covered under such an explicit exception [furthermore showing that their inclusion was just an unintended side-effect]. Nergaal (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
They don't need an exception as they are on the Sovereign States list. I get that you don't like that, but you are fighting your battle in the wrong place. A good start was your ITNR discussion; you know where the talk page for the List is. 331dot (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
That line only makes sense on the assumption that the Vatican is among the states that are included. The papal election is given as an example of an indirect election; it's not given a separate listing, as would be necessary if it wasn't already on the list as the election of a head of state of a state on the list of sovereign states. Neljack (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - in my view it is quite clear that, 1) there was no consensus to post this item, and 2) the ITNR 'rule' does not need to apply to all cases where common sense should be exercised to determine notability. The status quo is clearly not satisfactory, and I feel discouraged to re-open the ITNR elections debate. The reason for this is, because we cannot determine an ITNR threshold for what country is "big enough" to warrant inclusion, the outcome has always been "no consensus", making ITNR default to "all elections of sovereign states". This outcome, in my view, seems to be preferred by only a small minority of editors.

    The common-sense approach, imho, is to simply nominate elections which may be considered contentious here at ITNC, and have editors establish consensus on a case by case basis. Colipon+(Talk) 13:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course, the whole point of ITN/R is that one does not have to establish consensus for an event each time. Certainly an ITN/R listing can be "overruled" if there is a clear consensus against posting, but that's not the case here. Neljack (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I can see multiple people expressing their doubts about this particular inclusion, while the people expressing their support say "ok, it is listed as ITNR so post it" they don't say it should be kept as ITNR. Nergaal (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Is it not very clear that the only legitimacy for this posting is derived from the ITNR stipulation alone? I.e., if it were not for ITNR, this post would fail on notability in almost every way. As such one cannot possibly look at the long chain of discussion above and conclude that there is "sufficient consensus" to post the item?? Colipon+(Talk) 15:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
People are entitled to reply on the ITN/R listing as a reason to support. There's certainly nothing saying that is an invalid rationale. Neljack (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment—Cook Islanders have citizenship with New Zealand. Although this country is technically "sovereign", there is still heavy reliability and association (including citizenship) with New Zealand. For many other countries, this would be considered a dependency (which ITN/R says will need discussion at ITN/C) but Cook Islands seems to be a geographical grey zone where one could argue that it's a dependency OR a sovereign nation. For example, Aruba (and other Caribbean islands owned by the Netherlands) is technically a "dependency" but it controls its own affairs and is independent, thus should be considered a sovereign nation but it's not. So, there's definitely room for discussion as to what should be included and what should not. 184.146.106.190 (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The reason this isn't a dependency is that the New Zealand Parliament has no legislative authority over the Cook Islands, nor does the New Zealand Government have any authority over the Cooks' Government. Certainly there is a close association with New Zealand, but Palau, the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia have a similar relationship with the US, and they are UN members. Neljack (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • This idea is flawed as residents of Palau, the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) have citizenship to their own respective country. New Zealand, meanwhile, provides citizenship to Cook Island residents without having to meet any requirements. The only (marginal) similarity in your example is with the FSM and the U.S. which permits FSM residents to join the U.S. military without U.S. citizenship requirements, but this is still entirely different than the argument I put forth for New Zealand and the Cook Islands as residents of Cook Islands are citizens of New Zealand: this is unique in this circumstance and is not applicable to the previously mentioned island nations you provided. Your reasoning for why Cook Islands are not a dependency is also flawed - Aruba (as an example, is a dependency) is independent of the Netherlands and controls its own affairs with little to no influence from the Dutch government. I'm not arguing against the fact that the Cook Islands are largely recognized as a sovereign state, I'm just trying to create an explanation as to why there is a grey area around dependencies and sovereign states, and perhaps why there is confusion and dispute surrounding this ITN nomination. 184.146.106.190 (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Right - yeah, I suspect you are correct that the common citizenship has something to do with the confusion, thought it's not unique. And Aruba, it seems, is not really a dependency - rather it is a constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, with equal status to the Netherlands and the other constituent countries. That certainly does create a grey area for ITN/R. Neljack (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It seems that the Cook Islands are also a constituent country (of New Zealand, according to that article list). I guess we're setting a precedent here that constituent countries should be included in ITN/R. 184.146.109.234 (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC) (c/o 184.146.106.19)
  • Comment. It is important to remember that part of the reason this was posted was that we have a decent article about it, unlike a lot of other small nations. If we didn't have a decent article about a similar state, it wouldn't be posted on quality grounds. So I really don't understand the opposition here, to posting a decent article which might enlighten readers due to a perceived techincality(which isn't even really true anyway). There are also systemic bias issues; that part of the world doesn't appear in ITN often. 331dot (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

July 17Edit

Portal:Current events/2014 July 17

RD: Joep LangeEdit

Article: Joep Lange (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Washington Post Telegraph obituary
Nominator: LukeSurl (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Major figure in HIV/AIDS research --LukeSurl t c 16:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment He definitely looks like a heavyweight in his area of research, article looks good. I'm not 100% sure if he meets notability for RD, though. Challenger l (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Clearly an accomplished individual, but I don't think he meets the criteria overall. It feels like he's primarily notable as the most accomplished person to die on MH17. 9kat (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Perhaps a leading researcher but not as much as a leader as we'd use as a metric, but moreso for myself, to highlight his death in the crash over the 100-some other AIDS researchers that also died in that crash (as well as the 150+ other passengers) feels ethically wrong, to me. --MASEM (t) 23:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The reason he is being singled out is that his colleagues in the field of AIDS research are singling him out, even among all the other researchers who died in the crash. The President-elect of the International AIDS Society and the Executive Director of the Harvard School of Public Health AIDS Initiative both described Lange as a "giant" in the field of AIDS research.[49][50] The Telegraph obituary gives a good explanation of his contributions: "[He] was a pioneer in the field of HIV/Aids since the days when the epidemic was first identified in the early 1980s; in recent years he was at the forefront of the campaign to improve access to anti-retroviral drugs in poor countries. Lange was instrumental in the development of techniques of clinical care of HIV-infected patients from as early as 1982... Lange led pioneering research into the risk of a carrier of HIV developing full-blown Aids, establishing that the risk is determined by the level of a protein known as “P24” in a carrier’s blood. He went on to lead early tests on the drug Retrovir, an antiretroviral which proved to be the first breakthrough in Aids therapy, significantly reducing the replication of HIV in patients."[51] Neljack (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Question: What awards has Lange won? None are listed in the article, and while he may be a "research heavyweight", thisdoes not necessarily mean "top of his field". This would be more clear if he had received an important scientific award of some sort of award in the medical field. SpencerT♦C 01:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
He received the Eijkman Medal for tropical medicine and international health in 2007.[52] But the case for him being a very important figure in his field is based less on his awards and more on the testimony of his colleagues. And is it not just about his ability as a researcher, but also the major impact his work has had. According to the Washington Post, the President-elect of the International AIDS Society said that "Lange was a visionary who played in­cred­ibly important roles as one of the architects of combination retroviral therapy for HIV patients — a breakthrough that has made the virus something that is more akin to a chronic illness than a death sentence for many patients — and as an advocate for universal access to AIDS medicines."[53] Neljack (talk) 07:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • What did they say before Lange died, though? That's generally going to be easier to judge by. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Lange was the Chief of Clinical Research/Drug Development at the WHO Global Programme on AIDS, former President of the International AIDS Society, and certainly more notable than many of the pop singers and celebrities who are not notable outside their own fields. -A1candidate (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose — Tragic, as are all untimely deaths, but this person's demise is so enmeshed in the MH17 story that, in terms of news value, it doesn't warrant a separate entry, IMO. Sca (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support this individual has been singled out by news outlets in my jurisdiction as a special case, phrases like "pioneer" have been bandied around. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Solution would seem to be adding "with a dozen AIDS researchers to the blurb" rather than single one few people will know by name. μηδείς (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - RN doesn't have to be entirely separate from ongoing news stories, AFAIK, and had the individual died some other time or in some other way he would probably have passed easily. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We wouldn't be having this discussion if not for the nature of his death. --W. D. Graham 20:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 Chaambi Mountains attackEdit

Article: 2014 Chaambi Mountains attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Militants attack two checkpoints in the Chaambi Mountains, Tunisia, killing fourteen soldiers.
News source(s): Reuters Los Angeles Times BBC Yahoo News AP via ABC News
Nominator: Andise1 (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: According to the LA Times, "The attack, described by the Defense Ministry as the deadliest against the army since the country's war for independence in 1956." Andise1 (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - This is not typical in Tunisia and even if there were attacks in the past two years they weren't as deadly as this one. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Andise1, instead of proposing an altblurb to avoid confusion, I've allowed myself to trim your blurb a little because I think there is no need to mention the militant group, even if there was an article about it. Hope you don't mind and feel free to revert. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I do not mind at all. The militant group is mentioned in the article anyways so I agree it is not necessary in the blurb. Andise1 (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - user Fitzcarmalan is right.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support although the article could use just a tiny bit more expansion, but at least it's well referenced. Marking as ready per the old-fashioned "half decent article, referenced without maintenance tags" approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm currently expanding it so that it looks acceptable enough. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Operation Protective Edge (Israel enters Gaza)Edit

Article: Operation Protective Edge#17 July (talk, history)
Blurb: Israel launches a ground invasion of the Gaza Strip.
News source(s): aljazeera
Nominator: Thue (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Seems more appropriate than ongoing, given the number of casualties and general severity of the conflict. Thue (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose this is why we have Ongoing. Besides, this is nothing new, Israel has used ground offensives against Gaza several times in the past. We mustn't allow ITN to become "Middle East conflict ticker"... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • support - definitely an escalation of the violence. and significant enough in my opinion to be featured in the ITN section.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Ground war warrants a full blurb, full stop.--WaltCip (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Continuation of conflict that ongoing is appropriate for. I would argue that if Israel, say, should make any terroritoral claims, that would be different, but this seems par for the course for this ongoing conflict. --MASEM (t) 20:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Major development; this would be at the top of the news if not for the plane being shot down. This is the first Israeli ground offensive in Gaza in five years. 9kat (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Major development.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Biggest development in 'years' Ienpw III (talk) 07:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support huge media coverage of this push indicates importance. Antrocent (♫♬) 03:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted, and removed from the ongoing section. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Ongoing: Operation Protective EdgeEdit

The violence is still escalating [54] with 230+ killed. The fighting is the worst of its kind since the 2008 Gaza War.[55] Clearly not routine business in the Gaza Strip. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support if only for the fact we can remove the POV-magnet that is the blurb right now. The tragedy is unfolding, once again, children are being killed, pathetic rockets are being fired, it doesn't show much sign of abating. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, three more Palestinian children now killed. But the possibility of a ceasefire again. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: major development: BBC reports Israel is initiating a ground strike. Thanks, Matty.007 20:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: important conflict. Thanks, Matty.007 20:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted we'll wait and see if yet another blurb for this is needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Naming. Operation "Protective Edge" is, of course, the Israeli name. I would suggest that this title is going to be an unfamiliar name to many readers who haven't been following Middle East events. In addition, I doubt the Palestinians would perceive this event as "protective" so using the Israeli name has a potential element of bias to it. I would suggest changing the name to "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" with a link to Operation Protective Edge. That's only slightly longer, and makes clear what the topic is even if you haven't been following the recent events. Dragons flight (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Rename it for neutrality and clarity. Most readers won't know what Operation Protective Edge is without clicking, bias aside. 9kat (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Don't really see "protective" as being that appropriate word to describe the killing of 227 Palestinians either. Iron Dome's the protective bit, but that's been there a while, and is obviously very successful. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Sigh, take this to WP:ERRORS, let the wider community decide, once again, on a PC/NPOV/etc etc version of this. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Sigh, some of us only just got back from over there... Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Renamed. The arguments for renaming were quite compelling. Thue (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
That is renaming the blurb not the article. support too. theres more consensus on ITNC itself, doesnt have to go to errors.Lihaas (talk) 12:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Good, more "conflict" to be "conflicted" over. Worth noting that we now no longer use precise technical terms, we obfuscate them to please some readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Elaine StritchEdit

Article: Elaine Stritch (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYTimes
Nominator: Masem (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Tony/Emmy-award actress, part of Am. Theater Hall of Fame. Also to note she worked both Broadway and West End --MASEM (t) 17:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. Came here to post this myself. Multiple Emmy winner, Tony winner, Grammy nominee. Gamaliel (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Mild oppose lots of citations required, several sections without a single ref including those which list appearances which don't even have a Wikipedia article, work needs to be done here folks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support Definitely notable enough, between Emmys and her work on Broadway, but the article really needs attention. Challenger l (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support once brought up to standard. Also known in UK where she appearend on TV in Two's Company with Donald Sinden. Mjroots (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Sufficiently notable for sure. --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support legendary and award winning stage and broadway performer, sure shows up Huey Ramone, given her last name was not the sole source of her fame. μηδείς (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Marked ready Most of "uncited" material was either actually in ccredited primary works, which is fine, or has been hidden or removed. Article quality is excellent. μηδείς (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Removing the 'Ready' status. There are serious claims in the article that are completely unreferenced. Stephen 02:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Restoring ready since you haven't marked a single one of those serious claims with a citation needed tag. μηδείς (talk) 02:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Marking the claims is not a requirement for removing the ready status. If you think an article with unreferenced claims of alcoholism is ready, then you should probably find another area to work in. Stephen 03:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – I've added sourcing about her alcoholism, and a few other sources. While it could use a little more work, I think it is okay to be posted at this point. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 15:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    • The "Television" section is still lacking and there's at least one uncited quote in there as well. I think if that section can be sourced to some degree, then we'd be set, certainly far better when I ran through for nominating yesterday. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Notable death. Article appears to be decent. Jusdafax 22:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. There is consensus here as to notability and concerns about article quality have been addressed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, congrats Brad, time to change the instructions now we're posting items with maintenance tags. Good work. Too lazy to file that RFC, so just take the matter into your own hands, eh? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
      • The article on the whole is well-written and well-referenced. There is one tag at the very bottom of the article accompanying the list of her performances, the need for which tag is probably doubtful as relatively few articles of this type have (or need) a reference for every one of dozens of roles. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Yes, other crap stuff exists, so let's encourage it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support. The article is not FA-level perfect, but is not so bad as to keep it from the main page, IMHO. --Jayron32 19:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose, we don't ask for "FA-level perfect" but it's pretty clear that we shouldn't be posting items with genuine maintenance tags, even if they are American actors. Read the instructions folks, read them. If you want to change them, WP:RFC is the way forward. Stop disrupting the place to get your own favourite stuff on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Malaysia Airlines Flight 17Edit

Articles: Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (talk, history) and 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine (talk, history)
Blurb: Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, en route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, crashes in eastern Ukraine with 295 people on board.
Alternative blurb: Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 en route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, is shot down by X in eastern Ukraine, killing 295 on board
News source(s): CNN, Sky News, BBC
Nominator: Count Iblis (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Probably accidentally shot down by the rebels or the Ukrainian army. Count Iblis (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment - Interfax is saying it was shot down. But let's wait and see whether that's corroborated. I'd want more than one impeccable source for a claim like that. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support pending article updates - whether shot down or not, a commercial airliner crash of nearly 300 ppl is ITN. But we definitely need to have confirmation that it might have been SAM that took it down. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support pending improvement This topic is an obvious support, regardless of the reason it was shot down. We need to wait for more information first, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait but support upon update. Very significant event in the Ukrainian crisis (if determined to be related). Will be interesting in the coming days to see international reaction and response. Also, significant event in general if there are a large number of casualties. Quite interesting too that it's the same airline, Malaysia Airlines, for the missing aircraft Flight 370. 184.146.108.31 (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait Definitely needs to be posted, but more data needs to come in. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 16:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. No question. Gamaliel (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, should be posted once bashed into shape. Significant development in Ukraine conflict. Mjroots (talk) 16:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support but verify as much as possible. CNN and most major US networks reporting aircraft was shot down (unconfirmed reports) - definitely newsworthy and ITN eligible, it's just making sure there is data available -- Tawker (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Add news with the basic facts no-one disputes (Malaysia Airlines aircraft crashes in east Ukraine) and update as new information comes in.Leptictidium (mt) 16:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Whether it was shot down or not, any commercial plane crash killing 295 people is ITN-worthy. I say post it now with the suggested blurb of "crashed" and keep it at that, since hard evidence as to what happened likely isn't going to come soon based on the politically-sensitive nature of this. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 16:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support New story that's already being covered from a lot of sources. --AmaryllisGardener talk 16:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted The article has sufficient verifiable information already and it's developing quite well (and stably). The blurb can be updated when details are confirmed. -- tariqabjotu 16:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, we have to carefully watch how the story is developing. Some media have already reported that the airplane was shot down, which would have to be mentioned as a very significant detail in the whole story if confirmed true.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Support as a major and one of the deadliest airplane crashes that is apparently covered worldwide. I also think that it'd be worth mentioning that the airplane was shot down if officially confirmed and therefore I've suggested an alternative blurb to indicate it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I've made a small change in the blurb, as pending both who shot it down, and whether it was intentional or not (which I doubt it was if it was hit by a missile), as to not make it look like an intentional act against civilians. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks. We shall wait until more details are revealed. At this stage, the current blurb we have on the main page is sufficient to report about the story.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - after posting. Just for the record. Already a worldwide reported place crash.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per BabbaQ, but we absolutely 100% must keep an eye on both the article and blurb, this was posted when we still have no idea even if it was shot down. Work to do. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Reuters tweeted "#BREAKING: Number of dead from crash of #MH17 more than 300, includes 23 U.S. citizen: Interior Ministry adviser, quoted by Interfax". Something to keep an eye on. Thanks, Matty.007 17:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah, of course. It's a popular tourist route from Schipol to KL, so it's full of tourists. Plenty of foreign nationals killed here, game changing event. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I copied that more for the fact that they cited more than 300 deaths. Thanks, Matty.007 18:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
        • That "over 300" seems to be only coming from that source - MA was quick to put out the 280/15 numbers as soon as the incident was known. --MASEM (t) 18:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
          • "More than 300" is how it's being presented on UK news outlets. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Well it seems acknowledged that it was shot down by someone...we can tack on the conflict to the blurb..Lihaas (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
No, what we can do is wait until we have neutral evidence from an external source that confirms this. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed - I'm watching the stories and while the evidence is very strong on being shot down, it's not 100% affirmed. We wait. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
In fact, adding speculation to the blurb is absurd, and I'm "shocked" that User:Lihaas would suggest such a thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Um, RS sources saying so...but either way.Lihaas (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Um, RS sources are speculating so...but either way.The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
BBC headlines are still hesitant and are only calling it a crash. They are, however, likely a little pressed, 9:00 PM seems to be when it all kicks off news-wise, so they may be a little stretched for staff. Thanks, Matty.007 20:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
US officials are now calling it shot-down, but yet to say from whom. [56]. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - The pothole link for 'X' in the altblurb is far from neutral. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Especially considering most fingers are not pointing to the party X is linked to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.223 (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
If we post the alt blurb, I would take out the "by X" part. It's shot down but whom it is by is yet determined. --MASEM (t) 21:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the unjustified pothole, which was originally added by Kiril Simeonovski, and left in by several others. Seriously - no-one is suggesting the Ukrainian army did this. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure X would never do such a thing in any case. He wins nearly every national election, so he can't be so bad. Formerip (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Been a while since he/she won an election...although hes won some sports too ;)Lihaas (talk) 12:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb on being shot down by a 'missile'.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Now that all reliable sources are saying this is definitely a shootdown (see eg:all UK papers), I've updated to use the alt blurb (minus the "by X" part) accordingly. Smurrayinchester 08:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb but without the "by X," of course. Evidence has emerged [57] strongly implicating pro-Russia separatists, but it's not confirmed and may not be for quite some time. Sca (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Further, on July 19 Reuters [58] quoted unnamed U.S. officials as saying this recorded evidence, [59] released by Ukraine, was "convincing." Sca (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb blurb with "crashes" instead of "is shot down". It is unacceptable to brand this accident as "shot down" without any remote sort of proof of that. Now matter ho much the "reliable" sources speculate on the matter, not even a smidgin of proof has been supplied that a missile has indeed been fired towards the plane on the time the day in that airspace the plane in question has passed through, let alone that a missile has indeed hit one. So, in accordance with our neutrality policies, I suggest this is changed immediately until the cause of the crash has been actually determined and proven. Tvx1 (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Several governments have reviewed the evidence (satellite, radar, thermal, the wreckage itself) and agree that the plane was shot down by a missile. Who shot the missile remains in question and whether the act was intentional or not, but it was definitely brought down by a missile. --MASEM (t) 17:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Official statements please. I see the US are saying "most likely shot down", UK PM is saying "If, as seems possible, this was brought down...", so nothing definitive. At this point we (Wikipedia) should not be pre-empting things. Bad call. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
        • There you go TRM, suck on that. Obama says so. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
          • Someone "saying so" is not enough. Even if it is Obama. What we need is a reliable source providing proof, such as e.g, missile remains in-between te wreckage, evidence of missile explosion on the fuselage remains, etc... This is not Obama or any other head of state's conclusion to be made. Obama is not an accident investigator with a university degree to make such investigations. He does not have the knowledge for that. This is why there is something called " official investigation ". And those investigators review the evidence first and then make their conclusions based on that evidence. In contrary to what everybody else, including multiple heads of states, have done in this case. It wouldn't be the first time radar information is misinterpreted. Just take a look at Aerolinee_Itavia_Flight_870 for instance. In accordance with our Neutrality and notnews policies the only way forward here is the main blurb stating "crashes", not the alt blurb. On top of this, I would like to point out that the majority of the editors here support the main blurb, not the altblurb. Yet, due to the personal preference of one administrator, the altblurb is posted. Tvx1 (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
            • Virtually no one disagrees with the fact that the plane was shot down(even Putin); the disagreement is who did it and the circumstances of it. We will likely be the only credible source on the Internet not stating the fact of a shoot down if we refer to it as just a "crash"; this is being universally reported as a shoot down. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
            • (e/c) Well I agree with pretty much all you've said, although we do rely on verifiable sources, not truth, so if everyone says it was a shoot down, it was a shoot down. It's certainly the fact that some admins prefer "their version" of blurbs though, despite consensus. The updated blurb seemed to be in place way before real people were "confirming" things. Go rogue. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
            • (e/c)If we needed to soften the blurb, "believed to have been shot down" would be better than "crashed" to reflect that this is what the current running theory that the world is using to put down pressure on the Ukraine region to figure out what happened. But I don't feel we need to soften it up, it accurately reflects what news sources are saying. --MASEM (t) 20:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
              • Agree with preceding three comments. Everything I've read/seen, including Obama's news conf., indicates there's no doubt MH17 was shot down, very probably by an SA-11 ("Buk") SAM fired from separatist-held Ukrainian territory. I don't see a real need to soften "is shot down." Sca (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
                • I actually think that writing something like "believed to be shot down" or "allegedly shot down" is a good compromise. This would cover the current situation in the best way. While it is true that almost everyone believes it to have been shot down, it is equally true that is NOT an established fact yet that it has been shot down and that the investigation into the crash is still ongoing. No physical proof of a missile attack has been supplied yet. Not even of a missile launch on that time of the day in the airspace the plane in question passed through. Not even a single witness statement claiming a missile was shot up in the air. Nothing. This is much less as in the cases of such accidents as TWA Flight 800 or even Aerolinee_Itavia_Flight_870 and in both cases the missile theory has been disproven. We should not be worrying about being "the only credible source not treating it as a fact that it was shot down" since wikipedia is not a credible news source, but an encyclopedia. We base ourselves on facts, we don't rush things and we verify claims before we publish them. Lastly, I would like to repeat that the majority of the editors who contributed to this discussion supported the standard blurb and NOT the alt blurb. Tvx1 (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Since when does Wiki independently "verify claims before we publish them"? Like most of the world, WP is epistemologically [60] dependent on news reports and government statements. We have no WP reporters verifying claims, but must make judgments based on reportage of those professional journalistic entities that do. Sca (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Tailfire and missile lock detected? Where does that come from? Is it that much to ask to link to a reliable source backing your claims? And when I was referring to verifying before publishing, I meant that what we write in our articles is backed by reliable sources per WP:verifiability. At this point no reliable source has been provided that any official, independent investigation has established the fact that it was effectively shot down. "Believed to be shot down" is the best way to describe the current status. Even our own article on the case acknowledges that the investigation is still ongoing and that a shoot down is most likely the cause, but that it's no certain yet. Tvx1 (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
          • That is what the US Government has reported. The US also apparently detected the explosion of the plane/missile. I don't have a link handy so feel free to dismiss it, but I have no reason to lie about that.(The US has satellites to detect missile tailfires) What official body are you waiting for a determination from? (which will likely take months if not years) The area is controlled by the rebels (who have no official status) and they are severely limiting access to the site if not outright prohibiting it. Russia does not want the black boxes so they won't be investigating it.
            • It is disingenuous to readers to call this anything other than what it is. We don't need an official determination, which is unlikely (soon, anyway) in any event. When there is one, then we can post that, but that doesn't mean we can't act now. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Per above discussions I have updated the blurb. Please do not revert without discussing with me. Email if necessary to get my attention, or else generate a good thorough discussion here to form a different consensus. Wikipedia only requires reliable sources, not an official determination. I suspect there will be competing official determinations. We should look to the NY Times, BBC, and similar high-quality sources and follow what they report. Jehochman Talk 00:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    Although some sources (such as the New York Times) report that MH17 was shot down, others such as the BBC report that "MH17 was reportedly hit by a missile over a rebel-held area" (emphasis added). There is a marked difference between "X is reported/claimed/suspected/thought to have happened" and "X happened". I don't think that "crashes" is necessarily the best option, but the statement that MH17 "is shot down" is too presumptive in the absence of real confirmation; we should at least use "is suspected to be shot down" or something similar. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    I agree entirely. IS shot down is just to presumptive at the moment. That's what I have been trying to point out the whole time. We do need real confirmation before we can treat a fact a fact. Tvx1 (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Point of order: the ITN blurb should always defer to what's in the article, yes? The article, which is currently fully-protected, says "...believed to have been shot down". (I have no idea if the reason for the full protection is the same reason we're having this discussion; I haven't looked at it too closely.) IMO, "shot down" is premature, and "crashes" is just plain wrong. "Believed" or "suspected" or something is the way to go here. It's a bit too wordy for my liking, but unavoidable. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  1. With Strike on Jet, Conflict in Ukraine Is Felt Globally - "The downing of Malasia Airlines Flight 17..." - NY Times. [61]
  2. Bishop Peter Comensoli, who led the mass at Sydney's St Mary's Catholic Cathedral, said the downing of MH17 was not "an innocent accident" but "the outcome of a trail of human evil". and Tougher EU sanctions against Russia will be needed if Moscow does not change its "approach" to the downing of the plane, UK Prime Minister David Cameron has indicated. - BBC [62]
  3. The doomed flight was shot down on Friday by a surface-to-air missile over a part of Ukraine controlled by Russian separatists. news.com.au
  4. The plane was shot down on Thursday, apparently by pro-Moscow separatists backed by the Russian president Vladimir Putin. Telegraph [63]
  5. Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was flying at 33,000 feet, higher than Mount Everest, when a missile hit it. Washington Post [64]
  6. All 298 passengers and crew on board Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 were killed when the jet was shot down by a surface-to air missile as it flew over eastern Ukraine on Thursday (local time). ABC (Australia) [65] Malaysia Airlines MH17: Experts say passengers probably had no warning before being blasted from sky [66]
  • You should really make the effort of reading articles and not just their titles. Some of these articles literally stated reportedly shot down, others put "shot down" between parentheses. More importantly none of the articles provide physical evidence of missile shoot down. This collection is the exact definition of "reportedly shot down". While everybody considers it that, the exact cause has not been determined and proven yet. Even our wikipedia article on the case acknowledges that. Tvx1 (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The part about being shot down isn't what's in doubt and doesn't need any weasel words. What we could say is something like "believed to have been shot down by Russian-backed separatists". What's slightly in doubt is who did the shooting. No reliable sources are currently reporting that this was anything else. We should follow the reporting as it stands, and if the reporting changes we should update accordingly. Jehochman Talk 08:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    • You might not doubt it, but it is an indisputable fact that there is no real confirmation based on physical evidence of the shoot-down yet. Tvx1 (talk) 12:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment — On Saturday, I was shocked to find that the wording had been administratively changed from "is shot down" to "crashes," and today I'm glad to see it has been changed back, for the following reasons.
 • The plane did not fly or dive from 33,000 feet and "crash" into the ground, killing all 298 on board. Rather, the plane exploded and broke up at high altitude, and pieces of it, along with the bodies (and pieces of the bodies) of all 298 who had been on board, plus countless personal effects they had with them, "fell" — as many witnesses on the ground said — "from the sky" over a fairly wide area.
 • All the known facts contradict the notion of a "crash" in the sense normally used in describing aviation accidents. They all support destruction by an explosion at high altitude, and indicate that the passengers of MH17 were dead before their bodies hit the ground.
Yesterday's fiddling with key syntax in the MH17 blurb was unsupportable and an embarrassment to the many volunteers who devote time, energy, diligence and creativity to making English Wikipedia a preeminent online resource. Sca (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
An explosion yes, but an explosion can be caused be countless things. Even a criminal act is not synonymous with missile attack. That could still constitute an on-board bomb for instance. As pointed out be multiple users now, something like "reportedly shot down" acknowledging that the exact cause is currently under investigation, which is clearly stated in the wikipedia article covering this case, is the only way forward. Tvx1 (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The preponderance of evidence supports "shot down," as does the consensus here.
However, as a qualifier, I could live with "evidently shot down," since the evidence indicates it was indeed shot down by a high-altitude SAM. "Evidently" would leave a little wiggle room for the unlikely case of the SAM hypothesis being disproved.
"Reportedly" would not fill the perceived need for a caveat; it would merely cast doubt, gratuitously, on the mass of reportage at hand. (This reply delayed by an edit conflict with Tvx1.) Sca (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
No it supports reportedly shot down. The investigation is still ongoing. As does the consensus. Multiple users have stated that "reportedly shot down" is the better way forward. The majority here supported the standard blurb and not the altblurb. It might be your opinion that it's an established fact that it is shot down and I respect that, but this is no about displaying your opinion but about writing something that is as accurate as possible. And writing something the likes of "reportedly shot down" is the most accurate description since the investigation is still ongoing. Wether you want it or not. Tvx1 (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Do you have news sources or even just documented statements by anyone stating it was (even possibly) an on-board bomb? That wouldn't jibe with witness accounts of a missile launch, satellite evidence, and other evidence. A missile strike isn't any single user's opinion here, but the opinion of the vast majority of the world. That's why it's being reported that way, and why we are writing it that way. Which official, independent body's determination are you waiting for? The rebels have already tampered with the crash site and seized the dead from international investigators at gunpoint. The odds of a truly independent finding by any body or group that will be believed by all is remote. Even if an "official" determination is made, there will be those (rebels) who will not accept it. Weasel words are not needed; readers have the intelligence to see where statements are coming from themselves, and in the article itself. 331dot (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
(Reuters, July 20) — U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry laid out what he called overwhelming evidence of Russian complicity in the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 as international horror deepened over the fate of the victims' remains.
Kerry said the United States had ... intercepted conversations about the transfer to separatists of the Russian radar-guided SA-11 missile system which it blames for the Boeing 777's destruction. "It's pretty clear that this is a system that was transferred from Russia," Kerry said in an interview on CNN.
"There's enormous amount of evidence, even more evidence that I just documented, that points to the involvement of Russia in providing these systems, training the people on them," he said on CBS. [67]
Sca (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
(AP) — The U.S. embassy in Kiev issued a strong statement Sunday saying it has concluded "that Flight MH17 was likely downed by a SA-11 surface-to-air missile from separatist-controlled territory in eastern Ukraine." It said over the weekend of July 12-13, "Russia sent a convoy of military equipment with up to 150 vehicles, including tanks, armored personnel carriers, artillery, and multiple rocket launchers" to the separatists. [68]
Sca (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
See also: [69] Sca (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Johnny WinterEdit

Article: Johnny Winter (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/johnny-winter-texas-blues-icon-dies-at-70-1.2709568
Nominator: Floydian (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Legendary blues icon, the "Texas Tornado", dead at 70. Article is already updated, though it could probably use some refs in the unreferenced sections --Floydian τ ¢ 14:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support RD. Notable in his field. Gamaliel (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD - Worthy RD addition; citations issue noted. Jusdafax 16:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD - While "old" he appeared to have been in the middle of a tour as well, so still active too. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Indeed... and still playing the small town venues. He just played in Uxbridge, Ontario, a rather small town of >10,000, and was scheduled to appear in just a few days at some venue nearby to me in Ontario. Expected death given his deteriorating health, but not expected immediately. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD Notable enough in his field to include. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is seriously lacking in references. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose While notable in his field, the article is in need of a lot of work. Challenger l (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD - One of the best guitarists of all time. Knowledge is power. (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Clearly would support on significance, but article needs major work. Unquestionably one of the most important blues guitarists of his generation, widely acclaimed, but the article needs to be brought up to snuff before we put it on the main page. --Jayron32 21:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've added (bare URL) refs to the "Johnny Winters And" section. I'm hoping someone else can fill them in and/or add refs to the two paragraphs in the remaining section with issues, or the community can elect to let it slide and expect the increased traffic to improve the article that little bit. - Floydian τ ¢ 01:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The article is now improved to a mainpage-worthy condition. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted - I agree with Floyd, the article appears to be MP worthy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

July 16Edit

Portal:Current events/2014 July 16

[Posted] Typhoon Rammasun (2014)Edit

Article: Typhoon Rammasun (2014) (talk, history)
Blurb: Typhoon Rammasun kills at least 38 people in the Philippines.
News source(s): Weather Channel
Nominator: Jinkinson (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Probably notable enough (though not as much as Haiyan) because of the large number of deaths, and for its wind speeds of +125 mph. --Jinkinson talk to me 22:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Now there's a significant death toll and the article seems to be in a good shape. Brandmeistertalk 08:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - significant number of deaths. --BabbaQ (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Thue (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Ongoing: 2014 Tour de FranceEdit

We already had this discussion, it was decided that le Tour wasn't worthy of Ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2014 (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.

This is on WP:ITN/R and it has been on for over a week and it still hasn't been put in ITN (ongoing). NickGibson3900 (Talk - Cont.) 09:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The ITNR listing is for the winner; this was discussed here with no consensus to post under "ongoing" per the reasons listed there; further Ongoing was not intended to post sports events in progress when it was created. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

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

[Posted] Ongoing: Ukraine conflictEdit

Following the removal of the blurb about Sloviansk and Kramatorsk, the conflict in Ukraine should be restored (see here) as a sticky. The topic is still very much "in the news", and the article Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine is being updated daily. — Black Falcon (talk) 05:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment – Please do not link to that timeline. It isn't the appropriate article for the armed conflict in Donbass. Please link to 2014 insurgency in Donbass. The timeline is a mass of information with no context. The insurgency article is the main article for the conflict. RGloucester 06:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    I have no objection to that option. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • strong support per above...another chopper (or was it an iaircraft) got shot down 2 days agoLihaas (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted I added the timeline, since it seems far more informative to me. It also prominently links to 2014 insurgency in Donbass at the top. Thue (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The timeline isn't more informative. It is not about the armed conflict. It is about the overall unrest. The armed conflict's main article is the insurgency article. Linking the timeline under "armed conflicts" is entirely inappropriate. This should be changed at once. 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine isn't about the armed conflict. The main article for the conflict is 2014 insurgency in Donbass. The timeline is a mass of information with no context whatsoever. Please stop this misinformation. RGloucester 15:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The timeline is linked as "Ukrainian conflict" in the "ongoing" section - a natural and appropriate description. We do not have a "armed conflicts" section. Perhaps you are thinking of Portal:CE which is not discussed on this page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
It's linked as "conflict" but actually directs to "unrest". Just saying. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
"Conflict" is not a natural description unless it is pertaining to the armed conflict, and the only article for the armed conflict is 2014 insurgency in Donbass. I've heavily contributed to the timeline, the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine article, and the 2014 insurgency in Donbass, and I'm well aware of the scope of each one. The armed conflict is covered by the insurgency article. The unrest article covers the overall unrest. The timeline is a mass of information that pertains to everything, but provides no context whatsoever. RGloucester 19:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I changed the descriptor to "Ukrainian unrest". Hopefully that addresses the concern. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The "unrest" article is mostly historical at this point. The ongoing conflict is essentially confined to the Donbass insurgency. RGloucester 20:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The timeline seems to be the most appropriate because it is the most regularly updated. I don't see any issue with the word conflict because it can describe both the 2014 insurgency in Donbass and the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine of which the insurgency is part of. I took this to WP:ERRORS. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

July 15Edit

Portal:Current events/2014 July 15

Jean-Claude JunckerEdit

Article: Jean-Claude Juncker (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The European Parliament confirms Jean-Claude Juncker as the next President of the European Commission.
News source(s): [70]
Nominator: FormerIP (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

 Formerip (talk) 12:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Conditional Support Definitely an ITN item, but I see no less than two whole sections without any inline citations at all. Challenger l (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Highly important news.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Obvious significance, particularly in light of the arguments over his nomination. Neljack (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is lacking in quality, whole sections without a single reference, some sections with very limited references. For a BLP, this is not acceptable. Perhaps those in support didn't even read the article. This part of the main page needs significance and quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Significant news. Gamaliel (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Moscow Metro derailmentEdit

Article: Moscow Metro (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A train derails on the Moscow Metro, killing at least 21 people and seriously injuring scores.
Alternative blurb: ​A train derails on the Moscow Metro, killing at least 21 people and seriously injuring scores.
News source(s): BBC NBC News
Nominator: The Rambling Man (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Added a subsection to the main article, alt blurb added in case someone has time to write a standalone aritlce. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. Crash on highly used metro system with casualties is notable; also widely covered. 331dot (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as per 331dot. I stubbed the article with the comment on the metro article, hope to add more immediately. We could link to the main metro article, and then to the individual article after expansion. Also I have also fixed the link in the alt blurb. --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per 331dot, when article is expanded a little. Thanks, Matty.007 12:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - accident with many victims. ITN material.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Klose's recordEdit

Why was it removed? Or why was it not merged with the final's blurb? Nergaal (talk) 06:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It was removed here [71], presumably due to the length of the blurb? CaptRik (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
It should be restored to final blurb, or given its old blurb back, it got more than enough support for that. Removing it completely for no good reason is fairly annoying. SeraV (talk) 07:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
support' it got its due for it instead of being arbitrairily removed.Lihaas (talk) 10:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. We should avoid blurbs with codas at all costs and we should pretty much never have compound blurbs stitched together with a word such as "while", IMO. There's no official character limit for blurbs, but I think 81 is always going to be too many. Formerip (talk) 10:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I support the removal. It was replaced by a blurb referring to the same overall event more relevant right now. Combining the blurbs was too verbose.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The decision was the correct one - the combined blurb was not even accurate (the record was fora single match which is not what the blurb said). It should never have been merged anyway IMHO: there is an official award (the golden Boot) for the overall top scorer. Reporting coverage of a sporting event while ignoring the official results and awards of that event in favour of a minor stat we inexplicably deem to be important is navel gazing at its finest. 3142 (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
No, the record was for lifetime goals scored in all World Cup goals... --Jayron32 00:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] BricsEdit

Article: 6th BRICS summit (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 6th BRICS summit is held in Brazil
Nominator and updater: Lihaas (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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.

 --Lihaas (talk) 04:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Article looks in good shape. CaptRik (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. We normally post when summits close rather than open. Formerip (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
    • That's not clear at WP:ITN/R, perhaps worth clarifying that page to prevent future confusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
WHen was this added to ITNR? As best as I can tell, it was added here, and apparently without consensus (though I think the editor felt Wikipedia:Bold). Perhaps someone could review that and consider BRICS's ITNR status.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
    • (ec)I don't know about summits in particular, but we post the opening of the Olympics and Paralympics and other multisport international events, as well as the opening of a World's Fair. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Is it a moot point because the summit is 15th - 17th and therefore the lifetime of this story being posted would cover the duration. I guess only the wording would be the issue? CaptRik (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The article looks good, and it is on the list at WP:ITN/R. Challenger l (talk) 13:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Significant event. Gamaliel (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 00:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
question: can you link to BRICS and put summit in bold to the said page?Lihaas (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Why? BRICS is explained and linked in the opening line of the summit article. Stephen 00:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

July 14Edit

Portal:Current events/2014 July 14

Boron buckyballsEdit

Articles: Borospherene (talk, history) and Fullerene#Boron buckyball (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Much anticipated boron buckyballs are made in the lab
News source(s): New Scientist IBTimes gizmodo
Nominator: Abductive (talk • give credit)
Updater: Khamar (talk • give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: There was a great deal of interest in boron buckyballs prior to this, as can be seen in the Fullerene article, and in a Google Scholar search. The only concerns are the usual ones about any possible scientific fraud or errors, and the stubbiness of the article at the moment. --Abductive (reasoning) 01:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a note about Boron Buckyball to state that the predicted B80 was not found. These clusters of B40 are a bit small to properly represent a sphere; and are in fact a bit lumpy. Boron Lumpyballs might be a better name for them. I think the research nickname of Borospherene avoids this structure conflict. This article subject is more closely related to cluster chemistry than tubes and spheres. Kyle(talk) 02:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Needs a blurb without peacock terms. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Needs sourcing to mainstream news. Formerip (talk) 10:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose no indication as to the significance of this, and certainly not in the news, perhaps a good DYK candidate. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. The most high profile "news" source I could find was New Scientist: [72]. Hardly a front page grabber? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • As you wish, guys. Some more mainstreamy sources above. The significance may not have been picked up by all the news media, but the hundreds of papers predicting the properties of boron buckyballs attest to the level of interest. No, it may be that the problem that Kyle (the article creator) mentions above may be holding back the news. I don't know. I also don't know if this is as significant as B80. In any case, if it is not posted, I don't mind. Abductive (reasoning) 17:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Significant news and I think we'll start to see more stories about it over the next day or so. Such as Nature, Science News, Scientific American... Gamaliel (talk) 21:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, an interesting science story, encyclopedia-worthy. The article is a bit thin on the content, though. --Tone 08:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Tentative support, that is. --Tone 19:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment the article tells me very little more than the blurb. What can I do with boron buckyballs? Will they provide me with a robot army or a BB cream inspired by gene science that defies the seven signs of ageing? Belle (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I have to say this was my first major issue, what's the big deal here? Outside of the nerdy community who have been looking forward to this being "discovered"? It's not a Higgs Boson, it's another form of Boron, but as Belle alluded to: so what? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't think only Higgs Boson-type science stories are appropriate for ITN. But anyway, as long as the article is as short as it is at the moment, I'm not in favour of posting either. --Tone 19:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
        • I think you missed and misrepresented my point. Higgs Boson is a fundamental scientific discovery. I don't see anything telling me why another variant of Boron is going to change my understanding of the universe. Do you? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • If this were to go on ITN, it would really need more meat in the article (otherwise it is too difficult to get anything out of it). Currently, there isn't even an image of the molecule. Nergaal (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Costa ConcordiaEdit

Articles: Costa Concordia (talk, history) and Costa Concordia disaster (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The cruise ship Costa Concordia is refloated thirty months after she ran aground and sank at Giglio, Italy with the loss of 32 lives.
Alternative blurb: ​The cruise ship Costa Concordia is refloated thirty months after she ran aground and sank at Giglio, Italy.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Mjroots (talk • give credit)

Both articles updated

Nominator's comments: The most expensive ship salvage operation ever undertaken. Significant point in the operation. --Mjroots (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose This was previously posted previously posted when it was righted, under the rationale that it is the most expensive salvaging operation. While interesting, a play-by-play of the salvaging for this ship does not need to be posted, especially considering that an item related to the salvaging was already posted. SpencerT♦C 20:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This sort of operation has not been undertaken on this scale before, so refloating the vessel is a notable step in the whole situation. We could wait to post until it begins its transit to Genoa for scrapping(which will be in the news), too. 331dot (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. per Spencer. Rhodesisland (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I can see both sides of this debate. The refloating is the largest ever attempted, but the righting (which was correctly chosen to be ITN) was much more difficult and innovative. This event is going to be more routine. Abductive (reasoning) 01:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
If the refloating is the largest ever attempted, then the same will probably be true of all the other steps of the process (?). So the record may be neither here or there, unless we are proposing to have regular updates. Formerip (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Right. As I recall for the debate over the parbuckling, the consensus was that the parbuckling was the crucial step and it was still borderline for ITN. So this step is less important. Abductive (reasoning) 18:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support I think the re-floating is potentially worthy, but I do think that we should drop the with the loss of 32 lives from the blurb as it's not relevant to this story. CaptRik (talk) 07:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I've no objection to the proposal to shorten the blurb. Mjroots (talk) 11:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support Spencer makes a very good point, but what leans me to support is that both linked articles are really pretty good, showing off some of Wikipedia's quality and being useful and informative for our readership. Pedro :  Chat  09:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per Spencer. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Don't feel this is significant enough and related items have already been previously posted. Gamaliel (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Female bishopsEdit

Article: Ordination of women in the Anglican Communion (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Church of England votes to allow women to become bishops.
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: Matty.007 (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Allowing women to become bishops in the Church of England is quite contentious (put mildly) Matty.007 16:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose. There have been female Anglican bishops for a while. This is just about England. Formerip (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Sigh, here we go again: "Please do not complain about an event 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." Them's the rules. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
It's poor guidance and it should be ignored pretty much always. This is just one particular Anglican province taking a decision already taken by most of the others (according to our article). This obviously reduces its importance. Them's the realities. Formerip (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, anyone might think they started the whole thing. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
That guidance surely can't mean that we have to treat national firsts the same as world firsts. If we post a world first technological achievement, for instance, we don't have post the first time it is done in every other country. Neljack (talk) 04:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Who said anything of the sort? It simply means don't whinge about stories that affect one country, e.g. mass shootings in the USA. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Formerip made the point that this wasn't a world first, as it had happened in many other Anglican churches. You then quoted that guidance. Neljack (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
...which has nothing to do with national or world firsts.... Your collective points? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, a major development. Nsk92 (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, pending article cleanup. Definitely a major development, but I spotted a redlink and some sections in need of proper inline citations. Challenger l (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I corrected some and removed some red links. Actually I don't think they ought to have counted against posting (we can have red links in an FA). -SusanLesch (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - The CofE is the Anglican Communion's mother church. This opens the way to the entire Communion one day being led by a woman. This is big news - it was the lead story on Euronews last night, for example, as well as all over the BBC. Tagesschau covered it prominently too, I think. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support and I'll try to help the article. A fine positive development for a church that was ready to split apart at the seams over gay bishops. Good work, Anglicans. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Also we have a wonderful photo by Jonathunder. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Not really. The picture does not illustrate the news. It rather illustrates that there already are female Anglican bishops. --RJFF (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Right. From the Daily Beast, "Women can already serve as bishops in the U.S., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand." And soon they can in England, too. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: The Anglican Communion already has female bishops and even the primate of one of its member churches is a woman (Bishop Jefferts Schori). I understand that the Church of England is not just another member church, but the "mother church" and the Archbishop of Canterbury is the nominal head of all Anglicans, but the Anglican Communion is not organised in a hierarchical way (unlike Catholicism) and this decision is only relevant for one of its member churches. --RJFF (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • RJFF, the Church of England is "not just another member church" and then it's only "one of its member churches"? May I suggest the article Anglican Communion for anyone who'd like to oppose this. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I may have expressed myself inaccurately. The Church of England is a member church (or "province") of the Anglican Communion, but it has historically a special position, being the origin of Anglicanism. So yes, it is only one member church out of several, but not just any member church. Therefore I oppose posting this, but not strongly. (I strongly welcome the decision, but that's not the question.) --RJFF (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with the other opposes. Neljack (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. A significant milestone. Gamaliel (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support this is a very big deal for the Church of England (England's established church) and this news, like the previous rejection, has been heavily covered in the news. It may not be as significant as if the CofE was the first to do it, but even within the Anglican communion it is still a big thing for the CofE to take this decision. BencherliteTalk 22:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose according to the Wikipedia article for the Church of England, this is one insignificant step in a multi-step process :

On 20 November 2013, the General Synod voted overwhelmingly in support of a plan to introduce women bishops, with 378 in favour, 8 against and 25 abstentions.[30]

On 14 July 2014, the General Synod approved the above plan to introduce women bishops. The House of Bishops recorded 37 votes in favour, two against with one abstention. The House of Clergy had 162 in favour, 25 against and four abstentions. The House of Laity voted 152 for, 45 against with five abstentions. [31] This legislation has to be approved by the Ecclesiastical Committee of the Parliament before it can then be finally implemented at Synod in November 2014.

— Church of England, Wikipedia
70.26.175.67 (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No need to shout, my friend. The website of the Church of England says what you are calling an "insignificant step in a multi-step process" came to a vote and failed to pass in 2012. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, you raise a good point - the legislation still requires the approval of both houses of Parliament (and the Queen). So perhaps we ought to wait - we don't tend to crystal ball-gaze on the likely outcome of legislation that still has to be considered by Parliament. Neljack (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Church legislation routinely gets the nod from parliament, and has done ever since the Synodical Government Measure. Approval from both houses is just as much a rubber stamp as Royal Assent. That goes double as the leaders of all the main parties have endorsed this move, and it brings the church's law closer into line with secular employment law. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Neljack, I'm not opposed to waiting for Parliament but I hope then you will help argue the other side. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like a bad deal in the absence of any sign to the positive. I continue to think the Church of England decided to stop discrimination against women and that that is a big deal for any church. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Marked as ready. Arguments for this hold water, arguments against are simply "it's only England" or "I agree with the other opposes", neither of which are suitable opposition arguments. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

July 13Edit

Portal:Current events/2014 July 13

[Posted] RD: Nadine GordimerEdit

Article: Nadine Gordimer (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: The Rambling Man (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Nobel Prize-winning author and prominent anti-arpatheid activist The Rambling Man (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support article looks decent and the awards are a good enough reason. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 13:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: Notable without doubt, and the article is in a very good shape, too. --RJFF (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD. CaptRik (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD, internationally respected. One of July's RD people, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Obvious choice, should be posted immediately. Gamaliel (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Thue (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Slovenian electionEdit

Articles: Slovenian parliamentary election, 2014 (talk, history) and Party of Miro Cerar (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Party of Miro Cerar, led by Miro Cerar, wins a plurality in the Slovenian parliamentary election.
Alternative blurb: ​The Party of Miro Cerar wins a plurality in the Slovenian parliamentary election.
News source(s): [73]
Nominator and updater: Tone (talk • give credit)

Article updated

One or both nominated events are 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.

 --Tone 09:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The numbers are there. I'll add some more reactions but otherwise it's good to go. I'm not posting, since I'm the nominatior (obviously). Regretfully, no available photo of Cerar at the moment. --Tone 15:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Question: I see "The Party of Miro Cerar ... is a political party" in the Party of Miro Cerar article but "Party of Miro Cerar won..." in the election article. Shouldn't 'Party of Miro Cerar' have an article in front of it in the election article? (e.g. "The Party of Miro Cerar won the election...") SpencerT♦C 21:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, ITNR, plus an election with a rather unexpected result. Either of the two blurbs suggested is fine by me. Nsk92 (talk) 03:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Ready: ITN/R and significant expansion of prose, reflecting the news. Thanks to the updater! --RJFF (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Germany wins 2014 FIFA World Cup FinalEdit

Article: 2014 FIFA World Cup Final (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 2014 FIFA World Cup Final concludes with Germany beating Argentina 1-0 in extra time, winning for the first time since the end of German reunification in 1990
Alternative blurb: Germany wins the 2014 FIFA World Cup after beating Argentina in extra time, while Miroslav Klose becomes the top goalscorer in the Cup's history.

Altblurb II: Germany beats Argentina 1–0 to win the FIFA World Cup.
News source(s): USA Today, Bloomberg
Nominator: Ktr101 (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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.

 Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support per WP:ITN/R. -LtNOWIS (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Obvious support, but I think 2014 FIFA World Cup Final should be the article nominated. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Think we should lose the current Klose blurb and maybe mention Mario Götze in this one (because it would give us an image to use). Formerip (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I think it will be knocked out anyways, to prevent too much coverage. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support of course... Good to link German reunification in the blurb; we have to many people around that only learned about this in school.... L.tak (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - obviously. I am surprised that the news has not already been posted.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Congratulations, Germany. Easy front page headline. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 21:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support.- Its one of those news items which does not need to be "nominated", it should be added automatically..--Stemoc (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support posting, but neither blurb works for me. Just mention the win (eg altblurb1 up to "extra time.") Obviously then the World Cup ongoing should be removed at this point. --MASEM (t) 21:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that would be better. Or, better still, we could leave match commentary to the article and just end on the word "Argentina". Formerip (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Mentioning the game went to extra time implies (favorably) that the match was close, thus indirectly noting well both teams played. It doesn't hurt by its inclusion. --MASEM (t) 22:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
How about:
  • Support but prefer alt. Nergaal (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Obviously blurb should include the score, Germany 1 Argentina 0. Sca (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The 2014 FIFA World Cup Final article contains just one sentence in its Match Summary section. One sentence! -- tariqabjotu 22:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support once article up to scratch it needs to be up there now. I know WP:NOTNEWS and all that, but people will expect it to be there! As for the blurb, does the end of German reunification really make sense? Maybe it was an ongoing event but generally people just talk about it as a single point in time.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    • PS - the "alternative blurb" does not work because "Germany wins..." doesn't scan in UK English. There teams are always plural so it would be "Germany win the 2014 FIFA World Cup". In my experience we usually go for constructions like the first blurb, partly to avoid having to choose between different WP:ENGVAR alternatives.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
      • It's not that NOTNEWS, but that we've been burned by rushing stories before. Article quality has to be there too. There's no question this will be posted soon, but people need to step up to get the article into postable shape. --MASEM (t) 22:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
      • @Masem: That's true. I've checked again and the article lacks almost any description of the match itself at present! Unfortunately I am not able to contribute myself at this time, but no doubt it will have lots of prose soon :) Amending my above call for immediacy in light of that. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
      • @Amakuru: It was actually ongoing at the time, as economic reunification occurred a week before they won the cup, but full reunification didn't occur until October. I added it into the hook because it is the first time that a reunified Germany has won the game, as opposed to half of it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Altblurb 2 proposed. Klose's record was already posted and the blurb should be as simple as possible. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Altblurb II — Agree with Fitzcarmalan. Keep it simple, do it now!   Sca (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb 2 which communicates the key information in a succinct manner. Neljack (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Altblurb2 still has the ENGVAR issue, so it should probably be a truncated version of the original blurb. Formerip (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Let's form an expert committee to discuss it. Decision due in one week.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)> Sca (talk) 01:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb 2 K.I.S.S.  dainomite   01:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Simple blurb in line with our usual sports related blurbs.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Get on with it. 7 hours after the final of (arguably) the World's biggest sporting competition, and Wikipedia front-page still has a story about the semi-final that took place 6 days ago :-s - You're losing your touch. 88.104.28.11 (talk) 02:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. Went with an abbreviated version of the first blurb to try to get around the ENGVAR issue. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I have edited it even further to resemble the format used in 2010,[74] and thus remove the link from the "ongoing" section. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Can the Klose blurb be pulled now? Abductive (reasoning) 02:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I left it alone since there didn't seem to be a strong consensus to either keep it or nuke it, but I wouldn't mind either way. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Any word on the score?   Sca (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 
Germany lifts the 2014 FIFA World Cup - please bring this on instead of the Klose pic! Thanks.
  • @Current picture: Hi! While the photo of Klose certainly made sense after the record up to the final, we have a WC winner now. I think it's time to exchange the Klose pic with a match winner photo. Would you please update with the photo to the right? -- Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    • This suggested photo isn't suitable at 100x100px. –HTD 16:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 
Schweinsteiger raises the 2014 World Cup trophy
      • Hi. I just resized it to 100x100 and can't see what you mean. It's the most suitable final photo we have on Wiki so far. It's far better than having a Klose portrait up there, that doesn't make too much sense. If we need more contrast or focus, this picture of Schweini could be an option, but again, just having one player for such a tremendous team effort is sort of flawed. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
        • I know it's a team effort. But 100x100 thumbs aren't made for pictures with more than two people, much less an entire football team. In North American sporting parlance we would've went with a pic of Messi but it'll make even less sense if that happened. –HTD 17:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with HTD, it's a great photo if you click on the thumbnail to see it fully, however there's little discernable detail in 100x100. CaptRik (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

How about this version (left): The team captain holding the cup. I think it is quite discernible, even at 100px — at least the situation: people holding a golden cup and celebrating. --RJFF (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

  Agree with the version of RJFF, it's perfect! Could someone please install this cropped image? It's not like this is "current news" forever. ;) Thanks! -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Picture swapped, thanks for the crop. Stephen 23:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Excllnt pic. (Uncropped, it even has Merkel at far rt.) Sca (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
FYI: Wikis in the following languages/countries, in their versions of ITN, include the score — D F NL S N PL CZ RU H. Sca (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Pope Francis declares 2% of the Catholic Church clergy to be paedophilesEdit

No consensus to post.--Tone 09:09, 14 July 2014 (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: Pope Francis (talk, history)
Blurb: Pope Francis is quoted that he believes 2% of the Catholic Church clergy are paedophiles.
News source(s): BBC, Time, The Independent, The Daily Telegraph
Nominator: The Rambling Man (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: A most unusual turn of events. Just yesterday we had a former Archbishop of Canterbury supporting assisted death, now the Pope has intimated that 1 in 50 of his clergy are paedophiles. Does Wikipedia have the stomach for such a ground-breaking admission and disgusting statistic? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This seems to be a notable statement especially coming from the leader of the Catholic Church. 331dot (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Time says The Pope also allegedly said that one in 50 members of the clergy are pedophiles, the BBC is for some reason blocked for me right now, is it an alleged quote as well? From further down the Time article it says it is a recollection from a reporter who did not take notes, even the wording on the translation from La Repubblica is awkward, and reads more to me like 2% of pedophiles are priests, rather than 2% of priests are pedophiles. I would support with a firmer source, but the wording of the sources seems a little ambiguous for me. --kelapstick(bainuu) 18:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I will support the actual number that the Pope stated. Whatever that is. Seems to be conflicting numbers.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: which article would this appear in? Also, we don't want to post if not sure: the BBC says "a Vatican spokesman said the quotes in the newspaper did not correspond to Pope Francis's exact words", sounds iffy. Thanks, Matty.007 18:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: alleged quotes do not constitute a "breaking admission" in my opinion. If the same remarks were made much more openly, in a more public context, then I'd certainly reconsider. And the current tag is ungrammatical ("quoted" should have "as", not "that"...) Brigade Piron (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Ok, hook grammar aside, the fact that this is being noted in major reliable sources doesn't move your opinion? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Statement of opinion. On the other hand, if this was a declaration to improve the Church in regards to this issue via a large new initative, that might be something. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In this case, a statement of opinion by the leader of the Catholic Church about his own Church. Some opinions are more notable than others. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Statement of opinion"? From the head of the Catholic Church stating that he has reliable information that 2% of his clergy are paedophiles? How is that "statement of opinion"? Another cover up appeals to some people I guess. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
If you go off the blurb above, it reads as a statement of opinion. The BBC source still has the Pope as the only source (there are studies, but if they exist what are they?) But even if it was fact, it's just "Oh, okay..." - without any statement of what they are going to do about it it's just a factoid, and not ITN. (And by no means do I support the Church at all in this. I just don't see this as an ITN story.) --MASEM (t) 21:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I suppose to some people, the fact that 2% of their priests are child molestors isn't a story, nor is the fact that the Pope has declared as much. Goodness knows what makes an ITN story in your world, I certainly don't want to know what it takes. And of course, you're not simply writing based on the blurb, are you? You've read the numerous reliable sources linked above, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm fully aware of the significance of the fact of the 2% claim - it is a frightening number, but that's not the issue with my oppose. At this point, it's not a story by just stating a fact (one that has no evidence beyond an internal report). There is potential for a story if the Church follows through vowing to actually do something about that number, or talked about this revealing they had taken steps already to cut back this number. But just stating a number without firm plans of what they are going to do is basically goodwill for press coverage, but not meeting our ITN. --MASEM (t) 21:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We already knew this. Gamaliel (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    • You knew the Pope had admitted that evidence supported the fact that 2% of his clergy were paedophiles? Amazing. Who's going to win the World Cup, and be quick, you have about fifteen minutes... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Your sarcasm detector is broken. Gamaliel (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Looking at the BBC source quoted, there is much more discussion if he has actually said it, then what he has said... Furthermore, I have no idea if this is a high number and thus wether it is ground breaking; lastly, the term paedophilia is often taken synonymous with child abuser, while paedophilia refers also to the desire as such; so we might suggest something that was not conveyed (some may call it a "disgusting statistic for example, without looking at the meaning)....... L.tak (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am not going to even go into the referencing, but the whole hook seems a bit sensationalist and subjective. Having him being quoted for thinking that there is a number is much different from a study concluding this fact. There is nothing to suggest that this is in fact a truth, and even if the Pope says it, that does not mean that we should be putting it on the main page. As L.tak stated above, using the term "pedophile" is also subjective, because it has many different meanings in different countries. There are many things that are wrong about the hook, but that does also not mean that we shouldn't ignore the idea and put it up should this ever become a truth. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. According to Wikipedia (which should always be taken at its word on controversial matters) "the prevalence of pedophilia...is estimated to be lower than 5% among adult men". Maybe the Pope is actually boasting about how relatively uncommon it is among priests. Formerip (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'll assume good faith as regards the OP, but public chatting and the result of an actual study or an infallible statement ex cathedra are quie different things. What's next, comment on which side the bishop parts his hair? μηδείς (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose 2%? seriously, it should be in double-figured, lets wait for a 'scientific' number...--Stemoc (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not that big in the news. If the Pope "is quoted" that "he believes" clerical marriage, same-sex marriage or anything similar that is controversial in the Catholic Church are, for example, not considered 'sins', then in that case it would be much more ITN-worthy than something we already know about. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This seems rather similar to the fuss last year when the Pope supposedly said that half of Catholic marriages were invalid (a much more extraordinary and shocking claim) - the statement is not public, there is a lack of clarity over what he actually said, and it appears to be a simple assertion without any evidence to back it up. Neljack (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2014 (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: Lorin MaazelEdit

Article: Lorin Maazel (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Times ABC News
Nominator: Fitzcarmalan (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Clearly top of his field and formerly a child prodigy. This is all over the news right now. --Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support if a proper lead section is written. Gamaliel (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: Top stature in conducting realm TLA 3x ♭ 00:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Good lead, article in very good shape - his performance history reads like a who's who of orchestral music of the past half century. Challenger l (talk) 06:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support, a leading figure in his field with a long and varied career. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Anybody who knows anything about classical music knows that he was at the top of his field. --79.76.127.101 (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Ready to be posted: Clearly a top figure in his field. No problems with the article, either. --RJFF (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

July 12Edit

Portal:Current events/2014 July 12

[Re-posted, as an addition to the Final item] FIFA World Cup ongoing stickyEdit

  • Please add back the FIFA World Cup ongoing sticky link to 2014 FIFA World Cup. ThaddeusB (talk · contribs) removed it here. Although it is linked to the article "FIFA World Cup" in the main section, there is no link to the article "2014 FIFA World Cup". Was there consensus to remove this? Please readdin time for the finals tomorrow. Thanks, 184.146.105.71 (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support without criticism of ThaddeusB. It was arguably logical to remove it, but the argument for retaining it is stronger, IMO. Formerip (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. per FormerIP. Rhodesisland (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose while the tournament hasn't finished, it only has one match to go and doesn't need a sticky for that. This is unlike the earlier part of the tournament with three or four matches happening per day, with the results determining the progress of the nations in the competition. There will be a full ITN blurb for the winner in a few hours time too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support since the 2014 FIFA World Cup article is not linked in the blurb and the World Cup is such a big event. Neljack (talk) 09:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • readded. Thue (talk) 10:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-reposting oppose - Just post the end results, as per ITN/R. The current blurb on Klose could be bumped and updated to give emphasis to the champion. A sticky seems pointless now, and would potentially mitigate posting a blurb for the finals. - Floydian τ ¢ 10:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I have removed it again, to combine it with the results of the final. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

July 11Edit

Portal:Current events/2014 July 11

[Posted to RD] RD: Tommy RamoneEdit

Article: Tommy Ramone (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC
Nominator: The Rambling Man (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American musician, founder of The RamonesThe Rambling Man (talk) 08:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Strong Support Article looks properly sourced - the Ramones helped give birth to a whole genre of music. ONE TWO THREE FOUR! Challenger l (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Still thinking, but leaning oppose. He was a member of an influential band, but I'm not sure I'd necessarily consider him an influential drummer. In my mind, this is somewhat analogous to the Jeff Hanneman nomination, which I opposed. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and Challenger. Hey ho, let's go! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Influential musician as a member of the band. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support for RD, would even support a full blurb but I don't see that easily going through. --MASEM (t) 13:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Last surviving original member of a highly influential group, none of whom, alas, proved Too Tough to Die. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm getting tired of seeing ITN feature seemingly every rock-n-roller or Hollywood actor who dies, while declaring that people from other walks of life (such as political leaders) aren't worthy of attention. This isn't the Online Encyclopedia of Popular Culture. --Orlady (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Then you should nominate those individuals or add better rationales to their nominations instead of picking at something you simply don't like. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Quite, I'm getting tired of people whinging about RDs that aren't posted when they make zero (ZERO) effort to address concerns and then oppose a nomination based on a personal grudge. Thankfully this kind of !vote will be entirely disregarded as it has no basis in policy or guideline relating to this process. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Well New York City really has it all? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose no influence on industry, Name a band or player today where people say, now that sounds just like the Ramones!. μηδείς (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Did you want to write that again in English? You're saying "The Ramones had no influence on the music industry"? or are you saying "Tommy Ramone had no influence on the music industry, because he was just the drummer"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC) p.s. [75]
      • Comments like that, when sincere, belong on my talk page. In the meantime I've fixed the typoso0. μηδείς (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
        • It was three questions. All perfectly sincere. Still no idea what you mean. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Opppose Does not meet any of the death criteria. He is not considered a very important drummer, manager, nor producer in the history of rock. No accolades other than RRHOF entry, which is shared with another drummer. Teemu08 (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support He was the last surviving member of a very influential musical group. Definitely worthy of being on the RD line. Andise1 (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
    • What about the still living Marky Ramone? He was the drummer for longer, and his article says "classic lineup". Tommy only drummed for two years. Abductive (reasoning) 18:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, he gets half the page views of the other founding members of the group, leading me to the conclusion that he was not as important. A read of the other members' articles shows that they received many more accolades and critical praise than Tommy. Abductive (reasoning) 18:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Please demonstrate where "page views" form part of the RD criteria. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
      • If the RD criteria were applied strictly in this case he could not be posted. Since the supporters here have deviated from the RD criteria, I am forced to deviate as well. Abductive (reasoning) 18:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Well played, so create your own criteria? That's really going to work well for you in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
          • Page views are not my own criterion. Page views are a useful tool to help assess the level of interest in a particular topic. The criterion is "interest", which is mentioned repeatedly on WP:ITN. Abductive (reasoning) 16:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, extremely influential band. I'd guess Ringo gets fewer views than Lennon, McCartney and Harrison. But the drummer no less essential in any rock band. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Ah, but Ringo is getting over 13 times the page views of Tommy over the last 90 days. In fact, Ringo is getting more page views than the Ramones article. Abductive (reasoning) 18:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Not sure what that means exactly. But Great to see Ringo getting lined up for RD so early? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
        • What it means is that Ringo and the Beatles are not a fair comparison. Abductive (reasoning) 18:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't see the comparison. Ringo also had a successful solo career. A better comparison might be Charlie Watts of The Rolling Stones, who would also be (in my opinion) borderline. -- Scorpion0422 20:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Um, I wasn't trying to compare drummers. I was trying to compare drummers to lead guitarists? But yes, Watts is a better example (.. although he's actually younger! and he's lasted more than four years....) Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD, but oppose for blurb. As someone who actually saw the Ramones play in a small hall back in the day (my daughter is v. envious), it's notable that their cultural significance now - both in terms of T-shirt sales and apparent musical legacy - is greater than it ever was when they were performing. So, his death is significant enough to be mentioned in RD - but not really as a main blurb. And I count as a fan. Now I guess I'll have to tell 'em that I got no cerebellum. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support original member of an influential band which was very popular, and still is. Danrok (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral. IMO, the borderline runs right through this nomination. Formerip (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support - iconic figure in the punk movement of the 1970s. Celebrity and musician deaths are posted because these are what we consider 'notable people' by our own policies. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral I wouldn't have a single problem with him getting an RD mention, but I also can see the argument for not posting him. I think musicians whose main notability is being a member of legendary band merit inclusion, but they have to have some kind of significance to the band itself. In other words, they have to do a lot more (manage, write songs, be a behind the scenes leader) than just play their instrument. As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), Tommy was probably number 4 in notability of the original four. -- Scorpion0422 20:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
    Not sure if you read his article, but Tommy did all of those things. Besides being the original drummer, he was their manager for many years, both while playing and after stepping down as their drummer. He produced several of their albums, and wrote their signature song, "Blitzkrieg Bop" along with many other Ramones songs. He was not an also-ran, or minor figure in the band. He didn't have the force of personality that a Joey or Johnny did, but not being a public face doesn't mean he wasn't a central figure in the band. There are drummers who were just drummers, but Tommy basically did all the other stuff that keeps a band going (booking gigs, managing the books, writing, producing, etc.) especially in the early years before they could hire other people to do that stuff. Without him, it's not hyperbole to say that they'd have never made it out of their garage. --Jayron32 04:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Edvard Shevardnadze would have met posting criteria even if we'd hidden 4/5's of his article. Ramone bro? No. μηδείς (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Is that another new method of assessment? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Your constant carping and Wikilawyering about fellow editors' good faith attempts to participate in debates and to gauge the value of these nominations makes you look bad. Abductive (reasoning) 19:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
        • An accusation of "constant carping and Wikilawyering" makes you look a little worse, I fear. I'm not denigrating comments, just challenging them.Martinevans123 (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment marking as ready, we have a strong consensus for posting, an article which is decent enough, and putting aside the few bizarre "abstract" comments that don't seem to make much/any sense, there's little preventing this being posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
    There's another 'ready' RD below btw.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Denigrating other editors' comments makes you look bad. Everybody here is operating in good faith. Those of us in the minority are all saying the same thing; this person doesn't seem meet RD criterion 2: "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." The debate is about the meaning of "very important". Abductive (reasoning) 19:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
      • What you've said is simply untrue several times over, but never mind, I'm not at liberty to discuss such matters. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Clearly a leading figure in his field. Gamaliel (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD Stephen 07:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: John SeigenthalerEdit

Article: John Seigenthaler (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): USA Today, New York Times
Nominator: Kaldari (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American journalist, writer, and political figure. First Editorial Director of USA Today. Recently had a bridge named after him. Also Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incidentKaldari (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support if for metareasons if nothing else. Seigenthaler is the reason WP:BLP exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.223 (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, once more of it is properly sourced. True, there are not any tags, but there are quite a few claims made without citing sources. Challenger l (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
That's hilarious. The Seigenthaler article is not properly sourced? Abductive (reasoning) 21:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I tried to improve it a little bit. Any help would be appreciated. Kaldari (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator and anon. A long lasting impact on Wikipedia and much more besides. 82.132.245.78 (talk) 22:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems to be DC1 (for the influence on Wikipedia) and DC2 for his journalism work. 331dot (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for his significance as a person and in the history of Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment if people supporting this believe the "influence on Wikipedia" is significant, then why isn't it mentioned in the lead of the article? Let's not get carried away with navel gazing. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD. It Is Me Here t / c 21:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Have yet to find a single source from UK or Europe on this death. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Yep, three things, (a) what Martin said, (b) posted incorrectly by a part-time admin who clearly doesn't understand the RD section of ITN, (c) claims of significance by way of being related to Wikipedia are simply stupid. This isn't "items related to Wikipedia that are in the news". I've replaced the item he erroneously removed, but I'm not going to remove this item from RD as it has decent "support". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose He was a journalist. One time he did something Wikipedia related. I fail to see what makes him one of the heads in his field, and none of the supports address why he meets the RD criteria. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 16:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

July 10Edit

Portal:Current events/2014 July 10

July 9Edit

Portal:Current events/2014 July 9

RD: Ken ThorneEdit

Article: Ken Thorne (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6157435/ken-thorne-oscar-winning-composer-dies-at-90
Nominator: Wirenote (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Oscar winning composer. Wrote a lot of other award-winning compositions. Article needs to be improved a bit, but it wouldn't require a Herculean effort. --wirenote (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose instead of needing to be "improved a bit", the article needs to be "written". So far off main page quality right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Notable enough, but as TRM said, it's not even an article yet - I've read longer things wrapped in fortune cookies. Challenger l (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

RD: Eileen FordEdit

Article: Eileen Ford (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): New York Times
Nominator: Jinkinson (talk • give credit)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: She founded Ford Models, a modeling agency which, according to the New York Times (see link above), "became the top agency in the world." Also, "It elevated the modeling profession into a serious business with $1 million contracts, represented thousands of beautiful young women, and created a market for “supermodels,” a select handful who could command enormous salaries for their looks." This, in my view, seems sufficient to pass WP:ITND criterion 2. --Jinkinson talk to me 19:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak supportgiven borderline status ans total lack of competition at this point. 19:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose with ten [citation needed] tags. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] AngaraEdit

Article: Angara-1.2pp (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Russia successfully conducts the maiden flight of its Angara rocket
News source(s): BBC, RIA Novosti
Nominator: WDGraham (talk • give credit)

Article updated

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: Maiden flight of a major new series of rockets. Maiden flights are ITNR anyway, and this is one of the most significant of recent years as it is intended to replace most of the current Russian fleet. --W. D. Graham 19:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support article is in decent condition, no reason why this shouldn't go up post-haste. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted - agreed that quality is good and notability is established by ITN/R. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
big bang theory Hollywood mrons can make fun all they want...but NASA just keeps biting the dust...sanctions indeed?Lihaas (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Lihaas. Stop it.--WaltCip (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment "complete" is a transitive verb. "concludes successfully" would be better if you want to go with the posted formulation. Belle (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    I replaced "completes" with "is completed" yesterday, but the wording was changed back today. I just applied your suggestion. —David Levy 18:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    Thank you for completing (ba-dum tish) Belle (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Quantitative EasingEdit

An indication of something that may happen some months in the future is not ITN. Clearly no consensus to post, already starting to get silly. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2014 (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: QE2_(monetary_policy)#QE3 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The U.S. Federal Reserve indicates that it will end its program of quantitative easing this October.
News source(s): [76]
Nominator: Skydot (talk • give credit)

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: This is major worldwide economic news. --SkyDot (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No comment on whether this is notable enough for ITN, but we should post the event itself, not the decision/announcement. Wait until October. --W. D. Graham 18:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WDGraham. The Fed has a reputation for dithering on its stance on ending QE.--WaltCip (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Fed monetary policy significantly affects the value of the US dollar, and that dollar is used worldwide as one of a small number of international currencies. QE has been going on for so long that news of its end is newsworthy. The end of QE will affect much of the world population over the medium to long term. Since Fed meeting minutes are published, but Fed actions are done in secret, waiting until October may not give us an "event" to point to. Besides, markets are reacting now. SkyDot (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Markets react to news all the time and generally regain from short-term losses. The DJIA is trending upwards from its 180-point drop earlier today, and is now only down 50. This isn't even the biggest drop I've seen in a while, and most of the investors are discussing concerns with one of Portugal's largest banks rather than the end of QE.--WaltCip (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, too nebulous an "event". Also fails my "could they make a documentary about it?" test. Abductive (reasoning) 18:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Can we clairify whether this will be in time for the November elections or not? μηδείς (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2014 (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 8Edit

Portal:Current events/2014 July 8

[Posted] Brazil v GermanyEdit

Articles: Miroslav Klose (talk, history) and Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup) (talk, history)
Blurb: Miroslav Klose becomes the highest goalscorer of the FIFA World Cups.
Alternative blurb: Miroslav Klose becomes all-time record scorer in FIFA World Cup finals.

Alternative blurb 2: Germany set a number of association football records by beating Brazil 7–1 and Miroslav Klose breaks the FIFA World Cup's goalscoring record.
Alternative blurb 3: Miroslav Klose becomes all-time top goalscorer in FIFA World Cup finals during Germany's record win against host Brazil.
Alternative blurb 4: In a shock result at the FIFA World Cup, Germany beat Brazil 7-1, their first home defeat since 1975.
News source(s): Guardian, BBC, Yahoo
and many others
Nominator: Nergaal (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Since 1958, the top goalscorer has changed only 3 times (last time it happened in 2006). He has 16. Asides from Muller, the closest active player has 6, so record doesn't look like it will be broken again that soon. Klose could score more in the final, but he will remain the record-holder. Nergaal (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm not formally opposing yet, but we generally do not post sports records(especially for a single tournament or competition, as opposed to the sport as a whole). Is this being covered in the news? 331dot (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
There are already many news articles on it. The difference with other single tournament or competitions is that they receive nowhere near the coverage and viewership that the World Cup does. By comparison, for Olympics we post opening, closing, and a few WRs; yet for the World Cup we only post the winner - which in my opinion is hugely underrepresented. Nergaal (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support. An important record. It's not true that we "generally do not post sports records". IIRC, ITNR used to have a (quite poorly worded, and rightly removed) guideline that we should post all significant sports records. Formerip (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Used to have" means that we don't currently, so that has little bearing on this discussion. I admit that my view is based only on my personal experience here; I've seen very few nominated and posted. 331dot (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Not so long ago, we posted a record in cricket to do with Sachin Tendulkar, for example. We also posted a marathon world record last year and we posted a couple of records set at the London Olympics. We also post pretty much any record to do with auctions and natural history without thinking twice. Formerip (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Point taken and accepted, though there is a difference between sports and news. This is "in the news", not "today in sports". We should tread carefully and ensure that these records are heavily covered(perhaps even outside of the sports page), though that seems to be the case here. 331dot (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, the cricket record was for ODIs only; and there was also some Messi seasonal record of goals posted a few years ago. Nergaal (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not First off the competition isn't over yet. Unlikely, but possible for this record to be broken again in a few days. Second, enough soccer records. Most goals in a season? In a calendar year? In a club competition? Soccer has so many random contests around the world that someone somewhere is breaking some record or other. If this goes up, it should be at the end of the contest. NHL MVP was a "by the way", this can be too. Enough soccer. Enough. --166.205.66.225 (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Disruptive comments with the IP.
If NHL final would happen every 4 years and if it would receive the same amount of interest WROLDWIDE then I would be fine with posting that. And if you did not read the nom, this record is not handed out yearly, but it happened 3 times in the last 56 years. If you get MVPs at a rate of 1 per 18-19 years those MVPs will definitely word being posting those. Nergaal (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Here we go, the tired old "It's the most popular sport in the world" excuse which was used to prop up Mesi scoring the most goals in a calendar year, and Mesi winning the Balloon Hors d'oeuvre, despite no other sports award being posted. The DE wiki hasn't bothered to post this. The 2010 world cup had a record number of competing nations, and the 2006 world cup had Klose set a scoring record then, and Ronaldo scoring a record number of total world cup goals. WOW! A WORLD CUP THAT SET SOME WORLD-CUP-CENTRIC RECORD!!!! WHAT A SURPRISE. Don't post this idiotic item please. --166.205.66.225 (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
So by that rationale we should not post NHL winners because they are NHL-centric? Should we post rock throwing records because how popular the sport is is irrelevant? Nergaal (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Who said anything about winner? Certainly not I. Of course will will post the world cup winner! What should not be posted as a separate blurb is this tidbit of world cup trivia. There is a record set in every world cup. Should we post rock throwing records because how popular the sport is is irrelevant? I'm glad you acknowledge that the popularity of a sport is irrelevant to the amount of attention it receives, and I look forward to you changing your !vote to oppose. --166.205.66.225 (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Can you please read and understand what I am saying before trolling this page? Nergaal (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying. "It's the most popular sport in the world. No other sport should be compared". Then you put up a ridiculous straw man comparison (NHL winner vs FIFA scoring "record"), and get all upset when I call you out on it. --166.205.66.225 (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Your words "the tired old "It's the most popular sport in the world" excuse" imply that popularity is irrelevant for a sport-related ITN entry, implying that an amazing rock-throwing record could be posted since the sport lacking any popularity is completely irrelevant. Secondly, if a WC-centric record is not surprising, then a NHL-centric winner, where the winner can only be from a narrow set of teams in North America, is similarly unsurprising and should similarly be shut down. Q.E.D. Nergaal (talk) 08:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Of all the matches in the tournament what makes you this that one is worth specifically worth highlighting? See my comment below about sports stats. If a plyer stops to retie their bootlaces a record number of times in a match is that ITN worthy? 3142 (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Here are all the records broken in this match. The catchiest include:
  • Germany has now the most World Cup goals (221).
  • Germany scored more goals tonight than England have in their past two World Cup campaigns combined.
  • Most goals scored against the World Cup's host nation.
  • Brazil (supposedly football's all-time champion) has never let in 7 goals at home throughout its history.
  • And many more..
That is why I think it is "specifically worth highlighting". Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Breaking the record for highest goalscorer at the FIFA World Cups is notable achievement which has not been attained very often in the past. The record may be marred by Germany's epic victory tonight but it still finds its place in the media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This strikes me as more sports stat than record. For a start the whole assertion of notability is restricted specifically to the World Cup making it a tournament record as opposed to a world record. The second point would be that it's a team sport and therefore individual "records" such as these are premised on an unequal playing field to begin with - if you're the best player in the world but in a crap team you may not even qualify to become eligible for this "record". Even if your team does half the teams that qualify go home after three games while the ultimate top four have seven games in which to exceed any given target which obviously makes that target an easier goal. Finally, and as noted by the IP above, this could yet change again in the next few days. Possibly one to be merged into the final results blurb but not as a standalone item. 3142 (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Not really, since Michael Phelps won a good bunch of his record medals in team events where he had to rely on 3 other teammates. Even if the record number changes in a few days, the record holder will still be the same (that is why I left out the number). Plus this entry can be merged with the final in a few days. Nergaal (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Phelps's record was for number of medals won, not a record for performance in an event itself. 331dot (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
And this is about the number of goals scored, not about Klose's performance in a particular match. Nergaal (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
What I meant was that this is about his performance itself, not about awards he has gotten for it. Very different. 331dot (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Goals ≠ performance. Nergaal (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
He scored goals without performing? Wow, he must be good to do that. Traditionally one must participate in a soccer match and perform to score a goal. 331dot (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
wp:pointy? A goal is the result of performance the same way a world record is the result of performance, and last time I checked we are posting world records. Nergaal (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per 3142. This is a tournament record, not a world record. If desired, it can be posted when the winner is posted, as 3142 suggests. 331dot (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
By that rationale, why did we post Phelps record medals? Wasn't it a tournament record, including team events? Was it technically a world record? Nergaal (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Nergaal. The case with Michael Phelps is a very strong precedent on why we should post this one as well. The Olympics are far more popular event than the FIFA World Cup but we should scale down to include this as well due to the immense popularity that the record receives in the media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or indeed WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. 3142 (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
As I said above, Phelps's record was about the number of awards he has gotten for his performance, not the performance itself(as is the case here). 331dot (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
To add, there are soccer games happening all the time, and there have been better records - the FIFA-only count is less than other records, and thus not as significant. In the case of swimming, there are only a handful of major events that involved multiple swimming contests, the Olympics being one of them, so the record being broken there is much more meaningful. --MASEM (t) 02:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Could you please give an example of some "better records"? And there are plenty of swimming events, including essentially every developed and developing nation having national competitions (some swimming WRs were broken at the Australian national trial-or-something) — you are not aware of them simply because they lack in notability compared to the Premier League.Nergaal (talk) 08:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems a rare enough record, unlikely to be broken in the near future. This seems on par with Miguel Cabrera's triple crown, which we posted back in 2012. Not every anything needs be posted, but this one record this one time seems important, rare, and newsworthy enough to be posted, IMHO. --Jayron32 00:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Even more disruptive comments with the IP.
It literally happened two world cups ago. The "56 years" is also typical soccer chest thumping. One tournament every 4 years, 14 tournaments. 3 records in 14 tournaments, or 1 every 4.5 tournaments, and it starts to sound a lot less amazing. Try to get a perfect game in baseball, which happens on average every 3 seasons (2012 was a record on it's own), and it's "waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa American bias". So again, "56 years" utter garbage. It's 3 times in 14 tournaments, the last one just 2 tournaments ago. Seems likely to happen all the time. --166.205.66.225 (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
You do realize that by badgering everyone who thinks different than you do, it weakens your own position considerably? --Jayron32 02:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I do, and I'm pretty well over it at this point. It's funny, I didn't watch the game, or read the highlights, but when I saw the score I knew it had to be some record or other and that there would be a blurb nomination here, so I pass by and sure enough it's here. It's utterly pointless and futile to try and stop a soccer nomination: "it's the most popular sport in the world". That's the only thing which seems to matter. ITN is the death and destruction board, with a heavy dose of sport. I'm a little surprised there isn't some European political squabbling to overflow the list. I don't regret leaving this project, and am sorry I stopped by. I'll come back and oppose when someone nominates the most shots on net blocked while facing the sun on even numbered Saturdays during a fortnight since some bloke did it back in 1961. Because futbol. Sigh. --166.205.66.225 (talk) 03:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
comment/context we posted phelps' record DURING the olympicsLihaas (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • If you look at news sources, this isn't the leading World Cup news at the moment - that is Germany's record-breaking victory over Brazil. On the other hand, it is a major record. So perhaps Fitzcarmalan's suggestion is the best - combine them in a blurb. We could easily tack on something like "in Germany's 7-1 semi-final victory over Brazil" at the end of the blurb (and I'm sure the blurb could be made a bit more succinct if length is a concern). Neljack (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
    To be clear, I support a blurb that mentions the Germany v Brazil result but oppose otherwise, since the extraordinary semi-final is the bigger story in my view - a view that appears to be shared by the news media and public. Neljack (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This will be a long lasting record of large significance.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support because it is a record on goals, what matter, in the World Cup, when matter most. Also put actualization-expantion on Sunday when WC end--Feroang (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support combining this with the result of the final, assuming Klose is still the record holder. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Suspect too long to wait until Sunday. But we'd expect to post final result? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Why not? ITN has been receiving very few updates in the past month, and most of them have been war-related. Nergaal (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - combo blurb Notable achievement in football gaining worldwide coverage and Brazil's heaviest defeat in any competition makes it ITN worthy. Suggest wording, ...in Brazil's heaviest defeat, Miroslav Klose becomes the record World Cup goalscorer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.38.153 (talk) 06:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support posting it alongside the result of the final so that if we mention a number it will be after he's had a chance to score more. Oppose mentioning the semi-final result as that story on its own is not ITN-newsworthy. CaptRik (talk) 07:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
We posted Bjorndalehn's record before the last of the Olympics event he took part in (he failed to bum his record in his last event). Don't remember if we did the same for Phelps. Nergaal (talk) 08:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
[[77]] Phelps nomination for reference, couldn't see it above. Looks like we did post that separately from the main Olympics closing post although it's clear it was heavily debated. My opinion is still that the record breaking on its own is not a strong enough story as a standalone news item and also having 2 football items up at the same time gives undue weight to the sport. CaptRik (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support combo blurb only that includes the article Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup) as well. Mainly because it's not baseball, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support combo blurb - Huge achievement that will likely stand in several years to come. Heymid (contribs) 08:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Klose (as it is an all-time tournament record) but oppose mentioning the 7-1 defeat of Brazil, because otherwise we'd be setting the bar too low for future nominations (This is X-land's record defeat, This is X-land's record margin of victory, etc). Post it now, and assuming the blurb is still up there when the competition is over and posted, combine the two. BencherliteTalk 09:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I am counting 13 supports and 3 opposes. Of the supports 1 is "weak", 2 are for waiting for the final and 4 are for (some only) combined blurb of the score. What sort of consensus does this count as? Nergaal (talk) 09:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, if Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup) were to be linked once it reaches ITN-worthy quality, then the blurb could be along the lines "Klose becomes goalscorer during a record-breaking game agains Brazil." Nergaal (talk) 09:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Good point. I'd certainly support that. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
You already have, to be fair - a few lines up! BencherliteTalk 11:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
This has a real blurb? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
That article looks in fairly good shape to me. I suppose the problem in terms of consensus is that some people (including me) support a blurb that mentions the semi-final but oppose one that doesn't, whereas others support a blurb that just mentions the record but oppose any mention of the semi-final. Something along the lines of your suggested blurb sounds like a reasonable solution, however. Neljack (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Also can we not say "FIFA World Cup finals", as the altblurb does? The use of "finals" is ambiguous here - people who aren't very familiar with the World Cup might take it to refer to goals scored in the final of a World Cup. Neljack (talk) 10:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Altblurb 2 proposed. If anyone feels it should be trimmed or adjusted, please feel free to do so. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Added an explanation of what tournament you were talking about, although I still oppose mentioning the game itself. BencherliteTalk 11:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Altblurb2 is simply too long. By the time I got to the end of it, I'd forgotten what the beginning was. It also has the jarring ENGVAR issue of Germany being in the singular. Formerip (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've made some minor adjustments to it. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not opposed to any of the three blurbs but I personally think Klose's record is all that needs to be mentioned here. There have been many equally or greater lopsided results in WC history. Yes the 7-1 demolition of Brazil is getting lots of press now, but Klose's record will remain in the books for many years to come and be a subject of conversation for a much longer period of time. Thus my preference is for the original blurb.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Apart from the scoreline, this was Brazil's heaviest defeat ever and this will remain in the books for an even longer time than Klose's record. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
    • It's not the a record defeat for the world cup (a semi final maybe but that's a very narrow record category). Brasil is just one team. Miroslav Klose's record is for all players.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Brazil is not just a team and Klose's record is only tournament-specific, while the national team's records in this match are not necessarily about the World Cup. He only scored 16 goals so far and even La Liga and Premier League goalscoring records can be more significant than this one. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support combo (altblurb2) Breaking a single record isn't noteworthy, but taken all together, this match and the many record-breaking instances will be what the 2014 World Cup will be remembered for for decades, much more than who might win the finale. – sgeureka tc 11:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This was an important record. And it is not a local record as well. It is a world wide record and seems unbreakable. This must go in the news. Jim Carter 12:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb now — Keep it simple. Klose's record will be old news by Sunday. And for a 36-year-old, it's a fine career achievement. Pic. avail. Sca (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Tally I see something of a 16-3, with the 16 being split among what to put in the blurb. Can some admin put a blurb up and then alter it depending on addiitonal comments? Nergaal (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't see the harm in waiting a few hours more, it's not been 24 hours since the match and clearly there is still discussion and opinions surfacing. It's not a race :) CaptRik (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose any of the current blurbs, but would support one that notes the number of records GER broke on the match (of which would include the individual record) (eg a variant of alt2). The social media "noise" for the match itself is much much louder than the individual record at this point, being the highest-talked about match on twitter and other services due to how many records were broken. Note that if this is the case, the blurb should mention this as the semi-final match since the cup isn't over yet. Should GER win the entire this, I would then include the individual record as well at that time. --MASEM (t) 13:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
just psot it the way we did phelps' recordLihaas (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose It would set a unfavorable precedent to start posting blurbs about sports games that are not the championship games. One could argue that there are already too many sports items listed in the ITN as it is. --Tocino 14:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I would say the match itself is significant enough to warrant posting, as it has been described by a number of sources as the most shocking World Cup result ever; it is also the most tweeted sports game of all time. As long as the article is in good shape I would support posting it. It has ramifications in sport as well as in politics. A number of articles on prominent newspapers have commented on the 'aftermath' of the game and its implications and not necessarily the game itself. I am opposed to posting Klose or any other such records from any sport. Additionally, "FIFA World Cup" is already in the 'ongoing ticker' so adding either story may well be redundant. Colipon+(Talk) 14:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The World Cup has been "ongoing" for a month now, we're about to get the ITN/R posting of the champion, enough is enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the Klose record. As the game wasn't the final, I don't see any reason to include it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.223 (talk) 15:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. First, everybody in the world who follows the Cup is already aware of this, and that's one or two billion people. Second, the ongoing tag is plenty for people who are looking to be updated. Abductive (reasoning) 17:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, we should really keep our World Cup blurbs limited to the result of the final unless it is something really, really extraordinary (Like Brazil losing an elimination match at home by a six-g—oh, wait. Never mind; they've been humiliated enough already). Daniel Case (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support alternate 4, mentioning the match only, possibly alongside the fact it's their first home defeat since 1975. The Klose record, and all the others it set are almost footnotes to what the manner and magnitude of this defeat really signified to Brazilian society and world football, in the opinion of experts such as Tim Vickery - the complete and total shaming of an entire nation, whose sense of pride and very national identity is indivisible from the reputation and performance of its football team. It's not hyperbole to describe this as the shock of the century as far as world football goes. For those who perhaps don't get football (soccer), the impact of this result would be comparable to the USA losing by all-time record scores to the next best countries in Ice Hockey, American Football and Baseball, all in the same year, and all at world championships being held on US soil. The Wikpedia article on the match just doesn't even come close to doing it justice. The result of the final will be meaningless by comparison, even if it's an amazing game. MarkBM (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. At the end of the tournament we should say: 'X won the FIFA World Cup at the end of a tournament in which.....' The Klose record will be worth mentioning, but certainly not individual results which are simply not very important (unless you're in Brazil). Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Not important? BBC Sport have turned out no less than 12 stories on this shock result, and I doubt they get much readers from Brazil. Just one of them is the Klose record, not making it any higher than 5th on the page. The final will get perhaps half that level of coverage, even less if nothing exciting happens in the game. The only way the final will get massive coverage, is if Argentina are in it and they win by a large margin through a brilliant footballing performance, and obviously that will only be in large part because it will merely heap even more humiliation on the hosts, given the huge rivalry with their neighbours. MarkBM (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Posted - There is consensus support for Klose's record. Whether to post the match or not is less clear, so I am including it in the blurb, but not bolding it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
    • That's a mistake. You really need to read the coverage to see how that just doesn't reflect the nature of this news - the Klose record is getting far less coverage than it would usually merit, and "a match in which several records were set." takes away all the actual significance of the result, which is every bit cultural and emotional, than just merely statistical. MarkBM (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
It's just a game. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Tell that to the players involved in the 1950 game. According to experts who know a bit about South American football (as opposed to internet trolls like yourself, who don't), the shame of that defeat stayed with them for the rest of their lives - they were effectively shunned by society, and even though they're in their old age now, some even still feared for their physical safety. Which kind of puts this result into perspective, given what reports like http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-28223461 are saying. MarkBM (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:NPA, please. And it's just a game. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Stop trolling. It's not big and it's not clever. Either say something that shows you understand what the significance of this particular match was (and then perhaps give a rational argument as to why it's not important enough to be called front page news on Wikipedia), or say nothing at all. MarkBM (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean football, or voting on Wikipedia? Formerip (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Support all the arguments raised so far by User MarkBM. Colipon+(Talk) 19:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
comment we cant have ongoing ADN a blurb. Also , chronologically , Klose should be on topLihaas (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Fixed & fixed --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ThaddeusB is blaming the extremely poor way this has been presented on the news page, on everybody here who referenced the record - apparently this is the consensus, and reality on the ground means nothing. So, as a last ditch attempt to get this fixed, I am going to appeal to you all - if you genuinely believe the Klose record is the story here, and the match was so relatively unimportant it isn't even necessary to mention the teams or the score, let alone anything else that would give the non-expert some idea why the footballing world has gone crazy over this game, can you please present here the name of a newspaper, or a TV bulletin, or a link to an internet portal, where the Klose record was the lead element. It cannot be the case that something so obviously wrong like this, can just be ignored. On my own TV coverage, which has just started to cover the 2nd semi, they still haven't even mentioned Klose, and we're 15 mins in now - and clearly it's not going to be mentioned, they've already moved on from talking about the Brazil shock, to tonight's game. MarkBM (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
    Please don't put words into my mouth. I didn't assign "blame", I assessed the consensus and acted on it. Since I don't see the consensus as wrong, I certainly am not "blaming" anyone. What we really have is one very vocal person (you) disagreeing with the consensus. You are certainly welcome to disagree, and also free to try to change consensus, but as it stands now that is the consensus. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
    I don't have a clue what you mean when you say consensus, not in this context. Can you please explain, in simple English words, how it makes sense to present this news, in this way? You bet I'm disagreeing with it, and vocally, because as it stands, it's just a monumentally stupid error. It's beyond belief that anyone could think that Klose's record is the story here. If you don't see this as wrong, then surely you can explain to me why my view is wrong? Surely you have some way of demonstrating to me that it makes any sense, any sense at all, to be presenting the Klose record as the single most important element of this news, so as to not even mention the names of the teams? I mean seriously, have you even read a newspaper, or looked at the TV or online news, before doing whatever it is you did to come up with this decision. It's incomprehensible to me. MarkBM (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In fact, don't bother. In anticipation of a non-reply type reply (or even better, just being completely ignored), I'm off. I'm hugely angry that I've missed the first 15 mins of the other game, on something so ludicrous as trying to persuade people here that Klose is not the lead in this story. It's just beyond obvious. Whatever it is you're smoking to believe it is, despite that view being in complete and total contradiction to the output of the entire world's news media (including Germany, for crying out loud), for your own sakes, lower the dosage. Crazy, just crazy. MarkBM (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
You're the one who cases so much about the game that you chose to spend those 15 minutes arguing with strangers on the internet rather than watching it. You may have some good points, but I'm finding them hard to pick out of the walls of text and the personal attacks. Please especially refrain from insults about people's intake of medication; it's really unconstructive.
Thaddeus et al, please reconsider - I think mentioning the competing teams and the scoreline in the blurb would be better if it could be managed. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I'll chose to bother. Consensus means weighing all the arguments made and making a decision that best represents all points of view going with the stronger arguments when there is irreconcilable disagreement. See WP:Consensus for more information. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
    From where I'm sitting, consensus means sticking your fingers in your ears, and ignoring reality. There is no argument that can be made that the only news here is the Klose record, never mind a strong one, so whatever it is you think you've read from all of the above, it's a fantasy. An example of a strong argument is 'I've read a newspaper/seen a TV/read an online news outlet'. An example of a weak argument is don't post the result, because "we'd be setting the bar too low for future nominations" - and this was the first argument I even found that was explicitly against posting the match result. By the time I reached that, two or three people had pointed out the obvious, that the Klose record was the minor story here. So, from here, it sounds like your idea of consensus is to pick the stupidest argument offered (don't post this most humiliating/shocking/embarrassing/unexpected result in history, because they happen all the time). MarkBM (talk) 23:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I would just say it would be preferable to say "in the semi-final of the World Cup" or similar, rather than the currently nebulous "in a match in which several records were broken". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Agree with RM — the phrase "a match" seems needlessly (and oddly) vague; suggest making it at least "a semifinal match" or perhaps "a semifinal match July 8." Sca (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Why not Miroslav Klose (pictured) becomes the all-time top goalscorer in FIFA World Cup history during Germany's record-breaking victory over Brazil.? You don't need to mention the World Cup again, it's already in the blurb. And don't go into specifics of what records were broken, since there were so many - I think it's fair to describe it as a record-breaking victory. 86.148.83.0 (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I added "semifinal". Several people said they desired the record-setting aspect of the match to be mentioned, so that is why I included that. I know it is slightly wordy, but I'm not sure it is 100% accurate to say "record-breaking victory" or similar as the win itself was not a record. It works informally, of course, but I'm also not sure the informal usage captures that several records were set - it might be seen a reference back to Klose's record. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you'd have a better chance at creating something that makes sense, if you bothered to actually read a newspaper? Only in your mind are they talking about "a semifinal match in which several records were set." at all, let alone as some kind of footnote to the major news, Klose's record. Everybody else can see that they are reporting about a shock result, in which Germany comprehensively beat Brazil 7-1, inflicting their first home defeat since 1975, in what is being widely reported as a shameful humiliation, a landmark point in their history and a touchstone event in world football (which as someone correctly pointed out, sees records of all kinds being broken all the time). The reality is, if you bothered to open your eyes, Klose's record isn't even the second, or even the third most significant thing about this result. Whatever process you think you used to make it the main point of the story, in reality you basically made it up MarkBM (talk) 23:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

And by the way, if the final is as uneventful (nee, boring?) as the 2nd semi-final just was, does anyone here seriously believe that outlets like the BBC are going to be churning out TWELVE separate stories on it? Is there going to be anything in that reportage that remotely refers to things like national humiliation or historical landmarks? Whatever logic is being used to argue that the news of this shock result could wait for the final, or that somehow the Klose record is the main part of it (despite it being just one of those twelve stories), it isn't grounded in reality at all. Not one bit. MarkBM (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment And lo, the soccer record went up. Just like the coach from ManU (Alex something?), someone showed up out of no where to angrily berate everyone who opposed the nom, and in this case, even to berate the poster for not posting enough of it. This is why soccer news should be ITN/R. It's always posted, after upsetting a lot of people. Interestingly, neither the German, Spanish, French or Portuguese Wikis posted this story to their main page ITN sections. Only the EN (and NL) wiki decided after 24 hours of raging debate to post breaking a soccer record. This, for the "most popular sport in the world". It's really time to re-evaluate this absurd argument, and the depraved devotion to otherwise insignificant bits of sports trivia, over hyped due to soccers popularity, when most of the other large wikis can't be bothered to do it. --166.205.66.146 (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
So wait... let me get this straight... You don't like this? Because I am starting to sense that a bit... --Jayron32 03:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
It's absurd, but inevitable. Either stop with the soccer records, or ITN/R it. Btw, this factoid got lost in an edit conflict: of the 9 wikis with 1000000+ articles (EN,DE,FR,NL,IT,ES,RU,SV,PL) only 3 (EN, NL and RU) posted this to the main page. Even the language of the host nation, PT, didn't bother.. I wonder if that is a blurb worthy soccer record. --166.205.68.17 (talk) 03:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
This news isn't about a record, it's about the massive cultural/historical impact this shocking and humiliating defeat has had on Brazil and the wider footballing world. Sure, some people here seem determined to pretend this isn't the case, that it's really just about some dumb-ass scoring record, but it really isn't. So you're not a football fan? Well, if there's ever been a similar event in whatever minority sport it is that you love, feel free to share it, so I might ponder if it would be posted. The idiot above who said "It's just a game" is apparently a cycling fan - which makes me wonder if he had a similarly glib response to the news that Armstrong had finally admitted to doping. That would have made Wikipedia's news room, surely? MarkBM (talk) 04:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Out of curiosity, why has Nergaal been singled out as "disruptive" when explaining why some comments were hidden? After reading the hidden comments, that seems to me to be a slightly non-neutral assessment. - Tenebris 04:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Suggest revising the blurb: I certainly do not endorse the language that user MarkBM uses to advance his points but there are some things that we ought to consider - there are many, many newspaper articles from all over the world written about the loss and its multitude of effects on Brazil. Very little news coverage has been about the Klose record. There is no comparison here. As such the current blurb, which seems to have been revised to dilute the match's historical importance in favour of Klose's record, seems awfully unbalanced and amateur, unbecoming of the front page of one of the world's most visited websites. Colipon+(Talk) 20:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Question to consider. I think there is something here that needs to be considered. If Klose had broken the record in a more ordinary match, would the record be posted? I think it would have been, in the same way we had a blurb six months ago for Ole Einar Bjørndalen. If Klose had not broken the record in this match, do you think the match would have been posted simply because of its result? I do not think it would have been, even though it seems like the more important story. I cannot recall a sports post at ITN ever being made just because its outcome was surprising. The other records that were broken in the match were not notable in themselves: it was the general nature of the victory that made them notable. Ultimately, it is easy to write about an obvious record like Klose's, but harder to analyse a match in such a way. For example, if it had been the final match, I am sure it would have been posted because Germany won the tournament, not because she won it so amazingly. As much as I sympathise with MarkBM and agree that the result is of more interest, I am not sure it means that the result should be posted. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Moot point. The consensus agreed with posting the item. Time we all moved on. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Did you read my post, The Rambling Man? I was actually agreeing with what has been posted and what has not been posted. I was trying to close the discussion by focusing on MarkBM's concerns. As I wrote above, I sympathise with him, but I disagree with what he is requesting. I hope you have just misunderstood this, because I have come to respect your viiews very much over time. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Having struck my oppose above, and having thought about this issue, I feel compelled to say that I would have much preferred a blurb about the game, with limited or no mention of the individual. Abductive (reasoning) 21:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Can't really have one without the other? One of those goals was Klose's. Although two other players scored twice - perhaps more remarkable. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
      • It's a matter of which one is emphasized; the team, Klose, the score differential... To me, the story is one of the Brazilian team failing once they lost those two players. Abductive (reasoning) 22:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Yes. For Brazil, one of their two worst losses (equalling their 1920 6–0 defeat to Uruguay), their worst-ever defeat at home and breaking their 62-match home unbeaten streak in competitive matches. It's a wonder Klose got a look in really. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Israeli military responseEdit

Article: Operation Protective Edge (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Israel launches an offensive on Gaza following the killing of Israeli teenagers nearly a week earlier.
News source(s): New York Times BBC CNN
Nominator: Fitzcarmalan (talk • give credit)

Nominator's comments: Death toll is not significant yet, but this was clearly expected and the situation is still developing. I believe I have a green light to nominate this per the previous unsuccessful nomination relating to the Israeli teens' murder. The article, however, clearly has disturbing neutrality issues. This usually happens in newly-created articles about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Will try to address the problem tomorrow morning if no one gets there first. --Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support upon improvement. This seems a notable escalation, though the article should be fixed first. 331dot (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose yet another Israeli offensive. Nothing new here. My recent favourite moment of Mid-East hate-each-other news was a reporter saying "Israeli forces used tear gas to calm the riots". That always works for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support when neutralized. This is a significant escalation of the kidnapping+murder situation, not typical Israel-Palestine hostilities. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - this is a significant escalation of events even with israeli-palestinian standards.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support subject to the neutrality issues being addressed. An armed attack by one country on another certainly warrants inclusion on ITN. Neljack (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Major escalation.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
support per TaddeusB...and maybe an admin should neutrally nmonitor...I suspect some 3RRs would occur.Lihaas (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - This is a significant development, particularly in the wake of the new unity government and the peace talks breakdown 99.251.210.178 (talk) 06:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - The operation was not in response to the killing of the teenagers, but rather was in response to an increase in Hamas rocket fire. I support the inclusion of this article in the In The News, but the blurb should be more accurately worded. --PiMaster3 talk 12:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)