Open main menu

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.


June 30Edit

[Closed] Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores IncEdit

Consensus not to post; no need to waste further time debating it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:45, 1 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: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The United States Supreme Court rules that corporations have the right to be exempt from the Obama administration's contraceptive mandate.
News source(s): CBS News
Nominator's comments: This has been a controversial topic for months now, and so the resolution announced today is doubtless a pretty significant event. --Jinkinson talk to me 02:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This is a major ruling, and as stated, a source of considerable controversy. The article looks like it's in very good shape. I am seeing citations inline in every paragraph. Challenger l (talk) 04:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose This is all over the news but for reasons that people are being (appropriately, IMO) critical of the SCOTUS for putting corporation rights over that over a woman (add to that that the removal of safe zones around abortion clinics, and it can be seen how much negative reaction the court's gotten in the last few days) in addition to the word about how HL policies are gender-biased. It is comparable in nature to the locating of the three Israeli women below - it's a hotbed of news, but it's not really ITN-type news. It arguably does not have a very large impact - yet - compared to the passing of Obamacare at the start. Add in this being only a US ruling, there's very limited impact on it. --MASEM (t) 04:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am tempted by libertarian (not anti-gay)reasons to support this. But although the finding technichally invalidates the entire abomination of a statute, lacking a seperabilty clause, it will not be found that way, but be interpreted as applyning to a few freak stores run by families, and as grounds to overthrow the recent right to a gay wedding cake baked by christians. But it doesn't meet the French precedent, so is should not be published. μηδείς (talk) 06:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as misleading and lack of impact. The ruling states that, in this very specific case, the company is exempt from providing a _subset_ of contraceptives in the course of fulfilling its obligations under the statute. It does not invalidate the statute, nor does it exempt other companies from the same. The ruling _specifically_ states that other cases of this nature must be heard in court and decided on their merits, and thus _does_not_ establish this ruling as a precedent. This is not a landmark case. (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Major story with dramatic implications. Now becoming a global discussion topic. --Pete (talk) 08:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a pretty narrow decision.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:SNOW. There should never be place on the main page for trivial rulings with very little impact.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It's pretty much an ongoing situation that the largest western democracy still doesn't have a reliable public healthcare system, and that its constitutional secularism can't in practice defend its own citizens against religious discrimination. This is just the latest stumble. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per WP:SNOW.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Alex, Masem and the IP. The ruling isn't even that there's a constitutional right to an exemption; rather it's that a statute Congress has enacted gives them that right. From what I've read the practical impact is also likely to be limited, since the Obama Administration is expected to decide that the government will provide the coverage instead. When I compare this case to, say, the landmark judgment of the British Supreme Court on assisted suicide last week, or even some of the other cases the US Supreme Court has recently decided (on issues such as recess appointments and cellphone privacy), it doesn't seem of particularly great legal significance. Neljack (talk) 14:27, 1 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] Kidnapped Israeli teensEdit

Closing per WP:SNOW; No consensus to post this relatively minor event. 331dot (talk) 20:44, 1 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: Very significant development. Netanyahu vowed a tough response. --Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose pales into insignificance with all the rest of the mass murder all over the Middle East. Having said that, I'm sure this will gain disproportionate traction, and the article is in a (super inflated but) good condition should the story gain consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The kidnapping was a serious political issue for the past three weeks. Right now it is all over the news and this clearly signals rising tensions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Israeli government accuses Hamas, which is now part of the Palestinian unity government. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, I can't argue that it isn't "in the news" at all, but I just find this a little distasteful when dozens of Syrian and Iraqi children are murdered every day, yet the US and others get seriously exercised over three Israeli deaths. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • If you believe there are other important stories in the Middle East that are ITN-worthy you can simply nominate them. No offense, but opposing this on the pretext that other violent events in the region are not being posted looks like a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT argument to me. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • You can think what you like. I can't see this being anything more than further encouragement for Israel and Hamas to sabre-rattle, and for the US to come out to support Israel in spades. Nothing more. I know it'll get support because of our systemic bias, it'll be posted no doubt because we have such a massive US-centric readership, but in my opinion, this is relatively meaningless in the big scheme and I mean that with no disrespect at all to the deceased before I get a world of shit levelled at me. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I completely understand that, and systemic bias there is. But the story itself is clearly significant (not how many were killed) and has been a political headache for both sides since the kidnapping. Why are we so obsessed about the number of deaths on ITN? The Israeli government was scapegoating Hamas for everything bad that happens since the unity government was established and the Israelis rarely joke when they vow a "heavy response". Some Palestinians were also killed during IDF rescue raids during this crisis. In another development today, Hamas launched rocket attacks into southern Israel, which Israeli officials claim to be the first since Operation Pillar of Defense in 2012.[1] Also, Hamas warned that an attack on Gaza will "open the gates of hell" on Israel hours before the bodies were found. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree with The Rambling Man, opposing because of perspective is not WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Thue (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article infobox mentions 8 total deaths; the blurb should probably include this information if this were to be posted. SpencerT♦C 21:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • CommentRM has a point with respect to bias. On the other hand, this high-visibility atrocity could precipitate drastic action by Israel and lead to a spike in Arab-Israeli tension. Perhaps it's prudent to wait until an Israeli reaction is seen. Sca (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Systematic bias in coverage; if this leads to something larger, then we can talk about featuring it. --MASEM (t) 21:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Concur, if there is a major Israeli attack then that can be posted. Abductive (reasoning) 22:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now If the Israelis do something major in response (e.g. attack Gaza), that should be posted; if, on the other hand, it turns out that they're just sabre-rattling, then it's not worth posting. TRM is right about systemic bias - even leaving aside other conflicts in the region, Palestinian deaths are always grater in number but get less media coverage. Neljack (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Opppose Never again! 06:05, 1 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.

Ongoing: South SudanEdit

South Sudanese Civil War is ongoing, humanitarian crisis is tragic. We should post it as ongoing Lihaas (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support though it would be nice with some more recent updates in the article. Thue (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • So you think we should have a timeline section and/or article?Lihaas (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Deforestation in IndonesiaEdit

Article: Deforestation in Indonesia (talk, history)
Blurb: Deforestation in Indonesia became most extensive in the world, with 840,000 hectares lost in 2012.
Alternative blurb: ​A study shows that the rate of deforestation in Indonesia became the highest in the world in 2012, surpassing that of Brazil.
News source(s): Reuters, Guardian, SMH, The Hindu, Irish Times, Scientific American

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Here's a rather rare chance to feature environmental news. Also noting how a similar ITN candidate in 2010 hasn't been posted despite broad support. --ELEKHHT 01:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose arbitrary, unconfirmable POV-driven press release about a trend. Why not point out that the almost entirely deforested eastern US is no mostly reforested given the land is no longer so much used for crops and firewood? μηδείς (talk) 02:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Let me guess, you're the nominator. μηδείς (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I think it is a very good opportunity to bring attention to the subject on ITN through this recent development. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 06:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too vague, particularly with the unclear comparison to Brazil. It would have to be reframed as something like "A new study shows that Indonesia lost more rainforest than any other country in 2012." But this is just one study that contradicts current Indonesian and UN figures (and other studies), and I'm not sure that revised 2012 figures in that fashion are ITN-worthy. ToBk (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Not sure what's vague but please feel free to suggest alternative blurbs. I would have thought that academic journals are more neutral than governments. --ELEKHHT 15:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the story, oppose the blurb as given. Surpassing Brazil is presented as an arbitrary milestone here; if it's phrased in a way that makes it clear that Indonesia is now the world "leader" in deforestation that'd be a lot clearer to the reader. GRAPPLE X 16:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I amended the original blurb, and provided an alternative. Please feel free to edit it directly or make concrete suggestions as to how to improve it. I am not a native English speaker, nor a journalist, nor a frequent ITN contributor. --ELEKHHT 23:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
      • That works for me now. It now gets across that it's top of the list, rather than hinting at it without stating it. GRAPPLE X 05:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Grapple X, it's a notable story, but the seemingly arbitrary comparison to Brazil will miss most people's radar. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - clearly notable subject.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Agree that this is notable and ITN-worthy. Jusdafax 04:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, based on strong sourcing and definitely notable news. I am not sure a comparison to Brazil is needed, since it's now "the highest in the world." Challenger l (talk) 05:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 23:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • WTF? this might be worth an ITN slot, but the current blurb does not do a good job as to why is this relevant. By rate of deforestation I understand % not sq km. Somebody should find a better blurb. Nergaal (talk) 08:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Suggest you make a proposal and suggest you do it at WP:ERRORS as that's the correct venue for further debate about blurbs already published. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

June 29Edit

[Posted] Ebola outbreak in West Africa is now the most deadly in history.Edit

Article: 2014 West Africa Ebola outbreak (talk, history)
Blurb: The ongoing outbreak of the Ebola virus is spreading in West Africa, the deadliest in history with more than 350 casualties.
Alternative blurb: ​The West African ebola outbreak becomes the deadliest in history, with more than 350 casualties.
News source(s): (Washington Post)

Nominator's comments: This is important as it is the deadliest Ebola outbreak in history, and it is continuing despite efforts of the WHO and Doctors Without Borders to contain it. I feel this is more important as part of the news than the discovery of the smallest elephant shrew, for example. ¬ laonikoss (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - We last posted the Ebola outbreak in March of this year, when there were over 70 casualties. Since there are five times as many now, I think this is deserving of a repost. However, any future posting of the Ebola outbreak - if there is one - should be for a significantly higher figure.--WaltCip (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for Ongoing. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I nominated this a few weeks back and it was poo-pooed, but it's clearly a real issue and a genuinely concerning outbreak of a super-deadly virus. However, I would be tempted to include it as an Ongoing news item, rather than just a simple blurb (we had one of those a few months ago....) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
wo! another article I make reads history...Lihaas (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support blurb - as a major point in the story. I have suggested an alt, as the main blurb is rather long (and an outbreak is spreading by definition as long as new cases are occurring.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support blurb The fact that this is now the deadliest Ebola outbreak in history is well worth inclusion on the Main Page. Including this in "Ongoing" would not actually communicate this significant news to readers. If there are still regular updates in this story when the blurb comes off, it can be shifted to "Ongoing". Neljack (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Suggest we change "in history" to "known ever" or "recognized" in blurb
  • Posted Stephen 03:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is not well updated to reflect new events since this was last posted. For example, according to the chart, there have been a large rise of cases in Sierra Leone in the month of June, but I see nothing in the prose to outline these new events, or what the government might be doing in June to respond, etc. There seem to be updated for March-May, but nothing since then. Not suggesting a pull, but I wish the update quality of the more recent events would be considered before posting. SpencerT♦C 04:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
    Agreed, it is not updated. Suggest pull as even the "deadlist ever" fact isn't in the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
    Mea Culpa, that claim is now referenced in the article. Stephen 04:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Update needed The WHO puts the death toll at 467 as of today. [2] Blurb should be updated. [ ToBk (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
    • (a) this is why I suggested it should be in Ongoing (b) once an ITN item is posted, it's best to post these kind of request at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The Islamic StateEdit

ISIS has declared itself to be simply "the Islamic State" led by the first caliph since 1923. It has called upon all Muslims, especially militant groups, to recognize its authority. This is a significant development with the potential for deep international implications. Check out this Haaretz article for some details but be aware it's a breaking story

  • Wait - Let's see how things develop. I'm not sure how significant is the declaration regarding the crisis in Iraq. How will it change the course of the conflict? It is still disputed whether it is a real 'state' or not and the ISIS offensive is being halted by Iraqi forces as we speak. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Iraq updateEdit

The oil stuff is old news now. Apparently counter-terrorist operations are the topic of the day andit seems Tikrit is next scene. We should update the blurb. BloombergDW

Propose: Iraqi forces launch counter terrorist operations to retake Tikrit from ISIL Lihaas (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Commment, this seems more like a case for just going back to a "Iraq conflict" item in the Ongoing ticker. Abductive (reasoning) 14:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe wait for a day or so to see if Tikrit is actually recaptured; that'd definitely be worth a new blurb. (The current material is a bit stale.) Bouncing it back and forth between Ongoing and a blurb doesn't seem ideal, especially if we pull the blurb early to do so. (But maybe featuring events from a conflict like this for a shorter length of time in blurb form is okay. I guess we're still figuring out the best way to use Ongoing.) ToBk (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Ditto on figuring out ongoing...but seems like theyre advancing...and , as shown, multiple sources are saying soLihaas (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

June 28Edit

June 27Edit

[Posted] New mammal speciesEdit

Article: Macroscelides micus (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Scientists identify a new species of elephant shrew, named Macroscelides micus.
News source(s): (LA Times)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is the smallest species of elephant shrew yet found. It was identified based on physical characteristics (i.e. this isn't just a split based on genetic testing). New mammal species are rare - only 2 or 3 a year - and always worthy of posting IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Rodents are the least interesting slice of all mammalians. Nergaal (talk) 21:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
    Elephant shrews aren't rodents, but rather Afrotheria a clade that includes elephants, manatees, aardvarks, etc. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm okay with the state of the article now. This sengi is new to science, not some subspecies that has been known about for a long time. It would be nice if there was an image. Abductive (reasoning) 21:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support Interesting discovery, and a decent amount of media coverage. Not sure if new species are worthwhile unless there's something notable past just being new (and trivial stuff like being the smallest.) However, given that ITN still has the NBA Finals from 15 Jun due to an apparent lack of news, it couldn't hurt to post. ToBk (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Rodents are indeed the least interesting clade of all mammalia. μηδείς (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Interesting item for all nationalities. Article a bit thin but acceptable, but I agree that the article would be a lot better if it included a photo of this discovery. Though it is a small consideration in my reasoning, I also agree that the stale basketball finals being bumped would not cause any regrets on my part. Jusdafax 22:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Prepare for "A new species of elephant" (Or variations on the theme). Belle (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Could somebody expand on ThaddeusB's comment above about Afrotheria in the article, please. I saw a line saying they were more closely related to elephants than mice and took it for vandalism. Belle (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
While I guess you could say they are "more closely related to elephants than mice", that piece of information isn't really relevant. Plain old shrews aren't rodents either. Mice are. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I added a few words to explain it - since the animal is (accurately and helpfully) described as looking like a mouse, it is also wise to say it isn't closely related to one. (Besides, the RS love that angle so it should be at least mentioned on Wikipedia.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, and well explained in the article. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
At the time of the KT extinction most of the animals resemble mice or insectivores, with scaly tails, whiskered noses and rather "average" features for mammals. All sorts of mammals across most order have retained some form like this. The opossum, the mouse, the shrew, the solenodon, the tree shrew, the elephant shrew, the mouse-deer. In the past, most of these were lumped together as insectivores, but it turns out that three shrew is more closely related to human, the elephant shrew to the afrotheres, and the mouse-deer to the dolphin than any of there groups to each other. μηδείς (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

RD: Bobby WomackEdit

Article: Bobby Womack (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s):

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: Seems worth an RD based on his career and honors. Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductee. --wirenote (talk) 00:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

  • No way. I mean, support, but you're very lucky not to be shot for your message, Wirenote. Formerip (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support pending article cleanup and a bit more expansion on death. RRHoF inductee assures notability for RD. --MASEM (t) 01:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Needs some major referencing work. Easily worthwhile for RD inclusion when and if that is done. --Jayron32 01:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Some sort of actual rationale might help. At least with Anne B Davis people could say Alice? of course. Or Alice, no. Here we have policy quoted back. μηδείς (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality alone. Support notability as highly significant in his field, making news headlines around the world. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support after article improvement The kind of person RD was made for. (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
He wasn't in Womack and Womack. Formerip (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Well I say he should have been!! I mean, Cecil was his brother, after all. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Noted singer/songwriter. Article has improved in the past hours to an acceptable level, though it would be a good idea to get those cite tags fixed up. Jusdafax 22:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: Legend in his genre. Daniel Case (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Nationally and internationally important musical figure, and the referencing is now sufficient such that it should not be a barrier to posting. Chubbles (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment There are entire paragraphs of this article that remain unreferenced, including serious BLP issues such as the claims that a drug addiction caused the death of an infant. Those are the issues that mean this can't go on the main page. Stephen 04:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality grounds. Womack is certainly notable enough, but the article needs a good deal more proper sourcing than it currently has. Challenger l (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine–European Union Association AgreementEdit

Article: Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Ukraine signs the Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement
Alternative blurb: ​Ukraine signs the Association Agreement with the European Union
News source(s): Washington Post

Article updated

 Thue (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose based on confusing links in the blurb and a maintenance tag at the top of the target article. Support, though, on the significance. This is all over the news and is a good candidate. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb Also, shouldn't we include Georgia and Moldova who signed the AA today at the same place, at the same time as Ukraine? Why single out Ukraine? I know, Ukraine is a huge country and the recent events clearly illustrate its importance for both Russia and the EU, but I think Moldova and Georgia are also very important. But I'm not insisting or anything, just suggesting. --Երևանցի talk 20:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I actually forgot about them; though Ukraine is the most notable due to circumstances, it would make sense to include the others too. Thue (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support iff including Georgia and Moldova. All 3 countries are in similar tensed relations with Russia so singling out Ukraine is unbalanced. Nergaal (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Didn't we already post this a few months back? [3] This one is just the economic part of the agreement. It was more significant back then because it was during the Crimean crisis but now we already have the Ukrainian conflict in the Ongoing section. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Per Nergaal, I would only support this if combined with Georgia and Moldova. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support combined with the other countries. Neljack (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support under any other such circumstances this qould be posted without question, and if the fact this is under ongoing is a problem thenTAKE IT OUT OF ONGOING. μηδείς (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - The Ukraine agreement article has a lot of orange tags. The other two agreements don't appear to have articles. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The tags are all of the 'give more info' or 'fix grammar' type, it's probably just someone who prefers to place suggestions for article expansion in article space instead of on the talk page. Narayanese (talk) 09:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

June 25Edit

[Posted] Platinum strikeEdit

Article: 2014 South African platinum strike (talk, history)
Blurb: Platinum miners return to work after the longest strike in South African history ends.
News source(s): Reuters

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is an article I have been meaning to write for some time. I finally got it started this evening. I will do a lot more work on it tomorrow, but wanted to nominate now so there would be some chance enough people would see this and comment to form a consensus. (Sorry about the late nomination - it has been a very busy week for me.)

The strike was a massive story in South Africa - at or near the top of the news every day for months. The effects were wide reaching - platinum prices rose to a three-year high (SA produced 40% of the world's platinum) and the human effects in SA were huge. I even saw a story about pet populations being abandoned in mass because of the strike effects. (This isn't all in our article yet, but will be tomorrow.) This is a great opportunity to feature a seldom posted region (despite speaking English, SA is rarely mentioned around here) and topic (as you all know I have been actively campaigning for more business-related stories.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

  • The article is coming along. Guardian commentary calls this "the political story of the last year or so" in South Africa and says "20 years from now, when someone, somewhere, considers the moments that really brought long-term change to the South African political system, this strike is going to feature." If people chose to reject this, so be it , but it would be a real shame if it fails simply because no one notices the late nomination and offers an opinion... --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't care one way or another if this is posted, so I didn't comment. But I imagine that people see the outcome as some sort of sad, foregone conclusion. Abductive (reasoning) 20:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
    It could be that people just don't care, but I imagine it is mostly that few have seen this nomination. It's always hard to get enough comments to form consensus on late nominations. Of course, if you nominate w/o making the article first people oppose based on that. It's a real Catch-22. At least Wikipedia will get a nice article on an important subject whatever happens here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted, a late nomination that has failed to garner much commentary, however by that virtue it is also unopposed. Article is well written and referenced. Stephen 04:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
    A bold posting, thank you. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

RD Ana María MatuteEdit

Article: Ana María Matute (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s):;

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: Ana María Matute was a member of the Real Academia Española and only the third woman to win the Miguel de Cervantes Prize, the foremost literary honor in the Spanish-speaking world. --Gamaliel (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

  • By now you now how it works for me. A decent nom for RD but oppose on article quality. Needs some serious referencing until we post it or Arbcom mandate we do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I have no objection to objections on the basis of article quality, but while it's not GA material yet, this article seems to have sufficient references. I'm willing to improve the article but I'm not quite sure what you're looking for specifically. Gamaliel (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Ok, let me elucidate. We have sections such as "Awards and honors" and "Select list of works" (is that even grammatically correct?) without a single inline reference. I could tag the article but I was hoping you'd understand why I opposed. I'll add it to my ready reckoner of "reasons why ITN nominations fail". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I've integrated the five line "Awards and honors" section into the biography section and re-titled the other section "Bibliography". Gamaliel (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Suppose given her role as leader of the upper house of the Japanese Diet, Ambassador to the world's second greatest economy, and majordomo for the heads of state and government for 8 years. μηδείς (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I believe the above comment is in the wrong section, as it is about somebody entirely different. --Orlady (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Is Tennessee one of the three states that has not yet legalized the teaching of irony to minors? 03:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I think the referencing is passable (even that massive number I put in next to Bibliography. In fact I like that one best of all: it's bold and uncompromising, it's saying "Look at me, I'm big and I'm a reference" ) Belle (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Definitely notable enough - but the article is not much more than a stub. Challenger l (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Of what field is she near the top? Women who write in a particular language? A Nobel Prize, or some award without the language restriction, would help her nomination considerably. (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • It's just the second most spoken language in the world. Would a Booker Prize nomination also be invalid? Gamaliel (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose She does not satisfy any one of the three criteria at ITND. So, she should not be mentioned at RD.HotHat (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] Eli WallachEdit

Article: Eli Wallach (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): =

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: Legendary actor of screen and stage. --Challenger l (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Tuco support from me. Definitely a legend. Mjroots (talk) 07:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment clearly notable in my mind for RD, but the article needs further references, so it's an oppose at the moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: This man is a legend and very notable for a RD post. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • there are two kinds of spurs my friend...Support, clearly top of his field, long career to boot.--Somchai Sun (talk) 07:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: Probably one of the oldest ever (kirk douglas the other)...--Stemoc (talk) 08:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for RD: He won numerous prestigious awards in his career, so it should be a go on this one.HotHat (talk) 09:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support once article is in suitable condition. An actor of sufficient standing and reputation for RD. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - sourcing is pretty weak (multiple unreferenced paragraphs) and should improved before posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support pending article improvements as identified above. --MASEM (t) 15:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Clearly notable. Gamaliel (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I feel doubly terrible because I had no idea he was still alive and he appeared in several of my favorite movies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support It doesn't matter if his article is currently ugly as this is the ideal opportunity to engage people in improving it. We have a limited window for this and so should strike while the iron is hot. Andrew (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid you're completely wrong. It does matter, the quality of items on the main page has to be of a certain standard, unlike our DYK friends. Once we've got it up to scratch, we'll post it. Hopefully all these supporters will spend a little time improving the article they so want to see on the main page, you as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh no, not this discussion again. It is infinitely more productive to actually fix up the article than argue here that it should be posted in poor shape. ITN has a rule against posting poorly referenced articles and no amount of arguing is going to make this article an exception to that rule. If you think that rule should change, start a discussion on talk, but debating it here is pointless. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh yes, I'm afraid so. Since Arbcom got involved, this issue of posting garbage articles to the main page has become more and more popular. I would be happy to do that if the instructions said we could, and if people wish to change the instructions to allow us to just post articles on popularity without paying consideration to WP:BLP and WP:V etc, let's get that RFC up and running! In the meantime, articles posted to ITN will be well-referenced and without maintenance tags, and the sooner people, including our Arbs, deal with that, the better. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • What arbcom case are you going on about? --Jayron32 23:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I believe TRM is referring to the personal comments of one arbcom member who said Casey Kasem should be posted despite its low quality (at the time). --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • But what did that have to do with ARBCOM? I was not aware that a part of the requirements for accepting a position on ARBCOM was "members of ARBCOM must not express a different opinion than The Rambling Man in a public forum." --Jayron32
  • It was related to the idea that if we didn't do as this Arb wanted us to do, he'd do it himself. That's all. Now back to your box. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • There's some point in holding back breaking news when the topic is new and uncertain, such as Flight 370. But there's no reason for delay in a case such as this, where the facts of the matter are clear, the topic is long-established and all we're doing is putting a simple link on the main page. The Eli Wallach article got quarter of a million hits yesterday, before it was linked on the main page. People don't need the main page to find articles - Google will take them straight there. All we're doing in RD is recognising a plain fact. If we hold back because our article isn't spiffy then we're distorting our summary of the news for internal reasons and this is not WP:NPOV. RD is quite biased towards coverage of American deaths and these excessive rules seem to be part of the problem. They should be struck down and it is good that arbcom members support this. Andrew (talk) 06:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll repeat what I said to the Arb, if you want to actually do something about it then you'll need to formulate an RFC to change our instruction set to allow us to post material which has maintenance tags and potential BLP violations in articles which are under-referenced. So much effort is expended here whinging about the failure to post material quickly, yet little-or-no energy is expended on improving the articles in question, except usually by the ITN regulars, admins who work their socks off around here to keep the ITN section neat and tidy and prevent it becoming a laughing stock, much like DYK. So, you have a choice, do something or do nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Obvious RD material. I have just read the article, and find it decent for posting. There is a section tag, regarding referencing, that should be removed, as the section has numerous references. Jusdafax 19:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
    • There are several [citation needed] tags that you could help with if you really believe this to be worthy of the main page. It won't be posted until these issues are resolved, simple as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support It looks, as I scan over it, to be devoid of any major issues (no major tags, no need for them as far as I can see) and he's a legend in his field. An easy support. --Jayron32 01:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The article's been referenced. While it's not in the best shape I think it's suitable to go now. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD, with thanks to those that took time to reference to every citation needed. Stephen 01:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

June 24Edit

[Posted] "Like a Rolling Stone" auction recordEdit

Article: Like a Rolling Stone (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Lyrics of "Like a Rolling Stone" handwritten by Bob Dylan sell at auction for a record US$2 million.
News source(s): BBC

Nominator's comments: We don't post a lot of culture/entertainment news, but here is a good opportunity to do so. We have posted a variety of auction records in teh past and I believe this one will be a particularly strong interest and it is being well covered in major news sources. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. Kinda ironic that the lyrics to that song make so much. (But who was Napoleon?) Martinevans123 (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
You mean the one "in rags"? Go to him now, he calls you, you can’t refuse! Sca (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
yes, that's him, the one who inspired a band. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
And a video (Note: Be sure to use the up & down buttons.) Sca (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Trivia - compared with e.g. "Iraq update: Border crossings seized and Baiji oil refinery captured" below, this is not truly important news. Thue (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not yet decided on this, but there is nothing that says we only have to post warfare, disasters, and tragedies. Having some not-terrible news is a good thing. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, then compare with something positive, e.g. warrent now required to search cell phones in the US (and the US are often trendsetters). Some lyrics selling for $2 million is still trivial compared to that; there are many positive things happening which are not trivia. Thue (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
How many people across the world know the lyrics to this song? Yes, US artists are often "trendsetters" in popular music. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Everything is trivia to someone. 331dot (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
And yet, one of the basic ideas of Wikipedia is that we can objetively distinguish between what is important and what is not important, as seen on e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Is anybody seriously saying that some lyrics selling for $2 million is more important than 300 million people in the US gaining the right to not have their cell phones searched without a warrent? - I refuse to believe it. Thue (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
A prison population that large is definitely non-trivial. They're gonna take a lot of searching. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
This is not any more "trivia" than the dozens of other auction records we've posted in the past... ITN is not an "either or" situation - we can easily post this and Iraq and cell phone search warrents and more. It is also incorrect that AfD determines importance. AfD focuses on notability and notability derives from being noticed (covered in reliable sources), not importance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
AfD is a combination of being noted and being important - many subjects being kept are far less talked about than pop culture. As I have mentioned in previous discussions, I personally believe that being ITN worthy is about more than being noted in the news. Otherwise we would be posting all Justin Beiber's changes of girlsfriends. Thue (talk) 09:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Certainly many things are notable that are "far less talked about than pop culture". Of course pop culture items are also kept. When we are consistant, anything with significant coverage in at leats two reliable sources is kept. Of course sometimes people !vote based on their personal belief about a subject, ignoring the notability guidelines. And sometimes participation is insufficient to establish a subject is notable in spite of votes to the contrary. And rarely there are overriding issues that lead to deletion despite notability. But, AfD is fundamentally about notability which is not the same thing as importance. Equating the two only leads to unnecessary arguments, confusion, and poor decisions. (ITN, of course, does decide importance.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I also find it odd that you argue here that Iraq is important, yet haven't bothered to support it below. Likewise, feel free to nominate the cell phone story. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I thought it was so obvious that supporting it would just be piling on. But supported now Thue (talk) 09:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I'm pretty sure other historical documents have auctioned off for much higher. Abductive (reasoning) 02:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
    That is certainly true - the record is for music, not all documents. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
    It's too narrow an event. Remember, ITN is for events. Some handwritten lyrics could be categorized as poetry, art, or literature, but it isn't music. Abductive (reasoning) 21:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
    Try telling the people at the auction it wasn't an event. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
    "Narrow" doesn't mean nobody is interested. Abductive (reasoning) 01:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
    Sotheby's and the BBC categorized this document as a "popular music manuscript". Mick gold (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment, Like a Rolling Stone is a WP:FA which tries to give the context of this recording, critical commentary on the meaning of the song, and the reasons why Rolling Stone magazine should have selected it, in 2004, as number one on their list of the "500 Greatest Songs of All Time" [4]. The fact that Dylan's hand-written lyrics have now set a world record for the sale of a popular music manuscript at auction surely demonstrates how this song still exerts a strong fascination - both in cultural and financial terms. This sale has elicited comment from BBC [5], The Guardian [6], Time magazine [7] Mick gold (talk) 08:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — Whatever else might be said about Bob — and a great deal of verbiage has been aired by a great many people — he's in a class by himself, and Like a Rolling Stone is the most quintessential work of his entire oeuvre, IMO. (And I'm from Minnesota!) Sca (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Mild support attempting to compare this story with Iraq is utterly absurd and not what this section of Wikipedia is intended for. Clearly this a modern culture news story and worthy of consideration, I thought I'd already read Abductive's worst ever complaint, but his current one here takes the biscuit ("I'm pretty sure that eggs is eggs, but this egg ain't no egg what I ever saw") The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
    "Narrow" is an argument other people regularly use here. You seem to have a personal grudge against me. Get over it. Abductive (reasoning) 01:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
    Oh I am. Really, but don't believe your own hype. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
    I really don't think that my being opposed based on the idea that this is a manuscript, and manuscripts such as a handwritten copy of The Tales of Beedle the Bard by J.K. Rowling recently sold for more is illegitimate. Abductive (reasoning) 02:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment This is the type of story that falls short of ITN's general "importance/impact" but because of the state of the article, exceeds DYK's allowance, yet feels like the type of story that would be good front page material ("new" information about an article that is otherwise of good or better quality). It's not so much trivia but current changes in well-established content. Do we need something to handle the likes of this? I would otherwise weak support inclusion in the current ongoing lack of new items being posted. --MASEM (t) 22:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
More than 40 years since its release, "Like a Rolling Stone" remains highly regarded, as measured by polls of reviewers and fellow songwriters. A 2002 ranking by Uncut and a 2005 poll in Mojo both rated it as Dylan's number one song. [8] Sca (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • By the numbers, 3 support+2 weak support+1 comment in favor (by Mick gold) vs. 2 oppose. I think that warrants an assessment by an uninvolved admin as to whether it has consensus or not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
    Vote counting is frowned upon. It's by strengths of arguments. Manuscripts have sold for more. Examples which haven't been posted Abductive (reasoning) 02:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
    What part of "as to whether it has consensus or not" made you think I was equating #s with consensus? --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
    Because you were enumerating them. If you had said, "I think all the arguments have run their course", then that would be clearer (and what I hope you really meant). Abductive (reasoning) 03:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
    "Vote counting is frowned upon" is the first thing people run to when they know they've already lost the argument. It's a meaningless statement that says "I know no one agrees with me, so I'll just say this hoping the admin realizes I am right and everyone else is wrong". Consensus determinations are not made merely on the raw count of votes, but that doesn't mean that the numbers of votes themselves are meaningless, and it's poisoning the well to make the claim that, should the admin determine differently than you in the end, they must be doing so for the wrong reasons (because, of course, if someone disagrees with you, they must be doing so for the wrong reasons). --Jayron32 04:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
    Outnumbered, perhaps, but not lost. I don't believe you guys are wrong, this is all just a matter of how we individually see the event. There have only been a few instances where something got posted that made me really unhappy, because they were factually incorrect. This wouldn't be one of them. Abductive (reasoning) 04:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
    And that poor cat. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The pump don't work.... Why? Sca (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @Abductive: - I just meant the #s warranted a closer look. If a !vote was say 2-5, there would no need to request an assessment, but if it is ~5-2 it is worth requesting a proper assessment of consensus. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
ANSWER: 'Cause the vandals took the handles. [9] Sca (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: I may be biased in that I have been one of the major editors of the "Like a Rolling Stone" article. But I believe it is clear that this song has had a major cultural impact, and this auction record underlines the depth of that impact. If it were a trivial song, nobody would be paying $2 million for the manuscript. This is a worthy cultural story to include in the In the News column. Moisejp (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanx, RM. Picking a nit: Suggest adding 2 commas, thus:
Lyrics of "Like a Rolling Stone," handwritten by Bob Dylan, sell at auction for a record US$2 million. Sca (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting oppose per Abductive. I could possibly see posting if a manuscript broke the $30M for the Codex Leicester, but "music manuscript" is too narrow and trivial of a category. (At least it finally bumped the NBA Finals after two weeks, though!) ToBk (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Hmm, anything that gets to be wallpaper on Microsoft Plus! has to have a much bigger cachet, doesn't it(?) (But the chorus is a bit dull, I find). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

RD: Ramón José VelásquezEdit

Article: Ramón José Velásquez (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s):

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: Velásquez was a former national leader. He's notable for a RD posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)--

  • Neutral on RD suitability, but opposing for now on lack of references, at least one section has none at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral per TRM; article sidebar states he was an acting president(not actually president). 331dot (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
So was Gerald Ford, and I'm sure you remember his death.  — TORTOISEWRATH 03:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Ford was very much president. Calidum Talk To Me 03:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
He was an acting president after succeeding the actual president Nixon. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Nope, he was the president. Plain and simple. I don't know if you're trying to make a point or just really misinformed, but please check your facts before posting here. Calidum Talk To Me 06:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Ford was actually President. Per the 25th Amendment "the Vice President shall become President". That was the convention as early as John Tyler, though it was not written down in the Constitution until that Amendment. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems double standards not to, especially considering the really poor coverage of Latin America here.Brigade Piron (talk) 07:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Iraq update: Border crossings seized and Baiji oil refinery capturedEdit

Article: 2014 Northern Iraq offensive#Renewed ISIS advance (talk, history)
Blurb: ​During the offensive in Northern Iraq, militants capture Iraq's largest oil refinery and all of its border crossings with Jordan and Syria.
News source(s): Oil: BBC CNN; Border: Reuters NBC NYTimes

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: First confirmations of oil refinery being seized (supplies 1/3 of Iraq's oil), rather than just claims. The extent of border crossings being seized is unclear, but seems notable with significant coverage. Although we have this in Ongoing, I think these events merit a mention, especially since ITN is pretty stale. (Oldest item is 10 days now.) --ToBk (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment: Not sure about worth a new posting, but I think the entire point of the Ongoing section was to be able to keep stories with constant events possibly worth posting (or on the margin, perhaps like this one) on the template. SpencerT♦C 00:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support pending update. This is a large amount of territory captured, and control of two of Iraq's international borders as well as its largest refinery is notable. International interest and implications. Update is thin and needs fattening up. Jusdafax 01:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is why we have 'Ongoing'. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support iff updated. This is a significant development that is worth posting regardless of "Ongoing". We did post Ukrainian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 shoot-down despite having the main article linked in Ongoing (I think the main article should have been removed from ongoing while the blurb was up). Ongoing should not prevent significant developments from getting a full blurb as they would get it naturally. Ongoing is for stories that are still in the news when the blurb is about to be removed from the template (as long as the article is regularly updated). Mohamed CJ (talk) 11:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Significant milestone in an important conflict. Thue (talk) 09:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

June 23Edit

[Posted] Syrian chemical weaponsEdit

Article: Destruction of Syria's chemical weapons (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The last of Syria's declared chemical weapons are shipped out for destruction.
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

 Thue (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support when updated (one sentence doesn't count) as a significant milestone in a long-run story. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support but agree with ThaddeusB, a larger update is needed. The lede should be updated, and even details like you provided in this nomination are good facts to include. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support upon update; a category of weapons being removed from a country is significant itself, aside from a notable development in Syria. Article does need more, though, as the above users have said. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose a scheduled "event" of no importance compared to other current world news. Release of condemned Somali mother far more worthy and of interest. μηδείς (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    So nominate Meriam Ibrahim if you think she is worth posting. Complaining that something wasn't nominated is rather stupid. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Indeed! (And don't bother nominating that story, it's a completely uninteresting non-item) (talk) 10:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC) Support for this blurb as well, of course. (talk) 10:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Medeis should feel free to nominate that story. Mind your own business. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
IMO Meriam Ibrahim would be a good nomination and I would support it. Mohamed CJ (talk) 11:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I assume that story exists, it the status were clear I might nominate had I more time. The fact I offered it as a better example in my eyes than this one is no insult to anyone, but editors are free to take it as such if they enoy taking insult. μηδείς (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per ThaddeusB. Mohamed CJ (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support although would like to see a slightly larger update (to what is admittedly and literally a good article). The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted after a small expansion. Stephen 02:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Mauritania Presidential electionEdit

Article: Mauritanian presidential election, 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: Mauritanian President Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz is re-elected with over 80% of the vote which most of the opposition boycotted.
Alternative blurb: Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz is re-elected President of Mauritania, with the opposition largely boycotting the election.
News source(s): Aljazeera, Reuters

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: Current Event --Ali Fazal (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support: Like hell he is, but that's not for us to decide. "Over 80%" please.Brigade Piron (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Elections for head of state are ITNR; I've proposed an altblurb. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the altblurb - but not "all" the opposition boycotted it. Ali Fazal (talk) 11:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Added "largely". 331dot (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

June 22Edit

Felix DennisEdit

Article: Felix Dennis (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC, The Guardian, The Independent,

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: Significant in 1960s counter-culture and went on to become a successful and influential publisher --Andrew (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose perhaps is credibly notable enough for RD but the article is substantially under-referenced. I imagine the nominator himself would be surprised if this sub-standard piece of work made it to the main page in anything like its current form. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Well if those articles are under-referenced, they should not have been posted either. Cheers. (P.S. you do realise we don't just "count" the number of references, right?) The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I've no idea what you do; it seems quite arbitrary. Anyway, if those others aren't adequate, why aren't you rushing to pull them? Andrew (talk) 06:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I said "if" they were under-referenced. Please be more careful when reading what others write. And do try to fix up the under-referenced sections of your nomination, I've tagged the worst offending sections to help you focus. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe it's my own lack of experience in this, but I'm having the hardest time figuring out exactly why this person was notable, aside from a trial about 40 years ago. Millionaire publisher, I get. Challenger l (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] AlstomEdit

Article: Alstom (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The French government decides to allow a US$17 billion buyout of much of Alstom's power production business by General Electric.
News source(s): Business Week, Reuters

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is a large business deal, yes, but there is a lot more here than just the $ figure. The deal became a major political issue in France, as the gov't passed new laws to give itself new abilities to intervene in deals affecting infrastructure. In the end, the got got approval by allowing the government to become Alstom's largest stakeholder and take an active role in many of the GE purchased businesses. Thus, this deal has a major political angle in addition to the significant business angle. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment. I don't believe a "vote" will have taken place over this. Formerip (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

  • The FT source (now behind a pay wall, but free earlier) said something like "a government panel voted unanimously to approve the deal", but yah better to use other wording - blurb adjusted accordingly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose $17b Means nothing without a hell of a lot of else--with a lot of else--in which casae a support is easy. ````— Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talkcontribs) voted below, no need for duplicate --Tachfin (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

  • First "$17B means nothing" is a pretty silly statement. Second, did you bother to read the nomination statement and linked news articles? There is a lot more here than a typical business deal. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support One of the biggest stories of the year in France, and very significant in a country where foreign companies have traditionally had little role in providing public services. (Would be nice to have the timeline section cleaned up a bit though - a lot of the 2014 part should go in the "History" section as prose) Smurrayinchester 07:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment certainly worthy of consideration, but the blurb is rambling (TM), and needs serious tightening. And I'm not sure if "deciding to allow" something to happen is as newsworthy as something "actually happening" (even if it may seem inevitable)... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
    Tightened blurb. Belle (talk) 12:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
    In general, the initial announcement is the most noteworthy stage. However, here there was real doubt that it would go through (as noted, the gov't passed a decree specifically to give itself the power to block it.) Now the gov't has agreed to allow the deal, in exchange for various concessions, making big headlines. So here, passing regulatory hurdles was the biggest stage of the deal. The legal completion of a deal is never big news. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Highly notable power management acquisition, one that goes across international borders. --WaltCip (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support but.... Various editors have said in the past that ITN doesn't carry enough business news, and here is some business news of unquestionable importance. But most of the prose in the article is unsourced. Formerip (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support with appropriate updates and sourcing. This is a huge deal - all the major new outlets are talking about it, and it's unquestionably about the biggest players in the industry. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose mere transfer of ownership. Postworthy business deals should have to do with synergistic things like "Ameritel and Genetech merge to form Genitel, worlds largest artificial phone-sex insemination company"; or "Compuserve buys Packard to develop new social-media driven road-rage killbots. Mere zloty-count is not encyclopedic news. μηδείς (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    You already opposed yesterday - please strike one of you duplicate !votes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I did look for but didn't see my name, Tachfin has done the striking with my appreciation. μηδείς (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've started referencing & cleanup work - it may take a while as the article was not in good condition, as noted by several comments above. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support an interesting story, a decent article (although I'd prefer to see some improvements to the referencing of the "Company structure, products, and services" section which seems to rely on a self-promoting "About us" style reference alone). The Rambling Man (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support, huge story of major political/economic and industrial significance for France. France, as some might not knonw, runs an economy of state-managed capitalism, that is some kind of vastly improved and liberal communism, where foreign take-overs are really frowned upon. This has caused a major controversy in France, especially that Alstom is the manufacturer of the flagship TGV and nuclear power plants (I know those divisions are not concerned by the deal), and that it benefited from a huge state bail-out in the early 2000s after it nearly went bankrupt because of Alcatel. Industry-wise, you should know that there aren't that much major Gas turbine manufacturers in the world before take over there was only: GE, Siemens, Mitsubishi, Alstom. The number is now reduced to only 3. It is also significant for GE (one of the biggest conglomerates in the world) because they'd lay their hands on some proprietary ABB (top-notch industry group) technology, which was previously bought by Alstom And finally, come on, 17$ b not much? that's more than the GDP of some 50 countries, and a deal more significant than most sports news/banana-republic elections that gets posted regularly on here. This is by all accounts extremely significant, especially that Business/industry stuff rarely gets any coverage on ITN Tachfin (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Referencing is mostly better now, but please let me know if there are any additional concerns. Otherwise, this is ready to post. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 02:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

June 21Edit

June 20Edit

[Posted to RD] Stephanie KwolekEdit

Articles: Stephanie Kwolek (talk, history) and Kevlar (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [10]

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: Female inventor of well-known substance died, aged 90. Seems appropriate for RD. --Abductive (reasoning) 02:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. Now this is a person I'd not heard of until her death. When I heard the news, I wondered if she'd be nominated and I pondered my response. First thought: her invention certainly is notable, but is she? Second thought after having looked at her page and the bio's in the news: I think she has the awards and recognition in her field to be called very important in her field. The article looks well referenced, but is it a little slight? Perhaps some more prose could be added?Rhodesisland (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
    • But you have heard of kevlar. Abductive (reasoning) 17:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes I have heard of Kevlar, but not the inventor; and I have heard, and love, many songs written by Gerry Goffin. So, even if I had never heard his name before I would acknowledged his importance because of the number of hits and accolades he has. Even if we've never heard of the person behind the "great important" thing or in the somewhat niche area doesn't mean that they don't have enough accolades or importance to be recognized here. Rhodesisland (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support notable scientist, half-decent article. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. She essentially created her field (polymer chemistry) according to her article; that would meet DC2. 331dot (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - A truly revolutionary materials scientist. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment sorry, it seems she died on June 18. I don't know how that affects the position on the ticker, if at all. Abductive (reasoning) 17:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • was just coming to nominate this - multiple small reasons to add up to support EdwardLane (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support A pretty straight forward one this, her invention (if you will) makes her top in her field for RD. Somchai Sun (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing: IraqEdit

This was posted as "ISIS offensive". I think it would be preferable to change it to "Northern Iraq offensive", "Iraq conflict", or similar. "ISIS" is too obscure for the ongoing text, so many readers will have no idea what the item is without clicking. ToBk (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. Although people are learning what ISIL or ISIS is, the offensive has stalled. "Iraq conflict" is better. Abductive (reasoning) 02:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Text Adjusted --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
One person constitutes an consensus? The offensice was clearly by ISIS moving in. No one else from the northern parts is on the offensicve marching forth. Its ISIS0-led with a smackering fo fellow jihadisLihaas (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, keep in mind that the initial addition didn't require consensus either, since that's how Ongoing works. (Not sure whether or not I like that yet.) As for "no one else", what about the Kurds who've taken Kirkuk and other areas? ISIS allies? But the combatants don't even really matter; the point is that "Iraq" is a familiar term, and we have very limited space on the Ongoing line, which people are likely to just quickly glance at without hovering/clicking each link to figure out what a potentially unfamiliar term like "ISIS" is. I guess WP:EGG sort of applies. ToBk (talk) 11:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The article title is "Northern Iraq offensive" - that is far more than "one person" deciding what it is called. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that violates the founding principle of Wikipedia, that every change, even obvious uncontroversial ones, has to take place through committee with appropriate waiting periods /s. Thue (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

June 19Edit

[Posted] Gerry GoffinEdit

Article: Gerry Goffin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s):

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: In the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Worth an RD. --wirenote (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose, he was inducted in the Hall with his (much more famous) wife, Carole King, so he is at best half of an inductee. Also, something strange is going on with their page views. Back on Jun 9th, Carole King's article was viewed 43,561 times. His was viewed 5626 times that same day. Could it be that he died on Jun 9th, and it hit the news today? In any case, I am uncomfortable with his induction into the Hall of Fame being even 50% on his own merits. When his wife has been getting 4.85 times as many page views as he over the last 90 days, it makes me wonder... Abductive (reasoning) 02:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Support Your reasoning makes Carole King half an inductee in the Songwriters Hall of Fame, half an inductee in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and half winner of a Grammy Trustees Award for Lifetime Achievement of the Recording Academy, too. All of these awards were awarded to them jointly, as a songwriting team. Goffin's many achievements are not diminished because King later had a solo career. (talk) 05:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment. Following Abductive's logic above, Mick Jagger and Keith Richards are only 1/8 inductees in the RRHF each and therefore will not be anywhere near qualified for RD mention when they die. Just because someone is inducted with a band or partner shouldn't diminish their full standing in which ever HoF they're in. Rhodesisland (talk) 07:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Those people have other claims to fame. This Goffin guy, who none of you ever heard of until this nomination, isn't worthy of posting to RD. Abductive (reasoning) 16:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Never heard of? Wow, that says loads about your ignorance. (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
          • I'd heard of and been listening to Goffin's music since the early 1970s! Please don't presume to tell me what I know or who I've heard of. What other claim to fame do Jagger and Richards have that are not directly tied to their fame in the Rolling Stones? Their work with other artists and fame/notoriety as celebs stem only from their band and each was only a small portion of the group, following your reasoning. Rhodesisland (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
            • Name some people who wrote songs for the Rolling Stones, but weren't in a band of their own. See? Abductive (reasoning) 23:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
            • But that's not the point you were making. You were saying he did not meet the criteria because he was the lesser half of the songwriting team or at best all accolades are only 1/2 his and I find that logic flawed. Are you now saying he's not noteworthy because he's just a songwriter and not a performer or that he doesn't meet the criteria because you had never heard of him? Rhodesisland (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Support Goffin had a meaningful career and is notable. Plus his achievements are not half because he also had a solo career. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as meeting DC2 in the field of lyricists. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose' per abductive. People actually spoke about Bernie Taupin's role along with Elton John. μηδείς (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose until article is improved, but strongly support when it has been. It's a dire article at the moment.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Some work done on it. More needed, but looking a little better than it did. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose and Support as per Ghmyrtle. A giant in popular music composition. Where would Carol be without him? Hard to believe his article could look like that. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • As several above, he's clearly worthwhile as a subject for inclusion in the RD ticker, unfortunately the article is not in a state worth putting on the main page. Consider this a support on the person, but oppose on the article quality. If and when the article is fixed up, I would fully support. --Jayron32 22:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Per Jayron. The article is in need of cleaning up, but the individual is suitable for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Article still needs additional improving but in my view has come to the point where we should post to RD, given Goffin's high stature in the songwriting world and his impressive number of hits. Jusdafax 02:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. It's looking much better. Is it ready to go yet? Rhodesisland (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted following good work on the article from User:Ghmyrtle and User:Martinevans123. Thanks you two! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

SCOTUS ruling on software patentsEdit

Article: Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: The United States Supreme Court rules in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International on the invalidity of some software patents.
News source(s): [11]

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: An anticipated ruling that invalids some concepts of software patents (not all). --MASEM (t) 19:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose I'll ask the obvious question: so what? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    • The allowance of software patents in the tech industry has been a huge problem in recent years. This ruling at least invalidates those software patents that simply try to take an concept that existed without computers and try to claim novelty on adding the computer to it. --MASEM (t) 19:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Okay, thanks. Still seems relatively insignificant in the big scheme of things so my oppose stands. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
        • It is somewhat difficult to describe the significance of this ruling if you haven't following the harm that software patentability has caused the tech industry and innovation there, and that this ruling addresses a significant plague of money-grab attempts in that. It certainly is more significant in the long-term than the results of most sporting events. --MASEM (t) 13:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is not really a case that breaks much new ground. It's really an application of previous cases to a slightly different factual situation. I'm pretty sure the US Supreme Court will hand down more important decisions this term. Additionally it is simply an interpretation of the US statute, so it is unlikely to have much influence in other countries. This may be of considerable interest to tech people, but we have to cater for a general audience here, and I don't think this is significant enough. Neljack (talk) 23:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support technical is not a synonym for minor. μηδείς (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even press within the patent world isn't claiming this is saying much over established case law [12], and it's a very weak ruling compared to software patenting rules in Europe. MChesterMC (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

June 18Edit

40 Indians abductedEdit

Article: 2014_Northern_Iraq_offensive#Renewed_ISIS_advance (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Forty Indians working for a Turkish construction company are abducted by militants in Mosul, Iraq.
News source(s): Hindustan Times Times of Oman The Asian Age The Daily Mail Headlines & Global News

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: No idea if this is notable enough for its own blurb, but I decided to nominate it to see if it was. Andise1 (talk) 02:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose this specific instance, but support some new Iraq blurb, or maybe Ongoing. 40 workers being abducted is a small story compared to, say, Iraq requesting U.S. airstrikes, or the attack on the oil refinery. ToBk (talk) 03:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: The parent article is part of the Ongoing section. SpencerT♦C 02:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Suppport except this seams on going. Any reason it shouldn't be ongoing?" 01:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Felipe VIEdit

Article: Felipe VI of Spain (talk, history)
Blurb: Felipe VI (pictured) becomes the new King of Spain.
News source(s): Euronews, etc

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The abdication blurb, posted before, did not specify Juan Carlos' successor, so I think this may be the chance. --Brandmeistertalk 23:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - Change of head of state is ITN/R. This was how we did things with last year's various abdications - one story for the announcement, focussing on the retiring monarch, and a second for the succession, focussing on the succeeding monarch. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Question. Has he been crowned in an official ceremony yet? The newslink provided was about his imminent take over and his article says he WAS crowned on 19 June but according to my calendar it's just barely 19 June in Spain 2 AM or so. Has this happened yet? Rhodesisland (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there's going to be a coronation. The articles have been updated rather precipitately - and will need to be fixed before this goes on the homepage. Felipe became king at midnight local time, by law. No proclamation or coronation needed, although I believe he addresses parliament as king tomorrow. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I would support it as by the time it gets posted it will be a done deal, but his article has even less references than his dad's did. Alex, don't make me do citing again [bats eyelashes]. Belle (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll do what I can - has at least been properly updated this time. But the article is in poor shape, and people keep adding uncited nonsense to it. I'm pretty busy at work today; I'll try to fix it tonight if no-one else has, but it shouldn't just be down to me or you to do this - let's all fix it. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Even if there is going to be a coronation, I believe we usually post the accession instead. The coronation is often quite a while later - for instance, Queen Elizabeth II wasn't crowned for more than a year after she acceded to the throne. Neljack (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per precedent set by recent abdications in Belgium and the Netherlands. Mjroots (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
is this even top of the news in spain itself? Considering high irony of it following the wordt defending champs?Lihaas (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes it is top of the news in Spain itself. As for the rest of the sentence, I can't make head nor tail out of it or even guess at its relevance to this nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, of course it's top of the news in Spain: [13] El Pais there with a huge 'Felipe VI' splash on its front page. The World Cup is a long way down. Football and monarchy don't have a great deal of connection - why is this ironic? AlexTiefling (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the Spanish team decided to quit the World Cup ASAP and return home to celebrate the accession of the new king and queen consort. This may be the reason why they suddenly lost to Chile 2:0 and previously were crushed by the Netherlands. Brandmeistertalk 12:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Hahaha, classic Like ;)Lihaas (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
"Haha", please take your banal chat and illegible text to some forum somewhere, anywhere, just not here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Great, take your constant sniping at everyone and everything you don't like to your own weblog. You are not god to lecture and practice what you preach!Lihaas (talk) 07:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
It's just you Lihaas, just you and your illegible and inappropriate text. Everyone else here manages to contribute constructively. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The article still needs work. Please feel free to add sources or improve the quality of the writing. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as per Mjroots. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, definitely a news worthy candidate. Monarch changes are typically put up, even for smaller/lesser known countries. Mythio (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for a BLP it's pretty damned short on references, I've tagged one whole unreferenced sections but at a further look, there are plenty of other paragraphs without a single citation. Support the notability of the event, but improve the article before posting. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support He is not being crowned in deference to the present economic situation in Spain. He was 'sworn in' in the Spanish parliament building, El Cortes, yesterday (19th June). No banquet just a tapas party - I kid you not! [14] Richard Avery (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — A new (and relatively young) European royal, sworn in June 19 — according to televised reports, to much popular acclaim in Spain. (He's on French & German versions of ITN today.) Sca (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, and get on with it. So what if the article has some issues? This is a change of monarch. Head of state changes are always reported--usually as soon as they happen. This is a simply unconscionable delay. Don't let's allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. Lockesdonkey (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - article is looking better, but there are two sections that are rather light on refs. The lead is also pretty short. Fix those areas up and I'll be happy to post this. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi - can you take another look, please? It's not perfect, but I've fleshed out the lead, added some more references, and removed some fluff. Thanks. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. It's looking much better. Is it ready to go yet? Rhodesisland (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thanks AlexTiefling and anyone else who worked on this to bring it up to standards. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Post-posting thanks, good work on the cleanup everyone involved. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

[Posted to RD] RD: Horace SilverEdit

Article: Horace Silver (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Ottawa

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: Article does need a lot of work. Silver is very notable and is very well-known in the Jazz musician community --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Support. I don't think his article needs that much work. The discography section is particularly good. A very notable jazz musician. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality alone. Silver is notable enough for RD but the large maintenance tag at the top of the page says it all, it's woefully bereft of citations. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    • (I do hope other editors will help here. There are 38 articles on Wikipedia for albums by Silver and an equal number for albums on which he played.) Martinevans123 (talk) 12:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC) )
  • Oppose "Well known in the Jazz Musician community" =/= "webll known Jazz Musician." There have been hugely influential and well known people like Winfred P. Lehmann and Calvert Watkins within the linguistics community but only the late Greenberg, and Chomsky and Labov would really merit listing as being recognized by people outside their field. μηδείς (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • NY Times - "pianist, composer and bandleader who was one of the most popular and influential jazz musicians of the 1950s and ’60s". CTV News "influenced generations of jazzmen with his distinctive hard bop sound".. Washington Post "helped define hard bop jazz". I don't know how you can argue he wasn't a well known jazz musician. Connormah (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • BBC News - " top US jazz musician, ... has been described as one of the most influential musicians in the history of jazz ... One of the most highly regarded pianists and composers in jazz", The Guardian - "Based in California since the 1970s, Silver was granted various honours by the US state and, in 2005, received a President's Merit award at the Grammy Salute to Jazz ceremony", The Daily Telegraph - "was one of the most exhilarating and influential forces in jazz over the last 65 years.". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I would just like to add that, while Medeis perhaps has a point that Horace Silver as a performer was probably not as famous as Miles or Louis Armstrong or John Coltrane to people without any specific interest in jazz, his influence as a composer did in fact transcend jazz. Ray Charles, Steely Dan, James Brown, the list goes on. Ok, this is anecdotal, but I know several people, not interested in jazz per se, who own (and like) Love and Peace: A Tribute to Horace Silver.
I'm not commenting on whether the article's quality meet ITN's standards, but I am saying that I believe he was and is notable enough by whatever standards apply here. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - RD is well deserved and article is acceptable with a good discography. Jusdafax 08:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Too much of the article is unreferenced. The number of references used is irrelevant, what matters is how much of the material is referenced. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Question - how much is "too much"? Will it help to insert ref tags after each individual sentence, instead of at the end of a complete paragraph (see Daniel Keyes)? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • By my count, 10 of 18 paragraphs have no references at all, so it is not just a question of adding extra tags, but rather it is quite clear that at least half of the article is actually unreferenced - that is far too much IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Added. There was a source that covered every item of the discography, which I had added, but someone's kindly removed that, for some reason. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC) ... so another day before he falls off the list here?

June 17Edit

Abu Khattala capturedEdit

Article: Ahmed Abu Khattala (talk, history)
Blurb: ​United States special forces capture Ahmed Abu Khattala, the suspected ringleader of the 2012 Benghazi attack.
News source(s): (New York Times), (Washington Post), (BBC News)
  • Nom. --bender235 (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not a notable figure in the same way as Saddam Hussein or bin Laden being captured/killed. If he's convicted of anything some day, maybe. ToBk (talk) 03:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

June 16Edit

[Posted to RD] RD: Tony GwynnEdit

Article: Tony Gwynn (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ESPN, WaPo

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: Member of the Baseball Hall of Fame, possibly the greatest pure hitter in baseball history. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. He was one of the greatest baseball hitters of all time; clearly passes the RD criteria. Calidum Talk To Me 15:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Obviously. Probably one of the greatest baseball players of the past 30 years, obviously top of the field, member of the 3,000 hit club, 8 time batting champion. Will update if needed. Secret account 15:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD. Easy call. Gamaliel (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD. One of the most decorated players of his generation. Resolute 16:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD little surprised the article hasn't been nominated for GA as it's one of the finer baseball bios I've looked at lately. "See also" could use trimming but otherwise I'm moderately impressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Bagumba has done the most work by far on Gwynn's article, and should be the one bringing it up for a GA nomination. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I'd fully support the nomination and be happy to review it if requested to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
      • @Muboshgu: I've been improving it for the sake of improving it, not necessarily for GA purposes. No problem if someone else is inclined to nominate it.—Bagumba (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted to RD --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Post-posting support His career stats speak for themselves. Somchai Sun (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 Mpeketoni attacksEdit

Article: 2014 Mpeketoni attacks (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 59 people are killed in attacks in Mpeketoni, Kenya.
Alternative blurb: ​At least forty-eight people are killed in an attack by Al-Shabaab in Mpeketoni, Kenya.
News source(s): BBC NBC News Capital News

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: Notable attack that is gaining widespread coverage. Andise1 (talk) 07:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support on notability grounds, article needs a lot of work, I'll see what I can do. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Added reference to Al-Shabaab to the blurb. --bender235 (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support once the article has been more fully developed. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, Brigade Piron (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - article is still fairly barebones. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Ready - I fleshed out the article a bit so it should be ready to go now. (Was already borderline postable before.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted I did a lot of work updating this and supported it, but it has unanimous support and the article is adequate. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] NBA FinalsEdit

Article: 2014 NBA Finals (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In basketball, the San Antonio Spurs defeat the Miami Heat to win the NBA Finals.

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) 01:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

:What the hell? Calidum Talk To Me 01:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Can we have a real blurb please? I get it might be an attempt at humor but a serious blurb should be included as an altblurb if nothing else. 331dot (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
really, you cant replace the controversy with "beat". WP:FUN #Chillaz...and no, im not bein g condescnending . life don't just just get better than thisLihaas (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Unconstructive post. Try again. Seattle (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
A pipe and a cognax? Yall need to chill.
And don't tell me, when you have a harem of rubbish posted just todayLihaas (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
While Lihass's antics are indeed unnecessary, I don't think we really need to go on about this. The blurb for the NBA final is pretty standardized. Basically we can just use the same wording as the NHL wording already posted.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
YES that's the point. We all know the ITNR blurb to be posted!
and woo hoo! Leonard!Lihaas (talk) 04:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongest support ever to the suggested blurb, I also humbly suggest "Lebron cried" somewhere in there. –HTD 05:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
#yeahbaby #hellyeah and LIKE LIKE LIKELihaas (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - provided an alt blurb; article needs updates, and my weak support is that we should probably time this out with the other sporting ITN/R's that have happened. As this is the latest, I'd give it a few days. --MASEM (t) 05:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support It's in WP:ITN/R, and the article has been updated with overview and highlights of the series.—Bagumba (talk) 10:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Change blurb ENGVAR neutral phrasing needed. (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't necessarily object but I'm curious as to how the wording is not neutral; the Heat were indeed defeated. 331dot (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
That's after WaltCip boldly changed Lihaas' original blurb: [15] AlexTiefling (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Maybe it's the ENGVAR neutral "defeats" that favors BrEng. –HTD 12:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
How mature. Anyway, traditionally we have avoided blurbs like this to avoid defeat vs defeats issues. For instance, the blurb could easily be "In basketball, the NBA finals are won by San Antonio Spurs" avoiding this whole issue altogether. EDIT: There seem to be users confusing NPOV with ENGVAR neutrality as well. Completely different things, people! (talk) 12:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Defeat is correct in both American English and British English here (and, from what I gather, all major varieties of English), so there's no need to reword. -- tariqabjotu 14:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

June 15Edit

[Posted] RD: Daniel KeyesEdit

Article: Daniel Keyes (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination

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.

 --Gamaliel (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Nominator note: American author of Flowers for Algernon, winner or nominee for of the top awards in two fields, winner of the Hugo and Nebula for science fiction, finalist for the Edgar for mysteries. Gamaliel (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment usually a good idea to tell us why we should be interested in this nomination, what Keyes was notable for, why you'd consider him suitable for RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, got called away from the keyboard. Gamaliel (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator note. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality, lots of unreferenced claims. Shocked that anyone would support with such shortcomings. Will try to look into fixing it tomorrow. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
    • We are considering this article for RD, not GA or FA. While many statements are unreferenced, none of those appear to be controversial or problematic. Unlike the mainpage FAs and DYKs, to state the obvious there are timing issues regarding when we post an ITN item and especially an RD: if we take long enough to polish the article, the death isn't "recent" any more. In that context, I believe the article is acceptable for posting in its current form, and I certainly see no reason for "shock" that it's been supported. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Once you understand the quality control we impose on items going to the main page, you'll understand that this is not ready. Your belief that it is ready to post is misguided at best. You are familiar with WP:BLP? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Um, yes, I'm familiar with WP:BLP (I've given talks on the subject at Wikiconferences, written about it offsite, and written six decisions about it). It is my considered judgment that the concerns motivating the BLP policy are not implicated in this or similar instances. I would of course welcome more opinions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
          • Then you should know we seldom (if ever) post an RD with maintenance tags or citation requests. What would be ideal would be for all these keen supporters of this article to roll their sleeves up and do something about the issues on the page, rather than idly claim that the article is "meh... good enough for main page" when we're trying to uphold a high threshold of quality and referencing, unlike, say DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
            • I don't think that is particularly fair (featured articles on authors that had no citations for the bibliographies have appeared on the main page) but what-ev-er [picture some sort of "street" gesture to accompany this - probably some variation on me flapping my hand loosely in front of your face]. I've referenced or removed all the offending items. Perhaps somebody with mastery of the citation templates can convert my references to "pretty". Belle (talk) 11:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
              • Well where was the evidence that he wrote those books which don't have Wikipedia articles? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
                • In the reference at the end of the section (or at Amazon). Maybe you meant before my excellent referencing work, so I'll strike that before we get too hot under the collar. Belle (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I think The Rambling Man is experienced enough to know the time constraints that "In The News" imposes: he's proposing we wipe its face with a hankie, not that we send it out for a month for external peer review. That said, I don't see that much to worry about in the article - there are a few unreferenced claims but nothing earth-shattering: we haven't said that he invented fruit or married a moon-camel. Belle (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC).
    • I know of and respect The Rambling Man's experience on this page, despite disagreeing with him on a couple of candidate items. My comments were addressed to anyone reading the page and thinking about commenting, not just him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support posting now; article looks adequate.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment are we sure that an image of a recently deceased author can be used under "Fair use" when it's clear that many free pictures of him could exist? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
    No. I nominated it for deletion. However, I don't think that shoudl be enough to keep the article off the main page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support notable author with many awards to show for it. Regarding the state of the page, that is still up to the consensus of the community whether it is acceptable to post. If say 11 people support and 1 opposes on grounds similar to TRM, then it gets posted per consensus. I'm tired of reading this whole "We don't post articles like this"... who is "we"? We are the people commenting on this particular item, not some pre-established regime of administrators who have the extraordinary veto power over ITN. The traffic these ITN postings bring to the page will surely result in corrections, improvements, and better sourcing... And BLP? Whow does that apply if this is RD? Kind of counter-intuitive. - Floydian τ ¢ 15:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Consensus is about strength of arguments, not numbers. An argument that points out the page is deficient per established standards is implicitly stronger than one that says "post regardless of quality". If you disagree with our (the ITN community) established standards, then you should propose they are changed. (Incidentally, this particular article seems to have been fixed up, so the point is mostly moot here.)
    • Yet another example of someone who believes vote counting is the way consensus is achieved. Not the case. If everyone said "jump off that cliff" but one person said "but if you do that, you'll die", you'll go with the cliff jumpers, right? We don't post garbage to the main page. We leave that to DYK. Finally, please actually read BLP before exposing your ignorance of the policy for believing that it doesn't apply here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Ah, you must mean the parts such as "The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death - six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime." (emphasis mine). I don't see anything about every statement being referenced, or non-contentious statements needing reference. Per the RD criteria, an article of approximately B-class is sufficient, without major omissions. A section of WP:ITN indicates that articles with orange or red tags are generally not added to the ticker. Please, feel free to show me my ignorance. Further, what makes your "article of bad quality" argument any greater than my support for the notability of the person in question? What makes your argument any better than the numerous people who have countered that the article is in adequate condition? Is it yourself? Please point out the "established standards" that decree this article as insufficient. Hell, I'd ask for the discussion that led to those standards being imposed, but I've come to terms with the fact that nobody actually reads things, and they just post bogus and generalized fallacies based on what they assume it to be about or that their argument out-strengthens all oppositely-poised arguments. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Your aggressive opening post related to a discussion that took place while this article was woefully under-referenced. It is now in a much better state. Thanks for your insightful comments, much appreciated. I hope to hear more from you at ITN in future, assuming you can get here soon enough. Another alternative is that you actually do something about these referencing issues yourself rather than bitch about the fact we don't post sub-standard articles. Read the ITN instructions. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
          • It's aggressive because I see the same argument from you time and time again, and yet again, you have not provided anything to back up your position. I read the ITN instructions, and I reread it each time to ensure no new clauses have been snuck in. The version you are referring to would be this one, prior to you stocking it up with tags. Again "we don't post substandard articles" - who is we? We are the people who voice opinions here, and if we decide an article should be posted despite some minor issues, than we shall. The influx of readers will put to use that magical concept of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and we will have a more substantial article. It will happen here once this is posted, even with the recent improvements. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
            • Yeah, once again, thanks for your concerted efforts to improve the article you're so determined to get posted. You really have enhanced the place with your whinging and bitching. Time now to take a break and let the rest of us pick up the mantle and get it ready to post. Thanks again, you've been magnificent. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
              • And thanks once again for not backing up your riff-raff with substance. See you next time, where I will once again post quotes from the supposed "rules" and be kindly responded to with pointless dribble - because there is nothing in the text that backs your personal opinion. Should we just appoint the few admins who make up "we" to ITN directors, so that they can back up their opinions with "cause I said so"? - Floydian τ ¢ 20:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
                • I hope that you can, one day, actively help here at ITN with articles and RDs rather than simply whinge. But I won't hold my breath. Of course you could have sought the opinion of any other admin, and asked them to post anything you personally feel should be posted. There are very few of us who give a damn about the quality of what we post here, testified by the numerous immediate votes here and at other RDs who support complete tripe. If you want to help, do so, and if you want to be an admin and help post stuff sooner rather than later, do that too, and if you think I (or any of the other admins who don't post garbage to the main page) aren't doing our jobs properly, feel free, in fact, be encouraged to seek our desysop. Otherwise, take your pointless dribble and riff-raff (whatever they are) and stick them. You haven't done anything here to be helpful, unlike the many others who have contributed, if you want someone to actually value your opinion, you'll need to work on how to gain their respect, because baseless whining won't do that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment marked as ready, I've fixed up the prose, fixed up the references kindly added by Bellemora (i.e. made them "pretty"!) and there's a consensus to post the individual in question. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Post-posting Oppose' not really offended by this, but the book was basically a novella we read at age 12. Glad to se H/N nom/winner posted though. μηδείς (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 24 Hours of Le MansEdit

Article: 2014 24 Hours of Le Mans (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In motor racing, André Lotterer, Benoît Tréluyer, and Marcel Fässler of Audi win the 82nd 24 Hours of Le Mans.
Alternative blurb: Audi wins their thirteenth 24 Hours of Le Mans motor race with drivers André Lotterer, Benoît Tréluyer, and Marcel Fässler.
News source(s): NBC Sports, Autosport, BBC Sport

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.

 --The359 (Talk) 04:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose almost all of the Race section is unreferenced, and there's a maintenance tag sitting in the "Testing and practice" section. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Testing and practice is of minor relevance to the race as a whole, and the race is the specific element being mentioned in the blurb. It is an uncompetitive part of the event. The359 (Talk) 06:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Well we don't tend to post articles with red or orange maintenance tags, no matter where they are, and we don't post articles whose relevant content is almost entirely unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Really? The Stanley Cup seems to be doing just fine with a maintenance tag at the moment. One could simply remove the section header and it would no longer be an issue as it would no longer be a section needing expanding. As for the updating, the intro is fully cited and covers the results of the race as well as everything stated in the blurb. A 24 hour event cannot be fully summarized in a timely manner, but that does not negate that the article is updated, and still in the process is updating. The359 (Talk) 08:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I tagged it after it was posted. It isn't of sufficient quality in my opinion, but my opinion is just that, mine. Anyway, maintenance tag aside, the race details are barely referenced, so once that's done you can consider what to do about the practice section. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Well surely the issue should what the tag is calling out and not if it has a tag sitting on it. If an article deserving of a tag passes, how is that any different from an article with a tag already on it? The359 (Talk) 08:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't make the rules. We don't normally post articles with red/orange maintenance tags. We don't post articles which aren't adequately referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - The empty "Testing and practice" could probably be removed, but the "Race" section being completely unreferenced isn't going to cut it for ITN. Instead of complaining about our standards, it would be more effective to put in the work necessary to meet them. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Race report has had about 20 citations added, practice section removed for the moment. The359 (Talk) 21:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. It's looking much better. Is it ready to go yet? Rhodesisland (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted - thanks for improving the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 US OpenEdit

Article: 2014 U.S. Open (golf) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In golf, Martin Kaymer wins the U.S. Open.
News source(s): USA Today

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.

 --Jinkinson talk to me 02:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose please take a look at the 2013 article to see the kind of update for the final round we're expecting. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose updated or not. THere's just too much sports on at the moment, particularly with the World Cup on. Does anyone really care, outside of a few die-hard golf fans, that an unknown German won the US Open in a tournament without Tiger Woods? ITNR or no I think with the World Cup on let's skip this this year.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Johnsemlak the US Open always occurs at this time of year close to these other sporting events; if you feel this or other events should be removed from the ITNR list, please propose their removal(or whatever limitations you would like to see on the number of sports events at one time); otherwise this should be posted as it is currently on the ITNR list(once properly updated). 331dot (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Did you say that for Bubba Watson's win at this years 2014 Masters Tournament that Mr. Tiger Woods did not participate in the event? I am sure that Bubba Watson got posted on ITN. It is irrelevant if Tiger plays in an event, if that event gets posted, which eventually he will no longer be playing in major championships at all. Then, what would you say?HotHat (talk) 08:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • ITNR status does not prohibit opposing. Circumstances are different every year. The World Cup is only on every four years so it's reasonable to say the sporting landscape is different now than in other years. ITNR only means that consensus for posting is presumed; we can arrive at a different consensus this year if we wish.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I wasn't saying you were "prohibited" from opposing, just that there were more effective ways to do so. If you want to arrive at a different consensus, it should be done on the ITNR discussion page in that context(not posting this in World Cup years). The World Cup is a regular event (as are the other sporting events under discussion or posted) as it comes along every four years and as such is not an unusual circumstance. If you don't want to see that many sports events posted, propose some sort of restriction on them. Otherwise, this should be posted(once adequately updated); there is nothing wrong with some frequent turnover in postings(usually we have the opposite problem, not enough postings). 331dot (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • We don't have to make a specific ruling on World Cup years. Every context is different. I remain opposed in this context. ITNR doesn't guarentee automatic posting, again it just means consensus is presumed. We can arrive at a different consensus this year. ITNR events should not be posted in the face of a clear consensus against(certainly no such consensus exists here thus far).--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • (ec) But that seems to be what you are proposing. If we don't this year, why not every World Cup year? 331dot (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The consensus is based on article quality, not the situational merits. If there isn't a consensus to post this, then it should be brought up for removal from the list. ITNR means that a listed event should be posted as long as quality is adequate. 331dot (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • ITNR means that the event is generally considered important enough to post which certainly leaves wiggle room based on situational merits. I'm proposing that right now with the Stanley Cup and the NBA having finished the same weekend (I don't know if they normally finish at the same time) and a number of other sporting events, with the WOrld Cup going on now, and with a US Open without Tiger Woods, which substantially decreases interest in the event, and other factors, we can skip the US Open this year. I'm not making a proposal to skip it every four years. If in the same set of conditions Tiger Woods had participated and won with a dramatic chip shot I wouldn't oppose. And I'm not saying it's dependent on Tiger Woods--thats just an example of a situation where I wouldn't oppose--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • But that is what you are proposing. If it is skipped this year, in four years someone will bring up that it was skipped this year and should be that year. Further, there is nothing in the ITNR listing that the winner of the US Open is only posted if a notable player wins or is in the tournament. Again, if the listing is going to be dependent on that, then it should be in the criteria. 331dot (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • So are we looking for a new criterion to ITNR? I.e. if it's not "amazing" then it shouldn't be ITN? I'm shocked and disappointed that this place has suddenly turned on sports stories, just because there happens to be a spate of them. In the last month or two, ITN has had a really good turnover, and we can be proud of presenting "news" items and not sitting around for days on end looking for something different to add. Adding these sports stories would be no different, they'd gravitate to the bottom and off the list in a matter of days. And if people whinge about the content of ITN, they should always be encouraged to participate here. If we're looking for "drama" to be a passing factor for all ITN/Rs then we need a centralised discussion about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. The above oppose and subsequent claims about the winner being an unknown German are idiotic at best and pointy at worst. Calidum Talk To Me 16:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
    • But you believe the quality of the update to be sufficient? Did you look at last year's article as I suggested? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
      • The article on this year's event isn't as well written as last year's. But I would say it seems sufficient enough to post. Calidum Talk To Me 17:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • TBH, I don't quite understand the opposition. It's just unfortunate that the Miami Heat, New York Rangers and LeBron's teammates sucked so bad at the highest stage, bringing their finals series to a quick end. If either series went to a sixth game, we could've avoided this. But still, that's no reason to impose a quota on sports stories because they all occurred roughly at the same time. –HTD 22:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This is an in the news recurrent golfing event, and it should be posted to the main page. The event page has been updated with the final leaderboard, and it is noted on both the tournament page and his biographical article. This is suffice enough information, for it to be posted at the present moment.HotHat (talk) 06:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
    • You don't need a blow-by-blow summary for a golfing event that was won by eight shots in the final round with the lead remaining at four shots or greater. It would be absurd to have a write-up that says Kaymer bogeyed and Fowler birdied to bring the margin to five shots, who wants to read that one. The 2013 event was rather unique because it was a closely fought affair between Rose and Mickelson. The 2011 U.S. Open is a more apt comparison. It is not quite that verbose for the 2014 one, but who cares. Also, the 2000 U.S. Open is exactly like the 2014 in terms of length.HotHat (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support So what if there are lots of sports stories at the moment? The same happens at certain times with disasters, elections, etc. The significance of the story is what should matter, and this has rightly been judged to have sufficient significance (as it is on ITN/R). The absence of Woods should also be irrelevant - if the significance of the event is dependent upon one player it should not be on ITN/R, but I do not think that is a correct assessment here. Are we going to decline to post the French Open if Nadal is out or the FIFA World Cup if Messi gets injured? I think the article is good enough to post - there are prose summaries, albeit brief ones, for each round. Neljack (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. It's looking much better. Is it ready to go yet? Rhodesisland (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

ISIS announces massacreEdit

Article: 2014 Northern Iraq offensive (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Militant group Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant announces executing 1,700 Iraqi soldiers.
Alternative blurb: ​Militant group Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant releases images showing their apparent execution of hundreds Iraqi soldiers.
News source(s): BBC, TIME, Business Insider, NY Times, CNN

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: While the images haven't been verified independently, Iraqi military chief said they were real. One BBC reporter stated that "if the photographs are genuine, it would be by far the biggest single atrocity since the time of the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003". Mohamed CJ (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

wait rubbish medi asensationalising at the drop of a hat is not what we should parrot. Give it a day or more to affirm. Lihaas (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
CNN is reporting that "details suggest the photos are real and were taken in Iraq".[17] Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — SS-style atrocities should not go unnoticed. As to "rubbish media," I wouldn't call AP rubbish, and it quoted U.S. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki June 15 as saying the militants' depiction of executing captured Iraqi troops "is horrifying and a true depiction of the bloodlust that those terrorists represent." [18] (BTW, AP abbreviates it ISIL, not ISIS.) Sca (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
See also BBC video with still photos from claimed massacre at [19]. Sca (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Another video. [20] Sca (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Both abbreviations are correct; Sham is Levant in Arabic. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Since this is English WP, I'd be inclined to go with ISIL — particularly since Isis has other meanings. [21] (Reuters also is using ISIL.) Sca (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
No, we go with what reliable sources are calling the group, and that is ISIS. Black Kite kite (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
AP and Reuters aren't reliable? Sca (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
There is no need for this discussion (both abbreviations are used by WP:RS); the group's full name is the one we often use in the blurb, which matches the article name. The name of the header is not really important. Mohamed CJ (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
It's certainly a minor issue. English usage seems to be roughly 50-50. Sca (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. The update is there, but I don't know if it's enough. Navi Pillay said the massacre is "almost certainly" a war crime.[22] Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait We need to make sure we're not acting as a PR vehicle for war criminals. We need better confirmation; the latest from the UN is a step (from ABC link above), but still too vague for a reasonable blurb. ToBk (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

2014 Hockey World CupEdit

Articles: 2014 Men's Hockey World Cup (talk, history) and 2014 Women's Hockey World Cup (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Netherlands and Australia faced each other in the finals of 2014 Hockey World Cup in The Hague in both the men's and women's competitions, with the Netherlands winning the women's final 2–0 and Australia winning the men's final 6–1.
Alternative blurb: ​In field hockey, Australia defeats The Netherlands to win the Men's World Cup and The Netherlands defeats Australia to win the Women's World Cup.

 --Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Highly unusual for the same two small nations to make the finals for both sexes at this level of sporting competition. (They are also playing each other in soccer in its World Cup) Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
    • As a comment, this is a good DYK fact (co-nom for both 2014 articles), if this does not go as ITN. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm surprised field hockey is not on ITN/R... I could certainly support, but both articles would need a textual recap of at least the final game to be considered. Also, the blurb is way too long. It should probably be the standard format (See alt blurb) or perhaps even shorter than that (just "X wins Y and A wins B"). --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Just a comment, the blurb should specify that this is field hockey. Calidum Talk To Me 02:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
    Altblurb fixed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, obviously, like every World Cup of the year, also it is 2 tournament, what is bigger that 1. --Feroang (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. We have on-going sporting event (FIFA), one recent posted (Stanley Cup), one certain to be posted (the NBA finals), and at least two others in the queue (PGA, La Mans). We cannot flood ITN with sports stories even with all these events happening coincidentally within a few days of each other. As I note above, there's a good DYK factoid in this, but I'd recommend against ITN. --MASEM (t) 05:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
    There is no DYK factoid. The articles are ineligible for DYK. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
    How come? If the tourneys just finished, there's certainly expansion that can be done to qualify them for the DYK requirements. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
    Heh, yes a "fivefold expansion" of the prose is required. That ain't gonna happen, is it? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
    There's almost no prose in the articles when I last checked - it is a statistical summary which is not counted towards DYK size. The 5x increase should be relatively trivial to meet by briefly describing the games, etc. --MASEM (t) 23:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose but only on article quality. No prose at all for either final. It's a little unfair to write off one sports article just because other sports articles happen to be posted, in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • If this world cup is deserving of an ITN blurb, perhaps editors can spruce up 2014 Men's Hockey World Cup squads, and make articles out of those red links. If it's a big deal, certainly filling out the players' positions in the squads article, and making an article about those who don't have one should be easy, right? –HTD 00:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support World champs of one of the most popular sports in the world. As TRM says, the number of major sports events happening at the moment should not be held against this. We can always knock off the oldest sports story (the Stanley Cup) if people feel there would be too many sporting blurbs up there. Neljack (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Francis Matthews (actor)Edit

No consensus to post. Stephen 02:43, 18 June 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: Francis Matthews (actor) (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

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.
 --Matty.007 19:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Had a few starring roles but that's about it. A run-of-the-mill career. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 19:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose much as I love Scarlet, it would be a major excursion for me to suggest that his voiceover artist was anywhere near the top of his field ("talking posh"). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose No major awards, no evidence of the "top of the field" standard. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Does not meet any of the RD criteria. 331dot (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Had a couple of roles some time ago, no accolades and the article's nearly a stub with minimal references. Challenger l (talk) 01:42, 17 June 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] Operation Zarb-e-AzbEdit

Article: Operation Zarb-e-Azb (talk, history)
Blurb: Pakistan Armed Forces launch military operation against the North Waziristan militants.
Alternative blurb: ​In a military operation, more than 200 militants are killed in North Waziristan, Pakistan.
News source(s): [23][24][25]

Article updated

 --Faizan 19:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose no indication as to the significance of this whatsoever. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
are you mad? Its their version of 9/11/war on terror. Should be ongoing if not a blurb replacementLihaas (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Saying TRM might be "mad" borders on a personal attack. 331dot (talk) 02:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I have added an alternative blurb, please reconsider. Faizan 02:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry 331dot, we're all sadly used to Lihaas and his indecipherable outbursts. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Why do we need to get used to repeated flagrant breaches of WP:CIVIL? AlexTiefling (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Come on guys, let bygones be bygones. Faizan 15:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not talking about bygones. I'm talking about disruptive behaviour in several different nominations that are active on this page right now. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm just suggesting, as with trolls, the best way to deal with the behaviour is to ignore it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I support this blurb by Gfosankar. Faizan 15:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Updated alternative blurb with fresh casualty figures in the above box. Faizan 18:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Minor tweak of alt blurb wording. Thanks, Matty.007 18:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support alt: The alt blurb suggested is much better and is good to go. —ШαмıQ @ 21:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Question. I don't know much about this conflict, so I might be the perfect test case to see if this has impact enough to be posted. I've read over the page, but still fail to see how this particular operation is a singular, noteworthy action. Is it a turning point? Is it a significant push back that gains a significant stronghold? I agree that the death toll makes it stand out but is there more? Rhodesisland (talk) 02:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The Pakistani military had before launched operations in every other region of FATA, except the North Waziristan. The terrorist attacks launched in the whole country were planned and executed from N.Waziristan, and it provided safe heavens for them. Yeah it's a turning point, and if it's successful, the terrorism will quit cold turkey. Moreover, the operation had been long pressurized by the United States. Faizan 05:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: Of-course it's a great turning point in Pakistan's history, we don't know yet where the operation would lead to, but the mission is to finish the terrorists to the last one. So I would support the alt blurb for ITN. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 03:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
80 more militants have been killed, updated the casualty figures to 200! The article is also updated. Faizan 06:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Major operation following the failure of peace talks with militants that had been going for a year. It is also the first operation and military strategy that has been formulated since Nawaz Sharif became Prime Minister last year. Many militants killed and more military offensives are planned. Receiving coverage in Pakistani and foreign media. Mar4d (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah it's got significant global coverage. For example: [26][27][28][29][30][31][32]. Faizan 07:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment given the nature of this ongoing item, isn't it best for the "Ongoing" section of ITN? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah it would be OK, no concerns. So should I put a "yes" in front of ITNR? Faizan 08:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Ah... I think a blurb should be cited in the main ITN section. Faizan 08:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Updated the casualty figures, The article is also updated. Faizan 09:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Once the article is squared away enough; personally I think it needs some more referencing. Rhodesisland (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this is ready to post. And change the blurb as more than 200 militants... because official sources vary with some other sources. --Gfosankar (talk) 08:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  Fixed Sure, but we agree that the actual number should be 215, as per the military sources. 187+25+3=215 killed. Made it more than 200 militants.... Faizan 08:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support A very significant development in the country and the region as a whole a very notable topic also. (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Colombian presidential election, 2014Edit

Article: Colombian presidential election, 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: Colombia holds the runoff for its 2014 presidential election.
Alternative blurb: Juan Manuel Santos (pictured) is re-elected President of Colombia.
News source(s): [33] Reuters Deutsche Welle

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.

 --Jinkinson talk to me 18:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose we post the results, not the ongoing activities. Who was elected? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
its ITNR and the vote is TODAY. so when the result is out we post...please do yourself a fabour and READ the article.Lihaas (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I did read the article. That's why I pointed out it wasn't ready. And as it's ITNR, we're only here to judge the quality of the updates. Which need to wait for the result. Obviously. Now wind your neck in. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, now the results are in, and Juan Manuel Santos won: [34] Perhaps we should post with a new blurb like "Juan Manuel Santos is reelected President of Colombia." Jinkinson talk to me 18:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, well that's what the ITNR is all about, not the start of an election, or a runoff, it's about the results. Hence my original oppose which Lihaas seems to have had trouble reading and understanding and replying to in an intelligible fashion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Altblurb proposed, image and more sources added. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • 'Weak Support (not that it's really needed cuz ITNR). But the article feels a little slight to me. Seems it might be missing some meat; maybe reactions from other gov's., and local dignitaries; or more on the actual run-off voting and results? Rhodesisland (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support and needs attention. It's looking much better. Is it ready to go yet? Rhodesisland (talk) 04:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
    I don't think it has changed - there is still zero text on the results & aftermath (impact, reactions etc.) - so definitely not ready. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Casey KasemEdit

Article: Casey Kasem (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): USA Today

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: Article does need a lot of work, but as far as radio personalities go, he was definitely in the top of his field. --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support for RD, pending article improvements. (Also remember that even for RD you should provide at least one source in the nom, I've added one to confirm). --MASEM (t) 15:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Much thanks for that, --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support No brainer. Such a shame his life had to end the way it did. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 15:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, obviously. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No great innovator in Radio or Pop Music broadcasting, basically a West Coast version of Dick Clark. Not sure distinctive voice quite gets us there, μηδείς (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Yes Medeis, he was legendary. Top of his field. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
On the radio and associated with the top music of the day would make anyone having the job famous. A blonde goddess his voice does make him not. Notice I have not voted. Perhaps some facts for me (I am American who remembers Nixon as president) would be better than bare assertion bordering on yelling?μηδείς (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
That wasn't meant as yelling. Yelling on the Internet requires ALL CAPS :P The fact is his broadcasting impact goes beyond simply being in the position he was in, I feel, though I'm too tired to specify that more eloquently. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is woefully referenced, with major maintenance templates and [citation needed] tags. Death came as no surprise, no matter how tragic, but can someone explain which field he was actually a leader in? A radio DJ and the voice of Shaggy from Scooby Doo? Is that it? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
    Well, he was also Teletraan I. GRAPPLE X 18:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
    Yep, not quite gonna swing it for me I'm afraid... I'd take Captain Scarlet any day.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
    Not just "a radio DJ", but rather host and creator of popular and the highly influential American Top 40, one of very few nationally broadcast radio programs, for 3+ decades. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, I understand, in the UK we have dozens of radio DJs who have been on national radio for decades. But in any case, the article needs work, as you're aware, before I could even consider moving from oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
    We have a number of radio DJs in the US as well, though I can't name any except for Kasey Casem. So I guess the point is at least in the US he's head and shoulders above the rest in his field--certainly deserving of iconic status. I'm neutral on this for now but I can certainly understand where the support comes from.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
    The point is, until the article is improved, it's utterly irrelevant how "iconic" you or anyone else thinks he appears to have been. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
    No argument there.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support when improved per my comment above. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
    BTW, he has an article on 35 Wikipedias showing his influence well beyond the US borders. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Oppose Among the most notable names of his field in the past century - but the article is really not up to spec. Challenger l (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support: As his New York Times obit points out, starting the Top 40 countdown radio show when he did (1970) was a counterintuitive move that wound up saving pop radio—the country was fracturing culturally in the wake of Vietnam and the civil rights era, and the emerging trend in rock radio at the time was the "F!... M! ... no static at all!" album-oriented rock format which favored progressive rock by letting obviously stoned DJs play albums all the way through, de-emphasizing the single and leading many analysts at the time to pronounce the format—and hit-based radio—dead or dying. But Casey proved 'em wrong, revived Top 40 radio (for good or ill) and also taught us that you don't come out of a fucking uptempo record when you have to go right into another fucking dead dog story. And he did it long enough to watch the CD actually kill the single, and then begin to see it revived by the digital download at the time of his retirement.

    He was undeniably a man who topped his profession. No American over the age of, say, 35 or so would so easily dismiss him as just another velvety radio voice. Daniel Case (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support for all the reasons given above. (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Seems pointless unless the article is updated appropriately. It's got a clear consensus to post, but the lack of quality referencing will mean this will soon drop off the bottom of ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support famous radio presenter, makes sense to include him. Robo37 (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support As Challenger l points out, Casey Kasem one of the most notable names of his field in the past century. I'm surprised that this isn't already up there. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per comments above. The article is in acceptable shape for ITN/RD. It could stand to be better, and I'd encourage those with the expertise to work on it a bit, but it's not so flawed that it should prevent timely posting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
    No, it's really not. There are 3 orange tags and a half dozen [citation needed] tags. I hope someone can work on this soon - I doubt I can personally fix all 4 or 5 current nominations not up to standard myself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Kasem is sufficiently important as a cultural icon that he should be posted even if the article is not in particularly stellar shape. I'd even argue WP:IAR here, because Wikipedia looking bad on account of Kasem's article being visibly deficient is outweighed by Wikipedia looking bad on account of overlooking his death on the main page. Chubbles (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Arguably ignoring the excessive weight of Kasem's importance here, article quality from any "featured" link (bolded) on the main page is important for WP's image moreso than we are missing the news of a famous death. The main page is designed to get reader to articles that they potentially may become editors for. Having an article on a critical news story but in bad shape is not helpful. --MASEM (t) 17:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
    • "...Wikipedia looking bad on account of Kasem's article being visibly deficient is outweighed by Wikipedia looking bad on account of overlooking his death on the main page..." pray tell, where is Wikipedia looking bad? Where is overlooking the death of an American DJ making a global encyclopaedia look bad? Why is refraining from posting a crappy article making Wikipedia look bad? Instead of complaining and making excuses, why don't you and User:Newyorkbrad and all the others above who are "surprised" this hasn't already been posted actually do what we're here to do, improve the article? If you're not prepared to do that, don't complain about crappy articles being withheld from the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I submit that there is a consensus in favor of posting. Some of the tags, such as the request to expand the early life section, can stand as invitations to readers to improve the section. Other tags, such as the "citation needed" after every single sentence about his radio career including matters of common knowledge, are POINTy and should simply be removed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
      • If the article is added now, several million people per day will see his name, many of whom may not have read their local newspaper or website the day he died. A goodly number of them will say, "hey, Casey Kasem died" (or "hey, Casey Kasem died. Who was he?"), and click on the article, which will provide them with subperfect but serviceable basic information about his life and death. Perhaps they will improve the article, perhaps they will vandalize the article; such is life. If the article is not added now, some tiny fraction of those people will find out of Kasem's death by combing the Recent Deaths page, and the others will find out in places other than Wikipedia (where they will perhaps wonder why Wikipedia thought his death was unimportant). Which of these scenarios best serves the site's users? Which of these scenarios best serves the site itself? Chubbles (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Anyone heard of WP:BLP? Asserting that citations requested are for matters of common knowledge is simply ignorant. Common knowledge in the tiny fraction of the universe that is the US is not common knowledge to the visitors to this website. Fix the problems and we can post. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
          • Consensus is against you on this. Please post it or I may go ahead and do so. Alternatively, is there another admin reading here to weigh in? (And yes, I know quite a bit about the BLP policy as well as the rationale behind it.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
            • No, consensus is supporting the principle of the posting, i.e. Kasem is sufficiently notable for RD. There is considerable consensus against posting it with it's current mass of issues. Sure, I can't stop you posting it. But once you do, you'll pave the way for complete garbage going straight to the main page. Check out the other RDs on this page, those that haven't been posted are still highly supported but aren't sufficient in quality. You may also wish to read the admin instructions for ITN. But it appears you don't really care about that sort of thing, or quality on the main page, or actually working to improve the article you're so determined to get posted. (By the way, another admin has already told you it's not ready to be posted.) The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
              • I agree with NYB. There's a clear consensus in favor of posting this with only a small minority of editors opposing its posting. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
                • I'm afraid you're both wrong. The supports indicate an acknowledgement that this individual is suitable for RD. The considered thoughts which take into account article quality have at least two flat opposes and three supports contingent on article quality being updated. But if you guys want to crap all over one section of the main page with garbage quality, it's not something those of us who care about quality can stop. You'll just need to find an admin prepared to ignore the admin instructions for ITN and who's prepared to ignore the genuine and numerous concerns over the lack of quality of an article you're demanding is put on the main page. Two admins have already actively declined to do such. I'm certain you can find one who'll happily set the garbage precedent. P.S. Now a third admin has added an oppose for the article in its current "state". I look forward to seeing the outcome of any "I may go ahead and do so" childish threat you may wish to fulfil for your own self-satisfaction. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
                  • The Rambling Man is exactly right. Like others, I regard Casey Kasem as an industry legend, but until the article's issues are resolved, that's moot. There's clear consensus that Kasem was sufficiently notable for an RD link, but no amount of support can override our fundamental principles and practices.
                    So please count me among the administrators who've declined to post this item, noting that I'm not merely impartial, but biased in its favor. —David Levy 22:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This shouldn't (in my opinion) even be discussed Kasem was an icon, widely known, has more than 10 languages and is largely notable. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This dude is legendary that is all. (talk) 09:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose until the issues are dealt with. ITN written guidelines clearly state that orange level tags should be resolved before posting.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose because even RD items shouldn't have so many "citation needed" tags etc. If the issues really are common knowledge (and they're not for me - but then, like the majority of the world, I'm not an American of a certain age who followed Kasem's career well enough to have acquired these items of "common knowledge") then someone will have no difficulty in providing citations for the assertions to reliable sources. Or someone can try to change the rules so that details of a person's life and career can be sourced to {{cite common knowledge}}, or change the rules to allow articles with significant problems to appear in bold at ITN. Until then, this should not be posted. BencherliteTalk 13:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - After devoting my entire evening, the article is now in somewhat decent shape (this was truly one of the worst articles I've ever seen). It's still a little below standards, but now one could actually argue to let it pass - before doing so would be ridiculous. Better would be to chip in and fix the half dozen or so [citation needed] that remain. I've done 95% of the work, but need to get to bed, so it would be nice if someone could help out. If not, I'll do it tomorrow (whether or not the article has already been posted.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support There are over 54 sources, two further readings, and a link to his IMDB page on the article. The continued absence of this household name is bizarre to say the least. --Tocino 08:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Not really bizarre at all. The article was in an appalling state until Thaddeus generously spent his entire evening trying to fix it while all those who supported it did absolutely nothing to help whatsoever. As it stands, there are still nine [citation needed] tags that could use the help of the many keen supporters here. What is more troublesome is the bullyboy attitude of our own Arbcom member User:Newyorkbrad who blustered in and "threatened" to post the article along with its three massive maintenance tags and 30-odd [citation needed] tags. He's a real problem because it appears he's losing touch with what constitutes quality in the encyclopaedia he claims to be representing. A shocking turn of events. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Ready - After a bunch more work, just two [citation needed] remain. I believe that should be an acceptable level for a long article like this, but if someone really wants they can remove them before posting as neither is at all crucial to Kasem's bio. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Thaddeus, your dedication is outstanding, I can't congratulate you enough. I just hope that passers by like User:Newyorkbrad give you some credit for your efforts now the article they so desperately wanted to post but did nothing to improve has had at least 40 issues resolved. I'll leave it to him to post this as he was so keen to do so, even when the article was pure detritus. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Posted. And agreed about ThaddeusB's effort here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Kessab retakenEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 02:13, 21 June 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 Latakia offensive (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Amidst the Syrian civil war, The Syrian Arab Army retakes control of the Armenian-majority town of Kessab.
News source(s): Pres s TVGoogle News links

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Syria seems to have split off from ITN for a whle. Todays was a turn of events with the retking of the town. --Lihaas (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I would like more Syria items ITN. But it is a town of only 1,754 people - such a minor town changing hands does not seem very exceptional a priori. Any special reason why we should feature it? Thue (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
its the status of the town as the only Armenian-majority one and a symbolic, if not strategic, change of hands, a la minority-status, etc,,,also in light of the election, which we dint postLihaas (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
the third stupid "vote" above in a few hours...dear god!
anyhoo, its not on ongong as there is no constantly updated article per the last nom. I would support it in ongoing if not a blurb tooLihaas (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
The third or fourth (I lose count) rude and pathetic response. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:24, 16 June 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.

June 14Edit

[Posted] Ukrainian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 shoot-downEdit

Article: Ukrainian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 shoot-down (talk, history)
Blurb: ​An Ukranian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 is shot down near Luhansk, killing all 49 people on board.
News source(s): Reuters

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Reported as the deadliest single loss by Ukranian forces since the current conflict began. --Mjroots (talk) 07:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose because the article is still a little too stubby, and I'm not sure why this wouldn't just be another expansion of the Ongoing Ukrainian conflict item. Weak though, because if this is true, and it was "reportedly" carrying 49 people, significant individual loss of life in an aviation disaster. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    • @The Rambling Man: - BBC TV currently reporting that the 49 killed are all on board. Obviously web reporting is taking a little longer to catch up. The article will be updated as and when further details become available. Mjroots (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Now confirmed as all 49 (9 crew, 40 troops) killed. Article and blurb updated. Mjroots (talk) 07:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
        • I'll go neutral until article is improved and we have a quick debate over which this isn't already covered in the Ukrainian crisis "Ongoing" item. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
          • Discussion started re this issue at talk page. Mjroots (talk) 08:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
oppose its already in ongoing and I don't see repercussion enough for this to be extra noteworthy (despite the fact weve posted rubbish "incidents" with far less casualties). Also someone should note hthat Putin desnt Lord over Russian interests by negotiationg without ground reality support. say what he wants, peeps aint gonna change because of some words on paper. thisll be ongoing for awhile, deadlines et all asideLihaas (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I literally could not understand your last sentence there. Could you please copyedit it? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment on Sticky - Shouldn't the Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine article be linked instead? The 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine article doesn't contain the latest events.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a very good shout to be fair, I think I'll change it now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support we'd be posting this if it were simply a crash. That it's the deadliest act of war in the ongoing provocations makes it more, not lesss notable. μηδείς (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Medeis. A major escalation in the conflict. -Zanhe (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    • There's no doubt there's a major notable story, I don't think anyone has suggested its notability is in doubt, but we've kind of stymied ourselves a little with our "Ongoing" section, there's a discussion going on at the talk page here, i.e. should we allow one or two blurbs plus Ongoing simultaneously at ITN or should Ongoing cover it? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Which id what WP:IAR is for. Mjroots (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Yes, I understand, but what I'm trying to establish is what those rules actually are before we go ahead and ignore them! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Marking as ready - I can't see that there is a rule that says we can't post this because there is the related entry in the ongoing ticker. If there is such a rule, IAR can be applied. Will leave this to an uninvolved admin to give final say. Mjroots (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted and reworded to avoid "an Ukrainian" because it sounded weird to me, even though it appears to be acceptable. howcheng {chat} 19:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

[Pull?] Stanley CupEdit

Article: 2014 Stanley Cup Finals (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In ice hockey, the Los Angeles Kings defeat the New York Rangers to win the Stanley Cup
News source(s): LA Times

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.
This just happened a few moments ago. Article needs work. Calidum Talk To Me 04:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
oppose MVP it s not ITNR nor the most important bit. Would it be odd to bhave NBA and NHL on close to each other? It seems NBA will end tomorrow?Lihaas (talk) 05:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Ya, it seems like the NBA Finals will end tomorrow as well. But, they're two separate sports whose seasons just happen to overlap. Canuck89 (what's up?) 05:43, June 14, 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose until Game five has some prose, and oppose inclusion of MVP. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Game 5 has its prose now. Canuck89 (have words with me) 08:23, June 14, 2014 (UTC)
That's pushing it a little. It barely covers the game at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
It should be fine now. Heymid (contribs) 20:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Dunno what's with the opposition of including the MVP, which ITN had included before. That's a good excuse on adding a picture for the first blurb. –HTD 09:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
hmmm...good point. and as an example of ITN not being tatic and changing to good arguments, as a pic id change to support.Lihaas (talk) 09:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per ITNR and support brief mention of MVP, a parenthetical playoff MVP Justin Williams pictured. That's been a common practice in the past and it's not that much extra wording (and it'll be removed once the pic is swapped a day or so later.)--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support both the proposed blurb and including the MVP. I've updated the relevant articles, including a decent Game 5 summary. It is the greatest trophy in ice hockey, so it's definitely worth mentioning the MVP. Heymid (contribs) 20:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support ITNR, no need for MVP (who cares?) and heh, I thought winning the Olympics was the "greatest trophy in ice hockey", live and learn! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
    Stanley Cup is to the Olympic tournament as the UEFA Champions League is to the World Cup, roughly speaking. Just as club soccer and national team soccer have their own "best tournament in the world", so do club hockey and national team hockey. --Jayron32 00:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
    FYI, the word "trophy" doesn't show up in Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 13. –HTD 17:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
    It says a great deal about you, TRM - and none of it good - that you feel the need to resort to outright fabrication of arguments so that you can feel justified in acting like a little child. Resolute 17:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
    Pardon? Perhaps you're tired, or just need some help, or a break. I simply responded to the above comment ("It is the greatest trophy in ice hockey") because as far as I'd been "educated", that was the Olympic final, and Jayron was kind enough to help explain that situation. You, on the other hand, have acted foolishly and I hope you realise that. For your benefit, although I don't know why I bother given your abject lack of good faith, here's a previous discussion that you probably didn't even know existed because you just fired off: Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/February 2014#Olympic Men's Hockey Tournament where it was noted: "this match has traditionally held greater significance than many of the other events", "I was astounded to see that ITN hadn't posted the biggest tournament in international ice hockey", "This is the effective world championship of one of the world's major sports", "the biggest hockey tournament in the world" &c. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
    No, I well recall that discussion seeing as I participated it. I am also aware that your comment above represents little more than a continuation of your pouting over that discussion, four months after the fact. Resolute 21:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
    Well perhaps you should get over it and quit the ad hominem stupidity. Perhaps you'd overlooked the fact that I supported this nomination? Some people. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support ITNR, but no mention of the MVP. Would File:Stanley_Cup_no_background.png be a suitable image to use? As much as I like Maria Sharapova, Tennis is getting closer and closer to the bottom. With regards to the greatest trophy, yes there was a discussion during the Olympics with regards to the greatest trophy being the gold. I am sure we can hash that one out over the next four years. :) --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. howcheng {chat} 19:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
    • It appears several references are missing in this article, tagged as such. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Pull while I'm sure I'll get a shitload of flak for this, I'm suggesting we pull this until such a time that the various sections that I've re-read and tagged are fixed up. It's a great shame (both on me and those who supported this) that we missed obviously poorly referenced sections and having this on the main page with such a dismal array of pathetic references now precipitates my suggestion to pull it, albeit temporarily, until someone with the will and the knowledge can fix it up appropriately. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
    I agree the article is not up to standards and shouldn't have been posted. Are the standards to pull higher than just "it shouldn't have been posted"? If not, than it should be pulled. If so, then maybe its not worth worrying about. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

RD: Chuck NollEdit

Article: Chuck Noll (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [35]

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: Article will need a lot of work, but he was obviously a leader in his field - he is a member of the NFL Hall of Fame and the only head coach to win four Super Bowls. ----Bongwarrior (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. Just came here to nominate this myself. Hard to argue the only four-time Super Bowl winning coach isn't at the top of his field. Calidum Talk To Me 04:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as noted in the nomination the article is way below standard, and needs plenty more (and properly formatted) references. Subject is certainly notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support pending improvement One of the greatest NFL coaches of all time. I'm too busy today and spent from the Ruby Dee RD to improve this one. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Easy support when the article is cleaned up. If someone can do the work cleaning it up, Noll is clearly suitable for RD. He's won more Super Bowl rings than any other head coach in the NFL, a legend. --Jayron32 00:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support pending improvement: Coached a legenday team to four Super Bowl wins in six years. Daniel Case (talk) 04:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

[Attention needed] AntiguaEdit

Article: Antigua and Barbuda general election, 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: Gaston Browne is sworn in as prime minister of Antigua and Barbuda after the Antigua Labour Party wins a majority in the parliamentary election
Alternative blurb: ​The Antigua Labour Party, led by Gaston Browne, wins a majority in the parliamentary election.

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) 00:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

This is definitely not "good to go", and WP style is for Prime Minister to be capitalised where it is being used as a title. But I will support this once it is updated to include basic things like a list of candidates and who won what proportion of the vote. Formerip (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The prose update with the result is there...and more than many other [sports + RD] articles we post.Lihaas (talk) 03:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Suggesting altblurb for clarity(since it is the general election that is ITNR and not the PM). 331dot (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

June 13Edit

[Posted] RD: Gyula GrosicsEdit

Article: Gyula Grosics (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Guardian Reuters

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: A good opportunity to increase our RD coverage of non-English speaking people. Grosics was the goalie of the legendary 1950s Hungarian national football team that went four years without losing a match. He won an Olympic gold medal, was named as the all-star goalie of the 1954 World Cup, and is credited with innovating how to play the position. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment oppose on the lack of article quality but support for the subject matter. As noted, a legend in a legendary team. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This has gottoen to the point of absurdity. Not the world's best ahlete. Not the best soccer layer. Not the best Hungarian soccer player. But the best Hungarian goalie of the 50's? μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
    • The only thing absurd is suggesting the standard should be anywhere near "world's best athlete"... It is pretty hard to compare one position to another, but a case could easily be made that Grosics is top 5 all-time among Hungarian players of any position and was one of the top 5 players in the world at any position during the 1950s. And he is credited with changing how the position is played as well. Certainly he is a lot more than just the "best Hungarian goalie of the 50's" --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I would support on the subject matter if someone who knew something about him would expand the article. I cannot support based on article quality, but this would be a good addition to the RD ticker based on his importance to the sport. --Jayron32 00:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - article is now in decent shape, but let me know if further work is desired. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support now article has been expanded. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Meets the criteria, article's serviceable. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 15:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Article in good shape and definitely of historical importance both to his nation and the sport. Challenger l (talk) 02:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. howcheng {chat} 19:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing: IraqEdit

No consensus at this point, although some enthusiasm for such an Ongoing article should the developments in Iraq continue. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 16 June 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.

After the conflicts in Mosul and Tikrit, and a call to arms, this is worthy of being added to Ongoing. Target article is Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. It looks like Iraq is walking in the footsteps of Syria, if not worse. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support It's bad. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Fair point below by Smurrayinchester. When that falls off, though, assuming Iraq doesn't fix itself by then, this would be a good idea. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Sadly, nothing to add to the above. ToBk (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose currently We have a blurb right now at the top of the page relating to the most recent development in this story. I don't see how this extra clutter adds anything to the page. If this is still in the news in a week or so when it drops off the page (and to be fair, it probably will be), and there are no new postable developments (further advances, counter attacks, foreign intervention), then it can go in Ongoing. Smurrayinchester 20:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. A little like the World Cup, we know this is happening. But it's just a good candidate for Ongoing since it's not ITNR like the conclusion of the World Cup. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree with this in principle, though the overall conflict is becoming larger than can fit in a blurb. I think duplicates between a blurb and Ongoing (with separate target articles) might make sense in some cases. (Although I guess the target article isn't really developed enough for Ongoing at this point anyways.) ToBk (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
clearly bot while its a blurb...but when it drops off and if there is no stoppage to the conflict by next week then 'obvious support to drop it into ongoingLihaas (talk) 00:16, 14 June 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.

June 12Edit

[Posted] IMPAC Dublin Literary AwardEdit

Article: The Sound of Things Falling (talk, history)
Blurb: The Sound of Things Falling by Juan Gabriel Vásquez wins the International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award.
News source(s): Guardian

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: I apologize about the slow nomination - the novel's article didn't exist and I didn't have a chance to create it until today. The award is ITN/R, but I didn't see a point in nominated a red link. It should now be ready to go unless there are quality-based objections. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Posted as ITN/R with no objections, and effort taken to create a referenced article. Stephen 00:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Tesla Motors patent giveawayEdit

Article: Tesla Motors (talk, history)
Blurb: Tesla Motors announces it will allow competitors to use its patents without paying royalties.
News source(s): CNBC, Forbes

Nominator's comments: In what might be an unprecedented move (or at least an extremely unusual one), Telsa has decided to "open source" its patents. Its either a genus move or suicide, but either way its big news. This is an excellent chance to post some business/technology news, both of which are unrepresented on ITN. I can add a bit more to the article if desired, but the update is already in good shape and the article is GA-ish quality. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support as a notable development in the electric car industry; more companies using the patents means more people working to improve the technology. 331dot (talk) 02:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, highly unusual business story. I suspect that Musk believes that the other motor companies will not offer any cars with the technology, embarrassing them in the eyes of the public. Or maybe he is taking the long view, and when the big car companies fail 15 years hence, people will say that they have no one to blame but themselves—and the voting public will not support bailing them out. Anyway, this will have long-reaching impact. Abductive (reasoning) 04:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — Might not be 72-point headline news, but it's unprecedented (I think) & intriguing — and might presage a new era in electric vehicles. Sca (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Support In an industry that has had events like the Tucker/Ford scandal, this is about as unusual an event as I can even imagine happening. Definitely a development to watch as it unfolds. Challenger l (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is not newsworthy, at least here.–Simfan34 (talk) 04:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Should not have been posted. I've taken the liberty of adding some sources in the article that go past the original press release narrative, but you should have done so before considering this item. I can't believe that the people who refused to note that the Sun has a sister think that some company making a I-won't-sue-you-if-you-won't-sue-me deal similar to arrangements already made more formally by Google and Twitter[36] was worth making a news item here. If you weren't paid, you should be ashamed of yourselves. Wnt (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
    • You still harping on about that? Consensus is how it works here, and there wasn't consensus to post some corny crap about a "sister of the sun". Sorry, some you win, some you don't. Are you accusing me of being paid to post this? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • What an insulting and stupid statement. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think this falls under the category of an agreement between two companies. Musk's move was unilateral. As for the sibling of the Sun story, I went to a great deal of trouble, including talking to a working astronomer in person, in an attempt to determine if there was a reason to post. Abductive (reasoning) 00:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • And he was just as unsure as we were about the import/impact of the discovery. He thought that once there are more siblings found, and they could be checked for exoplanets, it might be possible to see if there was a trend insofar as the Hot Jupiter problem was concerned. It seems that are too few Jupiter-sized planets in the same orbit as our Solar System, and this demands explanation. Abductive (reasoning) 19:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] World Cup startsEdit

Pretty clear consensus to stick with the sticky. Smurrayinchester 20:31, 13 June 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 FIFA World Cup (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The 2014 FIFA World Cup kicks off in Brazil.
News source(s): Do I really have to?
Nominator's comments: I've been bold and put the World Cup in "Ongoing" - this is uncontroversial for the World Cup and the Olympics. This question is about whether we want a blurb as well, or not. Smurrayinchester 21:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The finals are ITN/R, not the opening game. This isn't the Olympic Opening Ceremony here. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No the Ongoing is perfectly adequate (and I agree with your decision to boldly add it, by the way) and we'll post the winner in a month. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I was just about to nominate it for ongoing, so support ongoing. However, there is no reason for a full blurb - it isn't like the Olympics where the opening cermony is a big deal (the most watch event of the entire Olympics in fact). The conclusion will, of course, be posted as a full blurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Given all the social unrest in Brazil (Brazil! of all places!) that has preceded this, and that it's basically the most popular sportng event on the planet, it belongs. Daniel Case (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Football is the world game. Few other sports attract as much global interest. The World Cup is a big deal with a huge international television audience comparable to the Olympics, and the opening events are keenly anticipated, perhaps even more than the final because so many nations have an interest and a chance. --Pete (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
    • But the "opening events" are easily covered in the "Ongoing" section, why do we need that and a blurb? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I read the nom. The opening is a big deal, as I said. Just my opinion. --Pete (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The ongoing is enough. Neljack (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose as a blurb, support for ongoing. I'm not seeing the opening ceremonies of the WC as anywhere near the repute that the same for the Olmypics have. --MASEM (t) 22:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose and pull as an ongoing topic. I asked on the talk page why we were continuing to post items as ongoing when the trial has now ended. There have been no comments to that, nor any demonstration of how a time-limited trial can be extended without consensus. Therefore the ongoing experiment is over as a matter of policy. 3142 (talk) 07:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Since the Ongoing trial was considered a success, there was no need to remove it - it is here to stay unless some strong arguments against are provided. Also, it's more convenient to have the World Cup as Ongoing than as a separate sticky - what we would have done otherwise. --Tone 08:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, but Support ongoing - It's a huge story, but until the actual final round, it's going to be too broad and multi-threaded for a blurb. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb, support ongoing - because the event as a whole is significant but the opening ceremony is not (IMO). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:15, 13 June 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.

June 11Edit

[Posted] RD: Ruby DeeEdit

Article: Ruby Dee (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): CNN

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: From the lead: "She was the recipient of Grammy, Emmy, Obie, Drama Desk, Screen Actors Guild Award, and Screen Actors Guild Lifetime Achievement Awards as well as the National Medal of Arts and the Kennedy Center Honors." She was also involved in the Civil Rights Movement. --– Muboshgu (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose article is woefully under-referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
    Working on that. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
    It's improved, though not all the way. I've referenced most of the awards/nominations, but haven't found refs for them all. My work day is done and I'll probably be offline tonight, so hopefully others can help. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support when article fully referenced - clearly someone at the top of her field. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Not an actress I'm familiar with, but I've heard the name and she was obviously well-accomplished. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm boldly marking this as ready, as all are supports except for the under-referenced comment, and that's been taken care of. All non-linked works are covered by an inline citation. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Unmarked, there are four [citation needed] tags and what on earth makes "" a reliable source? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Oops. Forgot about that section. Done. I took that source out. I threw it in in haste, it's not needed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Just a couple more [citation needed] tags. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
          • All good this time. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
            • Just one more. And that NAACP ref dated 1969, when Tatyana Ali was minus 10, what's that all about? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
              • Ref added. As to the 1969 date, I was going to say it's because Reflinks is imperfect, but hey, check it out yourself. I just took the date out. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted good work Muboshgu. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks. That was quite the process. Good on you pushing for the quality. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Well that's not a problem at all. It's nice to work with someone who gives a damn about that sort of thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Eric Cantor loses primary electionEdit

Consensus not to post, no reason to prolong this --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:23, 12 June 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: Eric Cantor (talk, history)
Blurb: Eric Cantor becomes the first U.S. House majority leader ever to lose a primary election
News source(s): The Washington Post

Article updated
Nominator's comments: The unprecedented nature of this loss (in the 115 years that the parties in the U.S. House have had floor leaders this has never happened; it's on a par with Michael Martin's resignation as Speaker of the Commons) plus its implications for the strength of the Tea Party in national politics make this notable enough. I wish someone had created an article about this race, but we go to the Main Page with the articles we have, not the articles we'd like to have. --Daniel Case (talk) 01:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose While this is receiving quite a bit of coverage, I think the blurb would need to to note his impending resignation at the very least, not just note it as a record. I'm not sure how that would reasonably fit in with enough of a blurb to seem notable, though, especially without a backing article to explain the impact of Cantor's loss. You can certainly create an article about the race yourself if you want to. ToBk (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: I support this proposal/nomination. This was the first time that this has happened since the history of the office in 1899, I believe. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I guess we can only do a legit comparison with Martin if it was the actual Speaker, not just the majority leader, that lost, considering the U.S. Speaker has vastly more powers than his UK counterpart. –HTD 01:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While it is significant, as the blurb is written, even most Americans probably wouldn't precisely understand the significance here (is it common knowledge what a majority leader is?)--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
    It is self explanatory what "majority leader" mean and Americans aren't that dumb as to not understand the significance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
    How is the term "majority leader" self-explanatory? For instance, from the term one would assume that the majority leader is the leader of the majority party, but it turns out that the Speaker is effectively the leader, with the majority leader as his deputy. Neljack (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Losing the seat via the primary is unprecedented, but if the Democrats also gain the majority, he would have lost the seat that way. How this will shake out politically is unknown since this is still not the real election. --MASEM (t) 02:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
He would have lost his position as majority leader, yes, but not his seat. This loss has effectively cost him his seat as well, since he has announced that unlike Lisa Murkowski he will not run a write-in campaign (since, really, he had little support in his district outside the Republican base, and he knows it. He's not saying so, and he can talk party loyalty all he wants, but that's the real reason why). Daniel Case (talk) 05:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This is a highly significant event and unprecedented in the political history of the United Sates. I am surprised about the opposed comments, do you guys read the news? This is the top story in Google News since yesterday. Cwobeel (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - While this is big news in the US, I just don't see it being that globally significant and even within the US this is a step below the shake-up that would have happened if the House Speaker, John Boehner, had lost his primary. In the pegging order of power in Congress, you could even argue that the Senate Minority leader, Mitch McConnell, is more higher up than Cantor. But even if McConnell lost his primary earlier this year, I still don't see a compelling reason to post this very US-centric blurb. AgneCheese/Wine 04:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
McConnell, like any U.S. senator, represents a state whose districts cannot be so easily altered for gerrymandering purposes. He'd have been at greater risk of losing anyway in a general election, as Tom Daschle did when Senate minority leader in 2002.

The true political significance of this is that it happened to a guy who'd been a thorn in Obama's side, a onetime darling of conservatives who represented a very solidly Republican district—and now he isn't conservative enough anymore for them. While some of the more astute commentators have noted how this has much to do, if not more, with Cantor's longtime neglect of his district in favor of K Street and his desire to be Speaker, as with his supposed willingness to accept immigration reform, the perception is such as to make it much harder for any House Republicans to move to the center on any issue the Tea Party cares about. Daniel Case (talk) 05:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I'm American and I don't support this; not the top position of the majority party. I would if it was Speaker Boehner who lost his primary or general election(last one was Speaker Tom Foley in 1994, and before that it had been over a hundred years since a Speaker lost their election) 331dot (talk) 09:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose just a side-note in modern politics. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - An internal party matter. It's impossible to draw good comparisons with the UK - the Speaker does a completely different job; the last time an elected majority house leader was unseated, it was the end of Margaret Thatcher's premiership. But I don't see any compelling reason here to vary our rule of only posting changes of heads of state and government, and results of general elections. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
weak oppose even though it is a famous first, its not global enough in scope. Still though...woo hoo!! America is awake and pissed offLihaas (talk) 11:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Pissed off to Latinos lol –HTD 11:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Could you both keep your contributions comprehensible and relevant, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Ditto 331dot. Rhodesisland (talk) 11:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose history is written by the winners. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose — Of medium significance in the U.S. as a possible omen, but not of major interest globally. Sca (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, politician forgets that all politics is local, loses primary. Abductive (reasoning) 14:13, 12 June 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.

June 10Edit

Reuven Rivlin elected as Israeli PresidentEdit

Article: Israeli presidential election, 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The Knesset elects Reuven Rivlin to be the next President of the State of Israel.
Alternative blurb: ​The Knesset elects Reuven Rivlin to be the next President of Israel.
News source(s): [37], [38]

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: Election of a head of state should be notable enough. --Inkbug (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

  • The PM has all the power, though, no? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Change of head of state is ITN/R. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I've suggested a simpler blurb. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
not updated not prose update.Lihaas (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Israel is a major country and the changing of its head of state, scheduled for once every seven years, warrants a blurb. --Tocino 09:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Tocino the change in every head of state is notable, that is why it is listed at the recurring events list; it does not need support on the merits, just the quality of the article and blurb. 331dot (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support — Article looks to be in decent shape. The fact the Rivlin's ancestry includes a link with the once-large and influential Jewish community in Vilnius (formerly Wilno) may be of interest to Jewish readers worldwide. Sca (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. There's no prose update yet. Formerip (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support although the 'results' section of the article could do with a bit more text. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose very weak article, pathetic update, if this is such a big deal as suggested by ITN/R and other supporters, perhaps the article could be expanded beyond a stub so we can post something half-decent to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I am surprised it has not been posted yet. Obviously notable. Beign the Middle Easts only democracy and so on..--BabbaQ (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Presumably you hadn't read the pathetic quality article then. We don't post notable crap, no matter how notable it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] ISIS seizes MosulEdit

Article: 2014 Mosul offensive (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In northern Iraq, militants from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant invade Mosul
Alternative blurb: ​Militants from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant seize most of Mosul, Iraq's second-largest city.
News source(s): Washington Post Reuters

Article needs updating

Nominator's comments: ISIS has been gaining the upper hand, over the Kurds and Free Syrian army in the Syria insurgency, now they were able to attack a big city such as Mosul in Iraq (borderiing Kurdish territory). This is a big development and caused a huge exodus of people from the city. Both the Kurds and the central Iraqi authority are poised to retaliate. I am not sure which article to update, maybe the best option is to create a new one specifically about the event --Tachfin (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - Mosul is a major city with 1.8 million people. However, the current blurb underestimates the success of the incursion. I would change it to "Militants from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant capture most of Mosul, Iraq's second largest city." Also, the article linked should be either Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal) or a new article. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support Al-Qaeda has seized a major city; this is a pretty huge event. Support something like FutureTrillionaire's blurb (and proposed target, until we have a separate article.) ToBk (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
    I have started 2014 Mosul offensive and will work on expanding it. There is plenty of material to be added since this essentially happened overnight. ToBk (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This is a critical moment in the Iraqi insurgency. B14709 (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - needs more of an update than the current 1 sentence. Additionally the last third of the article, or so, is almost entirely 1-2 sentence "paragraphs" that need fixed up. (Or start a stand-alone article as ToBk seems to have done.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I created Battle of Mosul (2014) and someone already created 2014 Mosul offensive, perhaps someone can merge them, and keep only one in the blurb.--Tachfin (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
    I have boldly merged that into 2014 Mosul offensive, since I don't see sources using "Battle of Mosul". I am not that familiar with this area of editing, so please retitle as needed. ToBk (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
@ToBk: Good, I don't think the title matters much now since the event is too recent. --Tachfin (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, but "second-largest" seems to be wrong. Both Baghdad (7 million) and Basra (2 million) are larger. Smurrayinchester 15:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
    The sources for those numbers seem to be pretty poor, and I imagine the data aren't great given the amount of conflict. Many RSes are specifically noting it as the second-largest city (e.g. BBC's title of "Militants seize Iraq's second city"), so I think that's okay to use. (Unless there's more evidence the RSes are wrong, which is possible.) ToBk (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • There are sources that are referring to it as the third largest city ([39], [40]). We can use "one of the largest" to stay in the safe side. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Hmm, you are right. Leaving it out entirely might be better than "one of the largest", but either works. ToBk (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
"Second city" doesn't always mean the same thing as "second largest city". Formerip (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Major development. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Thue (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Despite being posted, this was not ready IMO. The content on the siege is very bare bones - one short paragraph about it (repeated twice in the lead and body). We can do better than that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
    • There are two paragraphs - one in the lead and one in the body, and they are not the same except for one sensence. Anyway, having ITN itself be complete is also important IMO, and the article was just good enough to post. Thue (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, NYT headline affirms No. 2 rank for Mosul: Second-Biggest Iraqi / City Seized in Rapid / Assault by Militants Sca (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
A Google News search for "mosul second-largest city attacked" gets 8k hits, "mosul third-largest city attacked" only 6 hits. Probably still shouldn't be in the blurb without better confirmation, but we should probably take a look at the population numbers in those articles. ToBk (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Mosul is the second largest city according to the Iraq article, but the link used to support that does not look RS and actually has Mosul as the fifth largest city. I think we should give up. Formerip (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
The BBC is reporting that Kirkuk has fallen to the Kurds, not to ISIS: [42] - this is at odds with the AJE report, so I suggest we hold off mentioning Kirkuk unless and until it become clear which faction now controls it. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The AJE report was about Tikrit being captured yesterday by ISIS; Kirkuk being taken is new. But with that added info (and with Kirkuk apparently being 4x as large as Tikrit), I think we may need a new combined blurb since it's not just ISIS now. (Although they apparently led the Kirkuk assault per the BBC ref.) "Militants led by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant capture several large cities in Northern Iraq" or something, but that feels like it's understanding the events a bit. ToBk (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Are the Kurds lead by ISIS, or are the two groups moving south in parallel, exploiting the same power vacuum? In either case, this is a massive, complex, and rapidly-developing story. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
It seems like there are Iraqi-allied Kurds in Mosul [43] as well as ISIS-allied Kurds who have taken over Kirkuk. (The BBC suggests the entire thing is "led" by ISIS, but I don't know.) The main article seems to have been split into 3 factions now. This is a mess. ToBk (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment — Suggest the phrase "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" be preceded by "a militant group called" or similar language. For example, AP on June 12 said, "Fighters from the militant group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant took Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit on Wednesday...." [44] Sca (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

June 9Edit

[Posted] RD: Rik MayallEdit

Item has been posted with clear consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:20, 12 June 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: Rik Mayall (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): BBC

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: Maybe not the top of his field in terms of awards, but this is all over the UK news media as he was a very significant figure in British comedy. Google also finds coverage in Croatia, Netherlands, Singapore, Sweden and Germany./ --Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Came here to nominate this if nobody else had. Support in principle on RD criteria but article needs improvement on referencing for previous content as there are lots of unreferenced one/two-sentence paragraphs. BencherliteTalk 15:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Tenative support, once the article is cleaned up a bit. One of the leading figures in British comedy through the 80s and 90s. Smurrayinchester 16:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Tenative support, speaking as an American that clearly recognizes the name from Brit comedy. Not necessarily officially recognized as a leader of the field, but certainly influencial. Also at 56 somewhat unexpected (though as BBC notes, nothing criminally suspicious). --MASEM (t) 16:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, one of the most important comedians of his time that, little did anybody remembered was that he even had a stab at a Hollywood starring role in 1991. Donnie Park (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Shhh, we're still trying to forget Drop Dead Fred... :) --MASEM (t) 17:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, Definitely a notable name in British comedy since the 1980s. TV, stand up comedy, theater and an influence that stretched beyond those bounds. Challenger l (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Part of the 80s comedy movement in the UK. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Great icon of the British comedy circuit, and a true highlight of so many television and stage shows doktorb wordsdeeds 18:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support A leading figure in comedy for many years; very important in his field. Starred in several successful sitcoms, acted in films as well as doing stand-up comedy and writing comedy. Unexpectedly died at 56. Jim Michael (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD. Easy call. Gamaliel (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD. No-brainer. Black Kite kite (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD, unexpected death, one of the leading lights of Alternative Comedy. Bob talk 19:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment would post if it weren't for the scandalous amount of unreferenced material in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • None of it is contentious though. I'll try and fix some, but I've got to go out in half an hour. Black Kite kite (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Put a few more in. None of this is either contentious nor difficult to source, but as I say I've got to go. 36 sources isn't exactly unsourced, indeed it's far better than most of the stuff we post here. I suggest posting this, I'll fix the rest when I get back if no-one else has in the meantime. Black Kite kite (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • That's not actually true, we tend to demand good referencing on all items posted, and that doesn't just mean counting the total, it means looking at entire unreferenced paragraphs and requesting they be referenced. I appreciate your work so far and look forward to your continued improvements because, right now, we shouldn't be posting a BLP article with whole unreferenced paras. And before anyone whinges, BLP still applies here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Being non-centenious just means the unreferenced material meets the bare minimum policy to not be removed on sight. ITN can and does have higher standards than that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support but I completely agree with TRM on the referencing. Neljack (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Woof! Comic gem. Support. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 23:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - further support !votes aren't going to get this posted faster. Pitching in with improving the referencing will. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose the American equivalent would be a guy who had a bit on Beavis and Butthead and a starring role in Porky's. Makes one wonder what exactly "iconic" means in Britain. μηδείς (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
What's your basis for that comparison? In any case, Rik Mayall's picture is the main image on the front cover of every significant British national newspaper except the Financial Times this morning: [45]. AlexTiefling (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
[personal attack by proxy removed]
I would remind you of the no personal attacks policy. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Obviously all the American admins are still asleep, otherwise this would have been posted by now. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Seems to be similar to the Ann B. Davis situation, not at the top of their fields and not well-known outside of their home countries. --Tocino 07:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted, now that the article is fairly extensively referenced. Smurrayinchester 08:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - he is far more notable than Davis and far more than a theoretical actor who had a bit part in B&B and a starring role in Porky's. Mayall starred in several successful sitcoms, wrote many comedies and performed stand-up comedy as well as doing film work in the US as well as the UK. I think he is fairly well-known in several European countries; not little-known outside the UK. If an American of his notability had died, by now there would have been over a hundred people supporting him being posted to RD, and a few requesting a blurb. He would have been posted to RD within a couple of hours of his death being reported by the media. Mayall was a versatile comedy actor with millions of fans. Jim Michael (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Not if it wasn't updated. And Americans are just starting to wake up right now; asleep admins can't post(usually). 331dot (talk) 09:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I've seen plenty of Americans on Twitter expressing their admiration for Mayall. Let's not rely on imaginary analogies; I think this is merited because Mayall really did have a broad and enduring reputation. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Given that 60% of American culture comes from the British, and just thinking of Python and the Neestons, we can certainly tolerate a bit of nationalist nonsense. But Drop Dead Fred $13M revenue, 9 at Rotten Tomatoes and The Young One (MTV ran that show at midnight while they were in bankruptcy--laundry detergent ads would have been funnier) we should let this be posted just like any other nom that gets so much support so quickly. (I will ignore article quality.) But to describe opposes as basically bigotry isn't only insulting, it shows a total lack of the creativity and competence Yanks expect from Brits. μηδείς (talk) 02:11, 12 June 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] Juan José Esparragoza MorenoEdit

No sign that this has been verified. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 16 June 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: Juan José Esparragoza Moreno (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [46]

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: His death has not been confirmed officially confirmed yet. However, if it is, this is big news for Mexico's criminal underworld. This man was one of the founders of the notorious Guadalajara Cartel in the 1970s (now disintegrated after the murder of DEA agent Enrique Camarena). He then went on to lead the Juárez Cartel with other old school guys. He had a large bounty on his head and was the leader of the Sinaloa Cartel with El Chapo Guzmán (now arrested). ComputerJA () 04:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait This seems a little premature for proper consideration at the moment but personally I would tend to assume that someone who death is not reported in the English language is not notable enough to be posted here. I've just tried Googling for news coverage and nothing comes to hand immediately. It's possible that they are simply slow on the uptake though, in which case I'll have to look at it again to come to a fresh opinion. If such reports emerge and they tend to indicate the level of significance worthy of posting (I don't trust automatic translation for that kind of judgement call) then the article needs sharpening up - right now it is in a half-updated form - is/was and so on vary throughout the article and the infobox has not been updated. 3142 (talk) 04:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Update: I've found English language coverage here[47] but that is a specialist site, I'd prefer some more general coverage from well known sites before coming to any definite conclusions. It does appear that this is filed under the wrong date since it states Saturday afternoon - that could be either 7th or 8th in UTC terms. 3142 (talk) 05:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree. I'm okay with waiting for English sources to come up. The Mexican sources say he died on Saturday, making it the 7th. ComputerJA () 05:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support once English-language sources appear. Seems to have been a leader in his field per DC2. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD once the article lead is updated and RS-cited with information about his death. Gamaliel (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD if confirmed From the Chicago Tribune ref above: "Federal authorities in Mexico City told The Times they did not have information about Esparragoza’s death but were working to determine whether it was true", and the location was also reported to be unclear. Spanish-language refs seem equally uncertain. Significant figure in the field of drug trafficking, but we need to wait for better confirmation. ToBk (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose both unconfirmed and no article updates accordingly. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 13 June 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.

June 8Edit

[Posted] Tony AwardsEdit

Article: 68th Tony Awards (talk, history)
Blurb: All the Way wins Best Play and A Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder wins Best Musical at the Tony Awards.
News source(s): Playbill

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: Article could be improved, but perhaps is good enough - not an area of interest to me, but I will address any specific concerns raised. Otherwise, ready to post per WP:ITN/R --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Alexander ImichEdit

No consensus to post. And apparently no consensus to post oldest people in general, apart from longevity record breakers. --Tone 08:19, 10 June 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: Alexander Imich (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s):

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.
 --wirenote (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose His general career does not rise to the level of RD, and the media are primarily reporting on his status as oldest living man. The previous oldest man in the world died only a month and a half ago. I could see supporting this if he was the oldest person (not just man) ever, but he was just the oldest currently living man. ToBk (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - The oldest living man is by definition at the top of the supercenturian "field", an area that attacks a lot of interest. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • He wasn't at the top of the supercentarian field, he was the current top male supercentarian, two steps removed. The new current top male supercentarian is just a day younger (so by tomorrow he'll have tied Imich), and the current top (female) supercentarian is 116. The all-time top male supercentarian was Jiroemon Kimura at 116, and the overall all-time top supercentarian is listed at 126122. Also, 66 women older than Imich were alive at the time of his death. ToBk (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • By that logic, Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce is an average sprinter because if she was a man, her gold medal time would barely get her out of the first round of the 100 meters... In longevity, women have a substantial advantage just as men have a substantial advantage in most sports. If Imich was the oldest man ever, he would get a full blurb (Kiumra did). Since he isn't, RD is appropriate. On average, the oldest man/woman has lived about a year after gaining the title. I think we can afford 2 RD listings a year, on average, for oldest people. (Also, I have no idea where you got 126 from - the record in 122 and no one else made 120.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oops, 122 indeed. Special gender status aside, we don't tend to note current record holders in other fields, even though RSes like publishing trivia in this case. Combining data from List of the verified oldest men and List of the verified oldest women for deaths from 2000-2013, there are about 9/year total. That is a lot of RDs just for people taking over the "most recent oldest person of that gender to die" title for a few months. ToBk (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • First, we do tend to post both the setting of record in many fields and the deaths of former world record holders. Second, I don't know where you are getting 9/year - perhaps you are counting all supercenturians, which is not what I argued for. I said all people who were oldest at the time of their death (by gender). On that criteria, there were 2 in 2013; 2 in 2012; 2 in 2011; 2 in 2010; 4 in 2009; 1 in 2008; and so on, right about 2/year like I said. --ThaddeusB (talk)
  • Yeah, I was counting all of them. (But then, supercentarians are only notable if they die with no other older supercentarian of the same gender currently living? Or only if the media has a slow news day?) But it's still pretty narrow as a supposed achievement. No records are being broken, just the passing of the "current oldest" title. The deaths of former holders are posted as was done with Kiumra. Maybe this should be brought up as an ITN/R item if there's a good reason to commemorate this occasional passing of ceremonial officeholder. ToBk (talk) 04:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. These are often nominated, and rightly or wrongly do not obtain consensus to be posted. From what I have observed only the longest lived person ever (of each gender) would probably have a shot at being posted (a woman living longer than Jeanne Calment's 122, and the aforementioned Kimura for men). 331dot (talk) 02:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    I'm not sure there is a consensus yet... The past record shows 1 post and 1 rejection, I believe. Dina Manfredini, the last such woman, was posted to RD in Dec 2012. Incidentally, only 1 person held the position less time than her since 1990. Besse Cooper, the second most recent women to meet the criteria, was not nominated but was cited as an ITN oversight in the Manfredini discussion (and certainly would have been posted if nominated since the !voters would have been the same people due to the short amount of time between the two deaths). Arturo Licata, the last such man, was not nominated. The only other such person meeting the criteria since the advent of RD, Salustiano Sanchez, was rejected as "oldest man only, not oldest person", an argument I consider invalid due to gender inequality in the field. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think "supercenturians" is a field. Surely it is a class of people - like children, left-handers and redheads. I very much doubt we would regard them as fields. In any case, it's not clear that to me what his importance in this field is. If he'd been the oldest ever, maybe, but being the oldest at the moment hardly seems that significant. Neljack (talk) 10:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't believe this to be a notable death, and I fear that we'll end up having a "world's oldest man/woman" ticker in due course as this appears to happen every month or so. Making this death notable will inherently make all subsequent "oldest man/woman" deaths notable. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    As stated above, the average length at "current oldest" is about a year, not a couple months. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    The frequency will increase as average ages increase. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    I rather doubt that, we are talking about a 0.0000000001% outlier in longevity; I see no reason to think the 0.0000000002% case will get closer to the 0.0000000001% case over time. (I'm also not sure average lifespan is increasing in first world countries anymore.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry, evidence points elsewhere and we'll have to agree to disagree about this. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    That doesn't actually refute that first-world life expectancy is rising, which wasn't even my point to begin with. Again, even if life expectancy is still rising that would mean not implicitly have an effect on the difference between the biggest outlier and the second biggest outlier, which is the relevant comparison when talking about the how long one will remain the oldest living person. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    The population of the world is more than 4 times higher than when the currently dying oldest people were born. It's a trivial point, but that will cause a much larger increase in frequency of really-old-person deaths than changes in life expectancy. ToBk (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Somebody has got the be 'the world's oldest living man' at any point in time, and it's equally inevitable that that person will die. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    Isn't that true of every field though? --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    Well yes, but people in other fields may have some notability apart from having failed to die for a long time. Black Kite kite (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Opppose this is moot till they surpass Jeanne Calment. μηδείς (talk) 03:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose as this is just another nomination that makes the whole process of posting deaths a huge parody. I've never though about it that we'd once start posting deaths of oldest people by the virtue of simply "being oldest" at the time of their death, with no additional criterion of significance being met. Please also recall that we introduced RD to save room on the main page in order to prevent the box being overloaded with deaths, but not to grant less significant and important people chance to be mentioned anywhere on the main page. So far, it seems like the criteria have been substantially decreased for both blurb and RD in a such way that we could easily get to a point of time when the same criteria would apply for blurb as before introducing the change, while the RD would become the excessive part documenting deaths of people whose significance was drastically bellow the threshold.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:12, 10 June 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] Karachi airport attackEdit

Article: 2014 Jinnah International Airport attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least 23 people are killed in an attack on Jinnah International Airport in Karachi, Pakistan.
News source(s): BBC New York Times Washington Post Al Jazeera

Article updated

Nominator's comments: While terrorist attacks in Pakistan are common, a major international airport being attacked is not so common. This is being reported as the most notable attack in the Karachi area since the PNS Mehran attack in 2011. Significant worldwide media coverage. --ToBk (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support this as an attack on such a major airport is significant.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment About half of the currently reported deaths were the attackers, an unusually high ratio for this type of incident, which makes the blurb feel a bit weird. Feel free to improve. ToBk (talk) 00:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support A terrorist attack at a major airport that includes civilian deaths. --MASEM (t) 01:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Terrorist attack on an important public facility is notable. 331dot (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment [49] Taliban are claiming responsibility; may want to adjust blurb for that. --MASEM (t)
  • Support - daring terrorist attack on a major international airport resulting in high casualty. -Zanhe (talk) 05:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Major attack making frontpage news. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted but as the situation is ongoing, let's please keep the article up to scratch. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Update? — On June 10, Talibanites on motorcycles attack a security academy at Karachi airport, are repulsed. Meanwhile, death toll from June 8 attack rises to "at least" 34. [50] Sca (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

June 7Edit

[Posted] 2014 South Kivu attackEdit

Article: 2014 South Kivu attack (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Around 35 people are killed in an attack on a village in South Kivu, Democratic Republic of the Congo
News source(s): Reuters, AFP

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Significant violence/death toll in an area where such attacks are not common. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose Per the article, this was an attack rising from "dispute over cattle", which, if this happened in the Unites States, would be equated to a turf/gang violence, which we'd ignore. Contrast this to the terrorist attack at the Pakistan airport, above, which is much more significant in how it affects the world, even if the death count was fewer. --MASEM (t) 01:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    First, the (probably unintentional) implication that Africans regularly engage in mass murder over land/property disputes is ridiculous. Second, you may want to read a bit more carefully - it is thought to be ethnically motivated violence with the immediate cause being a cattle dispute. Finally, if there was an incident of "gang violence" in the United States that led to 35 deaths, I'm sure it would be a shoo in. (I do not believe such an incident has occurred in the last several years, let alone been ignored.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    Even considering the death count, compared to other major attack/events that are in the ITN/C, this is too much of a "local" issue to be really ITN now. --MASEM (t) 05:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    Per the instructions... 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....." The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    Was not trying to make it a country bias issue or anything, simply that give that the airport attack is likely to be (now has been) posted, this event is a much smaller issue that otherwise would have been likely to be posted on a slower news day. We should be cognizant of the various types of stories being posted and having multiple stories on separate incidents of mass killings seems to flood out other stories. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    The oldest item is currently from June 1 (and is a mass death story, incidentally), so I personally wouldn't be too concerned about pushing anything out. Now if we had 7 active stories from the last 3 days, then I might be inclined to agree. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    Perhaps we foreigners have a mistaken idea of how peaceful the United States is, but I was under the impression that a massacre of 35 people - gang-related or otherwise - would be fairly unusual there. Neljack (talk) 10:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    It would be extremely unusual. I don't think there has been a gang incident with 35+ dead in the US in many years. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - 35 deaths in a train accident in India = post, 35 deaths in African because of inter-ethnic violence = do not post... what? This looks valid for ITN. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I'm have no idea why this is supposed to have much less international significance than the Karachi airport attack. I'm sure a serious incident of inter-ethnic violence in eastern Congo will be of considerable international concern, considering that that the last major rebellion in the area ended only six months ago (with a peace deal brokered by the US Special Representative Russ Feingold - this is not an area just ignored by the international community). The head of the UN peacekeeping mission certainly appears to be taking it seriously, sending in troops. Neljack (talk) 10:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support The sources and thus our article are unfortunately vague about whether ethnic violence was a factor, making this indeed feel more like a "local issue". (I would strongly support this if we had enough information to include an ethnic motive in the blurb and more definitively in the article lead.) But the UN has deployed peacekeepers to assist Congolese forces [51], which seems to demonstrates wider notability. ToBk (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Article is a great shape too. ComputerJA () 15:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 05:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Turing test passedEdit

No consensus to post, the nominator has withdrawn to take it to DYK, and the veracity of the claims have been questioned. Stephen 06:47, 10 June 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: Eugene Goostman (talk, history)
Blurb: Eugene Goostman becomes the first chatbot to pass a formally administered Turing test.
News source(s): [1][2]
Nominator's comments: Major technological achievement. Just the type of breakthrough Wikipedia would be a perfect announcer for. --ViperSnake151  Talk  19:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, this entire endeavour is aimed at building a better ELIZA, rather than learning a damned thing about human intelligence. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose totally subjective, based on the gullibility of the test administrators. I have a shoe that speaks Etruscan, but it mumbles. μηδείς (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - This is all over the internet, it's a formal pass of the precise conditions of the test, it's historic. Whether this represents any sort of actual thought or intelligence is a different question entirely. --Pete (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support this is "subjective" in the same way that Gymnastics competitions are "subjective". This is not only a huge deal, but it's also the most accepted form of administration of the turing test in existence. It's clearly something that will become rooted in computing history. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This bot passed one version of a Turing test with specific constraints. I see no mention of the Loebner Prize having been discontinued; wouldn't they have done that if the Turing test had been passed? Next year, a better bot will pass a better Turing test. Also, from 2012 to 2014 this bot went from convincing 29% of judges to 33%, to pass 30% and win. That is a pretty small change. ToBk (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is not all over the internet--only in very limited niche circles.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Such as the news media...--Pete (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The qualifications in this specific case seem tuned to the competition, and how I read it, feels arbitrary enough that it would be one of those metrics we'd normally refute for other similar stories. --MASEM (t) 01:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Outside of a thinly-detailed press release from the testing organization, the available news sources appear to be looping back to the press release information. Academic news topics should be rooted in transparent scholarly sources. —Waldhorn (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the time being. The Verge are reporting that it failed, only the hosting university are claiming that it passed. The other news outlets I have seen are careful to qualify the claims made as those of the university as opposed to being factually accurate. The Turing test is fundamentally probabilistic in any event: it depends on the judgement calls of the individuals concerned. I'd like to see something a little more robust than this before we make bold claims that ultimately make us look ridiculous. 3142 (talk) 05:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    3142, I was confused by the article from The Verge too, but it turns out that the link was to the wrong article - the one about a 2012 competition where it narrowly missed passing the test. The one about the latest competition does indeed confirm that it passed the test - see here.[52] Neljack (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This is now being widely reported. It is being reported as fact, not just as a claims by those behind it (naturally they are being quoted, but that's a different matter). This was the largest Turing test ever, with 30 judges. Neljack (talk) 09:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is nothing but puffery. A chatbot that persuades nearly 50% of (qualified) judges that it's a real person operating under specific constraints existed 42 years ago. That was simulating a paranoid-schizophrenic adult speaking English as a first language; 'Eugene' claims to be a 13 year old Ukrainian, speaking English as a second language, but appears not to know a single word of Ukrainian. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Alex is right. I could create a chatbot that would respond identically to my 93-year-old Swedish great-grandmother over a 5-minute test. It would do nothing while I explained how to work the mouse. Do you think that would count? Belle (talk) 10:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per AlexTiefling. Support when actually winning while claiming to be an average-intelligence adult speaking their native language. Thue (talk) 11:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Significant scientific matter. Gamaliel (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment it's interesting reading how many people are applying their own criteria to the success (or otherwise) of this story. Eugene passed the Turing test, whether people like it or not. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    He passed a Turing test, as the blurb states, not "the Turing test". Turing test does not start off by stating it has been passed by Eugene Goostman. Therefore, we need to evaluate the notability of this specific Turing test. Some people are making similar arguments to those here: [53] [54] [55]. From the developers of Eugene Goostman themselves: "Turing’s Test is, actually, no more than a joke of that genius British mathematician. This game has nothing (or very little) in common with the question “Can machines think?” ToBk (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support now that it has been picked up by mainstream media. I personally think 30% is way too low of a bar, but that is what Turing decided on. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
He did not, however, specify a 13-year-old speaking exclusively a second language. That is a wilful distortion of the intent of the test. (I'm informed that 'Eugene' also claims to be 13 years old and Jewish, but not to know what a bar mitzvah is.) AlexTiefling (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Alex, it's clear you dislike this nomination, but your original thoughts are not really relevant, the item in question is being published in reliable sources as the first successful Turing test candidate. Whether you like how it happened, or the specific details, (I'm sure the judges didn't ask if Eugene had been circumcised, perhaps they did, but what difference does that make?), it's not relevant, unless you're now suggesting all the the reliable sources listed are incorrect, in which case I suppose we should discount them each time they report anything you have a personal issue with? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Yes, there is lots of mainstream media coverage. No, it isn't actually relevant nor anything new to "pass" a Turing test this way. A little bit of editorial discretion is fine here, this is a classic "non-technical newspapermen buying press release overhype". SnowFire (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually self-close. I've found sources discussing the subjectivity and disputes over the result. I am instead going to pursue this as a DYK with a more factual statement. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment When a bot can submit its own ITN nomination and convince us it's a human editor, then perhaps we can consider the Turing test finally passed on Wikipedia. ToBk (talk) 01:29, 10 June 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] Baghdad bombingsEdit

As Abductive notes below, this has been somewhat superseded by events. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:17, 11 June 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: Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal) (talk, history)
Blurb: ​At least fifty people are killed in a series of bombings across Baghdad.
News source(s): BBC

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Bombings in Iraq? Sure, used to be daily, but this is an extreme escalation, with kidnappings yesterday and at least eight explosions going off within an hour today.... Not sure if it's worthy of its own article or an expansion of a suitable Iraq troubles article. (I appreciate that I've been negative towards people who nominate an article without an article, but I'm still searching around for a suitable Iraq article to append this issue [and other multiple deaths in Mosul lately] for nomination purposes, any help would be gratefully received....) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. According to Iraq Body Count, conflict deaths in Iraq have been fairly stable at about 1,000 a month for the last year. 50 in a day might be slightly above average, but it doesn't seem particularly remarkable, sadly. They give a figure of 110 for yesterday Formerip (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. I guess it's become so commonplace that it's same shit different day for multiple bombings to kill at least 50 people in one city in Iraq these days. Never mind, thanks for the link. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I could support a well-written article on the topic. Per The New York Times there is more here than just the body count. Specifically, this (now 3 day attack) is seen as a significant upswing in violence: "the scope of the attacks appears to have taken officials by surprise, while also signaling that the insurgency is gaining strength and expanding its reach." --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per TRM and Thaddeus. Such a large-scale and deadly series of coordinated bombings is not common even in Iraq these days. Neljack (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I found the article I was looking for and have changed the target. It could use a few more words of expansion, but I'll see what I can do. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't contain a single word about the nominated event. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
That's why I said it could use expansion. Feel free to help out! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. This seems to have been superseded by events. It appears that these bombings were a feint to ease the takeover of Mosul, which is nominated above. Abductive (reasoning) 14:14, 10 June 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] 2014 Epsom DerbyEdit

Article: 2014 Epsom Derby (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In horse racing, Australia wins the Epsom Derby.
Alternative blurb: ​In horse racing, Australia wins the Epsom Derby, while Tonalist wins the Belmont Stakes.
News source(s): 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.

 The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment this could be integrated with the Belmont Stakes below if California Chrome doesn't win the Triple Crown, although if he does win the Triple Crown, I think the blurb would be too long. --kelapstick(bainuu) 18:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
    • It could be but it is entirely unrelated to the US horse-racing triple crown. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, I understand that. If California Chrome wins today, no doubt the Belmont Stakes will be posted because the Triple Crown is won (not just because the Belmont was won). That in itself would probably fill up an entire blurb with no room to add this as a second horse race that has won and is ITN (it would make sense to combine two horse races in the same blurb if there was room). My thought would be In horse racing, Australia wins the Epsom Derby and XXX wins the Belmont Stakes. If California Chrome wins today, and this is posted, no doubt there would need to be two separate blurbs.--kelapstick(bainuu) 19:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Yep, fair enough, I agree with everything you've said. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support kelapstick's plan. These are the big name events in flat racing. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment added alt-blurb to combine the horse-racing events. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support combined alt blurb. Calidum Talk To Me 00:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support combined alt blurb, Cal Chrome lost, so there you have it, be nice to nod that CC was beat, but I'm not going to fuss too much if you don't. Montanabw(talk) 00:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Ready both Epsom & Belmont are well updated now, so this should be ready for posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 04:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] Epainette MbekiEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 00:13, 9 June 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: Epainette Mbeki (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Mail & Guardian News24 South African Broadcasting Corporation

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.
 --Nathan121212 (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment it's commonplace to provide a brief description as to why this individual should be considered for RD by the way. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless there is a good explanation of her importance. The article doesn't make it clear, and no explanation or news sources to evaluate was given here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

(Sources added after this point in conversation) Mother of former South African president, Thabo Mbeki and anti-Apartheid leader. News: Mail & Guardian Nathan121212 (talk) 20:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

  • In that case oppose. Being someone's mother is hardly a claim worthy of RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not significant enough on her own. --MASEM (t) 21:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Does not meet any of the RD criteria for being a notable person's parent. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 8 June 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] The CIA has joined Twitter and FacebookEdit

Closing this as there isn't a chance it will be posted. Calidum Talk To Me 17:07, 7 June 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: CIA (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The CIA has joined Twitter and Facebook
News source(s): ABC NEWS
 Count Iblis (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: not really news, even the Pope's on Twitter. Thanks, Matty.007 16:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose a government agency joining social media isn't ITN newsworthy. Despite their first tweet being rather amusing, they are using it to post "photos, reflections on intelligence history and fun facts from the CIA World Factbook". Apart from that, article not updated, but I still don't see it as being good for ITN. --kelapstick(bainuu) 16:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support A merger between Twitter and Facebook is big news, especially when they are being forcibly integrated by the CIA. That's what this nomination is about, right, not just the CIA having joined social media? ToBk (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per ToBk. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Zzzzzz. Daniel Case (talk) 17:48, 7 June 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] 2014 Belmont StakesEdit

Articles: 2014 Belmont Stakes (talk, history) and California Chrome (talk, history)
Blurb: California Chrome wins the 2014 Belmont Stakes to become the first U.S. Triple Crown winner since 1978.
Alternative blurb: Tonalist wins the 2014 Belmont Stakes, ending California Chrome's bid for the U.S. Triple Crown.
News source(s): New York Times

Both articles 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.

Nominator's comments: Triple Crown is at stake, so this event qualifies under WP:ITN/R. Post time is scheduled for 22:52 (UTC). --Allen3 talk 14:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support regardless of winner. If California Chrome wins this race, earning the triple crown, it will obviously be big news. Him losing would also get a lot of attention as well. Calidum Talk To Me 15:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • What event is this in? Is this The Triple Crown? Also, the article needs a prose update. Nergaal (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
    • The event is the 2014 Belmont Stakes, the Triple Crown isn't an event, it's the act of winning the Kentucky Derby, the Preakness Stakes, and the Belmont Stakes in the same year. It wouldn't be an update to the prose of Triple Crown, just a line item in the US section. Also, the event is occurring at 6:30 pm Eastern Time, so it hasn't occurred yet.--kelapstick(bainuu) 16:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I was being semi-sarcastic. I am capable to click on the links, but an ITN blurb needs to say that this is horse racing. Nergaal (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support either way. Gamaliel (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support only if Chrome wins. The first Crown winner since 1978 would be a very big deal; at the same time, there have been quite a few other horses in that timespan that have won at Churchill Downs and Pimlico only to fall short in Queens. It wouldn't be as newsworthy. 17:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: As there is no Triple Crown winner, have no objection to combining this nom with the 2014 Epsom Derby nom. --Allen3 talk 23:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Added combined alt blurb to the Derby nomination above. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support combined blurb when 2014 Belmont Stakes is updated (which I will get to in a few hours if no one steps up sooner. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support combined blurb also note article has been created on Tonalist. We need to do more updating on the Belmont article, but the basic info is there and the charts are filled in, it's enough. But ThaddeusB could do more tuning up Montanabw(talk) 00:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted blurb with Epsom Derby, see above. SpencerT♦C 04:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 French OpenEdit

Articles: 2014 French Open – Men's Singles (talk, history) and 2014 French Open – Women's Singles (talk, history)
Blurb: ​In tennis, Maria Sharapova beats Simona Halep to win the 2014 French Open women's singles title.
Alternative blurb: ​In tennis, the French Open concludes with Rafael Nadal winning the men's singles and Maria Sharapova (pictured) winning the women's singles.

Both articles 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.

Nominator's comments: Abou tan hour to go for the result. Probably less if the 2nd set is like this. spoke to soon, shes back... Lihaas (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment This is a confusing nomination; ITN/C is not a liveblog. There's no harm in waiting until the results to nominate this kind of stuff... ToBk (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • There is absolutely no point nominating whilst the event is ongoing, as with both this and the elections. Thanks, Matty.007 15:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid this is this typical behaviour of User:Lihaas, we either have to live with the pointlessness or someone has to seek further action. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support once a para is added. Nergaal (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment alt blurb added to recognise both winners. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I believe it is customary to put the main textual update in the men's and women's singles articles instead of the main article. I will try to get to that later today. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I based it on last year's nomination, not sure what the eventual posted blurb was, post-tweaking. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support now it's actually finished. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Both singles articles are now updated and ready for admin approval. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

2014 Baghlan floodsEdit

Article: 2014 Baghlan floods (talk, history)
Blurb: At least 65 people are killed in a flash flood in Baghlan, Afghanistan
News source(s): BBC

Article updated

 Info is only just emerging, so this will be further updated as information comes out. --Matty.007 11:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Article is pretty barebones at the moment, but assuming it can be fleshed out this is an obvious support due to the high death toll. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with Thaddeus. Neljack (talk) 09:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

June 5Edit

[Posted] RD: Johnny LeachEdit

Article: Johnny Leach (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): The Guardian

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: A 3-time World Champion table tennis player (2x in singles, 1x in team), Leach had a large impact on the sport well after his playing days. Per The Guardian, "his impact on the sport was immense. Leach held sway in an age when table tennis could claim to be the most popular participation sport in the UK." I would that should qualify as "top of his field" --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Taking into account his contributions both during and after his playing career, he seems to meet the criteria. Neljack (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Article is now updated and in good shape (with work ongoing). Just need a couple more opinions so we can decide if this should be posted... --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • BTW, only 11 players (including Leach) have ever won 2+ World Championships --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: while Leach died on the 5th, his death wasn't announced until the 8th. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Significance in the field seems covered and Thaddeus says the is in good shape. Rhodesisland (talk) 08:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Marked ready due to lack of opposition. As a procedural point, I feel this should be treated as a June 8 item in terms o staleness since that was the date the death was announced (i.e. when it was in the news). --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted The Rambling Man (talk) 09:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • This is stale. I don't see any evidence of the death being announced on 8 June, just an obituary being published on that day. It's normal for them to take a few days. There don't seem to be any actual new reports online. I'm not sure it makes much sense to give a story special treatment on the grounds that it never made it to the news. Formerip (talk) 10:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Well I'm sure another admin will happily remove it when today concludes. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
      • What, are you too proud to do it? Formerip (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Considering the organziation he worked for for 30+ years right up until his death didn't published anything until the 8th, it is quite clear his family didn't announce the death immediately. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
      • How do you make that out? Are you referring to an organisation known for always publishing things as soon as they happen? Or a news organisation (which, like all the others, would simply have not found his death newsworthy)? Formerip (talk) 13:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
        • I think we're done here (and have moved on to better things), unless you wish to deliberately modify other people's posts once again? Of course, it appears that the idea of "consensus" has passed you by, I'll be sure to take that into account next time you provide us with your rapier insight. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing: Islamist insurgency in NigeriaEdit

I understand that the article might not currently meet the requirements and that the orange tags have to be dealt with, but I honestly find it ridiculous to keep posting every new bombing or attack that takes place in Nigeria since they are apparently taking place on a regular basis now. Yesterday, Boko Haram conducted different village raids that killed hundreds [56] [57] and on they keep resisting a government offensive by taking over villages in northeastern Nigeria. Maybe this nomination is a good opportunity to recruit volunteering editors here to work on the main article and improve it instead of turning this place into a 'Boko Haram attacks' ticker. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

  • If this nomination brings attention to the article, great. If not, it definitely can't be posted in that condition. Timeline of Boko Haram attacks in Nigeria is another possible target if reworked to have prose and updated. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support in theory if there are sufficiently updated articles; I think that's more of a requirement for ongoing (with no blurb and often vaguer) than ITN in general. ToBk (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] ECB rate cutsEdit

Article: eurozone crisis (talk, history)
Blurb: ​The European Central Bank cuts the main interest rate to 0.15% and sets the deposit rate at −0.10% in an attempt to devalue the euro and boost the eurozone economy.
Alternative blurb: ​The European Central Bank cuts the main interest rate to 0.15% and sets the deposit rate at −0.10% in an attempt stimulate the eurozone economy.
News source(s): see below

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is big, big economic/business news, but don't take my word for it:

  • "an unprecedented attempt to stimulate the euro zone economy... The so-called negative deposit rate has never been tried on such a large scale." --New York Time
  • "moved aggressively Thursday to boost a tepid economic recovery... an unprecedented measure" --USA Today
  • "an unprecedented move for a big central bank... But there was much more [than cutting rates]" --Wall Street Journal
  • "unveiled an unprecedented package of measures on Thursday in a dramatic attempt to inject life into the eurozone's flagging economy" --The Guardian
  • "a raft of measures ... a bold and unusual move" --BBC

They also announced "We aren't finished here" a move the WSJ called "surely one of the more novel forms of central bank forward guidance around." The result: the euro fell to a four month low and stocks surged. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support mentioning only the negative deposit rate and skip the other one. Nergaal (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support and agree with Nergaal. The Eurozone crisis article is a bit unwieldy and has been in blurbs more than one before. Could we consider updating Interest rate or Demurrage (currency) instead? Formerip (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support with Nergaal's proposed amendment. EU interest rates are a big deal, and it's a long time since we've mentioned them. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This is indeed huge news. Nobody expected such a bold package of measures from the ECB. I do not agree that the part of the blurb on the main interest rate should be omitted - it is, after all, the most important rate. Perhaps, however, the negative deposit rate should be mentioned first, since it is the more remarkable piece of news. I also think that the Eurozone crisis article should be the one linked - while it may be long, it is also a fine article (a GA, in fact). More importantly, I doubt that we could justify having more than a brief mention of this in the general articles Formerip suggests, and we certainly couldn't discuss all the different aspects of the ECB's package, since some of them (e.g. LTROs and sterilising bonds) don't fit within the scope of those articles, despite being important elements of the package. Neljack (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support this is huge economic news, and should be posted. Black Kite kite (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support negative rate element only. This wasn't a shock decision by any means - it has been widely speculated on in the last few days - but it's certainly a highly unusual move for an ecomony the size of the Eurozone. I would also caution against some of the editorialising in the blurb - most analysis both before and after the announcement I have read cites deflation rather than exchange rates as the primary concern here. 3142 (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
    Devaluing the currency, increasing inflation, and boosting the economy are actually 3-sides of the same coin. Interest rates most directly affect the exchange rates as investors move money into currencies that pay better interest. The other direct effect is to encourage spending by disincentivizing saving. Lower currency value and higher spending both contribute to increasing inflation. Additionally, lower currency values make exportation easier. Exportation and consumer spending spur economic growth.
    As far as the blurb goes, the main interest rate is the most important in terms of having an effect; the negative interest rate is attracting the most attention because it is unprecedented; the desired effects are perhaps not as important, but do provide good context. Really, it is all about stimulating the economy in the end (that is the hope anyway), so perhaps post just that part, or as proposed, or with all three effects... --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
In the long term, yes, they are all inter-related and I'd add the balance of trade as a fourth variable. In the short term other factors come in to play, namely any any reserves or trading positions. Exchange rates are governed by the laws of supply and demand, nothing more, it is only secondary effects that interlink the various parameters. Various pundits, including the BBC reference cited above, are explicitly citing the risk of deflation as the prime motivator here. The ECB itself has a public policy stating that inflation under 1% is under target because of the downside risks. 3142 (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Updated - article is updated and should be ready for posting. the posting admin will have to decide on what to put in the blurb, though, as there seems to be some disagreement about that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. Not using the "devalue" retoric; inflation is at 0.5%, far below the 2% target; trying to hit this conservative inflation target is hardly a devaluation. Thue (talk) 08:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Could you maybe replace the - with the accurate ? --bender235 (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Been done. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Moncton shootingEdit

Article: 2014 Moncton shootings (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A shooting in Moncton, New Brunswick leaves three members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police dead and two injured.
News source(s): CNN CBC

Article updated

Nominator's comments: So far at least two are injured, and three members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that were killed, article needs a lot of updating as it was just started. --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose Triple-murders are, unfortunately, not an uncommon occurrence. A shooting needs to be rather larger-scale that this to warrant posting, IMO. Neljack (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
    • This is still ongoing, and part of Moncton is in "lockdown", so it may end up being more. I am not sure what the threshold for spree shootings is to make it ITN, but the shooting of five Mounties is particularly unique.--kelapstick(bainuu) 11:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I think we should wait to see how this unfolds, but we're also dealing with police officers; killings of multiple police officers are an unusual occurrence, especially if they were targeted for some reason(also unusual for Canada). 331dot (talk) 11:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
        • I agree 331dot, we should wait and see what comes of this. There hasn't been much development this morning, and police are keeping a tight lip on it, to the point of asking people not to post on social media about their actions in case he is paying attention. The suspect is still at-large, and the lockdown area is pretty big (I just uploaded a map). --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait Second worst tragedy involving police forces in Canada. Really rare occurrence here. I think we should wait and see how the story develops. Jeanluc20 (talk) 12:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • weak support this is pretty rare in cadana and id imagine would have other reprcussions. considering gun ownership is higher there than south of th eborder.Lihaas (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose No long-term encyclopedic impact. μηδείς (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Irrelevant. This event is still ongoing, and the fact that five RCMP officers and no civilians (and make no mistake, there were many chances for him to shoot civilians) were targeted is unusual, to say the least. As noted above, this is already the second worst tragedy involving RCMP officers in Canada, and as of this writing, the shooter is still at large, so the number has the potential to increase (although I personally hope it doesn't). (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Support If it had been in the USA, the home of "we love guns more than our families", I would have opposed, but this is actually quite a big deal in a civilised country. Black Kite kite (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Do you mind not describing the USA as uncivilised? I'm as bothered by its gun laws as the next Brit, but let's not be crass. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Ah, you know what I mean, i.e. a country where mass gun killings are unusual. Black Kite kite (talk) 00:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
It may seem arbitrary but I don't think this can be classified as a Mass shooting.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I was sitting on fence on this one on account of the small body count but on reflection I agree that this is different to a similar sized shooting in the US. Here in the UK the death of a single cop is national news: this is three times that amount in a country of half the population. For shootings there has to be a different threshold applied to a country where pretty much anyone can buy a gun than one where laws are more stringent. 3142 (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The death toll and shock factor are less than that of the 2014 Isla Vista killings, which was pointedly not featured. Tocino 07:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
The Isla Vista killing spree was posted. Do you want to reevaluate your baseless oppose? Stephen 08:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Looks like I might have missed it since it was on there for less than 14 hours as a full blurb. I'm still opposing this though. Three cops getting shot is tragic, but not worthy of being displayed on ITN --Tocino 12:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Last Navajo WWII Code Talker diesEdit

Article: Code Talker (talk, history)
Blurb: Chester Nez, the last of the original Navajo Code talkers, dies at the age of 93.
Alternative blurb: Chester Nez, the last living Navajo Code talker from World War II, dies at the age of 93.
News source(s): Kolb, Joseph (2014-06-04). "Last of Navajo 'code talkers' dies in New Mexico". Retrieved 2014-06-04.

Nominator's comments: This is a monumental - if sad - moment in world history. --TomStar81 (Talk) 00:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Article is in pretty decent shape, a fascinating topic to highlight for any reason, and the exact type of death which would be inappropriate for RD (because no one would recognize the name on its own sake) but is useful for highlighting an interesting topic with a decent article. --Jayron32 03:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm not sure on what basis this item should be posted, but I do know that the blurb doesn't need "in New Mexico". Abductive (reasoning) 05:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. It seems that he was not the last Code Talker, but just the last of the original 29 recruits when the project was started. The US Army went on to recruit many more, and presumably some of them are still alive. Abductive (reasoning) 06:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's true, however as a side note I should point out that in the US most people associate the code talker program with the Navajo exclusively, instead of a shared collaboration among various native american tribes. Accordingly, then, there is a huge DYK benefit to running this in out on the front page as it can serve as both an in the news item and a did you known item to better educate the masses on this issue. As a case in point moment, the article linked to states that the last Seminole code talk died three monthes ago to little or no fanfare (at a minimum, I was unaware of that fact until I read the article here). TomStar81 (Talk) 06:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment ...and can we drop the "world history" crap? That's pure US centrism. Millions of people who took part in WWII have died. Some are yet to die. ALL of them played important roles. This was pure US stuff. Maybe important there. I don't know. But get some perspective, please. HiLo48 (talk) 06:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Have to agree with the above. I doubt any of the American editors here have heard of Bletchley Park for instance...also, 'this nom is not for RD I take it... Somchai Sun (talk) 07:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I really think it likely that most US editors will have heard of Bletchley Park, just as I (a Brit) have heard of the Navajo code-talkers. Let's not let petty international point-scoring affect the discussion. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
That's a fine sentiment, but sadly for the image of these code breakers, who no doubt did a wonderful job, the nominator chose to try to oversell the whole nomination here. It did not need the "America saved the world" overtones. Redirect your criticism at the person who first demonstrated a very poor perspective here. HiLo48 (talk) 11:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Do you mind? I haven't !voted 'support' here, and I'm not going to. I agree that the OP is overselling it, but I thought the suggestion that all Americans are too ignorant to have heard of Bletchley Park was highly unjust. Don't tell me I can't object to that. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
No. I agree with your point about Bletchley Park and Americans. HiLo48 (talk) 12:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
How the hell did I choose to oversell the whole nomination? I made one comment here, in the context of the information, and you are crucifying me for it. If you want to oppose thats fine, but for gods sake don;t reduce an entire world war and its effective ignition of the next generation civil rights movements for most of the western world to "American won". Thats degrading to everyone, and it insults our intelligence to have such efforts undermines by closed minded people such as yourselves. Now, as to the nom itself, with the article it can move tothe dyk section, however it can also now be listed in the recent deaths section since there be a bio article on our man. Since I botched the first nom, according to the popular ivote, I won;t make a nom for this material to appear there, but if the spirit should move one of you to actually nominate the article for that section I would be happy to comment on that proposal. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the comments above. Very interesting, just... not at all notable, in terms of the many different code-talkers and code-breakers that took part in WWII, and quite arbitrary (the Navajo code-talkers were not the first, although they are the most famous, and Chester Nez was only the last of the first group). I don't know if there's enough material about Chester Nez to write an article, but if there is, it would make a great DYK (as would the code talker article, if it can get pushed to GA status). Smurrayinchester 07:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose It seems he wasn't even the last Navajo WWII code talker - just the last of the initial bunch (so the altblurb is wrong). Neljack (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose On this I agree whole-heartedly with Smurrayinchester (which my spellchecker tells me is a misspelling of Cholinesterase!) Belle (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
support RD were clearly not going to get this again thus making it notabe.Lihaas (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Chester Nez has an article now, so it is at least DYK eligible. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The "last of X dies" could invite lots of similar type nominations. Definitely a DYK candidate if the article was just created. --MASEM (t) 15:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • And more people nominating things is We want people to nominate things; you can't know that all other similar nominations will not even possibly merit posting. Every item should be discussed on their merits. 331dot (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh yes, my mistake - per Lihaas.Brigade Piron (talk) 10:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD Article is in good shape, and a Congressional Gold Medal is nothing to sneeze at. jcgoble3 (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
    To clarify here, "article is in good shape" refers to Chester Nez, which would be the article linked in RD. Code talker has not been checked by me as it is irrelevant to an RD listing. jcgoble3 (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Medeis and TRM. Calidum Talk To Me 17:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for ITN blurb and RD, support for DYK Not an extremely newsworthy story IMO. The article for Chester Nez is newly created, suggesting insufficient importance for this purpose. DYK seems like the ideal venue. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
    @Muboshgu: "The article for Chester Nez is newly created, suggesting insufficient importance for this purpose." It could also suggest that people were too lazy to create the article before. Or it could suggest that the death is what gives him the importance needed for ITN. jcgoble3 (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
    Yep, suggests a lack of clue, 331dot hits it on the head below, many news stories at ITN result in the creation of articles. This is no different. If winning the Congressional Medal of Honor is now considered de rigeur then I'd agree this fella didn't make it. But it isn't, and he did. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Smurrayinchester and Masem. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 18:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD. Not only notable in their field, they essentially represent the end of their field. 331dot (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wikipedia didn't think he was important enough to create an article on him during his lifetime. It's a bit late to make it up to him now. Formerip (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Honestly the lamest oppose I've read for five years. The article exists, he won the Congressional Medal of Honor (how many have done that?) and now you're complaining because we've finally gotten round to writing an article about him? Wow. This will live long in the memory banks! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
        • That't the least lame response to an oppose I've read in six, so well done you. Formerip (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't really understand what that oppose has to do with the merits of this nomination, either. All that matters is that we have an article now. Many nominations have resulted in the creation of articles. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
      • On a side note, I don't think the Medal of Honor can be regarded as an automatic qualification for RD. The most recent recipient is corporal Kyle Carpenter. A good, brave lad not doubt. But really RD material? (I mean, obviously not yet, since he's not dead. But will he be?) I'm supporting this nomination, but I don't think we want it to set some sort of precedent that all Medal of Honor winners qualify for RD. GoldenRing (talk) 08:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD Glad to see an article about him, interesting and noteworthy subject. CaptRik (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose While code talkers were certainly vital to the war effort, being the last of the first set of one group of code talkers does not seem individually notable. It's too convoluted without something else notable about him. ToBk (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Such as a Congressional Gold Medal, which he got? 331dot (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Four of the five living code talkers at the time received the Congressional Gold Medal, while the fifth was too ill. That still does not distinguish him from other code talkers. ToBk (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • this, as opposed to many of our other current subjects, is an issue which in general has huge encyclopedic and historical importance, and many books and films on the subject. μηδείς (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Any war on the scale of WWII has countless fronts, heroes, tactics, specialist teams, unusual tactics and so on. Some of them capture the public imagination in ways that others don't but of even the ones that do there are far too many to enumerate as RDs on the notability claim as flimsy as the one presented here. The Congressional Gold Medal is more notable, but since it is considered an equal (if awarded differently) to the Presidential Medal of Freedom you need to consider the notability of both in the same breath.
Looking at awards I see an average of more than one a month in recent years - since people will die at the same rate they are awarded on average, if each one was posted and is up for five-seven days that means that a recipient is listed for a quarter of the time. Rationally you'd also have to include the equivalent awards for every other country and the higher awards for e.g. valour. If you extend the RD criteria that far then the line starts to get very crowded indeed. 3142 (talk) 03:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Does not fit any of the requirements for Recent Deaths, and he isn't even the last Code Talker to die. So it can't be posted. Abductive (reasoning) 04:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: As the person who created Nez's article (since jcgoble3 wishes to not make that claim), I will remain neutral in this vote. However, I think it holds merit that 29 Navajo were selected to originally create the code. Nez himself created the "dictionary", as the Navajo language did not exist on paper. (Probably a reason it was selected.) "29" might not seem that exclusive a number, but these men were not grouped together into some room/building; they were sent in groups of two wherever needed in WWII, and, as stated on national news in the States, "changed the face of the war" (paraphrasing). — Wyliepedia 06:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support RD I think this subject fits nicely with the ITN purpose of bringing articles to the attention of readers that they would not have normally found but which are interesting anyway. GoldenRing (talk) 08:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Last survivor of anything doesn't make him more important. Someone has to be the last survivor of every group. RD is for people who were at the top of their field. 'Survivor' isn't a field, and he wasn't at the top of the military. Jim Michael (talk) 10:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • That's not entirely accurate; RD is for those who are "very important" in their field (DC2). They don't have to be the best soldier or most important. This man represents essentially the end of his field. Further, we don't have to follow the rules that are written down if there are other reasons to post this. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

June 4Edit

[Posted] Irish mass graveEdit

Article: Tuam mass grave (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A mass grave of up to 800 babies is uncovered in Tuam, Ireland.
News source(s): Amnesty International The Independent Bloomberg CNN

Nominator's comments: A shocking discovery with pretty strong international reactions. --Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

  • This sounds like it could be ITN worthy, but it is difficult to evaluate without an article. I also think the blurb should somehow indicate the context of this discovery(i.e. it isn't 800 babies that died recently). 331dot (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Feel free to modify the blurb so it can reflect the whole story, but it still lacks details though, since the children are believed to have died between 1925 and 1961 and nothing is clear yet. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support if an article can be produced. This is substantial (and horrifying) news. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've created the article and will try to expand it as soon as I can, but any help would be highly appreciated. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Especially in a modern Western country, this is major news. Black Kite kite (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Shocking. Neljack (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support can't imagine the Pope himself wouldn't be a huge support on this horrid discovery. μηδείς (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support some of us may have come up with our reason for these graves but the fact it took them so long to find this is worth mentioning and may become an ongoing issue..there could be more graves like this across ireland..--Stemoc (talk) 06:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 06:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Does anybody care that this has been known about for forty years? It says so in the article itself. So the blurb should at least say "rediscovered". Abductive (reasoning) 07:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Forty years ago it was assumed to only have a few bodies, not nearly 800. It says so in the article itself. Stephen
  • Support posting. --Tóraí (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I know it's been three days, but for some reason I haven't seen this story on the news today. I wasn't able to check the news channels when this one broke though. –HTD 04:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The Main Page currently states that the police are investigating. That's not the case. Gob Lofa (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

[Closed] RD: Don ZimmerEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 02:58, 11 June 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: Don Zimmer (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s):

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: MLB icon --wirenote (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support; meets DC2; NL manager of the year, 6 World Series won. 331dot (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - He never won a World Series as a manager (he was a bench coach with the Yankees, essentially second-in-command) and had a nondescript playing career. I don't think that's enough, icon or not. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Point taken, but very few people have been associated with a sport for 65 years in any capacity(especially considering he never held any other jobs in any other profession). 331dot (talk) 03:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even as a baseball fan, I'm having a hard time objectively supporting this. Zimmer was an iconic figure within the game, but his impact was mostly cultural, a well-known guy known more for his personality than his skills, never the best player (VERY far from it) nor the best manager (much closer to it, but still not within the upper echelon) of his times. His most famous event was being tossed to the ground by Pedro Martinez in a bench-clearing brawl: [58]. He's not in the Hall of Fame, and probably rightly so. He's certainly very well known in the baseball world, but he's not the caliber of figure I would expect to make RD. --Jayron32 03:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • That's all fine(and I am not trying to convince you otherwise), but nowhere it is said that one must be the "best" at anything to be posted; only that they be "very important" in their field. While that is usually being "the best", it doesn't have to be. 331dot (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, if we look at one of the reasons he might be considered a leader in his field--NL Manager of the Year with the Cubs in 1989--that in and of itself is a pretty weak straw to grab. He was one of two managers awarded that year, and he lead the Cubs to a division title and that's it. He was fired by the same team two years later and never managed a team again. (so it appears he wasn't recognized by his peers as a leader in his field). When he was fired by the Cubs his management style was widely ridiculed. (that after his famous problems as the Red Sox manager).--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose mostly per Jayron32. Canuck89 (converse with me) 10:01, June 5, 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not at the top of his profession.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. I mostly agree with Jayron32, but Zimmer was also the one who made batting helmets mandatory (by getting knocked into a coma).
  • Support. I feel he meets the definition of being important in his chosen field. Calidum Talk To Me 00:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: With a figure from baseball, a sport not widely followed in the English-speaking world outside North America, the bar for mainpage mention is going to be higher. And, as much as it will be one of the rare times when Yankees and red Sox fans will join in mourning the same person, for his contribution to both teams, Zimmer is not a legendary enough figure in baseball to put before the world. A beloved and successful figure, to be sure, but not accomplished enough as noted above. Daniel Case (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
    • If we're basing it on the dark blue areas of this this map, removing "North America" from the "English-speaking world", is practically removing ~80% of it. That's a lot. –HTD 12:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
@Howard the Duck: Acres don't speak; people do (And that map should properly exclude Quebec). Also I should point out that the extended "English-speaking world" includes a great deal of people in the grey and light blue areas of that map who rely on English as a lingua franca among different tongues or a business language. Daniel Case (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to the population in the dark blue areas, not land. The population on the dark blue areas of North America is ~80% of the population of all of the dark blue areas of the map. As for light blue and gray areas, no argument for me there. I don't think a sport is widely followed on all of the light blue and gray areas of the map except probably association football. I mean, I'm pretty sure a Nigerian knows who Hakeem Olajuwon is compared to someone like Sachin Tendulkar. –HTD 04:49, 8 June 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.

Ongoing: 2014 West Africa Ebola outbreakEdit

Per the BBC article here, death toll has significantly spiked and just yesterday, workers were evacuated from Sierra Leone as a result of the threat of infection. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose. At this point I'm not seeing consistent updates to the article that merit addition to the section. There have been only 3 edits in the past five days, and not that much new material was added in that time frame. SpencerT♦C 20:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
    • No, that's fair enough. It's ironic that I'm posting news that's happening for real and needs the exposure to be updated, and you're opposing (no problem with that) while others are supporting ITNR items which haven't been updated and lack any kind of quality whatsoever. Winsome, lonesome. Thanks for the interest mind you. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: The Rambling Man's comments seem very reasonable here. I hate to bring it up again, but it is a newsworthy story...and it is ongoing. This is of major concern, but regionally in west Africa and in Medicine more generally. Brigade Piron (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the MERS outbreak should probably go in ongoing too. Belle (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree the article does not really meet the "ongoing" requirements. In the Ongoing wrap up, I asked if there was support for broadening ongoing to include long-run stories (which this clearly is) and there was no support for it. The spike in cases, however, is noteworthy and I would consider a full blurb if one was proposed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

June 3Edit

[Posted] RD: Svyatoslav BelzaEdit

Article: Svyatoslav Belza (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): [59] [60]

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: In my ongoing quest to feature more RDs of non-English speaking people, I present Svyatoslav Belza. Belza was a writer/critique, television personality, and Shakespearean scholar in Russia. He wrote more than 300 literary essays, created and hosted multiple popular television programs includng one that lasted 8 years ("Music In the Air"). For his accomplishments, he was named People's Artist of Russia and made an honorable member of the Russian Academy of Arts, among many other accolades. His death has prompted reaction form numerous famous Russians:[61]. This article is the best summary of his career, albeit in Russian; our article is pretty decent too. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Assuming Google Translate hasn't mangled that article too badly (and also BBC Russia's obit), he sounds like he was top of his field - and "critic of foreign literature in the Soviet Union" is an interesting field. It's not clear to me how popular his books and television programs actually were, but Google News has at least 334 obituaries of him, so I'm willing to assume he was pretty well known within the former Soviet sphere (The BBC mentions him being renowned in Poland, not just Russia). Smurrayinchester 08:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
    • One English source, from Belarus state broadcasting, quoting Belarus's president no less as saying "For millions of people, including the Belarusians, Svyatoslav Igorevich was and still is an unparalleled example of a very intelligent person who dedicated his entire life to serving high moral and spiritual ideals." Even for a eulogy, that's glowing. I'm now certain that he was a major figure in the former Soviet Union. Smurrayinchester 13:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Not an oppose, but I feel obliged to object to the suggestion that Alexander Lukashenko is a RS for anything.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Ha, yeah, I did consider the possibility that it was some sort of strange way of flattering Russia. In the end, I decided that praising a literary critic/art TV presenter so intensely was so strange that it could only be genuine. Smurrayinchester 18:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Smurrayinchester. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per Smurrayinchester. CaptRik (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No idea but, without wishing in any way to promote systematic bias, if it is hard to find sources on someone that are in English, might that be an indication that perhaps they do not meet the RD criteria? Formerip (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
    That just means the person had a minimal impact on English speaking countries, not that they had a minimal impact in their field/georgaphical area. I imagine many important Americans, for example, don't get any obits in Russian but that doesn't and shouldn't stop them form being posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
It really means the person hasn't had enough of an impact anywhere to be much noticed in English-speaking counties. But I'm not saying it proves he was insignificant in Russia, just counselling caution. Formerip (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Quite recognizable in CIS countries. Penned the afterword in one of my childhood fairy tale books, in particular. Brandmeistertalk 15:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment quite happy with notability, some article issues include a 64-word opening sentence, a drastic lack of useful links (i.e. I delinked "ballet" yet "The Bolshoi Opera" etc are unlinked)... so some copyediting required. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Never heard of him, but ThaddeusB makes a convincing case. Gamaliel (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment (I lived in Russia for over 15 years) In scanning Russian press Belza's death is a headline but nowhere a leading headline that I can find. Papers seem to have an article about him but it hasn't been the type of death that sparked multiple articles on the figure's legacy. I honestly haven't formed an opinion on this but I would say that hosting a tv show for 8 years is hardly significant.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Johnsemlak. This is simply bias in the opposite direction, otherwise known as patronization. Patronizing is not what we need at RD. μηδείς (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Ready - article significantly improved. Looks like Belza actually won state honors in three countries - impressive. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted by User:Smurrayinchester. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] MERSEdit

Article: 2012 Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus outbreak (talk, history)
Blurb: ​Saudi Arabia announces 113 previously unreported cases of MERS, revises the outbreak death toll to 282, and fires its minister of health.
Alternative blurb: ​Saudi Arabia announces 113 previously unreported cases of MERS and revises the outbreak death toll to 282.
News source(s): Reuters, AP

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This looks like an excellent opportunity to post MERS which has been in the news for quite some time, but with no obvious chance to post. ThaddeusB (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support although omit the firing of the minister of health from the blurb. That firing is tangential to the actual meat of the story.--WaltCip (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb Agree with the nom's rational. CaptRik (talk) 07:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and concur with WaltCip's suggestion. Gamaliel (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, though I do think this should be in ongoing with the Ebola outbreak nominated by TheRamblingMan above. More cases are regularly reported, and two previous comments suggest removing the only thing that would make this different. The death rate has been noted to have jumped significantly with this review of the data, but it is a revision in the historical figures rather than a current trend. Belle (talk) 10:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Ready - the article is now updated & ready to go. Incidentally, MERS was back in the news today with strong evidence of camel to human transmission so now is an especially good time to post something on MERS. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT♦C 02:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

[Removed] Ongoing: 2014 Southeast Europe floodsEdit

Topic removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 4 June 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: No article specified
Blurb: No blurb specified
Can we remove it from there? I think think topic is no more in the news. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I concur. Somebody's asleep at the switch. Abductive (reasoning) 19:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
    • And somebody's unnecessarily facetious. I wonder. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
      • "asleep at the switch" is a very mild criticism. Abductive (reasoning) 16:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Well, as we said, to remove the item from ongoing, either someone has to point it out or we reevaluate it after two weeks. (Maybe we should add a hidden comment with a timestamp to each post there). --Tone 16:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 3 June 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] RD: Alexander ShulginEdit

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 00:17, 9 June 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: Alexander Shulgin (talk, history)
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s):

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: Shulgin is credited with introducing MDMA. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose an interesting man, and a notable addition to the vast pharmaceutical menagerie, but hardly top of the field. Also, while the article claims to be a good one, it's lengthy array of "notable publications" needs excising and some further work on the referencing would be useful. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose; I agree with TRM. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose; I agree with 331dot.Rhodesisland (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support Well, he was at the top of the field of psychedelic research, even if it's a pretty narrow field. ToBk (talk) 13:53, 3 June 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.

[Attention needed] Syria electionEdit

Article: Syrian presidential election, 2014 (talk, history)
Blurb: ​President Bashar al-Assad is re-elected in the country's first multi-party election.
Alternative blurb: ​In the fourth year of a civil war, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is re-elected to a new seven-year term in Syria's first multi-candidate presidential election.

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: Oooh the countdown...the end of the Arab Spring beckons and the revolution is won! --Lihaas (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose the election hasn't even taken place, while this is très amusant Lihaas, it's also a waste of our time. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose and cry to your hearts content, it I s is taking palce now and when the result is done per ITNR I t WILL be posted.Lihaas (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not crying and it's not going to be posted, it's a junkyard article. Hopefully someone with some editing ability will address the various serious issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Lihaas, what is your problem here? You were grossly confrontational and unhelpful about the Indian election nomination, and here you are doing it again. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose solely on the principle of this being an obviously POV nom.--WaltCip (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Article needs work, so does nomination. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article looks OK to me. It could do with a source for the list of candidates. Oh, and updating, obviously. Are the opposes just based on "not a fair election"? We've posted those before. Formerip (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I think it's the fact that it has been nominated before the results, for no explained reason. Either that or the article needs results. Thanks, Matty.007 17:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per ITN/R. I don't see a reason to disqualify Syria from any other country in the world and omit posting its presidential election. The early nomination might have been an issue here as in numerous other cases outlining elections before, but it's not an argument to disregard the importance of the story and even call it a POV nomination.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the fact the story was nominated was the problem; the problem was the wording of the nomination, which seemed very likely to upset people, even if it wasn't designed to do so. GoldenRing (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
The blurb may be easily reworded if that's the main problem, but the current one addressing an important note looks fine as well. I've just checked the articles on the Syrian presidential elections throughout history to find out that this is really the country's first multi-candidate presidential election. Hereof, it would be completely inappropriate to rely on the "upsetness" of those who deny the truth of the facts to illustrate their point.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, who's exhibiting "upsetness"? The objection was to the premature nomination of an experienced editor who should know better, I don't see anyone being "upset" about the news item itself in the context of this nomination. And have you actually read the article before supporting it? Where are the results? Why is half of it written in the wrong tense? You support this item for the main page now? Of course, your support is otherwise not required as (you've pointed out) it's already ITN/R, so your assessment is on quality alone, correct? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Please calm down and carefully read the discussion. My point was that the nomination was premature until GoldenRing joined the discussion to correct me that the wording "seemed very likely to upset people". The article suffering from unreadiness should be the least concern when dealing with nominations which automatically qualify for inclusion, but it's very unfortunate to see that the opposers above complaint on the "waste of time" and referred to it as a "POV nom". As for my vote, delivering "support", "oppose" or "neutral" vote for me is only reflection of one's personal stance over the significance of the nomination to go on the main page. For all other issues, we have comments and notes.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
The nomination blurb is entirely speculative and unnecessary. It's pretty simple. If you believe the article to be of the quality you'd expect to see on the main page, then that's simple enough to understand too. You must, by now, understand that you're not just commenting on the significance of the story but the suitability of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Personally I think there's an optics issue with linking to an election page where the only picture available is of Bashar al-Assad, and pages for the other candidates link to one-sentence stubs. I think we can do better?--WaltCip (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose How can a blurb declaring a winner be posted before the result has been released? Nathan121212 (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The blurb went up before main voting has started. I think this is Lihaas' idea of a joke. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Indeed it is. Hence my initial comment, the nomination is taking the piss and wasting time. Standard fare. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Comment regardless of Lihaas' motives. The results have now been declared and Assad won by 88.7% of the votes, but I'm not really sure how acceptable the article is. However, I was wondering if it was possible to merge this with the Egyptian election in one blurb, considering the many similarities they both have (two historically-bound and crisis-torn Arab countries with a number of sources linking both elections in different ways [62] [63]). Maybe this will help condense the stories for a while instead of having three elections in three different blurbs. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
    • You support this ITNR, (which doesn't need support for notability, as it's ITNR), are you content with the quality of the article as well? I thought not per your comment yet you support... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • This support is not a !vote but I can change it if you're going to make a big deal about it and since the word apparently seems to bother you that much. I also proposed a blurb merge, in case you haven't noticed. And regarding your concerns about the article, then yes, I do agree with WaltClip on their last point that both candidates' articles need to be improved and unstubbed because they are equally important to the nominated article. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I noted the blurb merge suggestion, it's not a good one, it's not up to us to decide on political similarities and merging such blurbs would doubtless give a biased perspective whether we like it or not. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I've added an alternative blurb. Something about this election needs to be posted, considering two other recent presidential elections held in similarly dubious circumstances, Egypt and the Ukraine, were featured. --Tocino 07:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Attention needed indeed. A maintenance tag exists, I should know, I put it there three times, so once that's addressed we can re-assess the article quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
    I fixed the bare URL refs. I was going to post it, but the page is currently fully protected due to an edit war. Thus, I am hesitant - other thoughts. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you ThaddeusB, I wanted to do it myself but I couldn't because of the protection. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2Edit

Palestinian Unity GovernmentEdit

Article: Fatah–Hamas conflict (talk, history)
Blurb: ​A unity government is sworn in the Palestine, uniting Fatah and Hamas.
News source(s):

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This was nominated back when the deal was announced; the decision then was to wait until the government was sworn in. The proof is still in the pudding, to a degree, but I think this is the right time to post. --GoldenRing (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Support in principle. After many failed agreements, these two movements have finally succeeded in forming a unity government after seven years of conflict. The agreement is significant for the I-P conflict and has wide news coverage. I think the correct article to be linked is 2014 Fatah–Hamas Gaza Agreement, which is not updated currently. I also think the blurb should state that this comes after seven years of inter-Palestinian conflict. Mohamed CJ (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for notability. 2014 Fatah–Hamas Gaza Agreement is rather brief, maybe we should go to a subhead of the nominated article: Fatah-Hamas_conflict#April_2014_Gaza_agreement ? Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I may not be totally up-to-speed on this, but isn't it a thing that the unity government technically **does not** unite Fatah and Hamas, in that it doesn't contain any representatives of Hamas (?). The news is possibly only that Hamas recognises the authority of the new government. Formerip (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Certainly an important development. In light of Formerip's point, perhaps we should indicate in the blurb that the unity government is composed of independents. Neljack (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Needs Attention and Support. I think we need to get more attention to this before it slides by. Rhodesisland (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Juan Carlos announces intention to abdicateEdit

Article: Juan Carlos I of Spain (talk, history)
Blurb: ​King Juan Carlos of Spain announces his intention to abdicate.
News source(s): BBC: [64]

 Nominator's comments: Renominated because intention of prior discussion comments cannot be legitimately asserted since it proceeded from a false premise.