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.

Man swinging golf club

Ongoing: Ukrainian unrest
Recent deaths: James Garner Elaine Stritch Karl Albrecht

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pulled from the main page are generally marked with [Posted] or [Pulled] in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.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.


July 23[edit]

TransAsia Airways Flight 222[edit]

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

Article needs updating

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

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

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

July 22[edit]

Ongoing: 2014 Commonwealth Games[edit]

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

  • Support second only to the Olympics really in terms of international athletics tournaments. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Tentative oppose. I believe we should stay with the Olympics and FIFA World Cup. These two are trully worldwide events while the Commonwealth Games, Asian Games, UEFA European Football Championship etc. are limited to the continent/Commonwealth or similar. We can feature the opening ceremony as a blurb, though. --Tone 20:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Actually, the FIFA World Cup finals include 32 countries, while the Commonwealth Games have 71 nations involved. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, but in principle any country (190+) can qualify for the World Cup finals. Or for the Olympics. Not the case with the Commonwealth Games. I'm kind of conservative when it comes to sport events on ITN, especially the ongoing. --Tone 20:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
        • We posted the World Cup finals, 32 teams, not the qualifying. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
          • In Denmark, people watch the FIFA world cup finals, even though we didn't qualify. I am pretty sure that is the case in most countries. Not so the Commonwealth Games. Thue (talk) 10:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
support per trm, but we should link it to a chronology type page a la olymoics. (although Asian games is up there too)Lihaas (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Support A reasonable large international event (going by # of countries listed on the linked page). --MASEM (t) 20:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for ongoing. Ongoing was not intended to be for sports events in progress. WC was posted without discussion. The opening of the Games is ITNR; that should be sufficient. I'd even be open to posting the closing. 331dot (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's being used as a sports ticker. We posted the World Cup, and this encompasses a heap more countries, many of them more niche than the WC finals. It'd be nice to use the spare Ongoing slots when we can. What's the harm in that? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    • No, it was envisioned to be about news stories in progress to avoid having otherwise "routine" coverage of those stories being repeatedly submitted for ITN. Mind you, it needs to be big enough - we did not post the Tour de France (a very niche event) but the Olympics, World Cup, and these Commonwealth Games all seem like reasonable topics that fit the concept. --MASEM (t) 22:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose As Tone says, we should stick to the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup. There are heaps of sports events that one could make a case for if we lower the bar. Our present coverage of sports is quite sufficient, in my view, without them colonising the "Ongoing" ticker. Neljack (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Next largest sporting event in the world after the FIFA World Cup, Olympics and Paralympics. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The next sports event that comes along will be the "next largest after WC, Olympics, Paralympics, and Comm Games". Where is the line? 331dot (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Presumably the Asian Games, which has a larger "default" audience that the Commonwealth Games should be ahead of this, right??? –HTD 23:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support because this is a big multi-sports event where gold medals are won on a daily basis, as opposed to events (such as the grand slam events in tennis or golf, or even the football World Cup) where the one winner is decided on the final day. BencherliteTalk 22:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Question Did we post a lot (aside from the opening & closing ceremonies) of blurbs from the 2010 Commonwealth Games? –HTD 22:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Ongoing is not specifically supposed to be a sports ticker but, then again, it's not specifically supposed to be an anything ticker. This is a major sporting event with an international audience, and anything reasonable that dilutes the death count on ITN is OK by me (I don't see what would have be wrong with posting the Tour de France, BTW). Obviously, inclusion in ongoing should be revokable if high-quality content is not being maintained. Formerip (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose- This is really just a diluted version of the Olympics. What's next, Maccabiah? Or maybe the Pan-Am Games? What sets this apart from other limited multi-sport festivals like those? And that's not a rhetorical question- if there actually is something about the Commonwealth Games that's put it on or near the same level as the Olympics, I'll consider. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I don't see any reason to exclude the opening and finish of the Commonwealth Games for notability grounds, and the article looks pretty good too. Challenger l (talk) 07:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and this is not the third, its the fourth, the Maccabiah Games had more atheletics and nations than the CW games. 7,500 plus/minus.
      – HonorTheKing (talk) 12:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
@Bzweebl/HonorTheKing this item is ITNR and will thus be posted regardless. If you think it should be removed from ITNR then by all means bring that up at the ITNR talk page. Oh and, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The Maccabiah Games are a racially exclusive event that doesn't get anywhere near the level of media coverage the CW games do, and using the Olympics/world cup as some kind of benchmark is just absurd.--Somchai Sun (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a discussion for its inclusion in the "Ongoing" ticker, not a normal ITN blurb. I presume a blurb would have been automatically supported by everyone. –HTD 12:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh right OK, well, neutral then. --Somchai Sun (talk) 12:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with Tone stick with olympics and World Cup for ongoing. Those two are the biggest sporting events and ones that are truly worldwide. It's not like we don't have enough sport coverage in front page already. SeraV (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - to my mind , this is much bigger than the World Cup, as it encompasses many different sports, not just one, and as already been stated, has over twice the number of competing nations.  — An optimist on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 13:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - don't care how many people or "nations" (1) participated in the Prejudice Olympics, this is the third largest multi-national sporting event held on a regular basis. It is big in the news right now, and it would be a nice alternative to a ticker full of death and destruction, as it currently is for the most part. The Pan-Am Games only affect one hemisphere of the globe, so they would be better off presented with blurbs for the closing and possibly opening ceremonies (but I got my Toronto bias in there). - Floydian τ ¢ 14:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
note- Chronological summary of the 2014 Commonwealth GamesLihaas (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Indonesian presidential election, 2014[edit]

Updated article: Indonesian presidential election, 2014
Blurb: Joko Widodo is elected President of Indonesia following a close race
News source(s): Sky News, ABC, MSN, New York Times BBC
Updater: Crisco 1492 (give credit)

Article updated

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.

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

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

July 21[edit]

[Posted] RD: Karl Albrecht[edit]

Article to update: Karl Albrecht
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Guardian [1]
Article needs updating

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

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

RD: Dan Borislow[edit]

Article: Dan Borislow
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): ABC News
Nominator: Jinkinson (give credit)

Nominator's comments: More than 10 million Magicjacks, which he invented, have been sold (see ABC News article above). This article also seems to indicate he was an important inventor in the field of making phone calls over the internet. --Jinkinson talk to me 21:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but oppose. Not really a leader in his field, in my opinion - as inventions go, the magicJack isn't exactly the bikini or the internal combustion engine. I doubt we would post the inventor of the Snuggie or the Slap Chop, either. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Article has some issues and doesn't meet the notability bar for RD in any case. Gamaliel (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not seeing this one for notability, and the article is in need of work. Challenger l (talk) 07:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The International[edit]

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

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

  • Weak support eSports are become legitimized as equal to more athletic sports, and this is equivalent to the World Cup or Super Bowl for this field. However, I'm a little disheartened to find coverage outside of typical video game sites, outside the fact ESPN broadcasted it. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

July 20[edit]

[Posted] British Open[edit]

Article: 2014 Open Championship
Blurb: In golf, Rory McIlroy wins the Open Championship.
News source(s): [3]
Nominator: Bongwarrior (give credit)

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.

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

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

July 19[edit]

[Posted] RD: James Garner[edit]

Article: James Garner
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Sydney Morning Herald [4]
Nominator: Jheald (give credit)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You'll all be glad to know that the preceding discussion comprises 6,200 words. Sca (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] Egypt attack[edit]

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

Article needs updating

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

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

Last Christians ordered to leave Mosul[edit]

Updated article: Mosul
Blurb: Islamic State orders all Christians to leave Mosul.
News source(s): New York TimesPress TV
Nominator: Thue (give credit)

Article updated

Note: There were 30,000 Christians in 2003. New York Times say there were "a few thousands" left before this order. There have been Christians in Mosul for 1700 years.

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

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

Battle of Tikrit[edit]

Updated article: Battle of Tikrit
Blurb: Islamic State defeats the Iraqi government at the Battle of Tikrit.
News source(s): Miami Herald
Nominator: Thue (give credit)

Article updated

Note: 850 Iraqi government troops dead or capured. 8–9 helicopters were destroyed on the ground or shot down.

 Thue (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

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

July 18[edit]

[Posted] Cook Islands election[edit]

Article to update: Cook Islands general election, 2014
Blurb: The Cook Islands Party retains its majority in the Cook Islands general election, 2014.
News source(s): [5]
Nominator: Neljack (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.

Note: Election day was the 9th, but it took until late on the night of the 18th for all the results (and it is the results that are ITN/R) to come in - understandably, in a far-flung archipelago with some very remote islands.

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

  • Can you post a source demonstrating that this is in the news? 331dot (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
    • 331dot, I've added a source to the nomination template. My apologies - I was doing this late at night and somehow forgot to include a source. Neljack (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
      • No problem. It might seem like it was a demand, but it was not, just a request. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Working on the presumption that we are considering the Cook Islands a sovereign state, the way I read this is that this election result was not a surprise to those watching and thus, the fact that this election in an otherwise small country ends up as projected before the election is not really news. --MASEM (t) 20:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • There is nothing in ITNR which says the result has to be surprising or unexpected. 331dot (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ITNR is not a guaranty of posting, only that the core facet of the ITNR shouldn't be too much of an issue, as to prevent repeated discussion of the merits of a given topic. --MASEM (t) 22:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It isn't a guarantee of posting, but it is a guarantee of notability. We don't need to debate the merits of posting this here as it is already presumed notable. The listing of elections of sovereign states doesn't list additional criteria other than being a sovereign state; if you want additional criteria(such as a surprising result, or a floor for a state's population in order to be listed) feel free to suggest it. As long as this is updated, the blurb agreed to, and shown to be in the news, this can be posted. 331dot (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No, this was discussed recently (within the last year). ITNR items still require discussion for both article quality and appropriateness of the specific instance. A result may be very unsurprising as that it really isn't news at all. --MASEM (t) 23:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Masem, I'm not sure where you get the idea that this result was expected. There was a great deal of uncertainty before the election about the likely result, particularly since the emergence of a third party that had broken away from the governing party made the election hard to predict. Indeed the preliminary results available on the day after the election indicated a plurality for the opposition Democratic Party, and certainly all the talk was that there would be a coalition government with the new party as kingmakers. So it was a quite a surprise when the Cook Islands Party retained its majority after all the results had come in. Neljack (talk) 23:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The articles I scanned before seemed to indicate the result wasn't that much of a surprise, but I think the fact that the status quo is maintained, it seems, that's another strike against posting in addition to how significant the Cook Island politics are to the rest of the world. --MASEM (t) 02:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support While notability for a state this size is more questionable, the article is much more than a few charts of the final results (compared to other election articles of much larger states that are nominated here). I'm willing to support based on article quality and size of the expansion. SpencerT♦C 22:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. On the question of whether it is a sovereign state or not, consensus on the talkpage of a Wikipedia list article is not conclusive. But a quick Google fails to turn up any controversy on the question. So, it seems like it's ITNR, and the article is in good shape. No more time needs to be wasted. Formerip (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
The ITN/R listing does actually refer specifically to inclusion on the list of sovereign states as the criterion, presumably in order to prevent arguments about whether X or Y is a sovereign state. But I agree that the Cook Islands' status is not disputed. Neljack (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
It is NOT ITNR for the same reason we don't post NKO, Transnistria, South Ossetia, Akhasia and kosov automatically. See the archives that it needed discussion. This is far less notable, opposeLihaas (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Lihaas, "all states on the List of sovereign states" are ITN/R. It also says that there should be case-by-case discussion on "disputed states", but - unlike those that you mention - the Cook Islands is not a disputed state. No other state claims sovereignty over its territory. New Zealand certainly does not. So this is ITN/R. Neljack (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Neljack is quite correct. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Marking as ready ITN/R and has a well-referenced six-paragraph update. Also has majority support, not that it needs it. Neljack (talk) 07:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose- Not a UN member state. Not recognized by the UN as an independent country, the gold standard for sovereignty. That is regardless of whether it's "too small", which should not be a concern, Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 18:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
As stated by the nominator, this nation has been judged to meet the criteria for listing on the List of Sovereign States. It is a member of several UN bodies (despite not having full membership) and its territory is not disputed. If you don't think it should be listed there, please discuss that there. 331dot (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Bzweebl, it is considered by the UN to be a sovereign state. It has never sought UN membership, but then neither has the Vatican, which is unquestionably a state. Fifteen years ago Switzerland was not a UN member - its statehood could surely not have been doubted on that basis. The Cook Islands has been admitted to UN specialized agencies, which are only open to sovereign states - for instance, it is a member of the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, UNESCO, and the International Civil Aviation Organization. These decisions have been taken by a membership that is representative of the whole international community. When the UN Secretary-General had to determine whether the Cook Islands was a sovereign state and thus could become party to international treaties only open to sovereign states, in his capacity as depository of such treaties, he concluded that it was because "the question of the status, as a State, of the Cook Islands, had been duly decided in the affirmative by the World Health Assembly, whose membership was fully representative of the international community. The guidance the Secretary-General might have obtained from the General Assembly, had he requested it, would evidently have been substantially identical to the decision of the World Health Assembly. The same solution was adopted by the Secretary-General when Niue, in 1994, applied for membership in the World Health Organization." (See paragraph 86 of this document)[6] So the international community and the UN Secretariat have accepted the Cook Islands as a sovereign state. Neljack (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment- I'm not sure where the idea came from that this is on List of sovereign states, but it's not. It's on that secondary list of "other states" from which many elections have been proposed on ITN and only Taiwan has ever passed. This is not ITN/R. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 18:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The ITNR listing doesn't make a distinction; it says "all states on the List of Sovereign States". The territory of the Cook Islands is not claimed by any other nation or otherwise disputed(as with South Ossetia which would be excluded per the "disputed states" line). 331dot (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Bzweebl, it is on the list of sovereign states, under the non-UN member state part of the list. Neljack (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • From their post I think they are aware of that, but are asserting it is somehow "secondary" or otherwise invalid for purposes of this discussion, not seeing the full ITNR listing (which says "all" and excludes only disputed states) 331dot (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, I was remembering the rejections of Abkhazia and South Ossetia a few years ago, but you're right, those are different under ITN/R because they are "disputed states". I really don't like that guideline because the situation is different for the Cook Islands in that it's not that their statehood is universally recognized and no one disputes it, it's that their free association with New Zealand, which isn't quite the same level of statehood but is considered as such on the List of sovereign states, is not disputed. However, I'm sure if the Cook Islands claimed full independence from New Zealand, and New Zealand refused to recognize it as such, then it would be listed as a "disputed state" even though it's arguably closer to full statehood in that situation because it would be, in that scenario, recognized by some countries as being completely independent of New Zealand. But the way the guideline is worded now you are technically correct, so I have struck my opposition. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 20:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pull really? 2 opposed and 3 supports consists consensus? While Junker is still not posted? This is, or should not be ITNR, and probably the most common topic for ITN items are elections. Since there are plenty of such items posted, extending these to dependent territories is... let's just say plain boring. Nergaal (talk) 09:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • As stated in the above posts, the Cook Islands has been judged over at the List of Sovereign States page to warrant inclusion on that list. for several reasons (can make its own treaties, member of UN organizations, recognition by 40 or so countries, etc.) If you feel it shouldn't be there, or there should be some sort of qualifiers for the ITNR list (which says "all" states on the list) feel free to open that discussion. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
And should we post elections in Alabama now since it is a state? Or you can't possibly suggest that North Cyprus should also be posted? Also, that list is not featured in any way, so an IP's random edit can pass without having a multiple set of eyes judge its inclusion. And if you can't read further, it says "Disputed states and dependent territories should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits." Nergaal (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Is Alabama a sovereign state? Are the Cook Islands disputed? Are they "dependent territories"? Not according to the relevant articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
What is an associated state? What is the difference between Realm of New Zealand and British Overseas Territories? Nergaal (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Nergaal, the difference is this: the British Parliament has full authority to legislate for a British Overseas Territory and the British Government can direct and even dismiss its Government (as happened a few years ago in the Turks and Caicos Islands),[7] whereas the New Zealand Parliament has no power to legislate for the Cook Islands and the New Zealand Government has no power to dismiss or direct its Government. That is because the Cook Islands is a separate sovereign state, unlike a British Overseas Territory. Neljack (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
(ec) North Cyprus is a disputed and 99% unrecognized territory, and would be excluded from ITNR consideration due to the "disputed states" clause in the ITNR listing. Alabama is not on the List of Sovereign States. Cook Islands are on the List; it is not a "disputed territory" as it is not claimed by anyone. It is not a "dependent territory"; it is in free association with New Zealand, much like the Marshall Islands and some other territories are in free association with the United States. As I said, if you feel that it shouldn't be on the list, take it up over there. 331dot (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pull on the grounds that no consensus was established. I routinely oppose elections of very small countries on ITN mostly because they are of very little encyclopedic value and are very much inconsequential most of the time even to their neighbouring states. Colipon+(Talk) 13:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Colipon Consensus is established by this item being on the ITNR list. If you feel that the listing (general elections of those on the List of Sovereign States) should be altered to exclude this, please propose such a restriction at the ITNR discussion page. 331dot (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pull: I agree with Masem and 331dot - Putting aside the argument of whether Cook Islands are a sovereign nation, this story is not evidently in the news. A fundamental part of Wikipedia In The News is that whatever we post is broadcasted in mainstream media in different countries around the world with significant implications. (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • That is a part, but another part is highlighting decent articles, which is being done here. While those events with wide news coverage stand the best chance of being posted, that's not the only criterion. The nominator also fulfilled my request and posted a news story. 331dot (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It is in the news: [8][9][10][11][12][13][14] I could hardly have written a large prose update if there were no news sources. Neljack (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • You are certainly free to do so yourself, if you wish. 331dot (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support all these pulls fails to argue that this particular nomination actually is in the INT/R which makes them irrelevant. Sure our rules could be modified here if people wish to but as they currently are this belongs in the news section and arguing othervise is pointless. SeraV (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Why is this archived? The ITNR criteria EXPLICITLY states that "Disputed states and dependent territories should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits." Isn't this a dependent territory? Even if it was ITNR, there have been plenty of cases where because of the overwhelming opposes the ITNR was overulled and I am counting more opposes not than supports. Nergaal (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • As stated above, this isn't a "dependent territory" any more than Micronesia or the Marshall Islands are dependent territories of the United States. In any event, that's an issue for the talk page of the Sovereign States List. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Except that irrelevant countries like Micronesia, Marshall Islands, or even Liechtenstein at least have technically the right to vote in the UN. What does a person elected in the Cook Islands get to do or influence in the international politics? Nergaal (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
That's not really relevant to this page; take it up at the List page. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think you know what you're talking about Nergaal. It's not a "dependent territory". Stop being disruptive. Take the argument elsewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:ITN/R#Elections_and_Heads_of_State basically states that all general elections that all general elections of UN members + Niue + Cook Islands get a no-discussion ITNR slot. Am I reading it wrong? Since this is about one of the two exceptions, somebody please show me where such a choice was discussed (even implicitly) and agreed upon. Nergaal (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
There is no special carve-out here. It states "All states on the List of sovereign states". The only qualifiers given are that disputed states and dependent territories are not ITNR, neither of which is the case here. 331dot (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
And if you comb out the entries for disputed territories, ALL that you are left with is UN members plus Niue and Cook Islands. What makes this two cases particularly notable out of the wide variety of non-UN members to get them the same ITNR status as any UN member? Nergaal (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Full UN membership (Cook Islands are a member of some UN bodies) is not a prerequisite for listing here. Are you proposing that as the criteria instead of "all states on the list of sovereign states"? If you don't like that the Cook Islands are on the list, I again urge you to bring it up over there. 331dot (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
What I am saying is that the inclusion of Niue and Cook Islands was an unintended side-effect of the current formulation [which to me doesn't seem to be any more than a personal choice of the person editing that section]. The two choices are then that the UN member list is an internationally acknowledged list, while the entries at List of sovereign states is a list of entries chosen by various editors here which has NOT EVEN been passed through the rigors of FL. The only difference between the two [one official, one not even here agreed upon] is Niue and Cook Islands. Nergaal (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
How do you know it is "an unintended side-effect"? That might have been exactly what was intended. You are free to formally propose that the "all states on...." be changed to "all UN members". 331dot (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
That's not true - the Vatican would also be excluded by limiting it to UN members. Neljack (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Vatican has no general election, and the Pope is the head of a religion [we post other religions such as say Syrian Catholics]. Nergaal (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The Pope is also a head of state, and in charge of Vatican City. 331dot (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
And that exception is currently explicitly covered under the "Indirect elections, including papal elections, are also included" line. The Cook and Niue elections are not covered under such an explicit exception [furthermore showing that their inclusion was just an unintended side-effect]. Nergaal (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
They don't need an exception as they are on the Sovereign States list. I get that you don't like that, but you are fighting your battle in the wrong place. A good start was your ITNR discussion; you know where the talk page for the List is. 331dot (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
That line only makes sense on the assumption that the Vatican is among the states that are included. The papal election is given as an example of an indirect election; it's not given a separate listing, as would be necessary if it wasn't already on the list as the election of a head of state of a state on the list of sovereign states. Neljack (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - in my view it is quite clear that, 1) there was no consensus to post this item, and 2) the ITNR 'rule' does not need to apply to all cases where common sense should be exercised to determine notability. The status quo is clearly not satisfactory, and I feel discouraged to re-open the ITNR elections debate. The reason for this is, because we cannot determine an ITNR threshold for what country is "big enough" to warrant inclusion, the outcome has always been "no consensus", making ITNR default to "all elections of sovereign states". This outcome, in my view, seems to be preferred by only a small minority of editors.

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

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

July 17[edit]

RD: Joep Lange[edit]

Updated article: Joep Lange
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): Washington Post Telegraph obituary
Nominator: LukeSurl (give credit)

Article updated

Note: One of the passengers on MH17, so coverage of his death has been caught up with that wider story.

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

  • Comment He definitely looks like a heavyweight in his area of research, article looks good. I'm not 100% sure if he meets notability for RD, though. Challenger l (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Clearly an accomplished individual, but I don't think he meets the criteria overall. It feels like he's primarily notable as the most accomplished person to die on MH17. 9kat (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Perhaps a leading researcher but not as much as a leader as we'd use as a metric, but moreso for myself, to highlight his death in the crash over the 100-some other AIDS researchers that also died in that crash (as well as the 150+ other passengers) feels ethically wrong, to me. --MASEM (t) 23:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support The reason he is being singled out is that his colleagues in the field of AIDS research are singling him out, even among all the other researchers who died in the crash. The President-elect of the International AIDS Society and the Executive Director of the Harvard School of Public Health AIDS Initiative both described Lange as a "giant" in the field of AIDS research.[15][16] The Telegraph obituary gives a good explanation of his contributions: "[He] was a pioneer in the field of HIV/Aids since the days when the epidemic was first identified in the early 1980s; in recent years he was at the forefront of the campaign to improve access to anti-retroviral drugs in poor countries. Lange was instrumental in the development of techniques of clinical care of HIV-infected patients from as early as 1982... Lange led pioneering research into the risk of a carrier of HIV developing full-blown Aids, establishing that the risk is determined by the level of a protein known as “P24” in a carrier’s blood. He went on to lead early tests on the drug Retrovir, an antiretroviral which proved to be the first breakthrough in Aids therapy, significantly reducing the replication of HIV in patients."[17] Neljack (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Question: What awards has Lange won? None are listed in the article, and while he may be a "research heavyweight", thisdoes not necessarily mean "top of his field". This would be more clear if he had received an important scientific award of some sort of award in the medical field. SpencerT♦C 01:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
He received the Eijkman Medal for tropical medicine and international health in 2007.[18] But the case for him being a very important figure in his field is based less on his awards and more on the testimony of his colleagues. And is it not just about his ability as a researcher, but also the major impact his work has had. According to the Washington Post, the President-elect of the International AIDS Society said that "Lange was a visionary who played in­cred­ibly important roles as one of the architects of combination retroviral therapy for HIV patients — a breakthrough that has made the virus something that is more akin to a chronic illness than a death sentence for many patients — and as an advocate for universal access to AIDS medicines."[19] Neljack (talk) 07:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • What did they say before Lange died, though? That's generally going to be easier to judge by. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Lange was the Chief of Clinical Research/Drug Development at the WHO Global Programme on AIDS, former President of the International AIDS Society, and certainly more notable than many of the pop singers and celebrities who are not notable outside their own fields. -A1candidate (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose — Tragic, as are all untimely deaths, but this person's demise is so enmeshed in the MH17 story that, in terms of news value, it doesn't warrant a separate entry, IMO. Sca (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak support this individual has been singled out by news outlets in my jurisdiction as a special case, phrases like "pioneer" have been bandied around. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Solution would seem to be adding "with a dozen AIDS researchers to the blurb" rather than single one few people will know by name. μηδείς (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - RN doesn't have to be entirely separate from ongoing news stories, AFAIK, and had the individual died some other time or in some other way he would probably have passed easily. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We wouldn't be having this discussion if not for the nature of his death. --W. D. Graham 20:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] 2014 Chaambi Mountains attack[edit]

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

Article needs updating

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

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

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

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

Article updated

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

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

[Posted] Ongoing: Operation Protective Edge[edit]

The violence is still escalating [20] with 230+ killed. The fighting is the worst of its kind since the 2008 Gaza War.[21] Clearly not routine business in the Gaza Strip. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

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

[Posted] RD: Elaine Stritch[edit]

Updated article: Elaine Stritch
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s): NYTimes
Nominator: Masem (give credit)

Article updated

Note: Date of death noted, but not expanded. Article needs a bit of help on sourcing in several sections.

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

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

[Posted] Malaysia Airlines Flight 17[edit]

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

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

  • Comment - Interfax is saying it was shot down. But let's wait and see whether that's corroborated. I'd want more than one impeccable source for a claim like that. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support pending article updates - whether shot down or not, a commercial airliner crash of nearly 300 ppl is ITN. But we definitely need to have confirmation that it might have been SAM that took it down. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support pending improvement This topic is an obvious support, regardless of the reason it was shot down. We need to wait for more information first, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait but support upon update. Very significant event in the Ukrainian crisis (if determined to be related). Will be interesting in the coming days to see international reaction and response. Also, significant event in general if there are a large number of casualties. Quite interesting too that it's the same airline, Malaysia Airlines, for the missing aircraft Flight 370. (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait Definitely needs to be posted, but more data needs to come in. --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 16:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. No question. Gamaliel (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, should be posted once bashed into shape. Significant development in Ukraine conflict. Mjroots (talk) 16:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support but verify as much as possible. CNN and most major US networks reporting aircraft was shot down (unconfirmed reports) - definitely newsworthy and ITN eligible, it's just making sure there is data available -- Tawker (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Add news with the basic facts no-one disputes (Malaysia Airlines aircraft crashes in east Ukraine) and update as new information comes in.Leptictidium (mt) 16:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Whether it was shot down or not, any commercial plane crash killing 295 people is ITN-worthy. I say post it now with the suggested blurb of "crashed" and keep it at that, since hard evidence as to what happened likely isn't going to come soon based on the politically-sensitive nature of this. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 16:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support New story that's already being covered from a lot of sources. --AmaryllisGardener talk 16:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Posted The article has sufficient verifiable information already and it's developing quite well (and stably). The blurb can be updated when details are confirmed. -- tariqabjotu 16:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, we have to carefully watch how the story is developing. Some media have already reported that the airplane was shot down, which would have to be mentioned as a very significant detail in the whole story if confirmed true.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Support as a major and one of the deadliest airplane crashes that is apparently covered worldwide. I also think that it'd be worth mentioning that the airplane was shot down if officially confirmed and therefore I've suggested an alternative blurb to indicate it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I've made a small change in the blurb, as pending both who shot it down, and whether it was intentional or not (which I doubt it was if it was hit by a missile), as to not make it look like an intentional act against civilians. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks. We shall wait until more details are revealed. At this stage, the current blurb we have on the main page is sufficient to report about the story.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - after posting. Just for the record. Already a worldwide reported place crash.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per BabbaQ, but we absolutely 100% must keep an eye on both the article and blurb, this was posted when we still have no idea even if it was shot down. Work to do. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Reuters tweeted "#BREAKING: Number of dead from crash of #MH17 more than 300, includes 23 U.S. citizen: Interior Ministry adviser, quoted by Interfax". Something to keep an eye on. Thanks, Matty.007 17:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah, of course. It's a popular tourist route from Schipol to KL, so it's full of tourists. Plenty of foreign nationals killed here, game changing event. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I copied that more for the fact that they cited more than 300 deaths. Thanks, Matty.007 18:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
        • That "over 300" seems to be only coming from that source - MA was quick to put out the 280/15 numbers as soon as the incident was known. --MASEM (t) 18:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
          • "More than 300" is how it's being presented on UK news outlets. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Well it seems acknowledged that it was shot down by someone...we can tack on the conflict to the blurb..Lihaas (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
No, what we can do is wait until we have neutral evidence from an external source that confirms this. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed - I'm watching the stories and while the evidence is very strong on being shot down, it's not 100% affirmed. We wait. --MASEM (t) 18:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
In fact, adding speculation to the blurb is absurd, and I'm "shocked" that User:Lihaas would suggest such a thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Um, RS sources saying so...but either way.Lihaas (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Um, RS sources are speculating so...but either way.The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
BBC headlines are still hesitant and are only calling it a crash. They are, however, likely a little pressed, 9:00 PM seems to be when it all kicks off news-wise, so they may be a little stretched for staff. Thanks, Matty.007 20:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
US officials are now calling it shot-down, but yet to say from whom. [22]. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - The pothole link for 'X' in the altblurb is far from neutral. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Especially considering most fingers are not pointing to the party X is linked to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
If we post the alt blurb, I would take out the "by X" part. It's shot down but whom it is by is yet determined. --MASEM (t) 21:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the unjustified pothole, which was originally added by Kiril Simeonovski, and left in by several others. Seriously - no-one is suggesting the Ukrainian army did this. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure X would never do such a thing in any case. He wins nearly every national election, so he can't be so bad. Formerip (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Been a while since he/she won an election...although hes won some sports too ;)Lihaas (talk) 12:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb on being shot down by a 'missile'.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Now that all reliable sources are saying this is definitely a shootdown (see eg:all UK papers), I've updated to use the alt blurb (minus the "by X" part) accordingly. Smurrayinchester 08:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb but without the "by X," of course. Evidence has emerged [23] strongly implicating pro-Russia separatists, but it's not confirmed and may not be for quite some time. Sca (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Further, on July 19 Reuters [24] quoted unnamed U.S. officials as saying this recorded evidence, [25] released by Ukraine, was "convincing." Sca (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb blurb with "crashes" instead of "is shot down". It is unacceptable to brand this accident as "shot down" without any remote sort of proof of that. Now matter ho much the "reliable" sources speculate on the matter, not even a smidgin of proof has been supplied that a missile has indeed been fired towards the plane on the time the day in that airspace the plane in question has passed through, let alone that a missile has indeed hit one. So, in accordance with our neutrality policies, I suggest this is changed immediately until the cause of the crash has been actually determined and proven. Tvx1 (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Several governments have reviewed the evidence (satellite, radar, thermal, the wreckage itself) and agree that the plane was shot down by a missile. Who shot the missile remains in question and whether the act was intentional or not, but it was definitely brought down by a missile. --MASEM (t) 17:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Official statements please. I see the US are saying "most likely shot down", UK PM is saying "If, as seems possible, this was brought down...", so nothing definitive. At this point we (Wikipedia) should not be pre-empting things. Bad call. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
        • There you go TRM, suck on that. Obama says so. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
          • Someone "saying so" is not enough. Even if it is Obama. What we need is a reliable source providing proof, such as e.g, missile remains in-between te wreckage, evidence of missile explosion on the fuselage remains, etc... This is not Obama or any other head of state's conclusion to be made. Obama is not an accident investigator with a university degree to make such investigations. He does not have the knowledge for that. This is why there is something called " official investigation ". And those investigators review the evidence first and then make their conclusions based on that evidence. In contrary to what everybody else, including multiple heads of states, have done in this case. It wouldn't be the first time radar information is misinterpreted. Just take a look at Aerolinee_Itavia_Flight_870 for instance. In accordance with our Neutrality and notnews policies the only way forward here is the main blurb stating "crashes", not the alt blurb. On top of this, I would like to point out that the majority of the editors here support the main blurb, not the altblurb. Yet, due to the personal preference of one administrator, the altblurb is posted. Tvx1 (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
            • Virtually no one disagrees with the fact that the plane was shot down(even Putin); the disagreement is who did it and the circumstances of it. We will likely be the only credible source on the Internet not stating the fact of a shoot down if we refer to it as just a "crash"; this is being universally reported as a shoot down. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
            • (e/c) Well I agree with pretty much all you've said, although we do rely on verifiable sources, not truth, so if everyone says it was a shoot down, it was a shoot down. It's certainly the fact that some admins prefer "their version" of blurbs though, despite consensus. The updated blurb seemed to be in place way before real people were "confirming" things. Go rogue. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
            • (e/c)If we needed to soften the blurb, "believed to have been shot down" would be better than "crashed" to reflect that this is what the current running theory that the world is using to put down pressure on the Ukraine region to figure out what happened. But I don't feel we need to soften it up, it accurately reflects what news sources are saying. --MASEM (t) 20:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
              • Agree with preceding three comments. Everything I've read/seen, including Obama's news conf., indicates there's no doubt MH17 was shot down, very probably by an SA-11 ("Buk") SAM fired from separatist-held Ukrainian territory. I don't see a real need to soften "is shot down." Sca (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
                • I actually think that writing something like "believed to be shot down" or "allegedly shot down" is a good compromise. This would cover the current situation in the best way. While it is true that almost everyone believes it to have been shot down, it is equally true that is NOT an established fact yet that it has been shot down and that the investigation into the crash is still ongoing. No physical proof of a missile attack has been supplied yet. Not even of a missile launch on that time of the day in the airspace the plane in question passed through. Not even a single witness statement claiming a missile was shot up in the air. Nothing. This is much less as in the cases of such accidents as TWA Flight 800 or even Aerolinee_Itavia_Flight_870 and in both cases the missile theory has been disproven. We should not be worrying about being "the only credible source not treating it as a fact that it was shot down" since wikipedia is not a credible news source, but an encyclopedia. We base ourselves on facts, we don't rush things and we verify claims before we publish them. Lastly, I would like to repeat that the majority of the editors who contributed to this discussion supported the standard blurb and NOT the alt blurb. Tvx1 (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Since when does Wiki independently "verify claims before we publish them"? Like most of the world, WP is epistemologically [26] dependent on news reports and government statements. We have no WP reporters verifying claims, but must make judgments based on reportage of those professional journalistic entities that do. Sca (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Tailfire and missile lock detected? Where does that come from? Is it that much to ask to link to a reliable source backing your claims? And when I was referring to verifying before publishing, I meant that what we write in our articles is backed by reliable sources per WP:verifiability. At this point no reliable source has been provided that any official, independent investigation has established the fact that it was effectively shot down. "Believed to be shot down" is the best way to describe the current status. Even our own article on the case acknowledges that the investigation is still ongoing and that a shoot down is most likely the cause, but that it's no certain yet. Tvx1 (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
          • That is what the US Government has reported. The US also apparently detected the explosion of the plane/missile. I don't have a link handy so feel free to dismiss it, but I have no reason to lie about that.(The US has satellites to detect missile tailfires) What official body are you waiting for a determination from? (which will likely take months if not years) The area is controlled by the rebels (who have no official status) and they are severely limiting access to the site if not outright prohibiting it. Russia does not want the black boxes so they won't be investigating it.
            • It is disingenuous to readers to call this anything other than what it is. We don't need an official determination, which is unlikely (soon, anyway) in any event. When there is one, then we can post that, but that doesn't mean we can't act now. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Per above discussions I have updated the blurb. Please do not revert without discussing with me. Email if necessary to get my attention, or else generate a good thorough discussion here to form a different consensus. Wikipedia only requires reliable sources, not an official determination. I suspect there will be competing official determinations. We should look to the NY Times, BBC, and similar high-quality sources and follow what they report. Jehochman Talk 00:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    Although some sources (such as the New York Times) report that MH17 was shot down, others such as the BBC report that "MH17 was reportedly hit by a missile over a rebel-held area" (emphasis added). There is a marked difference between "X is reported/claimed/suspected/thought to have happened" and "X happened". I don't think that "crashes" is necessarily the best option, but the statement that MH17 "is shot down" is too presumptive in the absence of real confirmation; we should at least use "is suspected to be shot down" or something similar. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    I agree entirely. IS shot down is just to presumptive at the moment. That's what I have been trying to point out the whole time. We do need real confirmation before we can treat a fact a fact. Tvx1 (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Point of order: the ITN blurb should always defer to what's in the article, yes? The article, which is currently fully-protected, says "...believed to have been shot down". (I have no idea if the reason for the full protection is the same reason we're having this discussion; I haven't looked at it too closely.) IMO, "shot down" is premature, and "crashes" is just plain wrong. "Believed" or "suspected" or something is the way to go here. It's a bit too wordy for my liking, but unavoidable. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  1. With Strike on Jet, Conflict in Ukraine Is Felt Globally - "The downing of Malasia Airlines Flight 17..." - NY Times. [27]
  2. Bishop Peter Comensoli, who led the mass at Sydney's St Mary's Catholic Cathedral, said the downing of MH17 was not "an innocent accident" but "the outcome of a trail of human evil". and Tougher EU sanctions against Russia will be needed if Moscow does not change its "approach" to the downing of the plane, UK Prime Minister David Cameron has indicated. - BBC [28]
  3. The doomed flight was shot down on Friday by a surface-to-air missile over a part of Ukraine controlled by Russian separatists.
  4. The plane was shot down on Thursday, apparently by pro-Moscow separatists backed by the Russian president Vladimir Putin. Telegraph [29]
  5. Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was flying at 33,000 feet, higher than Mount Everest, when a missile hit it. Washington Post [30]
  6. All 298 passengers and crew on board Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 were killed when the jet was shot down by a surface-to air missile as it flew over eastern Ukraine on Thursday (local time). ABC (Australia) [31] Malaysia Airlines MH17: Experts say passengers probably had no warning before being blasted from sky [32]
  • You should really make the effort of reading articles and not just their titles. Some of these articles literally stated reportedly shot down, others put "shot down" between parentheses. More importantly none of the articles provide physical evidence of missile shoot down. This collection is the exact definition of "reportedly shot down". While everybody considers it that, the exact cause has not been determined and proven yet. Even our wikipedia article on the case acknowledges that. Tvx1 (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The part about being shot down isn't what's in doubt and doesn't need any weasel words. What we could say is something like "believed to have been shot down by Russian-backed separatists". What's slightly in doubt is who did the shooting. No reliable sources are currently reporting that this was anything else. We should follow the reporting as it stands, and if the reporting changes we should update accordingly. Jehochman Talk 08:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    • You might not doubt it, but it is an indisputable fact that there is no real confirmation based on physical evidence of the shoot-down yet. Tvx1 (talk) 12:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment — On Saturday, I was shocked to find that the wording had been administratively changed from "is shot down" to "crashes," and today I'm glad to see it has been changed back, for the following reasons.
 • The plane did not fly or dive from 33,000 feet and "crash" into the ground, killing all 298 on board. Rather, the plane exploded and broke up at high altitude, and pieces of it, along with the bodies (and pieces of the bodies) of all 298 who had been on board, plus countless personal effects they had with them, "fell" — as many witnesses on the ground said — "from the sky" over a fairly wide area.
 • All the known facts contradict the notion of a "crash" in the sense normally used in describing aviation accidents. They all support destruction by an explosion at high altitude, and indicate that the passengers of MH17 were dead before their bodies hit the ground.
Yesterday's fiddling with key syntax in the MH17 blurb was unsupportable and an embarrassment to the many volunteers who devote time, energy, diligence and creativity to making English Wikipedia a preeminent online resource. Sca (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
An explosion yes, but an explosion can be caused be countless things. Even a criminal act is not synonymous with missile attack. That could still constitute an on-board bomb for instance. As pointed out be multiple users now, something like "reportedly shot down" acknowledging that the exact cause is currently under investigation, which is clearly stated in the wikipedia article covering this case, is the only way forward. Tvx1 (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The preponderance of evidence supports "shot down," as does the consensus here.
However, as a qualifier, I could live with "evidently shot down," since the evidence indicates it was indeed shot down by a high-altitude SAM. "Evidently" would leave a little wiggle room for the unlikely case of the SAM hypothesis being disproved.
"Reportedly" would not fill the perceived need for a caveat; it would merely cast doubt, gratuitously, on the mass of reportage at hand. (This reply delayed by an edit conflict with Tvx1.) Sca (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
No it supports reportedly shot down. The investigation is still ongoing. As does the consensus. Multiple users have stated that "reportedly shot down" is the better way forward. The majority here supported the standard blurb and not the altblurb. It might be your opinion that it's an established fact that it is shot down and I respect that, but this is no about displaying your opinion but about writing something that is as accurate as possible. And writing something the likes of "reportedly shot down" is the most accurate description since the investigation is still ongoing. Wether you want it or not. Tvx1 (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Do you have news sources or even just documented statements by anyone stating it was (even possibly) an on-board bomb? That wouldn't jibe with witness accounts of a missile launch, satellite evidence, and other evidence. A missile strike isn't any single user's opinion here, but the opinion of the vast majority of the world. That's why it's being reported that way, and why we are writing it that way. Which official, independent body's determination are you waiting for? The rebels have already tampered with the crash site and seized the dead from international investigators at gunpoint. The odds of a truly independent finding by any body or group that will be believed by all is remote. Even if an "official" determination is made, there will be those (rebels) who will not accept it. Weasel words are not needed; readers have the intelligence to see where statements are coming from themselves, and in the article itself. 331dot (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
(Reuters, July 20) — U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry laid out what he called overwhelming evidence of Russian complicity in the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 as international horror deepened over the fate of the victims' remains.
Kerry said the United States had ... intercepted conversations about the transfer to separatists of the Russian radar-guided SA-11 missile system which it blames for the Boeing 777's destruction. "It's pretty clear that this is a system that was transferred from Russia," Kerry said in an interview on CNN.
"There's enormous amount of evidence, even more evidence that I just documented, that points to the involvement of Russia in providing these systems, training the people on them," he said on CBS. [33]
Sca (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
(AP) — The U.S. embassy in Kiev issued a strong statement Sunday saying it has concluded "that Flight MH17 was likely downed by a SA-11 surface-to-air missile from separatist-controlled territory in eastern Ukraine." It said over the weekend of July 12-13, "Russia sent a convoy of military equipment with up to 150 vehicles, including tanks, armored personnel carriers, artillery, and multiple rocket launchers" to the separatists. [34]
Sca (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
See also: [35] Sca (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

[Posted] RD: Johnny Winter[edit]

Article: Johnny Winter
Recent deaths nomination
News source(s):
Nominator: Floydian (give credit)

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

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

July 16[edit]

[Posted] Typhoon Rammasun (2014)[edit]

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

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

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

[Closed] Ongoing: 2014 Tour de France[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

[Posted] Ongoing: Ukraine conflict[edit]

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

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


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: