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).
The mother of a woman who died in her home during a demonstration against Israel's separation barrier in Bil'in says she died from inhaling massive quantities of tear gas; the Israeli army says she did not die of tear gas inhalation. (The Observer)(The Jerusalem Post)
Officials investigating the shooting, who were seeking a second person of interest, have cleared the other person of involvement in the shooting. (CNN)
Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro, known for frequently disagreeing with the United States, condemns the shooting as "atrocious", "absurd" and "unjustifiable". (AP via Fox News)
Teachers and cultural figures criticise as "foolhardy" the British government's abolition of a scheme intended to improve teaching of the arts in schools. (The Observer)
Viewers of UK soap opera EastEnders complain in record numbers about a "hurtful", "unrealistic" and "exploitative" cot death storyline as the BBC sets out to meet the grieving mothers it has upset. (The Independent)(The Observer)
Israeli bulldozers begin demolishing a 1930s East Jerusalem hotel to build 20 new settler homes, "destroying all the US efforts and ending any possibility of a return to negotiations" according to a spokesperson for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. (BBC)(AP via Fox News)
Hillary Clinton calls Israel's demolition of the hotel a "disturbing development" which undermines peace efforts. (Xinhua)
Demonstrators gather outside the Iranian Embassy in London to protest against an attack on Iranian exiles in Iraq, an attack reportedly ordered by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. (BBC)
United States Secretary of DefenseRobert Gates flies to China for a four-day trip after expressing American worries that the Chinese "clearly have potential to put some of our [military] capabilities at risk", adding that America has "to pay attention to them" and "respond appropriately with our own programmes". (BBC)
Chinese Vice Premier Li Keqiang begins a four-day visit to the UK; Scotland and China sign a green energy deal. (BBC)
Law and crime
An investigation by The Guardian newspaper reveals details of how Metropolitan police officer Mark Kennedy infiltrated dozens of protest groups in 22 countries using the pseudonym Mark Stone. (The Guardian)
Prosecutors in the U.K. drop the case against members of a group who were planning to forcefully shut down the coal based Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station temporarily, after the undercover officer, an alleged provocateur in the group, offers to give evidence in support of the activists. (BBC)
Support without opposition to waiting; 70 dead I think is significant and article is in decent shape. How about The crash of Iran Air Flight 277 leaves about 70 people dead and 32 injured for a blurb? C628 (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just of curiosity, if the referendum goes yay, when will South Sudan actually become independent? Is there a plan or scenario to declare independence? Nergaal (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
resuls will certianly not be out this day, or eeven week for that mater. but when they are then i think this article adn the new country article will/shoud/must go up. (albeit forming the new country will take months too, need to divide a lot of things. not to mention a potential "2011 sudan crirsis" page that may happen if violence ensues. Will there be at least some death today and this week through political vioelence? id bet on it, already 7 yesterday(Lihaas (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC));[reply]
We note things like the US presidential election, despite results being unavailable for a while. This is far more important than that - an event that sees the possible culmination of 50 years of conflict, and the declaration of a new country. Wikipedia is incredibly biased against the south, biased against Africa, and biased against non-American/non-British world. A referendum for a US state to succeed would be on the front page without question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.241.110 (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about TX after SuperBowl L when the Cowboys play the Texans? Well secede, the usa cant offer us anything more...too good for that ;)Lihaas (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support whenever something official is published. For the Sint Martin and Curacao we published both the referendum and the official change of status and I expect this to get similar treatment. Nergaal (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support now - the biggest story of the year so far, by a large margin, how often is a referendum held to create a new country? It's already Jan 9 (election day) where I live, it belongs on the WP front page ASAP, whatever the result. Adpete (talk) 08:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article has a cleanup tag at the top, if the problems can be sorted, this can be posted soon. However, to post it before the results (that are not expected for a while), we'd need some more update regarding the voting itself. At the moment, the article is about background mostly. --Tone10:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well from a cursory read, the background material is fairly good and moderately neutral, though I'm not brave enough to remove the tag. The start of voting has been all over the news. It seems to me an ideal time for the casual reader to go to WP and get some background. Adpete (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree it is very informative. However, for ITN, the article has to be updated to some point as a prerequisite. If we can add some information on how the voting is proceeding, then I see no problem. --Tone12:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting now. From what I've read, the voting will proceed until the 15 January, and the final results will be announced on the 6 February. I believe at least at the later date we'll have another ITN-worthy event (independence or non-independence of the Southern Sudan). GreyHoodTalk14:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think both common sense and consensus support the merits of this one. The main debate seems to be whether to post now or later, on which I am neutral, though I would stress that there's no urgency to post on ITN. The other issues are with the article itself, which needs a better update before polling. Finally, there's the WP:NOT tag. Does anyone understand what the root of the problem is? Other than the article being overly long perhaps, I can't see a problem with the article. I would support simply removing the tag unless someone presents a clear rationale for it.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question is whether we think this is major enough to merit posting the election now, and the results on 6 Feb. The only examples I can think of where we've done that are the US presidential and UK general elections, both of which were really blurb updates since results took less than 24 hours. Personally, I think we should post both, since this is just about the biggest political event possible in a country. Modest Geniustalk19:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Israel responds to the shooting dead of a 65-year-old Palestinian civilian in his bed during a pre-dawn raid by ordering an investigation. Troops were attempting to re-arrest five Hamas members who had been released from prison the previous day when they made the fatal error. (Irish Independent)
2010–2011 Tunisian protests: At least one person is killed and others are injured in the town of Tala during the latest protests against unemployment and poor living conditions. (Al Jazeera)
Algerian protests against food prices and unemployment:
Government taxes and duties on sugar and cooking oil in Algeria are lowered in response to three days of unrest over increases in unemployment and the cost of living. (Al Jazeera)
Two people are killed and hundreds of others are injured during the protests. (Yemen News Agency)(BBC)
Icelandic MP Birgitta Jónsdóttir describes attempts by America to access her private information as "completely unacceptable", demands to see the ambassador and begins legal action against the United States. (The Guardian)
(edit conflict) Support, but wait. I see this is a breaking news story but we have to wait for (a) confirmation of her injuries or, hopefully not, her death, and (b) an update to her article. Hopefully we won't have to feature this. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)19:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong wait. The nomination contains essentially all the information that is known about the incident. Let's see what comes out over the next few hours. Also, was this a particularly notable politician? (I also find it amusing that you've completely failed to state which country this referred to) Modest Geniustalk19:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Arizona is in the United States, or that Wales is in the UK, or that Ontario is in Canada. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)19:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is so much about the congresswoman, but about the shooting itself. Six others have died now. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)19:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally wholeheartedly support any assassination of a member of parliament / house of commons / federal governmental body in a civilised country because it really does not happen often. As noted below, the last time this happened in the States was the murder of Leo Ryan in Jonestown decades ago. But I agree that it would have gained considerable support because of the American bias. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)21:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. She is the wife of the final Shuttle mission commander which is an unprecedented situation. She was not low ranking, she was head of commission. Six other people died in the shootout .Hektor (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Assuming reports of her death are correct (and we shouldn't assume that quite yet, in my opinion), she would be only the second member of Congress to die in the line of duty (Leo Ryan being the first). I think that aspect of the matter is sufficiently newsworthy. — Gavia immer (talk)19:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support (a) Killing of six people in US; and (b) assassination of a Congresswoman while performing duties would both be arguable ITN cases on their own. Together I think it is significant enough. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: CNN is stating that reports are conflicting on whether or not Giffords is in surgery and alive or if she has actually died. Another reason to wait, as noted by MG. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)19:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those of us who don't believe in a comforting fallacy would do better to check the latest news reports and concentrate on improving the article, rather than praying. Please remember that not everyone shares your religious beliefs. Modest Geniustalk02:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Build the article Considering she is one of seven dead and a total of 12 shot, this probably warrants its own article, and definitely warrants addition. --Kitch(Talk : Contrib)19:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rather not. We aren't a news ticker. We'll only post if the article in conjunction with the event is stable and in good shape. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)19:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. As others have noted, the event is highly notable for several reasons. But there are many uncertainties at this point, so the item shouldn't be added until the situation is clearer and the article has been updated to reflect this. —David Levy20:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. There doesn't seem to yet be any certainty of even a death. BBC. There is no rush and it will be easier to tell after several hours or days. --candle•wicke20:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Incident is important enough and we do not need to wait for "more details" to become available. The article will concurrently reflect any uncertainty that exists as the investigation and news coverage develops. __meco (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't think there's a need to wait. There are enough editors working on the article, so it should get updated quickly when further information comes out. Nanobear (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we do it excellently, so whether or not it's our purpose the article is still going to be in good shape throughout, based on past experiences. __meco (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: In addition to the uncertainty regarding Giffords' condition (which might be clearer after a press conference scheduled for 20:30 UTC), there are new reports that authorities seek a possible second gunman. Fellow admins, I urge you not to add this item until the situation is clearer. Wikipedia isn't a news website, and our article will not be in reasonable condition until various details are sorted out. —David Levy20:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Political assassinations are rare in America. Questions over her importance shows ignorance about this fact and about the expectations that she would someday become a Senator. Imagine Reason (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And if Wikipedia were a news website, that would be appropriate. —David Levy
I have been reading and almost every news site is reporting different death numbers. BBC going upto 6, toronto star saying 1. CNN saying she was critically injured. Posting this prematurely was an awful idea. Please take it down till we have a number that is somewhat agreed upon. -- Ashish-g5520:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose early posting. Please take this down as there was no need to rush. 19 people merely being shot doesn't look very well on the Main Page, as unfortunate and tragic as this situation seems to be. --candle•wicke20:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
whats funny is it says 19 on ITN. article says 18 in very first line. the count on the side adds to 16. and news sites are reporting 12 shot. this just looks bad -- Ashish-g5520:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And we just parroted erroneous reports that John McCarthy Roll, a federal judge and one of the shooting victims, was confirmed dead. This is exactly the sort of mess that those of us opposing the item's premature inclusion foresaw. —David Levy20:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There are 435 representatives in the U.S. House alone. As tragic as the shooting is, this has very little international significance.--WaltCip (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removing for now Most of the above supports seem to mention that several people including the congresswoman were killed, and there is current instability in terms of the number of people actually shot. SpencerT♦C21:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So just because she survived means that it is not notable enough for the main page? Not at all. This was a major shooting that resulted in at least one death, and involved a US House Representative and a Federal Judge.--White ShadowsWe live in a beautiful world21:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I mean. There is insufficient current clarity in the article as well as in the previous wording of the word to merit hasty posting to the Main Page before the article has more content. Repeat, this is temporarily holding off of posting until the article is fully ready. SpencerT♦C21:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you guys serious with removing this? A congresswoman from a large country has been shot. This is hardly an everyday occurrence. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the event meets our notability criteria, but the item's addition was premature. We're parroting conflicting reports regarding major details, including the number of deaths and specific people's deaths. An article in such a state of flux should not be linked from the main page. The section isn't a breaking news ticker; its purpose is to link to encyclopedia articles that have been appropriately updated to reflect current/recent events (which clearly isn't possible at this point). What's the rush? —David Levy21:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nothing inherent to the definition of encyclopedia means untimely, with the multiple victims including a federal judge this is a significant news item regardless of whether Giffords dies or not.μηδείς (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one has asserted that the encyclopedia shouldn't contain an article on the shooting. But the In the news section's purpose is to link to articles that have been appropriately updated to reflect recent/current events. Such an update will not be possible until more concrete information is available. —David Levy21:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - You have clear consensus even before my support, and a blurb that notes a Congresswoman has been shot can be updated. The article is good enough and will be updated further. This is no time to nit pick details. Put it back up. Jusdafax21:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment appears to reflect a mistaken impression that the section's purpose is to promptly report news. It isn't. There's no need to rush instead of waiting until the situation is clearer. —David Levy21:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My comment in support stands. I have been an ITN contributor for some time and have a very good idea what the ITN section's purpose is. Consensus was established, the blurb was posted. I submit the removal and nit-picking of details is a mistake. The Congresswoman's condition is "very critical", a Federal judge and five others are dead [1], and it is all over the news. I repeat: Put it back up. Jusdafax21:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you understand the section's purpose, why do you believe that we should link to an article lacking essential information about the event? "This is no time to nit pick details" seems to imply a sense of urgency that simply doesn't exist. You've noted that the story is "all over the news," but Wikipedia isn't a news website and the section isn't a breaking news ticker.
I disagree that consensus was established to post the item at this juncture. Much of the support (including mine) is contingent upon waiting until the facts are known. —David Levy21:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It was pretty clear from the beginning that we should not have rushed this. There is always a large magnitude of uncertainty when news networks break a story of this calibre. People do not come to Wikipedia for news, they come for encyclopaedic content; and when we make claims on the front page of the website which are not confirmed with certainty, that undermines our purpose. So lets take it slow, vamp up the article, and then post it when everything looks good. Just like any other story on this page. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)21:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with this statement'. We are not a breaking news site, there is no need to rush unless and until the details are clear and the articles in a postable state (ie not in constant flux on the essential details) Modest Geniustalk01:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. A federal judge murdered and a congresswoman shot in the head? This kind of thing hasn't happened for decades. Extreme reader interest and worldwide coverage. If the article on the shooting isn't ITN quality yet, we can bold-link Giffords' name. There will be hundreds of thousands of people coming to Wikipedia for info on Giffords now, and it makes sense to have a link from the front page. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that they think this is a news site; it's that they'll be looking for background information on who this person is. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They can find her Wikipedia article by typing her name into our search box. Better yet, they can follow a link from Wikinews' article on the shooting. By treating ITN as a breaking news ticker, we discourage people from even bothering to visit Wikinews, which is a great disservice to our sister project (as well as a misuse of the Wikipedia project). —David Levy22:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I posted elsewhere but my comment was removed, but come on, this incident is at least as important and newsworthy as the pol we've got on there now. Capt. Colonel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
(edit conflict) Support, but don't post just yet - This should be posted only once the news sources actually agree on who and how many people died. Currently, MSNBC reports that a neurosurgeon confirmed that she is in stable but critical condition. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At this point there are only two figures mentioned regarding killed people: 5 (mentioned by Obama) or 6 (mentioned by CNN and others). I don't think that is going to change for a while. Information seems to be stable now. Nanobear (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, although waiting 12-24 hours may be a good idea. A major news event with wall-to-wall coverage by all the major national news outlets and with major international coverage as well. Quite obviously will be the lead story in all the newspapers tomorrow. Even without knowing all the details, the scale of the attack and the number of victims already make it the most prominent example of domestic political assassination attempt in years. Nsk92 (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, attempted (maybe successful) political assassination, not to mention the other casualties, and if I am not mistaken she will be only the second US member of congress to be killed in the line of duty. However, I think we should wait until the important facts are cioimpletely established; how many injured, how many dead, status of Giffords, who was the shooter, etc. --PlasmaTwa223:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support, I can only think of one instance in my lifetime that an incumbent Congressperson has been gunned down, Leo Ryan. This sort of stuff does not happen very often. Additionally, a Federal Judge was killed, something I cannot remember happening recently. Houstonbuildings (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the situation has become clearer, as David Levy asked for. As such, I believe there is consensus to post now. That said, we need a new blurb. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)00:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'United States federal judge' seems way too vague to me. Either the person is notable, in which case we have a named article on them, or they aren't, in which case they are irrelevant. The story here is surely the congress member, not the judge? Modest Geniustalk01:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded the item in a manner that omits the mention entirely. Under the circumstances, there really doesn't seem to be a non-awkward way to work in that information. And given the lack of evidence that Roll was a specific target (i.e. that he was shot because he was a federal judge), this might be for the best. —David Levy02:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, support posting, and support David Levy's rewording to omit the judge. We could probably have waited a few hours for the article to stabilise, but I appreciate the widespread interest this attracts. It's still good to mention the country (as the current blurb does) though. Modest Geniustalk02:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dozens of Christians in Iran are arrested, after security forces forcibly entered their homes and verbally and physically abused them, in a crackdown on converts from Islam and evangelical groups, which an Iranian official who confirmed the arrests called an "enemy cultural invasion." (Voice of America)
Youths in Tunisia protest for several days over social (job market, purchase power, goods' price) and political grievances. Lawyers go on strike against police repression of protesters. (The Irish Times)
The 2010 United States foreclosure crisis continued to intensify as the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled against the nation's banking industry in a case that affects hundred of thousands of homes. [4][5] A pretty big deal; not only does this dramatically slow the pace at which banks can boot Americans out of their homes due to widespread 'robo-signing', it also has a number of deep effects on the housing market, banks, the U.S. economy, and an international 'ripple effect' . A benchmark legal ruling with multiple ramifications. Suggest 'Foreclosure' article to link to, as it is quite well reffed, but the article does need an update re: today's development. Jusdafax06:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oppose far to vague "intensify" which is synthesis. So the maket went down 22 points, big deal. speculative terrorists anyhow ;) not bloody logical, stupid big media comes up with any crapship reason(Lihaas (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC));[reply]
And this from someone who places a request at the top of his talk page saying "please be nice, assume good faith...I don't like reading wild demands and rude talk." Hmmmm. Kevin McE (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose'. I'm not seeing the story here. A state (not federal) court rules that two (a whole 2!) mortgage foreclosures were illegal; in response shares fall by a whole one percent. So what? I don't see any of the wider implications you suggest. Modest Geniustalk10:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Woo hooo! the world's greatest soccer tournament kicks off!!!!!!!!!!! (and india vs. australia on monday, guess what the commentators are going to say? ;))(Lihaas (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC));[reply]
(ec) Post the winner at the end of the tournament. I guess we only post openings of Olympics and the World cup. --Tone20:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait I am going to laugh my ass off when the so-called "world's greatest soccer tournament" will be won by a country that... is not even in Asia. Nergaal (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, they are hosting the world cup but they are not even able to win a game in the so-called "world's greatest soccer tournament". Nergaal (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not seeing the significance here. Doesn't meet the death criteria, and I'm not seeing much coverage. Might later defer to others if support is convincing. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)17:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I too cannot see why this person is especially significant, and neither the article nor nomination make any substantive claim otherwise. Modest Geniustalk10:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I agree we should be posting this now (when it's the lead story on every UK media outlet), for some reason we already posted the Ashes after the 4th test (when England could no longer be beaten). I doubt it's a significant enough story to get two items in as many weeks. Modest Geniustalk02:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Err, it's neither. It's a series of five matches which has its own trophy, which is only awarded at the end of the series. But it's a fait accompli now... Modest Geniustalk16:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We posted it when England retained the Urn. I think that's sufficient. Although I too don't exactly see what the rush was. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)04:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Already posted, at the correct time IMO and as per consensus. The final match just padded the victory. I know 'victory' wasn't guaranteed before in one sense but we've had this debate before.--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support but not because of the Ashes (which was correct to put up at some point), but because it is the first time any team has won 3 matches in a series by an innings away from home. [6] (aprox 2/3rds down).
stupid bloody imperialists! how many Welshman are actually on that wales team? (and clearly england didnt win, WALES did)Lihaas (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A French market regulator approves a takeover defense adopted by the Hermès family, who own the manufacturer of Birkin and Kelly handbags. This improves the odds that Hermès will preserve its independence in the face of a bid by LVMH. (Reuters)
The United States protests strongly to Vietnam after a U.S. diplomat is attacked and injured by Vietnamese police when he went to visit a detained religious dissident.(RFA)
A U.S. plan to force gun dealers in states which borderMexico to report cases where individuals bought multiple high-powered rifles in under 5 days, is stalled due to opposition from gun lobbies. Approximately 90% of crime guns seized in Mexico originate in the U.S., and over 30,000 people have died in Mexico due to drug cartel violence since 2006. (Reuters)
Aaron Swartz is arrested by MIT police on state breaking-and-entering charges, after systematically downloading academic journal articles from JSTOR. (Archive.org)
Although there seems to be no article, surely the large-scale deaths of fish and birds in the US over the last few days should be mentioned especially as it seems so bizarre and unprescedented? Simply south.....00:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Freak incidents are classic WP:NOTNEWS, Its weird dont get me wrong. Lack of an Article is a good thing as I can only see this pie chart as the center piece of the article.
im leaning towards support. 2m fish dead because of colder temperature? every day now a large number of dead animals are being reported. single instance would definitely be useless but this is everyday news now. -- Ashish-g5521:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have noticed a spike in this type of article in the past five days or so re: birds, fish, and honeybees. As far as I know there is no article at the moment, so that is an issue, and I won't take a stand on the merits of an ITN blurb. But it is an unusual concentration in my view, and I speak as a news junkie for half a century and an ex-reporter for a decade. Worth keeping an eye on, and if it continues... Jusdafax16:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it were up to me, everyone who ever thought that vaccines cause autism would be forced to read this article. But I'm not sure if this is significant enough. I remember that we ran the article on ITN when The Lancet retracted Wakefield's article, so I don't know if we should run it again. I could be convinced either way. NW(Talk)05:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about the article being in good shape. On a 5 minute spot-check I found some close paraphrasing of footnote 83 and footnote 77 provides no support for the very contentious material it follows. I'm sure parts of the article are fine, but that's not to say a lot of crap hasn't crept in over time. But in principle, I'd like to see this up. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support one of the things that wikipedia should do is to educate people. This is a good example where it can do lots of public good if users do not stringently stick to the idea if it was on ITN before it should not be again. Nergaal (talk) 06:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above, in principle. The article is long so I can't read it at the moment but will try later. What would the blurb say? --Tone08:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Extremely significant event. To have an article retracted by a the high caliber journal like the The Lancet for poor methodology was one thing... now to reveal its was pure fraud is astounding. Not to mention the fact that it was one the most conterversial studies in medicine for nearly a decade increases the signficance. The multimillion dollar lawsuits that stemmed from the result of the study.... The children who died from being unvaccinated... the effect on the autism community... Do I really need to go on? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we have a consensus here, what we need, is a substantial update to the article. With a strong story like this, we cannot afford to put a badly-update article on the main page. --Tone14:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just waking up, and have a busy day, but med editors are aware. Was the old ITN a link to the controversy article? Would the blurb be to that article, or to Andrew Wakefield and Brian Deer? I've not much experience in blurbs for ITN, but The Resident Anthropologist hits on the key issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst this is plainly an important story and the sort of thing we should be covering, is it really news? We've known that the Wakefield study was massively flawed for over a decade, and that it was fraudulent for years. What's new here is that Brian Deer, who has published a whole load of material on this, has published a new piece in the British Medical Journal. It's not actually a scientific paper, but more a piece of journalism. I'm not a biologist, but I don't see much actually new in the article. Modest Geniustalk16:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Modest Genius, I think you missed a step re who published what in the BMJ: [8]. Anyway, Wakefield is in pretty good shape, I agree that is the better article, and I don't think we can't handle BLP issues on the mainpage-- it's well cited. I don't know how to do ITN blurbs, and I'm off for the day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I can't support this, as it is marginal 'news' at best. I read a lot of mainstream news websites before I log on here, and saw nothing about this in any of them. Adoption of this item starts a a new approach to ITN criteria, and I am astonished at the supporters who say we should be "educating" people with the ITN feature. If so, why not change the name of this feature from ITN to 'News we think you should know'? Seriously, I wonder greatly at this. Jusdafax16:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see this story on CNN way down at the bottom in the world section: [9] and I find it highly interesting that Wakefield strongly disputes the findings. I'd suggest you put that in the blurb as well if you must run this at ITN, but my previous objections stand. I should also note I have no personal interest either way in the topic of the item, and have no prior history of editing these types of medical articles. My objection is that putting this minor item on the ITN main page feature appears to me, rightly or wrongly to be advocacy and POV-driven, or at least could be taken that way, when there are numerous other stories at the top of the headlines that are of greater merit, in my view. Jusdafax17:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a function of CNN's randomizer; it is at the top of the Health section for me. But as another example: the four main articles on NPR today are the governmental panel's reports on the oil spill, what is happening with the 112th Congress, this, and William Daley becoming Chief of Staff. We clearly can't run the 2nd or the 4th, the 1st probably isn't significant enough with how much attention we have paid to it, but the 3rd looks perfectly fine to run, IMO. NW(Talk)18:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At the time I checked it was most definitly at the very top of their mainpage, not at the bottom, not a separate section (haven't rechecked). Jusdafax, what is your concern? Is there something in the article that isn't well cited or undue and you think he'll sue us or what? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Arguments made above convince me that this was a big and important controversy ended with the official rejection of the initial study. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)17:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question: upon further investigation, this seems to be mostly fallout from the GMC hearings that struck Wakefield off the register. A lot of it is write-up in a scientific journal of things that came out during the hearings. Did we post anything about that at the time? Modest Geniustalk17:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find it interesting that the three major newspapers of Britain (I think), The Times, The Guardian, and The Telegraph, all are not running the article. Neither is The New York Times. On the other hand, NPR and CNN have it in their top articles. Perhaps the journal was released too late for the newspapers? In any case, I think tomorrow we will see the newspapers running the articles for sure. Anyway, how about this for a hook:
I had not heard of it or indeed any of this story, and I continue to feel the blurb should note Wakefield disputes the finding his study is a "fraud". I would think very carefully about this, people, per WP:BLP policy. Jusdafax18:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I'm not sure how that blurb would violate BLP. Numerous studies and investigations have found him guilty of fraud, including the Lancet which retracted his paper, and the General Medical Council which revoked his license to practise medicine. There's no undue weight, since scientific opinion is overwhelmingly against him. And the story is sourced to the BMJ, one of the most widely respected medical journals on the planet. How does this violate BLP? Modest Geniustalk18:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Before you go taking any of Wakefield's claims seriously, know this: Wakefield no longer has a license to practice medicine as a result of the publication of this article. BMJ is the one of the most cited health journals, and its rivals include (the very prestigious) The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine and Journal of the American Medical Association. You're not really going to get a more reliable source. In addition, my proposed hook includes attribution. NW(Talk)18:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NW, I find I must repeat that I never heard of this guy, know absolutely nothing about the topic, have never presumed to edit on the topic, and have no strong feelings either way about it. The case has been made here that we are in compliance with WP:RS... very well, point taken. I would still take care to write the blurb to be as neutrally worded as possible, which is never bad advice. My other objection stands but I will step back since I am in the total minority on that. Jusdafax18:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See the discussion at the top - I'm concerned there could be too many problems with the article, including source misrepresentation for POV material. The Wakefield article looks in much better shape and SandyGeorgia seems to have had a good crack at it over the last few hours. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I worked on Wakefield a bit, but I didn't do much at the controversy article, and other than ongoing cleanup and having them watchlisted for a long time, I can't vouch for the intergrity of the controversy article since Eubulides left Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the lede of the Wakefield article gives me the chills, as it seems pretty close to WP:UNDUE. A few weeks ago I suggested an ITN item that mentioned Dick Cheney's involvement in Nigeria with Halliburton in the quarter billion dollar bribery 'settlement'. We had to remove mention of Cheney, the CEO of Halliburton at the time of the alleged offense that Halliburton paid big buck to settle, from the ITN blurb that was posted because you can't get any of that even mentioned in the Cheney article, due to watchdogs that scrub anything negative out of the article, much less the lede. This guy Wakefield's treatment in his article is a bit different, wouldn't you say? Jusdafax18:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Cheney was a US Vice President - hit job allegations by a foreign entity are a trivial part of his biography. This is all that Wakefield is known for. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point at the time was that a quarter billion dollar payout was hardly trivial, considering Cheney's being cited in the Nigerian indictment. The corollary of that as it pertains to Wakefield is that no one is going to pay a dime to clear his reputation. Here again, I seem to be finding zero common ground with anyone here. I don't care about Wakefield per se, but anyone supporting this linking to his article should read that lede. (Shakes head.) Jusdafax19:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marginal support, but only if we rephrase the blurb: fraud is a criminal offence, and the BMJ does not have jurisdiction to declare criminal guilt. Let's restrict ourselves to falsification, which the BMA is competent to identify. Kevin McE (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wakefield is the story: stats Wakefield,stats MMR vaccine controversy. Now that I've had more time to go through both, Wakefield is in better shape-- I found some plagiarism and unsourced text, but I think it's fine now-- can't say the same for MMR vaccine controversy because it's too big to get through. Since this is all over mainstream news now, I hope y'all will go with it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will say this, Sandy: Thanks to your efforts, and those of NW and other editors at Wakefield's article, I think the lede and article are improved and approach NPOV. The interest in the story is obvious from your stats. While I still have reservations, the improvements and removed dubious material show reasonable concern over what was there 12 hours ago, and I thank you for taking the time and trouble. Jusdafax02:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posting - I do not normally post rationales for ITN updates, but this might warrant one. There is definitely consensus for posting this article. While BLP concerns also factor here, this "fraud" is being widely reported by news media around the world as such (along with the academic studies and investigations that led to this conclusion), so I don't think posting this would violate BLP. Ed[talk][majestic titan]04:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Swedish actor Per Oscarsson and his wife Kia Östling are confirmed dead by dental records after a fire destroyed the couple's house in Skara and the couple perished on December 30, 2010. (The Local)
Business and economy
Iran and India develop a stop-gap plan to continue the flow of oil from the former to the latter, and payments in the opposite direction, days after India withdrew from the Asian Clearing Union. The new plan involves payments through the EIH Bank, in Hamburg, Germany. (Domain-b)
Law and crime
A 17-year-old student at Millard South High School, in Omaha, Nebraska, shoots an assistant principal to death and wounds the school principal before turning the gun onto himself. (CNN)
A Malaysian coroner records an open verdict in the death of opposition aide Teoh Beng Hock, who fell from the roof of the anti-corruption commission building in July 2009. (BBC)(Malaysia Star)
Police investigating the murder of Joanna Yeates make a fresh appeal for information, saying that when discovered, her fully clothed body was missing a sock which may hold important clues. (BBC)
In the UK 33 people are convicted for their part in an £80m drugs and money laundering operation. They include Simon Ford, a firefighter commended for his actions during the 7 July London bombings. (BBC)
I added the lowest section, the one detailing the release of the new report several hours ago which blamed BP and its associate companies. The report was released on January 5, UTC. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No surprise there. Wait for a fine or something from the government, because a report won't do anything to BP anywhere other than in court. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)04:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's indeed over the headlines now, and they call for reforms in the BP industry, so it is likely to have some implications. The blurb may relflect the main point of the report, that the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was not a rare occurence, but a consequence of systemic problems with management. GreyHoodTalk13:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Agree this is very much 'In The News'. This major story fixes blame and points fingers. Agree with Greyhood re: "systemic problems" resulting in one of the greatest environmental disasters of all time. The report is well-considered, of high repute, and this item would be a worthy addition to ITN. Jusdafax17:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not that good. If you're conserned about the timer, we have the floods and the cave that I think are better for ITN at this moment. --Tone17:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I can't see the significance of this person - younger son of an admittedly notable person, but who hasn't done anything much notable himself, whose death appears to have had little to no impact. Modest Geniustalk20:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: It's his brother who's the heir to the throne. I don't see how his death affects much of anything, even among the monarchists. Nightw12:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The absolute scale seems to be larger than in Australia. More deaths, more people affected, from what I have read. Definitely should be posted. GreyHoodTalk13:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hey, admins, please turn your attention to this nomination! 5 supports against 1 oppose, and the article meets the minimum posting criteria. What are we waiting for here? The blurb may go this way:
British singer Gerry Rafferty died of liver failure yesterday. Best known for his involvement in Stealers Wheel, a musical group formed in the 1970's. Most of us have heard "Stuck in the Middle", which sold one million copies in 1973 and hit #6 on the Top 100. Also led a successful solo career, hitting platinum and gold with City to City (5 mil. sold) and Night Owl respectively. Personally never heard of the guy, but I have heard his music, and I think his death carries a sufficient blow to the music industry to be featured on ITN. BBC, Telegraph, NYT, CBC, LA TimesEricLeb01 (Page | Talk)05:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose One record that reached No 3 in UK chart, No 2 in US (mainly on the back of 8 bars by Bob HolnessRaphael Ravenscroft); one other top ten hit as part of a group. No major release for c25 years, so not sure what nom means by "blow to the music industry". Nice to hear the song on the radio this morning, but miles away from being an important news item. Kevin McE (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose one hit wonder. EDIT: Stuck in the Middle is a very famous record regardless of its chart status, the issue for me is that this guy didn't really make anything else that was equivalently popular. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks promising. However, the article is somehow short and should be improved - for example, if it is a World heritage site, it should have the box. --Tone13:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I only skimmed the article, so excuse me if I missed something, but what's new about this? It looks like the survey was conducted in 2009. The National Geographic site reported Hang Son Doong as the world's biggest cave almost two years ago. I can't tell what's been updated. Has it been officially confirmed or something? Makeemlighter (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Yahoo article dated this month linked in the article says that the 2009 discoverers of the cave returned recently to measure the cave or something. I see nothing about actual confirmation though. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)00:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They only measured it with lasers and published the results recently, and that is why NatGeo News updated the old article on 3.1.2011. Before that, the researchers didn't know the actual size. Crnorizec (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
References
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.png)
