*'''Weak Oppose''' This is all over the news but for reasons that people are being (appropriately, IMO) critical of the SCOTUS for putting corporation rights over that over a woman (add to that that the removal of safe zones around abortion clinics, and it can be seen how much negative reaction the court's gotten in the last few days) in addition to the word about how HL policies are gender-biased. It is comparable in nature to the locating of the three Israeli women below - it's a hotbed of news, but it's not really ITN-type news. It arguably does not have a very large impact - yet - compared to the passing of Obamacare at the start. Add in this being only a US ruling, there's very limited impact on it. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 04:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
*'''Weak Oppose''' This is all over the news but for reasons that people are being (appropriately, IMO) critical of the SCOTUS for putting corporation rights over that over a woman (add to that that the removal of safe zones around abortion clinics, and it can be seen how much negative reaction the court's gotten in the last few days) in addition to the word about how HL policies are gender-biased. It is comparable in nature to the locating of the three Israeli women below - it's a hotbed of news, but it's not really ITN-type news. It arguably does not have a very large impact - yet - compared to the passing of Obamacare at the start. Add in this being only a US ruling, there's very limited impact on it. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 04:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I am tempted by libertarian (not anti-gay)reasons to support this. But although the finding technichally invalidates the entire abomination of a statute, lacking a seperabilty clause, it will not be found that way, but be interpreted as applyning to a few freak stores run by families, and as grounds to overthrow the recent right to a gay wedding cake baked by christians. But it doesn't meet the French precedent, so is should not be published. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 06:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' I am tempted by libertarian (not anti-gay)reasons to support this. But although the finding technichally invalidates the entire abomination of a statute, lacking a seperabilty clause, it will not be found that way, but be interpreted as applyning to a few freak stores run by families, and as grounds to overthrow the recent right to a gay wedding cake baked by christians. But it doesn't meet the French precedent, so is should not be published. [[User:Medeis|μηδείς]] ([[User talk:Medeis|talk]]) 06:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as misleading and lack of impact. The ruling states that, in this very specific case, the company is exempt from providing a _subset_ of contraceptives in the course of fulfilling its obligations under the statute. It does not invalidate the statute, nor does it exempt other companies from the same. The ruling _specifically_ states that other cases of this nature must be heard in court and decided on their merits, and thus _does_not_ establish this ruling as a precedent. This is not a landmark case.[[Special:Contributions/128.214.200.220|128.214.200.220]] ([[User talk:128.214.200.220|talk]]) 08:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
Israel's military hits 34 targets across the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip in response to the more than 20 rockets that were fired into Israel from Gaza since Sunday. One Palestinian man is killed after throwing a grenade at security forces in the raids. (AP)
The United States imposes a record $9 billion fine on BNP Paribas for helping clients bypass sanctions against Cuba, Iran, and Sudan. The bank is also barred from certain US dollar dominated transactions for one year. (Reuters)
International relations
Malaysia states that it will extradite a junior military official who returned home after being charged with sexual assault at its diplomatic mission in New Zealand. (AP via Netscape)
A Ku Klux Klan flag is erected in the east of Belfast, Northern Ireland, sparking outrage amid a recent surge in racist attacks in the city. (The Guardian)
A police officer is killed and several others injured in a small explosion near the presidential palace in Cairo. A second officer is killed while defusing another bomb at the same site. (Reuters)(The Voice of Russia)
Australian entertainer Rolf Harris is convicted in London, England, of 12 counts of indecent assault against young girls between 1968 and 1986. The 84-year-old is to be sentenced on Friday 4 July. (ABC News Australia)
Nominator's comments: This has been a controversial topic for months now, and so the resolution announced today is doubtless a pretty significant event. --Jinkinsontalk to me02:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a major ruling, and as stated, a source of considerable controversy. The article looks like it's in very good shape. I am seeing citations inline in every paragraph. Challenger l (talk) 04:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose This is all over the news but for reasons that people are being (appropriately, IMO) critical of the SCOTUS for putting corporation rights over that over a woman (add to that that the removal of safe zones around abortion clinics, and it can be seen how much negative reaction the court's gotten in the last few days) in addition to the word about how HL policies are gender-biased. It is comparable in nature to the locating of the three Israeli women below - it's a hotbed of news, but it's not really ITN-type news. It arguably does not have a very large impact - yet - compared to the passing of Obamacare at the start. Add in this being only a US ruling, there's very limited impact on it. --MASEM (t) 04:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am tempted by libertarian (not anti-gay)reasons to support this. But although the finding technichally invalidates the entire abomination of a statute, lacking a seperabilty clause, it will not be found that way, but be interpreted as applyning to a few freak stores run by families, and as grounds to overthrow the recent right to a gay wedding cake baked by christians. But it doesn't meet the French precedent, so is should not be published. μηδείς (talk) 06:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as misleading and lack of impact. The ruling states that, in this very specific case, the company is exempt from providing a _subset_ of contraceptives in the course of fulfilling its obligations under the statute. It does not invalidate the statute, nor does it exempt other companies from the same. The ruling _specifically_ states that other cases of this nature must be heard in court and decided on their merits, and thus _does_not_ establish this ruling as a precedent. This is not a landmark case.128.214.200.220 (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pales into insignificance with all the rest of the mass murder all over the Middle East. Having said that, I'm sure this will gain disproportionate traction, and the article is in a (super inflated but) good condition should the story gain consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The kidnapping was a serious political issue for the past three weeks. Right now it is all over the news and this clearly signals rising tensions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Israeli government accuses Hamas, which is now part of the Palestinian unity government. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can't argue that it isn't "in the news" at all, but I just find this a little distasteful when dozens of Syrian and Iraqi children are murdered every day, yet the US and others get seriously exercised over three Israeli deaths. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe there are other important stories in the Middle East that are ITN-worthy you can simply nominate them. No offense, but opposing this on the pretext that other violent events in the region are not being posted looks like a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT argument to me. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can think what you like. I can't see this being anything more than further encouragement for Israel and Hamas to sabre-rattle, and for the US to come out to support Israel in spades. Nothing more. I know it'll get support because of our systemic bias, it'll be posted no doubt because we have such a massive US-centric readership, but in my opinion, this is relatively meaningless in the big scheme and I mean that with no disrespect at all to the deceased before I get a world of shit levelled at me. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand that, and systemic bias there is. But the story itself is clearly significant (not how many were killed) and has been a political headache for both sides since the kidnapping. Why are we so obsessed about the number of deaths on ITN? The Israeli government was scapegoating Hamas for everything bad that happens since the unity government was established and the Israelis rarely joke when they vow a "heavy response". Some Palestinians were also killed during IDF rescue raids during this crisis. In another development today, Hamas launched rocket attacks into southern Israel, which Israeli officials claim to be the first since Operation Pillar of Defense in 2012.[1] Also, Hamas warned that an attack on Gaza will "open the gates of hell" on Israel hours before the bodies were found. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article infobox mentions 8 total deaths; the blurb should probably include this information if this were to be posted. SpencerT♦C21:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — RM has a point with respect to bias. On the other hand, this high-visibility atrocity could precipitate drastic action by Israel and lead to a spike in Arab-Israeli tension. Perhaps it's prudent to wait until an Israeli reaction is seen. Sca (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Systematic bias in coverage; if this leads to something larger, then we can talk about featuring it. --MASEM (t) 21:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now If the Israelis do something major in response (e.g. attack Gaza), that should be posted; if, on the other hand, it turns out that they're just sabre-rattling, then it's not worth posting. TRM is right about systemic bias - even leaving aside other conflicts in the region, Palestinian deaths are always grater in number but get less media coverage. Neljack (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose arbitrary, unconfirmable POV-driven press release about a trend. Why not point out that the almost entirely deforested eastern US is no mostly reforested given the land is no longer so much used for crops and firewood? μηδείς (talk) 02:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too vague, particularly with the unclear comparison to Brazil. It would have to be reframed as something like "A new study shows that Indonesia lost more rainforest than any other country in 2012." But this is just one study that contradicts current Indonesian and UN figures (and other studies), and I'm not sure that revised 2012 figures in that fashion are ITN-worthy. ToBk (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what's vague but please feel free to suggest alternative blurbs. I would have thought that academic journals are more neutral than governments. --ELEKHHT15:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Supportthe story, oppose the blurb as given. Surpassing Brazil is presented as an arbitrary milestone here; if it's phrased in a way that makes it clear that Indonesia is now the world "leader" in deforestation that'd be a lot clearer to the reader.GRAPPLEX16:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I amended the original blurb, and provided an alternative. Please feel free to edit it directly or make concrete suggestions as to how to improve it. I am not a native English speaker, nor a journalist, nor a frequent ITN contributor. --ELEKHHT23:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me now. It now gets across that it's top of the list, rather than hinting at it without stating it. GRAPPLEX05:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: This is important as it is the deadliest Ebola outbreak in history, and it is continuing despite efforts of the WHO and Doctors Without Borders to contain it. I feel this is more important as part of the news than the discovery of the smallest elephant shrew, for example. ¬ laonikoss(talk)19:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - We last posted the Ebola outbreak in March of this year, when there were over 70 casualties. Since there are five times as many now, I think this is deserving of a repost. However, any future posting of the Ebola outbreak - if there is one - should be for a significantly higher figure.--WaltCip (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I nominated this a few weeks back and it was poo-pooed, but it's clearly a real issue and a genuinely concerning outbreak of a super-deadly virus. However, I would be tempted to include it as an Ongoing news item, rather than just a simple blurb (we had one of those a few months ago....) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb - as a major point in the story. I have suggested an alt, as the main blurb is rather long (and an outbreak is spreading by definition as long as new cases are occurring.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb The fact that this is now the deadliest Ebola outbreak in history is well worth inclusion on the Main Page. Including this in "Ongoing" would not actually communicate this significant news to readers. If there are still regular updates in this story when the blurb comes off, it can be shifted to "Ongoing". Neljack (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest we change "in history" to "known ever" or "recognized" in blurb
Comment: This is not well updated to reflect new events since this was last posted. For example, according to the chart, there have been a large rise of cases in Sierra Leone in the month of June, but I see nothing in the prose to outline these new events, or what the government might be doing in June to respond, etc. There seem to be updated for March-May, but nothing since then. Not suggesting a pull, but I wish the update quality of the more recent events would be considered before posting. SpencerT♦C04:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ISIS has declared itself to be simply "the Islamic State" led by the first caliph since 1923. It has called upon all Muslims, especially militant groups, to recognize its authority. This is a significant development with the potential for deep international implications. Check out this Haaretz article for some details but be aware it's a breaking story
Wait - Let's see how things develop. I'm not sure how significant is the declaration regarding the crisis in Iraq. How will it change the course of the conflict? It is still disputed whether it is a real 'state' or not and the ISIS offensive is being halted by Iraqi forces as we speak. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Iraq update
The oil stuff is old news now. Apparently counter-terrorist operations are the topic of the day andit seems Tikrit is next scene. We should update the blurb. BloombergDW
Comment Maybe wait for a day or so to see if Tikrit is actually recaptured; that'd definitely be worth a new blurb. (The current material is a bit stale.) Bouncing it back and forth between Ongoing and a blurb doesn't seem ideal, especially if we pull the blurb early to do so. (But maybe featuring events from a conflict like this for a shorter length of time in blurb form is okay. I guess we're still figuring out the best way to use Ongoing.) ToBk (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
China's top cross-straitnegotiator for Taiwan, on a landmark visit, cancels three public appearances at the last minute after protests against his bridge-building trip turned violent; protesters earlier splashed white paint and threw ghost money at the negotiator's motorcade while shouting slogans such as "Taiwan, China, one country on each side". (Wall Street Journal)
Two British thirteen-year-olds are arrested for desecrating graves in a Jewish cemetery in Manchester, England, causing over £100,000 in damage. Nazi slogans and swastikas were drawn on some gravestones, and about forty were toppled over. (Jerusalem Post)
A Mexican military chopper flies into the United States and mistakenly shoots at border guards as part of a drug interdiction operation. Mexican authorities apologize for the incident. (RT)
Nominator's comments: This is the smallest species of elephant shrew yet found. It was identified based on physical characteristics (i.e. this isn't just a split based on genetic testing). New mammal species are rare - only 2 or 3 a year - and always worthy of posting IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm okay with the state of the article now. This sengi is new to science, not some subspecies that has been known about for a long time. It would be nice if there was an image. Abductive (reasoning) 21:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Interesting discovery, and a decent amount of media coverage. Not sure if new species are worthwhile unless there's something notable past just being new (and trivial stuff like being the smallest.) However, given that ITN still has the NBA Finals from 15 Jun due to an apparent lack of news, it couldn't hurt to post. ToBk (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Interesting item for all nationalities. Article a bit thin but acceptable, but I agree that the article would be a lot better if it included a photo of this discovery. Though it is a small consideration in my reasoning, I also agree that the stale basketball finals being bumped would not cause any regrets on my part. Jusdafax22:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could somebody expand on ThaddeusB's comment above about Afrotheria in the article, please. I saw a line saying they were more closely related to elephants than mice and took it for vandalism. Belle (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I guess you could say they are "more closely related to elephants than mice", that piece of information isn't really relevant. Plain old shrews aren't rodents either. Mice are. ---Sluzzelintalk01:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few words to explain it - since the animal is (accurately and helpfully) described as looking like a mouse, it is also wise to say it isn't closely related to one. (Besides, the RS love that angle so it should be at least mentioned on Wikipedia.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of the KT extinction most of the animals resemble mice or insectivores, with scaly tails, whiskered noses and rather "average" features for mammals. All sorts of mammals across most order have retained some form like this. The opossum, the mouse, the shrew, the solenodon, the tree shrew, the elephant shrew, the mouse-deer. In the past, most of these were lumped together as insectivores, but it turns out that three shrew is more closely related to human, the elephant shrew to the afrotheres, and the mouse-deer to the dolphin than any of there groups to each other. μηδείς (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support pending article cleanup and a bit more expansion on death. RRHoF inductee assures notability for RD. --MASEM (t) 01:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some sort of actual rationale might help. At least with Anne B Davis people could say Alice? of course. Or Alice, no. Here we have policy quoted back. μηδείς (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Noted singer/songwriter. Article has improved in the past hours to an acceptable level, though it would be a good idea to get those cite tags fixed up. Jusdafax22:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nationally and internationally important musical figure, and the referencing is now sufficient such that it should not be a barrier to posting. Chubbles (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are entire paragraphs of this article that remain unreferenced, including serious BLP issues such as the claims that a drug addiction caused the death of an infant. Those are the issues that mean this can't go on the main page. Stephen04:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on confusing links in the blurb and a maintenance tag at the top of the target article. Support, though, on the significance. This is all over the news and is a good candidate. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb Also, shouldn't we include Georgia and Moldova who signed the AA today at the same place, at the same time as Ukraine? Why single out Ukraine? I know, Ukraine is a huge country and the recent events clearly illustrate its importance for both Russia and the EU, but I think Moldova and Georgia are also very important. But I'm not insisting or anything, just suggesting. --Երևանցիtalk20:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I actually forgot about them; though Ukraine is the most notable due to circumstances, it would make sense to include the others too. Thue (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support iff including Georgia and Moldova. All 3 countries are in similar tensed relations with Russia so singling out Ukraine is unbalanced. Nergaal (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Didn't we already post this a few months back? [2] This one is just the economic part of the agreement. It was more significant back then because it was during the Crimean crisis but now we already have the Ukrainian conflict in the Ongoing section. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support under any other such circumstances this qould be posted without question, and if the fact this is under ongoing is a problem thenTAKE IT OUT OF ONGOING. μηδείς (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Ukraine agreement article has a lot of orange tags. The other two agreements don't appear to have articles. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The tags are all of the 'give more info' or 'fix grammar' type, it's probably just someone who prefers to place suggestions for article expansion in article space instead of on the talk page. Narayanese (talk) 09:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uruguay's star striker Luis Suárez is expelled from the tournament, banned for nine international matches and suspended from all football-related activity for four months for biting Giorgio Chiellini of Italy in Tuesday's Group D match. The verdict, the most severe against any player in FIFA World Cup history, means Suárez will be unable to play or train for his club Liverpool until 27 October. (Press Association)(BBC Sport)
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.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Former Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate, Ambassador to Japan, White House Chief of Staff and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom. --HotHat (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support assuming the article is raised to meet standards. This man was the power broker in washington from Nixon through Reagan, and certainly more powerful and important in every post he held than GHWB. Are we seriously looking for AWARDS for the Senate Majority Leader, Ambassador to Japan, Whitehouse Chief of staff and campaign director for Reagan and Bush? μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I'm picturing how the nomination of such a person from another country would fare. Poorly, I'd say. Of all his jobs, White House Chief of Staff isn't part of the Constitutional structure of the US government, and was created after WWII. WP:NPOL considers being ambassador to be insufficient to meet notability. Abductive (reasoning) 01:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. You've got to be kidding me, this would be like posting sir Humphry Appleby, in other words, maybe important within government bureaucracy, but in the grand scheme of things completely uninteresting. Why on Earth would anybody be interested in this? If he wasn't from the US this discussion wouldn't even be here. Some people badly need to get some perspective and think a bit more before they nominate things. People from other countries don't bother nominating random government officials. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 07:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Some people need to be more considerate of their comments and assume good faith that a nominator meant well and genuinely thought this would be worthy of consideration. Just because you don't think it worthy doesn't mean someone else does. Would you appreciate someone making such comments about your nominations? Also not convinced of the US bias issue; I've seen other similar nominations from other countries. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, the above comment was spot on, and probable too nice if anything. And clearly a US issue, we get nominations for obscure US people pretty much on a weekly basis. Worse even, they usually get posted as well. 131.251.254.110 (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be interesting to see how either my comment, or the comment you originally replied to are offensive. Maybe you are confusing 'disagrees with me' with 'offensive'? 131.251.254.110 (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly. As I said, you have every right to hold an opposing view(I oppose this, too). But if you don't see how you were offensive, anything I say likely won't change your mind. 331dot (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, it is just "clearly a US issue [...] obscure US people", which is your reasoning as to why he should not be mentioned on the lowly RD list, and this is faulty logic and reasoning to begin with in the first place. What if someone makes that argument about Jack Straw? Let's not get all jingoistic and xenophobic on this encyclopedia and bias arguments based on living in the UK that you have to be against the US politicians and government officials and vice versa. He is not some obscure figure!HotHat (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ed Miliband is 100-percent RD and Jack Straw is 75-percent RD, which consensus is not unanimity.12:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Nah. Miliband may stand if a chance, but it would be continent on the fact that his death was unexpected. This Baker chap was pretty old and didn't hold anything as significant a post as Miliband. And Straw, not even close to 75%. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason Miliband would get on is that it's pretty unlikely that he'll die at the moment (fairly young), so the death would be unexpected. No way Straw deserves to be on RD. See, no double standards from me at all! And how the hell did this turn into a US-UK pissing match? There's a rest of the world as well, you know. 131.251.254.110 (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can take it, which is why I endeavor to do things on Wikipedia by BEING BOLD because without it nothing happens except stifling regression and not flourishing growth of this encyclopedia. I am not put off by any comments here, but I thank editor 331dot for the comment above. If things that I do get accepted here great and fine, but I will move on pressing towards the goals I have to make this a better resource. I thought he may be worth the mentioning in RD that is the reason I nominated him here, and not for a full blurb because he is 100-percent not noteworthy enough for that to happen. I would advise you all to look-up "what did the president know and when did he know it" because you all may be utterly shocked and bemused to see who put that into our lexicon.HotHat (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for RD - if the currently rather dreadful article is improved. Baker was a very powerful -- and widely respected -- political leader in the U.S. for several decades. As the majority leader of the U.S. Senate (for the benefit of UK residents, that's the principal parliamentary leadership position in the Senate) for 4 years, and earlier the Senate minority leader (principal leader of the opposition) for 14 years, he was a very powerful person in U.S. government and politics. His later position as White House Chief of Staff would not normally be considered the capstone of a political career, but Baker's stature -- coupled with the way that President Reagan operated -- meant that Baker was in charge of quite a lot during those years. As the principal Republican (i.e., the principal member of Richard Nixon's political party) on the U.S. Senate committee that investigated the Watergate affair (and held weeks of hearings that were televised live on national TV in 1973), he helped bring Nixon down. (Watergate is mentioned only in passing in the current article.) --Orlady (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from above: (for the benefit of UK residents, that's the principal parliamentary leadership position in the Senate). So? Since when is this a notable position in any country? Also, nice assumption there that British people are completely ignorant of the rest of the world. Can we just close this nom? It's pointless and will just cause arguments. 131.251.254.110 (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think he meets DC#2, in that he "had a significant contribution/impact on the country". Not for nothing was he called "the Great Conciliator" - he was known for his ability to make deals and get legislation through. He may not have been one of the most famous US politicians, but he was highly influential. Neljack (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I'd like to see "HOWARD" plastered on the main page, the reasons aren't the most compelling. –HTD14:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The biggest problem with this proposal is that the Wikipedia article is pathetic. Not only is it not currently good enough to feature on ITN, but the inadequate article does not convey Baker's significance. The discussion is meaningless unless the article is improved, but please don't judge the guy by the Wikipedia article as it currently exists. Apparently the UK never considered him to be important, but his death has received far more news media attention in the U.S. than the deaths of the three Americans currently in RD on the main page, and the obits in Reuters US edition (shorter version on Reuters UK edition) and Japan Times give an indication of his perceived significance among non-US media outlets. --Orlady (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[Closed] Ongoing: Wimbledon
Looks like the nominator accepts this isn't going to float. Having said that, a more centralised discussion over major sporting events and their listing at Ongoing would be possibly a good idea. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: I know this is a first, but since we invented ongoing (and we need a tab for this in the nomination template) this is the best place to discuss it. Other major sporting events beyond the WC should be considered for ongoing. Wimbledon is THE prominent tennis tournament (with the other grand slams constituting the top level). Im here to propose wimbledon as ongoing --Lihaas (talk) 06:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose listing as ongoing. I don't think the intent of the Ongoing line was to list sports events in progress. The winner of Wimbledon is ITNR(because of its prominence) as are other prominent events that occur over a period of time (the Olympics). 331dot (talk) 09:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which I'm not entirely sure I agree with either,(and as TRM points out, there was no discussion for) but that's not what we're discussing here. 331dot (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If people don't realize how much 'bigger' the world cup is compared to wimbledon than there's probably no point in discussing it. We don't need to prove that the sky is blue.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In the World Cup, nearly every match is watched with the same furor as the final matches; in contrast to Wimb., while the whole tourney play is important, the major interest of it notches up on the final matches. I would argue the same for any long-term single-elimination-style post-season sport, where only the final round(s) attract significant attention. Certainly post the finals of Wimb. but ongoing not needed. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mild oppose I kind of like the idea that we keep tabs on internationally significant tournaments but since we have such a limited bit of real estate on the main page, Wimbledon can be consigned to the ITNR of who wins. I understand that this is a bold nomination, just like the bold inclusion of the World Cup, which was added without any discussion whatsoever. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wimbledon's just not as big as the FIFA World Cup. Only the biggest sporting events (the Olympics being the other obvious example) warrant inclusion under "ongoing", IMO. Neljack (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An aside; both the opening and closing of the Olympics(summer and winter) are ITNR so I'm not sure there's a need to list it in ongoing. But we can discuss that in 2016. 331dot (talk) 13:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Comment - This actually isn't the biggest event (or even close to it) in Nigeria during the last week. I am working on a couple more general articles that capture all the recent events. I will add an alt blurb when they are ready later today... There definitely has been (another) escalation of the situation there and its worth posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't have a chance to do any work last night - took the evening "off" as I was quite tired. Part one will be June 2014 Borno State attacks which is done. Part two will be renaming this article June 2014 central Nigeria attacks and then adding several other incidents. In total, it is around 200 dead + 90 kidnapped over the last week - a very substantial number even for Nigeria. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we combine them to an article that's current. Either June 2014 Nigeria attacks or Juen 2014 Islamist Nigeria attacks??Lihaas (talk) 06:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Articles are now ready. Even for Nigeria, this is a really bad set of incidents and well worth posting. (note 250 dead doesn't include 100 militants killed in a counter attack). --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nigerian police say that 21 people have been killed in an explosion at a crowded Banex Plaza shopping center in Abuja's Wuse 2 district. (Voice of America)
Nominator's comments: This is an article I have been meaning to write for some time. I finally got it started this evening. I will do a lot more work on it tomorrow, but wanted to nominate now so there would be some chance enough people would see this and comment to form a consensus. (Sorry about the late nomination - it has been a very busy week for me.)
The strike was a massive story in South Africa - at or near the top of the news every day for months. The effects were wide reaching - platinum prices rose to a three-year high (SA produced 40% of the world's platinum) and the human effects in SA were huge. I even saw a story about pet populations being abandoned in mass because of the strike effects. (This isn't all in our article yet, but will be tomorrow.) This is a great opportunity to feature a seldom posted region (despite speaking English, SA is rarely mentioned around here) and topic (as you all know I have been actively campaigning for more business-related stories.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article is coming along. Guardiancommentary calls this "the political story of the last year or so" in South Africa and says "20 years from now, when someone, somewhere, considers the moments that really brought long-term change to the South African political system, this strike is going to feature." If people chose to reject this, so be it , but it would be a real shame if it fails simply because no one notices the late nomination and offers an opinion... --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care one way or another if this is posted, so I didn't comment. But I imagine that people see the outcome as some sort of sad, foregone conclusion. Abductive (reasoning) 20:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It could be that people just don't care, but I imagine it is mostly that few have seen this nomination. It's always hard to get enough comments to form consensus on late nominations. Of course, if you nominate w/o making the article first people oppose based on that. It's a real Catch-22. At least Wikipedia will get a nice article on an important subject whatever happens here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Posted, a late nomination that has failed to garner much commentary, however by that virtue it is also unopposed. Article is well written and referenced. Stephen04:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
By now you now how it works for me. A decent nom for RD but oppose on article quality. Needs some serious referencing until we post it or Arbcom mandate we do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to objections on the basis of article quality, but while it's not GA material yet, this article seems to have sufficient references. I'm willing to improve the article but I'm not quite sure what you're looking for specifically. Gamaliel (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let me elucidate. We have sections such as "Awards and honors" and "Select list of works" (is that even grammatically correct?) without a single inline reference. I could tag the article but I was hoping you'd understand why I opposed. I'll add it to my ready reckoner of "reasons why ITN nominations fail". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've integrated the five line "Awards and honors" section into the biography section and re-titled the other section "Bibliography". Gamaliel (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose given her role as leader of the upper house of the Japanese Diet, Ambassador to the world's second greatest economy, and majordomo for the heads of state and government for 8 years. μηδείς (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the referencing is passable (even that massive number I put in next to Bibliography. In fact I like that one best of all: it's bold and uncompromising, it's saying "Look at me, I'm big and I'm a reference" ) Belle (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Of what field is she near the top? Women who write in a particular language? A Nobel Prize, or some award without the language restriction, would help her nomination considerably. 79.76.127.101 (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support It doesn't matter if his article is currently ugly as this is the ideal opportunity to engage people in improving it. We have a limited window for this and so should strike while the iron is hot. Andrew (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you're completely wrong. It does matter, the quality of items on the main page has to be of a certain standard, unlike our DYK friends. Once we've got it up to scratch, we'll post it. Hopefully all these supporters will spend a little time improving the article they so want to see on the main page, you as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, not this discussion again. It is infinitely more productive to actually fix up the article than argue here that it should be posted in poor shape. ITN has a rule against posting poorly referenced articles and no amount of arguing is going to make this article an exception to that rule. If you think that rule should change, start a discussion on talk, but debating it here is pointless. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I'm afraid so. Since Arbcom got involved, this issue of posting garbage articles to the main page has become more and more popular. I would be happy to do that if the instructions said we could, and if people wish to change the instructions to allow us to just post articles on popularity without paying consideration to WP:BLP and WP:V etc, let's get that RFC up and running! In the meantime, articles posted to ITN will be well-referenced and without maintenance tags, and the sooner people, including our Arbs, deal with that, the better. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe TRM is referring to the personal comments of one arbcom member who said Casey Kasem should be posted despite its low quality (at the time). --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But what did that have to do with ARBCOM? I was not aware that a part of the requirements for accepting a position on ARBCOM was "members of ARBCOM must not express a different opinion than The Rambling Man in a public forum." --Jayron32
There's some point in holding back breaking news when the topic is new and uncertain, such as Flight 370. But there's no reason for delay in a case such as this, where the facts of the matter are clear, the topic is long-established and all we're doing is putting a simple link on the main page. The Eli Wallach article got quarter of a million hits yesterday, before it was linked on the main page. People don't need the main page to find articles - Google will take them straight there. All we're doing in RD is recognising a plain fact. If we hold back because our article isn't spiffy then we're distorting our summary of the news for internal reasons and this is not WP:NPOV. RD is quite biased towards coverage of American deaths and these excessive rules seem to be part of the problem. They should be struck down and it is good that arbcom members support this. Andrew (talk) 06:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repeat what I said to the Arb, if you want to actually do something about it then you'll need to formulate an RFC to change our instruction set to allow us to post material which has maintenance tags and potential BLP violations in articles which are under-referenced. So much effort is expended here whinging about the failure to post material quickly, yet little-or-no energy is expended on improving the articles in question, except usually by the ITN regulars, admins who work their socks off around here to keep the ITN section neat and tidy and prevent it becoming a laughing stock, much like DYK. So, you have a choice, do something or do nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Obvious RD material. I have just read the article, and find it decent for posting. There is a section tag, regarding referencing, that should be removed, as the section has numerous references. Jusdafax19:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are several [citation needed] tags that you could help with if you really believe this to be worthy of the main page. It won't be posted until these issues are resolved, simple as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support It looks, as I scan over it, to be devoid of any major issues (no major tags, no need for them as far as I can see) and he's a legend in his field. An easy support. --Jayron3201:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At least five people have been killed in an attack on the Kenyan coast. (BBC News)
An Afghan man who saved the life of a Navy SEAL requests asylum in the United States after the Taliban has declared they will try to kill him. (Vocativ.com)
Nominator's comments: We don't post a lot of culture/entertainment news, but here is a good opportunity to do so. We have posted a variety of auction records in teh past and I believe this one will be a particularly strong interest and it is being well covered in major news sources. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Trivia - compared with e.g. "Iraq update: Border crossings seized and Baiji oil refinery captured" below, this is not truly important news. Thue (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not yet decided on this, but there is nothing that says we only have to post warfare, disasters, and tragedies. Having some not-terrible news is a good thing. 331dot (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, one of the basic ideas of Wikipedia is that we can objetively distinguish between what is important and what is not important, as seen on e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Is anybody seriously saying that some lyrics selling for $2 million is more important than 300 million people in the US gaining the right to not have their cell phones searched without a warrent? - I refuse to believe it. Thue (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not any more "trivia" than the dozens of other auction records we've posted in the past... ITN is not an "either or" situation - we can easily post this and Iraq and cell phone search warrents and more. It is also incorrect that AfD determines importance. AfD focuses on notability and notability derives from being noticed (covered in reliable sources), not importance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is a combination of being noted and being important - many subjects being kept are far less talked about than pop culture. As I have mentioned in previous discussions, I personally believe that being ITN worthy is about more than being noted in the news. Otherwise we would be posting all Justin Beiber's changes of girlsfriends. Thue (talk) 09:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly many things are notable that are "far less talked about than pop culture". Of course pop culture items are also kept. When we are consistant, anything with significant coverage in at leats two reliable sources is kept. Of course sometimes people !vote based on their personal belief about a subject, ignoring the notability guidelines. And sometimes participation is insufficient to establish a subject is notable in spite of votes to the contrary. And rarely there are overriding issues that lead to deletion despite notability. But, AfD is fundamentally about notability which is not the same thing as importance. Equating the two only leads to unnecessary arguments, confusion, and poor decisions. (ITN, of course, does decide importance.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also find it odd that you argue here that Iraq is important, yet haven't bothered to support it below. Likewise, feel free to nominate the cell phone story. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's too narrow an event. Remember, ITN is for events. Some handwritten lyrics could be categorized as poetry, art, or literature, but it isn't music. Abductive (reasoning) 21:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Like a Rolling Stone is a WP:FA which tries to give the context of this recording, critical commentary on the meaning of the song, and the reasons why Rolling Stone magazine should have selected it, in 2004, as number one on their list of the "500 Greatest Songs of All Time" [3]. The fact that Dylan's hand-written lyrics have now set a world record for the sale of a popular music manuscript at auction surely demonstrates how this song still exerts a strong fascination - both in cultural and financial terms. This sale has elicited comment from BBC [4], The Guardian[5], Time magazine [6]Mick gold (talk) 08:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Whatever else might be said about Bob — and a great deal of verbiage has been aired by a great many people — he's in a class by himself, and Like a Rolling Stone is the most quintessential work of his entire oeuvre, IMO. (And I'm from Minnesota!) Sca (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mild support attempting to compare this story with Iraq is utterly absurd and not what this section of Wikipedia is intended for. Clearly this a modern culture news story and worthy of consideration, I thought I'd already read Abductive's worst ever complaint, but his current one here takes the biscuit ("I'm pretty sure that eggs is eggs, but this egg ain't no egg what I ever saw") The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the type of story that falls short of ITN's general "importance/impact" but because of the state of the article, exceeds DYK's allowance, yet feels like the type of story that would be good front page material ("new" information about an article that is otherwise of good or better quality). It's not so much trivia but current changes in well-established content. Do we need something to handle the likes of this? I would otherwise weak support inclusion in the current ongoing lack of new items being posted. --MASEM (t) 22:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More than 40 years since its release, "Like a Rolling Stone" remains highly regarded, as measured by polls of reviewers and fellow songwriters. A 2002 ranking by Uncut and a 2005 poll in Mojo both rated it as Dylan's number one song.[7]Sca (talk) 00:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the numbers, 3 support+2 weak support+1 comment in favor (by Mick gold) vs. 2 oppose. I think that warrants an assessment by an uninvolved admin as to whether it has consensus or not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because you were enumerating them. If you had said, "I think all the arguments have run their course", then that would be clearer (and what I hope you really meant). Abductive (reasoning) 03:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Vote counting is frowned upon" is the first thing people run to when they know they've already lost the argument. It's a meaningless statement that says "I know no one agrees with me, so I'll just say this hoping the admin realizes I am right and everyone else is wrong". Consensus determinations are not made merely on the raw count of votes, but that doesn't mean that the numbers of votes themselves are meaningless, and it's poisoning the well to make the claim that, should the admin determine differently than you in the end, they must be doing so for the wrong reasons (because, of course, if someone disagrees with you, they must be doing so for the wrong reasons). --Jayron3204:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Outnumbered, perhaps, but not lost. I don't believe you guys are wrong, this is all just a matter of how we individually see the event. There have only been a few instances where something got posted that made me really unhappy, because they were factually incorrect. This wouldn't be one of them. Abductive (reasoning) 04:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Abductive: - I just meant the #s warranted a closer look. If a !vote was say 2-5, there would no need to request an assessment, but if it is ~5-2 it is worth requesting a proper assessment of consensus. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I may be biased in that I have been one of the major editors of the "Like a Rolling Stone" article. But I believe it is clear that this song has had a major cultural impact, and this auction record underlines the depth of that impact. If it were a trivial song, nobody would be paying $2 million for the manuscript. This is a worthy cultural story to include in the In the News column. Moisejp (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting oppose per Abductive. I could possibly see posting if a manuscript broke the $30M for the Codex Leicester, but "music manuscript" is too narrow and trivial of a category. (At least it finally bumped the NBA Finals after two weeks, though!) ToBk (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nope, he was the president. Plain and simple. I don't know if you're trying to make a point or just really misinformed, but please check your facts before posting here. CalidumTalk To Me06:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ford was actually President. Per the 25th Amendment "the Vice President shall become President". That was the convention as early as John Tyler, though it was not written down in the Constitution until that Amendment. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: First confirmations of oil refinery being seized (supplies 1/3 of Iraq's oil), rather than just claims. The extent of border crossings being seized is unclear, but seems notable with significant coverage. Although we have this in Ongoing, I think these events merit a mention, especially since ITN is pretty stale. (Oldest item is 10 days now.) --ToBk (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not sure about worth a new posting, but I think the entire point of the Ongoing section was to be able to keep stories with constant events possibly worth posting (or on the margin, perhaps like this one) on the template. SpencerT♦C00:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support pending update. This is a large amount of territory captured, and control of two of Iraq's international borders as well as its largest refinery is notable. International interest and implications. Update is thin and needs fattening up. Jusdafax01:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support iff updated. This is a significant development that is worth posting regardless of "Ongoing". We did post Ukrainian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 shoot-down despite having the main article linked in Ongoing (I think the main article should have been removed from ongoing while the blurb was up). Ongoing should not prevent significant developments from getting a full blurb as they would get it naturally. Ongoing is for stories that are still in the news when the blurb is about to be removed from the template (as long as the article is regularly updated). Mohamed CJ(talk)11:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 [http://example.com] 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:
In the news toolbox
