Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:In the news  (Redirected from Wikipedia:ITN/C)
Jump to: navigation, search
For administrator instructions on updating Template:In the news, see Wikipedia:In the news/Admin instructions.

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

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

McDonnell Douglas MD-83 aircraft

Ongoing: Commonwealth Games Gaza conflict Ebola outbreak Ukrainian unrest

How to nominate an item[edit]

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC.
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process. Remember, we use UTC dates.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
  • Please consider adding the blurb to Portal:Current events (the green box at the top of the date section) at the same time.

Purge this page to update the cache

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

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


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pulled from the main page are generally marked with [Posted] or [Pulled] in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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

Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]

  • Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a brief (or detailed!) rationale for your choice. Comments and other objections are welcome, but this is the basic form.
  • Be aware that RD refers to "recent deaths", a subsection of the news box which lists only the names of the recent notable deceased. Blurb refers to the full sentences that occupy most of the news box. Most eligible deaths will be listed in the recent deaths section of the ITN template. However, some deaths may be given a full listing if there is sufficient consensus to do so.
  • Be aware that the blurb of a promoted ITN item may be modified to complement the existing items on the main page.

Please do not...[edit]

  • ... add simple "support" or "oppose" !votes. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  • ... 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.
  • ... accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due a to personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  • ... comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  • ... oppose an item because it is not on WP:ITN/R.


August 1[edit]

July 31[edit]

Argentina in default[edit]

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

Article needs updating

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

  • Support once updated, breaking news now. Brandmeistertalk 08:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. A nation in default has many effects, and this is getting decent news coverage. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - This will likely do serious damage to Argentina's economy.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
"Likely" is the same speculation the below was rejectedLihaas (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • strong oppose S and P don't determine shit, they just give their opinion (same as the declaration below). If you follow the facts argenitina wmarket /bonds raised yesterday on speculation of an imminent deal. For gods sake, this is an encyclopaedia THINKLihaas (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Standard and Poor's is one if the Big Three (credit rating agencies), so they do actually determine shit. The rating of bonds are directly determined to the Big Three, with various laws saying which actual consequences those ratings have. Thue (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
      • On that evidence, one would hope Lihaas would change his and yes, it's an encyclopedia but this is ITN/C Lihaas. You know it's special. --Somchai Sun (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm stunned at how ignorant this !vote is. I think it's an important milestone as it greatly affects global perception of economic stability. If nothing else, it's making headlines all over the place.--WaltCip (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- My thinking is actually somewhere along the lines of that of Lihaas, what he's saying isn't actually so ridiculous. Would we post S&P declaring Argentina to be in default, then Moody's declaring Argentina to be in default, etc? Where does it end? As far as I can remember we've never posted anything like this, and I don't really don't think this is the type of milestone that belongs on ITN. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 17:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Fitch has cut Argentina's rating as well. [1] Moody's is reviewing their stance, which could take up to 90 days but much less. [2] Is there reason to believe Moody's might act quickly? I'd support this if all three major agencies acted, but I'm not sure about two of three. 9kat (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support with update. Argentina has defaulted on $29 billion on debt, which the NYT ref doesn't note.[3][4] I'm suggesting an altblurb with that stated more prominently, since it's a number that the average reader will understand, and it's notable even without mentioning S&P or Fitch. Maybe add ", triggering credit downgrades" if needed. 9kat (talk) 03:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

July 30[edit]

2014 Malin landslide[edit]

Article: 2014 Malin landslide
Blurb: In the Indian district of Pune, a landslide triggered by heavy rains kills at least 17 people.
News source(s): ABC News
Nominator: Jinkinson (give credit)

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

  • Oppose- Not a lot of international coverage, and the dreaded imaginary and arbitrary death toll bar isn't reached here. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, pending article improvement. As things stand right now, the death toll (around 20, I think) isn't exactly insignificant, and that number is expected to increase significantly. Article needs some expansion, however. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing: 2014 Libyan conflict[edit]

Worst violence in the country since the 2011 uprising. The Guardian and The New Indian Express called this conflict a civil war. The US closed its embassy four days ago [5] and French and British nationals were evacuated today [6] and some British diplomats were attacked during the process.[7] At the moment, the article is outdated but I'm currently trying to expand it. Any help would be appreciated. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Fastest serve in women tennis history[edit]

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

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

Articles: Sabine Lisicki and Fastest recorded tennis serves
Blurb: Sabine Lisicki hit the fastest recorded serve in the history of women's tennis.
News source(s):
Nominator: Eugen Simion 14 (give credit)

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

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

July 29[edit]

[Closed] Zhou Yongkang[edit]

No consensus to post. SpencerT♦C 19:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Updated article: Zhou Yongkang
Blurb: The Communist Party of China announces that former Politburo Standing Committee member Zhou Yongkang is undergoing investigation.
Alternative blurb: The Communist Party of China officially announces the corruption investigation into former official Zhou Yongkang
News source(s): (New York Times), (BBC)
Nominator and updater: Colipon (give credit)

Article updated

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

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

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

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


Proposed image
Articles to update: Pangolin and Asian cuisine

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

Article needs updating

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

  • Comment According to the sources all eight species of pangolin are threatened by their deliciousness (not just the Indian species). Mmmmmmm, pangolin. Belle (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Many thanks, have adjusted, although unsure which species Gonzo is. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
      • They don't look that tasty. Put me right off my bottlenose dolphin soup and koala bear steaks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Once you get past the revolting thick scaly skin, they're really quite tender inside. Just like many Admins (allegedly). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We have posted confirmed extinctions in the past (e.g. Western Black Rhinoceros) as well as the discovery of new species, but this item is just a warning by conservationists. SpencerT♦C 15:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
So, wait for them to become extinct and that will be real news? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, actually. For ITN, these "arbitrary points" (not just for extinction but for things like trial cases, business mergers, government actions, etc) could each be their own ITN entry, which would flood nominations. We have decided to only acceptable to post a "final" point of such stories - which would here be the case if the species is labelled "extinct" - yes, it seems like too late, but we're here to highlight quality articles that happen to be in the news, not be a news ticker. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Sadly I concur with Masem here. We'd have a permanent ticker for super-endangered species like the Javan Rhino if we kept reporting they were near extinction. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Man, I could really go for a slice of Javan rhino pie right now. Nice thick crust and plenty of gravy. Mmmmmm. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Very nice with the Dodo dumplings, Baiji-burgers and Tarpan toast, I hear. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- This is a case of newspapers deciding to take the time to feature an article about this, nothing's really happened yet. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 19:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Posted a support earlier today, it seems to have disappeared down the memory hole. Gamaliel (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Many species are on the verge of extinction and are reported as such. 331dot (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support This is an entire order of mammals, comparable in taxonomic level to all bats, all whales, or all primates, not just some "species". μηδείς (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per 331dot, and my previous comment. This just makes the papers because of the Asian food angle, more tabloid than a bunch of poachers just killing rhino for their horns. Besides that, several of our articles on the various extant pangolin do not list them as critically endangered, in fact one (tree pangolin) is just "vulnerable" (the IUCN agree). Finally, according to our article, there are nearly 2000 animal species that are "critically endangered", there seems no reason to single out these scaly fellas. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
... shucks, am now getting mixed feelings about this one. You know, like "sweet and sour"... Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Altblurb proposed and support per Medeis and because of the recent shocking numbers we have. More than a million pangolins are believed to have been snatched from the wild over the past decade. This is an alarming number and it's not just papers wasting time because the same article also quotes an IUCN specialist who says that the practice "has left very few in China, Vietnam and South East Asia" and that the poachers are now turning their attention to the "rapidly diminishing" species in sub-Saharan Africa. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • An excellent altblurb which I fully support. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Listen, my heart is entirely behind the story, but it's really not ITN-worthy. If species of Pangolin are still being categorised by IUCN as "vulnerable" there's no immediate threat of extinction (which I believe this story is revved up to make us all believe). As I said above, over 2,000 animals are critically endangered, is this the precedent we want to set that when one or two species are added to that red list, we must post it? We'll need a wildlife ticker for sure... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Now that would be titillating! Would open many eyes. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
    • My problem with the story is what are we reporting? That something has been going on for a full decade? What is the one big event that is being reported here, seems more like an ongoing thing. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 18:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, there is that too. Nothing newsworthy seems to be being suggested here other than a marked decline in pangolin numbers (apart from the unpleasant-to-eat tree pangolin). It's a tabloid story that's titillating and saddening, but ultimately not Wikipedia ITN-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, as I thought, a tabloid story. Not that titillating for the pangolin, though. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, a blog at Scientific American could be considered more than tabloid, but my point was that the headline of the pangolin being eaten into extinction is a tabloid approach to a widespread problem of endangered animals. That some have the misconception that this means all species of pangolin are suddenly critically endangered is just one erroneous side effect of such a "headline". People don't eat rhino so that's not as "important" as pangolin. As noted, there are thousands of species close to extinction, this is only of "interest" because people have eaten a lot of them. We ought to be concerned over all critically endangered species (i.e. we can exclude some of the pangolin species because they're ok for the moment), yet most won't get the salacious tabloid headline treatment because they're not thrilling and tangible like a pangolin. Disclaimer: I have seen a pangolin "in the flesh", while tracking leopard in Namibia, and it was certainly a highlight, more so than seeing an actual leopard (which are commonplace and "not threatened", perhaps we should BBQ them instead). It was an unrepentant scaly sod, the size of a 16 pound bowling ball, with the strength of ten men. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Tree Pangolin.JPG
Choose whatever "headline" you like. Pangolins are endangered - because they're considered a delicacy on the restaurant tables of Asia. If it goes on, they'll be extinct. Enjoy your BBQ. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Martin, I agree with you entirely. ITN isn't used to right great wrongs. But the pangolins are no different from the Javan rhinos. Or the other thousands of critically endangered species. Or am I wrong? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
... you can't get a rhino on the barbecue. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose They are only vulnerable, and wow that main blurb seems to be taken right out of a magazine head. Don't see the point in posting trends. Besides, if we post this do we have to post about the hundreds or thousands of possible insects who are becoming even more endangered? Someone think of the insects! (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support with altblurb- My original problem is gone now that there is an actual story to report, not just a trend. Plus this is an extreme minority topic, which I know doesn't exist anymore as ITN policy but I still take it into account. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

July 28[edit]

RD: James Shigeta[edit]

Updated article: James Shigeta
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): E! Online
Nominator: George Ho (give credit)
Updater: Coretheapple (give credit)

Article updated

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

  • Weak oppose- By no means a superstar, but I am familiar with him and he did have some memorable roles. Based on our usual threshold for RD postings, I feel he falls just below the bar, but others might disagree. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 20:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article looks like it's in good shape, but sadly, I don't see him as being notable enough for RD. Challenger l (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Recognized actor, but not "top of his field". --MASEM (t) 20:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support OK I have a conflict of interest (I added his birthdate), but I wanted to point out that he was a rare Asian-American star and we should have a bit more diversity on the main page. That's all. Coretheapple (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • How is adding his birthdate COI? Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I completely understand this, but the standards of notability don't have anything to do with ethnicity or national origin - they have to do with how well known someone is, and far more to the point, how much they stick out in their field. Challenger l (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
FYI NY Times obituary today[8] described him as "an actor who challenged social boundaries when he emerged in the late 1950s as one of the first Asian-Americans to play leading roles in Hollywood." Come on guys! Coretheapple (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Being one of the firsts is not necessarily equivalent to importance. In contrast, Sidney Poitier (should we ever lose him) not only was one of the first, but also help led for advancement of African-descended actors in Hollywood. Without exploring too much there are other Asian-american actors that I think would be the equivalent to Poitier, such as George Takei, that not only were first from that diversity group but also actively helped to pave the way for more. --MASEM (t) 19:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem, hardly top of his field. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I love his work and it's clear that ITM has diversity issues, but he doesn't meet the notability bar required here. Gamaliel (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment- It's important to note that our diversity problems have almost nothing to do with race. The problem is focusing too much on certain places, for instance too many Americans on RD. So this wouldn't do much to combat that, because he was on American shows and is known to Americans. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 19:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed. A while back I attempted to get a well-respected and widely-known figure in the Spanish-speaking world listed, and it was resoundingly ignored because she had no US presence. I suspect had Shigeta had the same career in Japan and was never in Die Hard, he wouldn't have gotten nominated here. Gamaliel (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

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

No consensus to post. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Article: Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty
Blurb: The United States accuses Russia of violating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which they had signed in 1987, by testing a ground-launched cruise missile.
News source(s): New York Times
Nominator: Jinkinson (give credit)

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

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

[Posted] Yukos[edit]

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

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

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

[Posted] Pacific Islands Forum[edit]

Proposed image
Updated article: 45th Pacific Islands Forum

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

Article updated

Note: I plan to write an update shortly. Created article, now expanding to meet ITN criteria. Article is ready.

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

  • Oppose while this is more important than the Cook Islands election, there would be too much reverse-systematic bias if such a remote/irrelevant part of the world gets so much ITN coverage. Nergaal (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Australia, New Zealand and some 40 million people are remote and irrelevant? Stephen 23:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    And if it's irrelevant why are the US, China, India and other major power sending representatives to this summit? China, for one, has been quite active in recent years in attempting to extend its influence in the area with various aid and diplomatic initiatives. Neljack (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    They will be joined at the forum, running from July 29 to August 1, by observers from countries including the United States, China and India. Do we know who these "observers" are? The ABC article does not say, but my guess is that if they were government representatives, they would be identified as such. Probably a few of the attendees come from these nations. They could be tourists looking for a tax break, for all we know.
    Your guess is wrong. The observers include John Podesta and Catherine Ashton.[9] Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks. I don't know about government representatives per se, but they certainly seem to be in with the heads. --Pete (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I might support this if there was an article for this year's event. Formerip (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I might do that either tonight or tomorrow morning. I know I haven't written anything yet like I said I would but if this looks like it might gain consensus for posting I'll definitely make sure to either add an update or write a new article. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm in agreement with FormerIP; it seems a notable enough international gathering, though. 331dot (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose because this is just a propaganda grab. Sea levels in Kiribati are the same as they are twenty years ago.[10] Let's save our front page for real news stories, not made up ones. Otherwise we might as well just get a random feed of media releases. --Pete (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Your personal view on the science of climate change is not really relevant. What is relevant is that the international community is taking this seriously, as seen by the representation from major powers - probably because there is a scientific consensus that there will be sea level rise as a result of climate change. Neljack (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I've got one of those minds that retain trivia - but not the important stuff, as my dear wife reminds me - and I remembered a news article on the subject from years back. I see this as a stunt, designed explicitly to grab media attention. My personal views on climate change aren't worth a tinker's cuss, but I do know a little bit about tricks used to steal headlines and publicity. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Neljack (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

[Closed] Zillow and Trulia merger[edit]

no consensus to post this merger of two US real estate websites. Stephen 02:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Articles: Zillow and Trulia
Blurb: Zillow, the largest real estate website in the United States, announces its intention to buy the second largest such website, Trulia.
News source(s): LA Times
Nominator: Jinkinson (give credit)

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

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

[Closed] Canadian Open[edit]

No consensus to post this particular golfing event. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Articles: Tim Clark (golfer) and Canadian Open (golf)
Blurb: In golf, Tim Clark wins the Canadian Open.
News source(s): REUTERS ABC
Nominator: Nathan121212 (give credit)
Updater: Sxg169 (give credit)

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

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

[Closed] Eid[edit]

An OTD, not an ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Article: Eid al-Fitr
Blurb: Muslims around the world mark end of Ramadan with Eid al-Fitr Celebrations.
News source(s): [19]
Nominator and updater: Teaksmitty (give credit)

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

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

July 27[edit]

[Closed] Costa Concordia[edit]

No consensus to post based on unanimous opposition here and the lackluster support from the discussion on 14 July. Stephen 06:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Article: Costa Concordia
Blurb: The Costa Concordia completes her final journey to the Italian port of Genoa, after which she will be demolished for scrap.
News source(s): Irish Times
Nominator: Jinkinson (give credit)

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

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

Hungarian Grand Prix[edit]

Updated article: 2014 Hungarian Grand Prix
Blurb: In Formula One racing, Daniel Ricciardo wins the 2014 Hungarian Grand Prix.
News source(s): Guardian, ABC
Nominator: Brandmeister (give credit)

Article updated

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

I quote: "Please do not... add simple "support" or "oppose" !votes. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached." (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Allow me to elucidate since you have asked so kindly: so what is the significance of this GP win over any other? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose without also agreeing to The Rambling Man, regardless to what my comment last year, let me point this out to the nominator, the Monaco GP have more provenance to every other GPs out there and is one of the few pre war GPs that is still running. Regardless how Mr. BCE treats it nowadays as they are no different to all other rounds, it even have the provenance to rival every other major races in the world and that includes Le Mans and Indy 500. So to have something to say to this nominator, do that answer the reason why Monaco is included in ITN/R? Donnie Park (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Hungary have an F1 race? Wow. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Since 1986. Stephen 22:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

2014 Tour de France Championship[edit]

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

Article needs updating

Nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, meaning that the recurrence of the event is generally considered important enough to post on WP:ITN subject to the quality of the article and the update to it.

  – HonorTheKing (talk)

  • Support: ITN/R sports event. ends today. could include in the blurb that he now won all three grand tours, becoming the sixth rider to do so.
      – HonorTheKing (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment- Incredible tour by Nibali throughout. Now all that's needed is an update. Anyone interested in writing one? Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 17:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Alternatively we could do the lazy approach, where we run a blurb that looks like this:
In cycling, Vincenzo Nibali wins the Tour de France.
That article is clearly updated, so this nomination should be ready to go. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I am concerned that there is virtually no prose to discuss the win, just the one unreferenced line in the lead (and the unreferenced standings in the table), unless I'm mistaken. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    I've added references for that line in the lead. It seems to be a general style to discuss the Tour in terms of the overall structure and omit any details of the competition. It makes for very dull articles. Belle (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Perhaps a more suitable target article which discusses the result in more detail would be more appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Vincenzo Nibali is updated, but the bulk of his earlier career appears completely unreferenced. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the short blurb once the intro of the article is expanded in a similar manner to the lead of the 2013 article. Nergaal (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

July 26[edit]

[Closed] 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict ceasefire[edit]

Part of the point of the Ongoing section of ITN is to highlight ongoing issues, this is one such, which clearly is transient. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Article: 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict
Blurb: A twelve-hour humanitarian ceasefire takes place between Israel and Gaza in the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict.
Alternative blurb: Israel proposes to extend a ceasefire by four hours relative to its original twelve-hour duration, but Gaza rejects the offer.
News source(s): Fox News, USA Today
Nominator: Jinkinson (give credit)

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

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

European Court of Human Rights decision regarding Poland and CIA black site[edit]

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

Article updated

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

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

July 25[edit]

[Posted] Ongoing: 2014 West Africa Ebola outbreak[edit]

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

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

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

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


Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.

For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents: