*Man shot dead. People protest peacefully. Hoodlums escalate to violence. I'm not seeing the encyclopaedic value of posting this... [[User:Strange Passerby|Strange Passerby]] ([[User talk:Strange Passerby|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Strange Passerby|cont]]) 11:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
*Man shot dead. People protest peacefully. Hoodlums escalate to violence. I'm not seeing the encyclopaedic value of posting this... [[User:Strange Passerby|Strange Passerby]] ([[User talk:Strange Passerby|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Strange Passerby|cont]]) 11:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
** Well we have an article on it. If there is no encyclopaedic value why not take it to AfD? -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 19:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
** Well we have an article on it. If there is no encyclopaedic value why not take it to AfD? -- [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] <[[User_talk:Eraserhead1|talk]]> 19:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
:Haha! tottenham, not Arsenal...
:At any rate, no global newsworthiness, big f***. there are mob reactions all the time in th e world doesnt make it warranted. police state is always killing and perpetrating sanctioned terrorism. so '''OPPOSE'''[[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] ([[User talk:Lihaas|talk]]) 20:38, 7 August 2011 (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.
Hurricane Beryl, the earliest-recorded Category 5 Atlantic hurricane in a calendar year, leaves at least 15 people dead in the Caribbean, Venezuela, and the United States.
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).
Pls be reminded that ITN is meant to showcase articles in Wikipedia well updated with materials related to current events. The Cambridgeshire Guided Busway article has not been edited since June 23rd, so it does not qualify (yet). --PFHLai (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, yes I meant to update the article this morning, but have only just managed to take some photographs of it "in action". The article has now been updated to reflect that it opened today, and the section on the handover/opening has also been highlighted. Various other bits have been amended. Thanks, Bobtalk17:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the updating. I believe the story is ITN-worthy, but in support of the one-liner to go on MainPage, the sentence in the article saying "the longest guided busway in the world" needs footnotes and recent references -- 2009 is too old, as there may be longer guided busways built elsewhere in the past 2 years. A 2009 ref saying "it will be" cannot be used in 2011 as a source to support a sentence that says/implies "it currently is". Also, please post at Portal:Current events, too. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to add two recent sources, but I conflicted with Bob who added a completely different two. There's certainly no shortage. Swarmu | t19:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the edit conflict Swarm - hope they weren't better sources! Thanks for the suggestions, PFHLai, I have clarified the claim with two recent articles which state that it is; the BBC article also confirms this. I have added a mention on the Portal:Current Events as well. Thanks. Bobtalk19:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until aftermath is foreseeable or accounted for - South-east China is currently in its yearly typhoon season. A typhoon is inevitable and 1 or 2 does end up making landfall in mainland China. Evacuations of hundreds of thousands in China are not uncommon due to their obvious large population. Not that I am a psychic but typhoons like these do occur yearly and unfortunately deaths in the dozens are common. (Will edit my standpoint after the typhoon is over) YuMaNuMa (talk) 09:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, could we do a different angle? ITN tends to like posting records, and I think this (found after a quick GNews search) could be pretty newsworthy. Record rainfall? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What PFHLai said - we posted this before and the update as of now is insignificant. And the blurb certainly needs to be changed. "Economic revolution"? JimSukwutput12:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
wrong, it hasn't been posted before, it is a new and much larger rally. And if you have a better idea for a blurb please post it, I'm not good in writing blurbs--Someone35(talk)14:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to "economic change" for now, although I have no idea if that is actually true. The article does not say anything about the protestors' demands. JimSukwutput14:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the OP is missing the point. The article has been on ITN recently. The rally may be a new and much larger rally that hasn't been posted before but it's a moot point as long as the article, which has been posted before, only has a 2 sentence paragraph on the rally Nil Einne (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is the largest protest ever in Israel, more than 6% of Israel's population protested there and it is definitely a significant event. I added the information I know about the rally in that page. Also it is not the same rally that was on July 30th--Someone35(talk)15:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As several people have said several times, that's all irrelevant. Even with your newer additions, the article is still seriously lacking in updates and the article was featured a few days ago. Nil Einne (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not the same rally, but the same event. I think this rally would be notable enough if this article hasn't been on there before. But right now 90% of the article is the exact same one we put up there a while ago. We generally don't try to post multiple developments of the same event, even if those developments on their own might have been posted. The reason is that the significance of these closely related events tend to be closely overlapping. Imagine: One 400,000 rally in Britain might be notable on its own, and another 300,000 rally in France might be notable on its own, but if these rallies were both in Britain, the significance is much less than the combined individual significance of the two events. JimSukwutput16:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someone35, please post the news item on Portal:Current events (along with newslinks). You may attract the attention of other Wikipedians interested in current events to help you expand this article, or start a new article about this "largest protest ever in Israel" soon. (It's a requirement to post there before coming to ITN, anyway.) Without a substantially updated article or a new article about this, we don't have a candidate for ITN. --PFHLai (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"obvious" oppose this time, jsut posted it a few days ago and nothings changed. have herzliya pituach prices come down? theres a house needed to be re-aquired..and get rid of that tavola nonsense and the fanatic who bought the bacon-selling store...NEED BACON! -- but then again oyuou mihght have commoners at the marina..;)
At least 20 of the U.S. Navy SEALs killed in the attack were members of SEAL Team Six, the unit that carried out the operation that killed Osama Bin Laden. The Associated Press and CNN later reported that none of the unit members that participated in the raid were involved. (AP)
This is OTD material, not ITN. Unfortunately, even if someone pointed this out, the article has several issues which would have prevented it from being listed on the main page template. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 09:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing riots have been carried out in Tottenham, London. Numerous buildings have been set ablaze in the area by 300 rioters.
Support per nominator. This event is big and it just happened an hour ago. The article is in the making so please allow a couple of hours for story to progress. Jaguar (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet Classic case of WP:recentism, without enough perspective to see national or global context. The first Support post tells us the problem here. A police spokesman "could not confirm that those responsible for the trouble were connected to the protest." Please wait for more details from more sources. HiLo48 (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to know your reasoning for the tag mtking, you say no show of lasting significance but how can we know that now it happened just hours ago? that seems a bit magic ball to me. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS says Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion., this riot would seam to fall into that category, if an article is created about a current news event it needs to show that it likely to have that enduring notability. Also the criteria for ITN says one of the two main grounds for evaluation is "the significance of the developments described". What are they ? Mtking (edits) 01:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is at least the 7th time I've seen BabbaQ made that comment about "lasting significance". The sad thing is that it makes absolutely no sense. If we can't evaluate the lasting significance of an event until it has happened for a long time, then what is the point of having this policy? It is clearly designed to prevent WP:RECENTISM. Use common sense here. JimSukwutput15:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it isn't too huge but I understand the emotion. I may reconsider this if the whole of London or major UK cities are caught up later. --Marianian(talk)01:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now - If this causes significant damage, arrests or injuries, if it goes on for a significant period of time, or if it spreads throughout London or to other cities, it would definitely be ITN-worthy. However, I'm in agreement that's it's too early in the event to judge it significant enough for ITN. Also, the article needs further development, so let's just watch this for awhile and see what happens. Swarmu | t02:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A similar riot happened in Redfern, Sydney which resulted in 40 police injuries and dozens of arrests after Police chased a teenager which resulted in the teenager being impaled on a fence, it is sad but things like this are happening more often.YuMaNuMa (talk) 03:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another perspective is that because of the spectacular flames and riot scenes (great for TV news), combined with modern communication speeds, this stuff is more likely to be thrust in our faces more often. It may not be more common at all. HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that people in this discussion have been been referring to RECENTISM and NOTNEWS when ITN is specifically for recent news, no? Jenks24 (talk) 03:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I thought about that after I first posted. My concern was really that because of the recentness of the event, accurate reporting was very uncertain. That was the point of my reference to what the police spokesperson had said. It was all a lot less clear than a helicopter crash. HiLo48 (talk) 03:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, no. ITN is not specifically for recent news. That's Wikinews. ITN is for high quality articles, suitable updated, pertaining to events with enduring significance. JimSukwutput16:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretically, though, WP:NOTNEWS should never be brought up at ITN. If an article fails NOTNEWS, it should and would be deleted. Short of a consensus to delete at AfD, and article can't be assumed to fail NOTNEWS. Swarmu | t20:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Let's see what shakes out here. I am seeing riot in what I understand to be not so wealthy part of London. This currently breaking let's give another twelve hours and see what shakes out. If the violence spreads or otherwise escalates then posting may be appropriate. The article is still under developed for posting any way. The Resident Anthropologist(talk)•(contribs) 05:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support seems like a major set of riots, they occur very infrequently in London - and the area's class shouldn't affect whether we post it or not. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Infrequent? Riots in London, after half way through the list most of these occurred from 1900 - 2011, that's more than any other developed city in the world. Four of these riots occurred within a 3 year period. YuMaNuMa (talk) 09:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, those "list of riots" articles are generally pretty terrible, as far as lists go. Who knows how many smaller riots are simply lost to history? Swarmu | t18:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the recent ones are far smaller than this one. The last ones of greater stature in London were probably the Poll Tax riots in 1990, before that the 1985 Broadwater Farm riots (as a policeman was killed) then the 1981 Brixton riots, the 1974 Red Lion Square disorders and then nothing since before World War II. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At any rate, no global newsworthiness, big f***. there are mob reactions all the time in th e world doesnt make it warranted. police state is always killing and perpetrating sanctioned terrorism. so OPPOSELihaas (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. That 30 deaths is the greatest single loss of life for US forces in nearly a decade is a sign of how well-equipped and well-protected US forces are. Yet that does not make it any more notable than any other accident involving similar casualties. JimSukwutput10:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's the greatest loss since the time of invasion. Quite many for a military accident. As far as I remember we have posted accidents with lower death tolls. GreyHoodTalk10:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great loss of lives for American soldiers. Tens of thousands of Afghan civilians have perished in the war, and not accidentally.
Note also that the article currently says Taliban claimed responsibility. In which case it should be part of an article about the war and not a separate article. We don't create a separate article for every firefight that happens in the war. Even the Libyan civil war, which has been disproportionately covered in the Western media, does not have separate articles for firefights. This article should not exist. JimSukwutput11:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle — like it or not, the war is still widely seen as being US-instigated, and while NATO-led the US is a major contributor to NATO forces in Afghanistan. As the single worst accident involving the US military, it's newsworthy and it is in the news — even on the BBC. That said, oppose, because the article's (a) in horrible shape and (b) at AFD. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this incident gets posted I will have completely lost my faith in the credibility of this section. In my years reading this section I have not seen a single item about the 30,000 civilian casualties in Afghanistan, or the hundreds of thousands in Iraq. I have not seen a single news item about the thousands of Afghani security forces or Iraqi security forces posted. I have not seen any news item about the hundreds of Canadian, British, Australian deaths in numerous accidents. I see barely any coverage of the hundreds of terrorist attacks that have occurred in Southeast Asia, South Asia and West Asia this year. And yet this trivial accident, with a shitty article, gets nominated and supported simply because it "broke a record"? Do we measure the significance of tragedies by the records that they happened to have broken? Do we give more of a damn about the fact that some 30 troops have died in a war than the fact that over 29,000 Somali children have starved to death in the past month? Have some frigging perspective, guys.JimSukwutput12:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just don't loose your faith in this world, please. Unfortunately, the death of 30 Americans and the death of 30 Afghani are likely to be the events of different scale from newsmaking point of view. GreyHoodTalk12:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have we forgotten that Wikipedia is not news, and we do not need to cater to an audience in a particular country? Look, I can totally sympathize with American media paying a lot more attention to American lives, and I can even sympthazize with Wikipedia having a slight American bias because of our predominant audience. But this is frigging ridiculous. A firefight with 30 American lives lost (and 7 Afghanis) gets posted while dozens of larger conflicts in the rest of the world gets ignored? Did anybody, for instance, even hear about the battle today at Mogadishu in which over 9,000 African Union forces successfully pushed out the Al-Shabaab rebels, thus allowing humanitarian aid to be delivered to the nearly one million refugees in that area? JimSukwutput12:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not post that battle, by the way? As for the catering audiences, I do not belong to American audience but for me the largest American loss in Afghanistan in 10 years is quite an event (a rare event), while all those deaths of Afghani are regular. And, unfortunately, the situation is similar from the world's perspective, not only from American perspective. GreyHoodTalk12:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Records are not a good indicator of significance. The fact that fewer American lives have been lost is a sign that U.S. troops are better-equipped and better-protected. That does not make this particular incident more notable. It is also indicative of the fact that American forces consist of less than 25% of the coalition forces. If we start posting "records" for U.S. casualties, do we do that for Canadian, British, and Australian casualties as well? Do we do that for the Iraqi war, the ongoing conflicts in Georgia, Kosovo, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Syria and so on? How many similar incidents do we have to post if we post this one? I'm sure if you start thinking along those lines you will see how ridiculously trivial this incident is. Tragedy, yes, but not all tragedies need to be posted on the front page, and I see a whole bunch that are being ignored this very moment. JimSukwutput12:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me just cite some examples. On July 25, NATO killed 11 civilians in an air-strike on Zliten, Libya. On July 30, 25 Libyan refugees died while trying to cross to Italy. During the next three days, Libyan rebels killed over 120 civilians of a particular tribe in a massacre.
Now, of course, none of that is a "record". But I'm sure the families of those civilians will be pleased to know that the lives of the victims are somehow less valuable because they're not part of a "record". Jesus fucking christ. JimSukwutput13:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These examples are too regular and boring. Forgive me for my cynicism, but ITN doesn't report any huge or not so huge loss of life, it requires something more for the event to get notable, and from both newsmaking and encyclopidic points of view some victims are indeed "less valuable".
Records absolutely are a good indicator of significance, though not the only required indicator of course. Here we have a record, a rare event of this type and scale in the U. S. military, and a death toll comparable to other tragedies we post here. Not many incidents will have all those indicators. GreyHoodTalk13:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If rarity and record-breaking is good indicator of significance, then should we post an item on ITN when one of those 4 soldiers from Iceland die in a firefight? Because I'm sure Iceland has had no casualties in this war yet. Not in ten years in this war, not in 100 years anywhere else in the world. Any record needs a context, and in this case the context of this war makes whatever record you have extremely trivial. I'm pretty sure those 25 Libyan refugees dying was a record in Libya as well, and I have not heard of any massacres of that scale. Both of these are records, rare, and have a similar or higher death toll. JimSukwutput13:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you read what I've written, you should notice that I've said that there should be other indicators as well, that is "context" as you call it. So please avoid straw man arguments and marginal examples such as the one with the Iceland soldiers. The country that led the invasion + the largest loss in a decade + big enough death toll = ITN worthy. GreyHoodTalk13:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yet it does not concern you that I can find, in two minutes, three comparable incidents from one country over the last week?
You are also quite mistaken here. U.S. did not "lead the invasion". NATO intervened in a war that had been going on for decades, and managed to help one side of the combatants take the government seat. U.S. has always been a minor participant in the conflict, with its role mostly in training and construction. That is why such incidents are rare - they are not really on the frontlines. JimSukwutput13:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have not proved these incidents were records, especially records happening once in a decade. As for the role of the U.S. in Afghanistan, no need to pretend that the U.S. didn't played and don't continue to play the leading role there. GreyHoodTalk14:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you was addressing me or Jim, but I just want to say that from encyclopedic point of view we always need some points of higher significance to build the article text around them. Record-breaking and rare accidents are just from that category. GreyHoodTalk13:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
not with an AFD on it, and 3 lines of prose (this is better than the ksovo-serbia border clash?)
the article doesnt even mention the most tragic aspect of the incident in which a pooch was killed. He wasnt guilty by anyone in the WRODL.Lihaas (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if an AFD, given that it usually lasts for about a week if properly submitted, is an easy way to destroy any nomination involving new article? GreyHoodTalk14:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I won't retract an "accusation", because it was not an accusation but a technical question, and a question not addressed in particularly to you, by the way. Thanks for the answer though. Perhaps you could explain me the meaning of the word asinine if you are so helpful and legally educated? :) GreyHoodTalk15:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It means "silly", and your comment was to be honest quite silly. But I realized after I wrote the comment that it would be unhelpful, so I took it off. Apologies if you're offended. And I have no legal training, though Lihaas's compliment is appreciated. JimSukwutput15:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jim and the bar we've set over precedent nominations. I'm sorry, but I refuse to join the hypocrisy and support this while we shoot down (pun not intended) incidents with much higher death tolls. Nationality is not a reason to evade this standard. If we will not accept the death of dozens of humans because they are in a "war-prone" or "accident-prone" or "expectedly-dangerous" region of the world, then I refuse to accept this story. Call WP:POINT all you want, but I will stand by this. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)14:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
pun, brilliant.
Like my US Hist teacher talkign about americans entry into the war "why would you want to go to war if youre making a killing at home"Lihaas (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mostly per WP:notnews. But I have to comment that some of the other opposers seem to think ITN is here to right some wrong, that we're something-centric if we don't treat every life the same. The purpose of ITN is to provide good quality content our readers might be looking for or might be interested in. That means that not all subjects are created equally. We shouldn't be pushing or withholding content based on what we think our readers should be interested in. RxS (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it is not our role to attempt to correct whatever bias there is from the readers. But it is also not our role to publish content solely based on readers' interest - the criteria we have are good quality and high significance, and significance is not equivalent to readers' interest. It is not incorrect to point out that our standards of significance are seriously messed up if this is deemed more significant than dozens of similar incidents elsewhere. JimSukwutput15:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's that word, significance. Tricky word...Significant to who? There's certainly no objective way to award a topic a significance rating. So we need to decide for ourselves what's significant and what isn't. So in the end, we can only try and work out what our readers will find significant. We can decide that ourselves. So in that sense our readers interest can be factored into a posting decision. Also, presenting a similar example that didn't get posted isn't really relevant. Especially if no one even nominated it. RxS (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possible support. If this is the largest loss of life in a single incident for any ISAF forces, I would say it's pretty notable (but I can't work out if that's the case). Especially if the Taliban did shoot the helicopter down. If it's just the most casualties in a single incident for US forces, I'd still support, but weaker. Obviously the article is in dire need of improvement and the AfD would have to be closed, but if the former happens, the latter will be easy. Essentially, I think we should wait for more details to emerge, like confirmation that it was shot down etc. Oh, and the article should be moved, that title couldn't be any more vague if it tried. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not for any ISAF forces, only for U.S. troops. 62 Spanish soldiers were killed in one incident when their plane crashed in 2003. (There is no article for that, by the way). JimSukwutput17:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(RA redacted his/her own comments making me think HJ removed them. LOL!)Unredacted. Sorry, but what's the big deal? (Wo)Man is entitled to his opinion. I am assuming clue and guessing that RA's rational for including the item wasn't solely based on the fact that ST6 was involved. RA chose to add something new and useful to the discussion rather than needlessly repeating the above reasons. Elaborating on RA's comment, I think the incident is significant as a propaganda victory for the Taliban just 3 months after the same unit nabbed the world's most wanted terrorist. Therefore I will also add my support. MarcusQwertyus06:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problematic comment was left by Lihaas. RA's comment has nothing to do with it. As you can see, HJ redacted the message but Lihaas's sig is still there. Swarmu | t08:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ah, we had posted the killing of Bin Laden, and isn't the death of Bin Laden as valuable as the death of those who killed him ;) ? GreyHoodTalk17:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
are you mad? )(and that is not an NPA, over here its quite a term of endrearment). bin laden is far more notable than some unknown-nothings. either for good or bad, but 1 mans terrorist is nother mans revolutionaryLihaas (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but the article isn't in that bad of shape compared to others we've posted. Also, couldn't it be Speedy Kept if consensus was reached that it could be featured on the main page. Besides it seems that keep will be the likely outcome anyway. Hot Stoptalk-contribs20:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That article is probably going to be kept. However, there is absolutely no consensus for this nomination. JimSukwutput
I think the nominator jumped the gun on that one. You could ask him on his talk page to withdraw the nomination, I'm sure he'll be reasonable. But then there's another tag on the top that needs to be dealt with. Nightw21:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
one helicopter shot down in war zone... i dont think thats big enough story to feature on ITN. Consensus seems to be bending towards oppose. Article needs to be get out of that AfD first too. -- Ashish-g5515:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's claimed there has never been any mention of Afghan or Iraqi civilian deaths. Anyone following ITN for the past few years should know that we do feature highly significant events involving Afghanistan or Iraq. This has included several terrorist attacks which resulted in a large number of deaths (civilian or otherwise). Sadly given the situation in both places, an attack which kills 20 people often isn't significant. But a simple search [3] in the archives (which I know from experience sometimes include items which were removed due to a lack of consensus) shows this year we apparently featured the attack on Hotel Inter-Continental Kabul (it may have been popular with foreigners but although the article is unclear it seems likely most of the deaths were Afghan) see Wikipedia:ITN archives/2011/April. Last year we appear to have included Nadahan wedding bombing (see Wikipedia:ITN archives/2010/June) where from what I can tell all of the people killed were Afghan and most were civilians. We also included May 2010 Kabul bombing which resulted in the greatest deaths in Afghanistan of ranking US officers (at the time anyway) but killed a Canadian and most of all civilians. And there was some plane crash which I'm guessing mostly killed Afghan civilians. See Wikipedia:ITN archives/2010/May for both. I know from memory we have also included similar events for Iraq. In other words, you can argue whether we included enough of these, but the claim we never mentioned Iraqi or Afghan civilian deaths is easily demonstrated to be false. It is true deaths of international troops or aide workers tends to be seen as more significant then Afghan or Iraqi civilians but there's not much we can do about that. (There is perhaps some problem that we don't feature some events even though they would have support because of a lack of updates, that's something we can try to deal with.) Note that in both cases the number of deaths tends to far greater then what we feature on the main page. For example, according to the May 2010 Kabul bombing article it brought the official death toll of US troops in Afghanistan to 1000 (this unofficial count [4] is currently at 1728). How many of these did we mentioned on the main page? A look at the earlier search gives a hint if it isn't obvious, not many. This is partly reflective of the fact we don't really do restrospectives or overall views on ITN. And a lot of small events often aren't significant in themselves. Note this isn't intended to support or oppose this item, I just think we need to be sure of what we're talking about in discussions. Edit: I see it was also claimed we haven't featured international non US troops or others. Again untrue, this year we featured 2011 Mazar-i-Sharif attack, last year there was the Canadian mentioned earlier and also 2010 Badakhshan massacre (aide workers including one from the UK and one from Germany as well as 2 Afghan civilians) Nil Einne (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: I thought it would be best to have the debt ceiling as the main article, as it seems like the most linked article to this credit rating downgrade. Wasn't sure what would be best to link for the credit ratings part of the blurb so feel free to suggest different links. (a possibility would be credit rating agency at the beginning instead of credit rating). Hello32020 (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support this being added to the blurb + a date reset, although ideally more should be written about this in an article. If the debt ceiling isn't mentioned, I'm not sure exactly where we would update; for that reason (and because the debt ceiling was a big reason , if not the sole one) I would suggest its retention. —WFC— TFL notices01:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the downgrade is the long-term fiscal problems of the United States. The debt ceiling crisis failed to solve that problem. But that hardly means that the debt ceiling crisis caused the downgrade. In fact, no other country in the world uses a debt ceiling as a baseline for proposing budgets, so to readers that are unfamiliar with the American political system, it will be very strange indeed how a credit rating downgrade is somehow related to a debt ceiling. JimSukwutput01:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support adding to the front page as significant historic first ever in 70 years[5] and opposeneutral on mentioning the debt ceiling because the causes for this downgrade lie much deeper. Also, consider maybe combining with #Stock_market_crash below. --hydrox (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC) After reading the S&P's report, they state the failure to come in terms with reassuring fiscal policy that would cut spending enough when raising the debt ceiling is the first rationale for this action. --hydrox (talk) 02:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why combine it with the stock market crash? That happened before this and there is no relation as far as I can tell. Although the market is sure to fall further next week after this happened. JimSukwutput02:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are related. Stock markets were falling this week after fears of new recession, in part sparked by US political instability. --hydrox (talk) 02:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If a country does not have credible administration who can agree on core policy issues like paying their debt, I would call such country politically instable. --hydrox (talk) 04:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support S&P action but no link to the debt agreement or stock declines. One's on ITN already and the other is a global event. RxS (talk) 04:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the last part of the blurb as there seems to be a consensus here that this is unrelated or supercedes that story. I bolded the link to the list of credit ratings instead. For the record I do not think this should be a replacement for the debt ceiling entry, as these events are largely unrelated. There is no reason we can't have both.
Sorry, but the ready designation is premature. I see the target article is a list. There's no way I'd support that. We need an updated article, a list tells our readers nothing, even less than the blurb itself. RxS (talk) 04:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see the problem, but what article do you propose we use? Not the debt ceiling crisis, as that is largely unrelated. Not the Economy of the United States - this event, while important, is not significant enough to warrant a large update to that article. And certainly not an update in the list, as we do not have updates for the many other countries that have had downgrades recently. JimSukwutput04:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm usually pretty liberal when it comes to linking, but in this case linking credit rating to a section on public debt is a little much for me. There's no obvious connection even though there is updated content. I'd like to see something linked a little closer to the subject, or change the blurb....or something. RxS (talk) 05:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The closest thing that is a subject of interest to the downgrade and the article that is most specifically related to what has happened leading up to the downgrade recently would be the United States debt ceiling crisis article, but there was a lack of consensus on that. (I believe the S&P report shows that my previous proposal was apt for the blurb, but nevertheless I think this one will suffice.) For reference the blurb I proposed was: The Standard & Poor'scredit rating agency downgrades the credit rating of the United States from AAA to AA+ with a negative outlook following the U.S. debt ceiling crisis. Hello32020 (talk) 05:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is a little tricky. But I can't get behind either link. If we link credit rating to something, it should have something to do with that term/concept. And I see the problem with linking U.S. debt ceiling crisis. We need to find a more relevant article to use. I can't now, but there must be an updated article that centers around government credit ratings, S&P or a section in a broader economic article. RxS (talk) 05:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why you think they're unrelated. I think the credit rating downgrade is not largely based on the debt ceiling crisis, so I won't support a link to that. However I'm perfectly fine with a link to public debt - considering that credit rating is basically a rating on the credibility of the debt. It's surely a lot better than linking to a "broader economic article". In case you misunderstood something here, this is the definition of credit rating: "A credit rating evaluates the credit worthiness of an issuer of specific types of debt". JimSukwutput08:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is no need for any discussion about whether the downgrading of the USA's credit rating by Standard and Poor's is sufficiently newsworthy for the Main Page. Anyone who rejects the suggestion is either horribly ignorant about basic economics or is simply a dribbling-into-bib retard.
It is appalling that this event does not yet appear on the Main Page. There are all manner of respectable sources for a neutral report on this issue. I realise that the consensus-driven mechanisms of Wikipedia have all the efficiency of a spontaneous riot among chavs in a bad zombie movie, but, SERIOUSLY? What the hell are you waiting for? DeterenceTalk08:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just created a new section United_States_public_debt#Credit_rating, reusing text from elsewhere in that article. Obviously an article on the US debt should include a section on the credit rating. This section is the obvious target IMO, and I have updated the suggested blurb. Thue | talk09:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting suipport- certainly notable for the olny AAA to be withdrawn.and all those dummies who bought/short-covered yest. afternoon..;)Lihaas (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, which begs the question what is the real US credit rating, given these companies must have a conflict of interest for posting good ratings for their host economy..[6] --hydrox (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
EVERY media outlet in the world was posting this news item within minutes of the announcement by Standard and Poor's. This announcement will now appear in every macroeconomics text for the next 100 years. It is bloody ridiculous that it took so long (half a day) for this critically significant news item to appear on the Main Page. C'mon guys, eye on the ball!DeterenceTalk11:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Needs a better-worded blurb.
Currently, stock markets experience heaviest lossess since the 2008 crisis. [7]
Not sure what article to choose for update and whether there should be new article. Perhaps we just could update the current U. S. debt related blurb. GreyHoodTalk14:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, it is already nominated below. Well, now the scale of the event is seen better than yesterday, hope it will be posted. GreyHoodTalk15:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. Yesterday's nomination was about Dow's 2% drop. Today we have drops that are up to 10% around the globe, including Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia and so on. Asian stocks had their biggest fall in 3 years. Not only does this reflect a massive lost of investor confidence overnight, but the stock market losses themselves have wiped out billions of savings of ordinary people around the world. I can't see a single news item over the last few weeks that was more significant than this. JimSukwutput00:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, gave her taste of her own bitchy medicine cryign foul b/c she lost an election then claims democracy.
anyways, wait till we knoe the charges or the conviction. a former heads of state./govt arrest is notable and we posted mubarak and ben ali.Lihaas (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the charges are known. There has been a criminal investigation going for months. And the conviction is unlikely to come soon, this is a huge political show in Ukraine, and show must go on. GreyHoodTalk14:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, actually they say she will be convicted and jailed for 5 years. GreyHoodTalk
A judge rules that Donald Rumsfeld can be sued personally for damages by a U.S. Army veteran in his 50s who says he was imprisoned unjustly and tortured by the U.S. military in Iraq. (Huffington Post)
Heather Mills claims that a Mirror Group journalist admitted hacking into her phone and listening to a message from then-boyfriend Paul McCartney - Piers Morgan has admitted to hearing it although he was not the journalist involved. (BBC)
The Virginia Tech campus, site of an April 2007 mass shooting, goes on lockdown as a precaution after reports of a man, possibly armed with a gun, on or near the campus were made by teenagers attending a camp there. [9]
This was unanimously voted ITN-worthy with a MEGA prose update (mre than we usually post for) and we are 25 hours without an update and it still wanst posted. ITN is based on consensus and how can you deny the conensus? (btw- im not the nom)Lihaas (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The last events the article covers are those of August 1, so either the article's outdated or it's a little late to be posting this. Furthermore, the oldest ITN listing is more recent than this story. Swarmu | t22:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, please update the article before nominating/supporting. It is not the responsibility of users here to update whatever article you happen to be nominating/supporting, and if someone happened to oppose before you updated the article, that is not their fault. JimSukwutput22:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I havent nominated this article this time so get your facts straight. Second of all I havent accused anyone of anything. Get real.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If another user writes that they are opposing on the grounds that there is no updates of events after August 1 and I update it, I have to ask were in that lies the problem?.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I come to think about it, dont answer it will only lead to a meta-debate. I will not be a part of that. I will await a consensus on this..ciao ciao.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I thought wrong there, now I remember it was nominated by an IP, and as I had created the article I saw that the nomination was not formattef correctly so I fixed it up and added a source etc. Anyway, lets hope others discover this update on the article.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "update" is irrelevant. The article doesn't mention any more "clashes" after July 27 and it gives the impression that NATO's intervention on that same day brought control over the situation. Definitely not what I call "current", and an update about an accusation made by Kosovo today doesn't exactly change that. Yes, there's still tension over the roadblock situation, but the story about the "clashes" is no longer current and thus definitely not ITN worthy. Swarmu | t22:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CCC doesnt change after-the fact when it should have been posted. other article with smaller updates and less consensus get posted. at any rate, we can out it at the bottom at least.Lihaas (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NASA tends to over-hype their announcements a lot. It might be of some importance but it may also not be of any interest to ITN. Time will tell if this is an exception. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)16:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they found evidence of running water flowing on Mars, but no actual water. They call it circumstantial evidence. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)18:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, difficult one. Phoenix already directly found chunks of water ice on Mars, but this would be the first proper evidence for liquid water. Unfortunately, I can't access the Science article, so am left with the press reports. Whilst the images certainly indicate flowing material of some kind, which is seasonally modulated, that doesn't necessarily require it to be liquid water. I'm not sure what else it could be though... I'd really like to read the proper paper before passing judgement. Modest Geniustalk20:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that NASA entitle their press release 'Data Suggest Water Flowing on Mars' and the first paragraph says 'revealed possible flowing water' [both emphasis added]. If we do decide to run this, we should reflect that uncertainty. Also also, there's a non-detection from the spectroscopy, though that isn't fatal. Modest Geniustalk20:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"...strongest evidence yet for water on Mars that's flowing ... today, not a millennium or an eon ago." "...may be our best evidence yet of liquid water emerging on the surface of Mars."[11] No, they didn't discover a freshwater lake, but it's an interesting discovery and I'd probably support. Swarmu | t20:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's usually difficult to post specific news items related to science and technology as the publishing/review process tend to be long and drawn-out. This seems like one of those findings that can be posted, and we need more items like this on ITN. JimSukwutput20:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, Juno sounds like the better choice. I read the Science article and they don't seem very definitive: "Although there is much morphological evidence for water flow on Mars in the past, little definitive evidence exists for surface water today. The chloride and sulfate minerals on Mars are indicative of widespread and abundant brines in Mars geologic history."; "A range of hypotheses must be considered to explain these observations."; "The mechanisms of darkening and fading of RSL are uncertain. Wetting of particulate materials causes optical darkening by a combination of processes (27), and drying or freezing would explain the fading in cold seasons, but this model is inconsistent with the lack of water absorption bands in CRISM data." NW(Talk)01:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it would have been picked by now by more major news outlets. I will give another 24 hrs, if it doesnt happen, then I will withdraw the nomination. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 04:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Too late now. Any news coming out of MENA should be big -- the fact no one outside Egypt reported this within the day it happened means it's not ITN material. –HTD10:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated by [[User:Ashish-g55|Ashish-g55]] ([[User talk:Ashish-g55|talk]] ·[{{fullurl:User talk:Ashish-g55|action=edit&preload=Template:ITN_candidate/preload_credit&preloadtitle=ITN+recognition+for+%5B%5BTBD%5D%5D§ion=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=TBD&preloadparams%5b%5d=nominated}} give credit])
in 2008 we posted the crashes at 600 points. but i will even support anything over 400 with similar blurb, which i will pull out from archive. -- Ashish-g5517:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is this not to be expected, what with the debt ceiling thing? I don't fully understand the situation, to be honest, but still... ——FOX17:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mix this with the debt ceiling crisis. Having a deal (rather than a default) is supposed to be good news for the market. This is probably more attributable to the several weak reports on growth and employment that have been released during the last week. JimSukwutput19:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i think with a 512 point loss. this has now turned into a nomination. Suggestions on how to put this up? blurb? articles? -- Ashish-g5520:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not that i disagree, But market wise its one of the wosrt days in a fairly long time (over 2 years) and a 500 drop is not normal for Dow or any other market. ITN will never be able to report on long term market conditions as there will never be the right time. if tomorrow's losses are less than today's then we will just say o yesterday was even worse. -- Ashish-g5520:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll give this a support. Stocks are a good proxy for economic conditions. If we're going to post anything about the worsening economic conditions worldwide (at least compared to what we expected last quarter), this is the best candidate. JimSukwutput20:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose giving a specific reason for the plunge. Completely original research. And while I am often accused of having an anti-U.S. bias, this is not one of those cases where I would oppose a focus on the Dow rather than global markets. The global economic system is heavily intertwined and it's ridiculous to think that a large plunge in the Dow does not reflect worsening economic conditions elsewhere, or vice versa.JimSukwutput21:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In which case you must have misread both sources. The widely reported reasons are concerns over European debts and U.S. recovery. There is no concern over U.S. debts in the markets. No sane person would say that investor confidence plunged because a default was avoided.
Financial Times 1: "World stock markets have tumbled amid fears that Italy and Spain will be dragged deeper into the euro debt crisis, and that America might be entering a double-dip recession" (emphasis mine)
ABC News 2: "U.S. stock markets tumbled today amid fears of a weakening U.S. economy."
Note that I'm not endorsing posting any reason, because ITN should report news and not analyses of them. But even if we are to post the explanations, at least don't get them horrible wrong. JimSukwutput21:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No reading, just what they are reporting on Breakfast News. The significant part is the reasons behind the fall so posting just the fall in the Dow is ignoring the underlying reasons. Mtking (edits) 22:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the causal link is less clear than people think it is. Not all things happen for a specific reason, and while "financial analysts" often claim to know the reason for every stock market rise or fall (to justify their own existence), the fact is that nobody really knows. That Dow plunged by 513 points is a fact. That it did so because of certain anxiety over European debts or American recovery is a hypothesis. And as an encyclopaedic source it is inappropriate to give so much confidence to hypotheses. (It is completely fine to cite these as possible explanations in an actual article, but in ITN we should not provide explanations unless a causal link can be confidently established.)JimSukwutput22:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
did we post the 900 point intra day drop? no! strong opppose
At any rate stock market is NOT a good barometre of the economy, never is and wont be as long as the speculators are around. + need to globalise as there is us, europe, china, etc. dont forget swiss and japanese currency interventions (which could link to currency war)
the 900 intraday drop was due to an error... please do your research before "strongly opposing". and nobody asked to be focused on dow thats just how i put it. I asked for suggestions on blurb... -- Ashish-g5522:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard commentators today say that, while the American debt crisis is resolved for the moment, many investors felt that the drawn out and uncertain process, together with the fact that the whole mess has to happen again in the not too far distant future, is an overall negative. Add that to fear about bigger European nations going belly up, plus the ongoing size of the American debt, and you have a triple whammy. HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I personally agree that the ridiculous political process has led to problems, and so does this economist. And I personally disagree that the size of American debt is of serious concern to any rationale investor. But neither is relevant here - as I've said, ITN is for posting factual news, not analyses of them. JimSukwutput23:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some of you people really need to read Debt of Honor; a 500 point drop in the Dow is clearly the precursor to (a) the global financial markets collapsing overnight, (b) two submarines being sunk by the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force, and (c) India preparing to invade Sri Lanka.
Wait, you mean to tell me that none of those are happening? Oppose, unless it leads to more tangible effects (collapse of a currency, declaration of a double-dip recession, etc.). NW(Talk)01:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The fact that the world economy is in a mess has been with us for a long while. The Americans refuse to admit it, and think they can continue borrowing and spending even though its broke. The market fall is merely a manifestation of the deep-seated problems. It's not worthy of an article nor of an ITN report. --Ohconfucius¡digame!09:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No ashish you do your research before NPA and attacking other editors instead of content, the 900 point clash WASNT an error if you saw the reports coming out in the following weeks.
WTH who made an attack on you. First of all it wasnt 900 it was over 1000. and yes it was blamed on an error on that day thats why it was not posted. I was the one that nominated that item too for goodness sakes!! So yes do your research. not every comment against you is an attack. NPA jeez. -- Ashish-g5521:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The plans of cable entrepreneur John Malone to purchase book store chain Barnes & Noble may have hit a snag, especially over how to value the B&N eReader, the Nook. (New York Post)
Wait until there is some verdict. While in principle the story is notable, we've had so many ITN items about Egypt recently that we have to make some selection. --Tone13:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, BabbaQ, there is no point in adding a support when you nominate, the nomination itself indicates that you support the item ;-) --Tone13:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
sticky its going to be on for a while right? i beleive it was put off to the 15, so either post it then or keep as a sicky with the other trials going on (interior min)
Oppose posting the trial, and strongly oppose a sticky. Wait until the thing is over. I'm not comfortable with the assuming-guilt stance that Wikipedia has taken since the Casey Anthony case, and this is only going to worsen that.JimSukwutput15:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the reasons Jim outlines and Wikireader neatly expands upon. A conviction would be worthy of ITN, a clearance too, but just the start of the trial not so IMHO. Pedro : Chat 21:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is reasonably ITN-worthy, we have a decent article and we certainly don't have a "assumed guilty" disposition that posting the beginning of this trial would somehow worsen. Swarmu | t00:22, 4 August 2011 (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.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox.jpg)
