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 United Nations delivers aid to parts of Somalia controlled by al-Shabab militants for the first time since they ended the ban on food supplies. (BBC)
Support - as nom. Most media covered murder trial since OJ simpson. Her release has been covered in every single major media outlet.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't beat a dead horse. As we saw with the nomination of the trial, barely last week, this isn't going to get anywhere. Let's not disrupt ITN further. (Oppose, for the record, for the exact same reason as last time.) Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support we should actually be grown up enough to post items of clear widespread interest that aren't primarily of interest to the intellectual elite. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want this on ITN, you need to at least make a case as to why this is more important than her acquittal, which did not get consensus to post. Otherwise, this is just going to attract unneeded drama. -- tariqabjotu14:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually her release and her acquittal has reached the same amount of high media attention and recognition so really there is no need for the supporters here to justify our stance to support this news story. Because it is infact major news so its not even a question in my mind that this newspiece should be included on ITN. Also the first ITN suggestion on her acquittal was not posted only because the opposes !votes was only made out of the usual "news on murders should not be included and thats it, no matter how notable it is end of story."--BabbaQ (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While these events are clearly both less important than Potter (which has "significance" as well) the acquittal should have been posted on the grounds that it was covered worldwide for several days, was of worldwide interest leading to over 2 million views over two days and we had a very good article update for it.
@BabbaQ, given I have insisted that people justify their positions in opposition over Potter, I think it is perfectly reasonable that at least I am required to do the same here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose, for the same reasons as before. We already rejected the verdict, and there's no way this is more important. This nomination smacks of forum shopping, given the earlier discussion. Modest Geniustalk15:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps forum shopping is the wrong term in a technical sense, what I meant was repeated nominations until the desired outcome is obtained. Modest Geniustalk15:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its a different event and the previous nomination isn't on the page to continue. Noone has had an objection with the continued nominations per say about the News International issues, and they could have been followed up in the same thread. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like users here are turning a blind eye to notability guidelines when it fits their own purpose for example not posting "crime related ITNs". Sorry to say.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose She was released? Well, given that we had a report here that she was found not guilty, that seems unsurprising. Is there anything changed to make this less a tabloid story than it was a few days ago when it was rejected? Kevin McE (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you really never noticed other media following a tabloid agenda? It is a pure tabloid story, that other media will report because they don't want to be accused of elitism. For ITN, I would far rather that we be accused of elitism than that we feature such low-brow "human interest" satories. Amazing how unattractive, minority, or male murders and disappearances, or those occurring elsewhere in the world, are so much less "important" Kevin McE (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When its being covered internationally by reliable sources, and outside a section purely covering entertainment news no. The reason this case gets coverage is that its a particularly interesting case for a number of reasons. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eraserhead, has right its not a legitimate claim when a single persons release itself is covered by a ton ton of reliable non-tabloid sources. seems like users here are turning a blind eye to notability guidelines when it fits and then slams the notaiblity guidelines to users in their face when it fits.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What notability guideline is this? No-one here is trying to set up an AfD. That sort of accusation of duplicity requires a high level of evidence, or retraction and apology. Kevin McE (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The notability guidelines for ITN - things like our purpose which states that we should post items of wide interest to our readers - I cannot fathom how a million page views a day fails to meet that criteria. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support possible GA on front page, plenty of interest among our readership. People seem to be trying to protect our readers from their own interests. But I'm guessing this will be sunk by a flood of WP:Idontlikeit votes. RxS (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't - especially not when it isn't in their own country. When reliable sources start covering an event widely that it stops being tabloid fodder. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eraserhead is right again. These arguments can be twisted around to fit anyones agenda. Totally turning a blind eye to the notaiblity of this ITN piece. Anthony has recieved sufficient amount of press worldwide even today to justify inclusion on ITN.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because a blurb is already there, it's probably no harm to simply update it and keep it where it is, but ITN does not need to have a blow-by-blow of this scandal. And this story most certainly does not deserve a sticky because it is nothing compared to the other stickied stories (Olympics, World Cup, Middle East protests, Japanese tsunami) which had sustained (often above-the-fold) international interest, and especially importance, for days to weeks on end. At the end of the day, this is primarily a UK story. Please let this drop off ITN, as, as of now, there hasn't been a non-hacking-scandal story posted in almost four days. Please devote your attention to other stories if, for nothing else, in the interest of diversity. -- tariqabjotu13:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"At the end of the day, this is primarily a UK story." But it isn't. It's receiving daily coverage in the papers where I am (Singapore), and Murdoch's media empire reaches far enough that you cannot seriously argue the point that this is UK-only. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sticky or bump, I understand the international scope of this story but it's not such a huge story to justify this blow by blow we're falling into. Updating the blurb is a good alternative. RxS (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update the Current Blurb and reset the clock for its removal from the template. An extremely significant development in the case. Very few corporate leaders are ever arrested in the Western word. On a speculative note.... does this mean she had direct knowledge of the crimes? Or even have ordered them? This development puts more questions in my mind than it answers. The Resident Anthropologist(talk)•(contribs) 15:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article:2011 Open Championship (talk·history·tag) Blurb: In golf <Insert champion> wins the 2011 Open Championship (Post) 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.
200k+ readers for the various articles, tens of thousands of Google news hits, biggest selling book series, biggest grossing film series. No possible reason to justify that this isn't news, no possible justification that this isn't of encyclopaedic interest and no good reason to continue to wait. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, pop culture phenomenon, but a big pop culture phenomenon, and easily "newsworthy" enough to be featured on ITN. Also a few of my friends would rip me to shreds if I opposed this. ;-) Ed[talk][majestic titan]08:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support if there is good proof of international headlines, which shouldn't be hard to find (and I'm too tired to look for right now.) Grandmasterka08:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the reference in that article say "Retrieved July 18, 2010"? Why when I check "Harry Potter" in that reference does "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows - Part 2" (the one in yellow) say "$92,100,000"? And why do the other films listed above it each have several times that number? There is also "opening weekends" but this film does not appear there. In other words where is the record? Just asking. --candle•wicke08:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Is that record going to be nominated and posted every time it is broken? It seems to have happened quite often recently. November 2009 is only slightly more than a year ago. --candle•wicke09:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confused Lots of figures being thrown around here. The film opened on different days around the world, as do most films. Is there an obvious source that clearly tells me that this claim is true, with no analysis (=OR) required? HiLo48 (talk) 09:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE This film will also break the worldwide opening weekend record and the US/Canadian opening weekend record. If the opening day record gets posted, will the opening weekend record be added to blurb after it is confirmed? Theleftorium(talk)09:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Well I went through the list. Number two is "The Twilight Saga: New Moon" and this happened in 2009. This would have beaten the record that had stood since 2008 (number four: "The Dark Knight") which would have beaten the record that had stood since 2007 (number seven: "Spider-Man 3") which would have beaten the record that had stood since 2006 (number nine: "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest") which would have beaten the record that had stood since 2005 (number eleven: "Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith") which would have beaten the record that had stood since 2004 (number seventeen: "Spider-Man 2") and so on. --candle•wicke09:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment "opening day record of..." important to mention it (former recorD) or its weekend gross total.
This nomination is being done not because the record is necessarily the most amazing thing ever, but because the film in question quite blatantly is highly, highly notable. Apa Sherpa's record doesn't attract tens of thousands of Google News hits each time he does it. There are plenty more reasons to get this posted now listed in my opening statement that have nothing to do with the record. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But Wikipedia isn't Google. Why Google? What does Google have to do with the ITN section of Wikipedia? Apa Sherpa not attracting tens of thousands of Google News hits each time he does it doesn't make his achievements any less notable. --candle•wicke10:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can go with our own article hit counts, or that the film series is the highest grossing ever, the vast cultural impact of the book/film series etc. etc. If you wish just taking the common sense approach that clearly people are interested in this topic, for which we have good articles. That should be reason enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sources are just not clear enough, and frankly know one can no for sure what the number is, it has the feeling of trying to jump the gun. There is no rush here, lets wait till the full worldwide opening weekend results are in then post that if we must. Mtking (edits) 10:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ITN covers news. People quite quickly move on to the next story so there is always a rush to get stuff posted. And its quite clear that there is clear sourced information about this particular record if you actually read through the information presented here rather than knee-jerking in opposition. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I should have to defend myself, I did look, and came up with the same issues that HiLo48 did since opening days are different. As I said in my original post, there seems to be a rush here to get something out, not just here but on the "movie" websites. I think it is prudent to wait, till Monday or Tuesday when proper audited numbers are made available and we can write a proper blurb that is correct and does not need to be amended or added to as the week goes on. Mtking (edits) 10:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At that point far less people will care. Its quite clear this movie is significant and attempting to force us to wait is deliberately damaging the section further by preventing us from posting obvious stories.
Your opposition is like saying with the Japanese earthquake that we have to wait for the magnitude numbers to be verified before we post it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, and I cannot stress this enough - In the news is not a news ticker. Secondly, I think we did. ƒox11:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly we need to post events that people are interested in. Posting events late after interest has moved on is counterproductive to the sections future. There are lots of comments in the Main page RFC complaining about ITN being slow. The only good reasons to wait are article quality and where the event might not be notable without confirmation - neither apply here. Secondly we posted the Japanese earthquake promptly and didn't wait for confirmation of all the details as you can see from the extended discussion below the items posting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So is this further evidence that ITN is entirely dysfunctional and should be pulled from the main page, or are you also failing to read the section through properly - there is far more in favour of this item than the record itself. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know what Lihaas is trying to say, but I'm guessing that what he means by consensus is the rule that the nominator does not add the "Ready" tag. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support BUT I still think waiting until the weekend's over is the better idea. I don't give a shite if Wikipedia looks to be "trailing behind" professional news sites, but I don't really give a shite that we post this every year, either. I'm not too bothered if this is posted sooner than that, though (but please make it "worldwide" rather than "in the US"). ƒox11:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose any claim of a record based only on US/US + Canada data. It is not an American film, it is not based on an American book by an American author, and it does not have an American cast. Global figures, or the whole thing is just systemic bias. Kevin McE (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in the above discussion you will see that this shows the record has been broken in a number of other countries aside from the United States. This from the Daily Telegraph clearly shows it broke records in the UK, and lets not forget that its a British book, by a British author and with a British cast.-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, uh, Eraserhead, can you stop doing that? If you're the only one who thinks the article is ready, there's an issue. -- tariqabjotu13:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem that "importance", whatever that is, is the reason for the opposition. Is breaking the opening day record significant enough? The only other instance ITN reported anything about the film box office is when Avatar broke the worldwide gross record. Is that the same? Would it make sense if we wait? –HTD13:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought "Importance" is well and truly covered by it being part of the biggest book and film series ever, the tens of thousands of Google News hits, the million odd views of the article etc etc. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's more like "interest" rather than "importance." "Importance" is more into like "they acquitted a baby murderer!!1111" (sniff sniff lol). –HTD15:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why? You are completely failing to address all the other significance reasons that go with it. I have to nominate it for something, but there is a huge amount of significance around the event such as its cultural significance. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Surprise, surprise: Middle Eastern news agencies (less Xinhua) covering... Middle Eastern news! There are no actual newsworthy rolling developments to justify a sticky. Oppose. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
British Foreign SecretaryWilliam Hague defends Prime Minister David Cameron following revelations he has met senior News International executives on 26 occasions since becoming Prime Minister, and entertained Andy Coulson at Chequers following his resignation as Director of Communications. Hague says he is "not embarrassed" by the extent of Cameron's dealings with News International. (BBC)
Several British newspapers run full page adverts with a signed apology from Rupert Murdoch for the News of the World's "serious wrongdoing" (BBC)
*Support Important international story that has already received wide attention in Germany, Russia and few other countries, and I hope so to be interesting for the readers of the English Wikipedia.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Seems like the whole discussion is heading in the wrong way and I don't like to be a victim of it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral leaning support. I dunno. I'm somewhat skeptical about this; I feel that if Jimmy hadn't been on the Board of Trustees (or whatever) for Quadriga and that fact hadn't been posted to foundation-l, this would have never crossed our sights. The news articles seem pretty short filler-style ones, but they are largely written by staff as opposed to news agencies. I would definitely oppose such a long blurb though; that seems to be giving it undue proportion in importance. NW(Talk)23:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about the anti-Russian regime, but about the retraction of the award. And I'm pleased to see no points of view during this discussion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure yet Still trying to get my head around the significance of the Quadriga (award). Never heard of it, but that's OR. Very few sources from outside Germany in the article, and a lot are primary sources. Obviously not in the class of the Nobel Prize, yet, but if they really have been able to get those recipients (it's an impressive list) to turn up to receive their awards, they're getting there. HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The Quadriga award appears to be fairly obscure. NYT calls it "the relatively little-known accolade" and says that "The confusion stems from the fact that many here do not seem to know quite what the Quadriga prize is meant to represent"[9]. While this is an interesting story in terms of highlighting European attitudes towards Putin, the event itself isn't really going to have any significant policy implications, nationally or internationally. Does not seem to be ITN worthy to me. Nsk92 (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The same could apply to the Nobel Peace Prize... nobody really seems to know what it represents anymore, and claims as to what it does represent are generally nullified by a recipient's actions subsequent to receiving the award. Still a big deal regardless.--WaltCip (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the award itself wasn't notable enough to post, I don't think this is either. The only reason people on Wikipedia care about this is because Wikipedia got the award 3 years ago. Hot Stop(t)03:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It seems inappropriate to feature this considering Wikipedia's (indirect) connection to the event. Jimbo was one of the "former recipients" who took part in the protests that resulted in the retraction and cancellation of the award. Although all of us obviously lack a connection, plastering this on Wikipedia's front page could make the site (or at least ITN) appear biased. SwarmX05:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was going to support given that it involves a prime minister and former president of Russia. But I'm a little cautious if that is the case. Nightw07:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Thousands of awards/honorary degrees of similar standing are given every year and I'd bet that at least some of them are cancelled/retracted. I know of at least two cases this year, although they don't involve someone as prominent as Putin. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support at this time. I have two main concerns. Firstly the blurb needs some work. In particular we need to be explicit that Dawn is a deep space mission, we are not referring the the everyday sense of the term. It also needs to be re-written in the present tense. Secondly, it hasn't happened yet. As a result, if you want us to consider the update then no it is not ready. We need actual confirmation that the probe is in orbit and some decent updated content in the light of that: things that were not available before it entered orbit. I realise scientific results will take time but there will be other things to post: quotes from the team behind it, reaction, that sort of thing. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Support Several firsts here. (Editors should read Dawn (spacecraft)). Vesta is a BIG asteroid, the kind that fiction writers love, although behaving much better than most of those in fiction, and maybe that's the point. This IS educational stuff. For anyone who wants to argue "no impact on me", maybe THAT'S the point too. ;-) Both articles are in very good condition, Dawn (spacecraft) just needing update for the actual arrival. Very important scientific achievement HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested blurb: "NASA's unmanned Dawn spacecraft arrives at the asteroid Vesta." I've named the organisation responsible for the spacecraft, included the word spacecraft, made clear it is unmanned, and reduced the links to two (the spacecraft and the destination). Changed 'orbit' to 'arrives' as I'm not clear on what sort of orbit it will achieve. Also, I've piped 'Vesta' to the full name. Article update will still be needed, but if that happens, I would support this being posted. Carcharoth (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, due to the high scientific value of the project. It's also the first time a spacecraft enters an orbit, de-orbits, and then heads toward another body. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)14:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Carmageddon" has 3000 Google News hits right now. We're not Google; we have different standards for what we post. NW(Talk)18:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If story x is getting more than 10x more google news hits than story y and we have a suitable article for x we probably should post it as well as y as its clearly of interest to our readers. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now it should be ready. There's also a note in the update explaining why we won't know the exact insertion time for some time until Vesta is studied more. We should have additional information from the Dawn team over the next few days once we get out of the weekend. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 12:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
International campaigners against the drone attacks, carried out by the United States in Pakistan, launch their attempt to have former CIA legal chief John A. Rizzo arrested and charged with the murders of hundreds of people after his admission in Newsweek that he approved attacks each month since 2004. (The Guardian)
Soldiers, air force bombers and helicopter gunships begin a major offensive in south-eastern Turkey as the country's prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan vows to seek vengeance on Kurdish rebels. (BBC)
2011 Syrian uprising: At least 14 people are killed in the latests attacks by regime forces on demonstrations in cities nationwide. More than 10,000 people are held in prisons by the regime. The demonstrations are reported to be among the largest yet in the ongoing effort to topple the government. (BBC)
UK prime minister David Cameron paid for his "friend", the former News of the World editor Andy Coulson, to stay with him at his country residence of Chequers, two months after Coulson resigned as Cameron's media chief. Coulson has since been arrested for his part in the phone hacking scandal. (The Guardian)
The Guardian reveals the advertisement Rupert Murdoch intends to run in British newspapers at the weekend apologising for "serious wrongdoing". (The Guardian)
Italian MPs in the lower house approve tough budget cuts with 314 votes in favour and 280 against. (BBC)
Major offensive launched after deadliest attack in three years
Article:No article specified Blurb: The Turkish government launches a major military offensive against Kurdish rebels after an ambush that proved to be the most fatal in three years. (Post) News source(s):BBC
Support. I fail to see the relevance of tank liveries to the importance of this subject. While I don't agree that the UN is somehow automatically notable either $16m is chunky money. I would like to see some reference to BAE Systems in the blurb though, or at least not describe it as a US manufacturer when it is now in foreign hands. However, I do notice that the article needs a substantial update: the current coverage of this is too slight to be considered. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Just saying that if anyone was put at risk it was because of defective tanks and not body armor. Also $16 million is chump change in military terms. MarcusQwertyus01:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But there isn't so much as a hint anywhere that the goods supplied were at all defective, just that the contract was awarded following improper inducements. And a multi-million dollar fine is still not small change even for defence multinationals, especially on a contract that was only worth a fraction of that to begin with. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
What exactly are you going on about? Whether or not the fine was "a lot of money" isn't the point, nor is "the UN drives uncamouflaged tanks". SwarmX06:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would support, but the article's in such condition that it's almost an empty gesture. According to BBC News, "Armor Holdings" is indeed paying a fine, but according to the article, "Armor Holdings" was renamed and/or reorganized years ago and is a former entity. Confusion much? That's not even to mention that the article makes no mention of this whatsoever, so pending some major work, I don't see this happening. SwarmX06:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Blurb is awful I know; I just quickly tossed it together. To replace the current phone hacking scandal blurb. NW(Talk)10:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oppose already posted this twice, no need to ost every single event. we dontdo that for olitics (taht affects the world) certainly not for some fringe co. (yes it is fringe)Lihaas (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Really her resignation isnt interesting for anyone outside the UK. Neither is really the news that NOTW has been cancelled for good, that being on ITN only proves the Wikipedia English/american news bias.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A thoroughly unhelpful oppose alleging more "bias". A lot of recent discussion on the talk page focuses around the very matter of such opposes based on non-existent biases, and you only go and compound it. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support (see below for comment on revised blurb) The News Corp scandal is probably the single most important political event to happen in the last few years, and this might very well be its apex. I completely disagree with BabbaQ's comment - this is hugely important around the world. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you honestly saying that had it been a for example slovenian newspaper in the same situation we would have published it on ITN? I highly doubt it, this is typical English/American bias. How is the phone hacking and cancelling of a newspaper in the UK relevant for the entire world. No im not buying it at all.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The News Corp scandal is probably the single most important political event to happen in the last few years (in the UK perhaps but not in the entire world. Its quite insignificant outside UK boarders.)--BabbaQ (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This whining about U.S. bias or anti-U.S. bias is tiresome. I've been accused plenty of times of both. Please stop with the condescending accusations - you're not the only person who pays attention to news.
I suggest you read the News Corp article to understand exactly how this is important on a global scale. Murdoch has a global media empire that has meddled in political activities for decades, from China to the United States. The vast majorities of movies you've watched, the vast majority of television shows you enjoy - they are all under the control of the same corporation. The fact that this corporation is being crippled by a once-in-a-decade scandal could very well result in important changes throughout the world. Comparing News Corp to a "slovenian newspaper" is simply ridiculous. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, it doesnt change the fact that had this been a slovenian /bulgarian or whatever newspaper of corp then it wouldnt have been a huge deal. This is basic American/english-news bias, just because it is a UK news doesnt make it worldwide important. And by the way, it is really ridiculous of you personally to bash someone for expressing their opinion calling them ridiculous. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't call you ridiculous, I called your comment ridiculous, which it is. Now if a Slovenian newspaper also happen to be one of the main services provided by the second-largest media corporation in the world then yes, it would have been a huge deal. This has nothing to do with it being in the UK. I'm an ethnic Chinese currently living in Indonesia, having grew up in two other countries. Are you really accusing me of having UK bias? Batjik Syutfu (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure if it replaces the current blurb or is incorporated into it. No reason we can't be flexible as a story changes. No bump however. I am, however, thoroughly tired of claims of American (and/or UK) bias. If we ever do an arguments to avoid that'll be number one with a bullet. RxS (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm wondering if this is on the same level as the other previous posts. I suspect not but I'm not going to call it one way or another since there is at least a potential for coI - it would naturally displace the BSkyB blurb that I nominated. It appears to me that if ITN is not to devolve into running commentary of stories we need to isolate the significance of the specific story being considered from the significance of the wider frame story. It appears to me that without the wider scandal an executive of Brooks's stature resigning under a cloud would not be considered ITN material.
The fact this is largely a domestic story here in the UK weighs in too. Yes, that is a valid consideration: while there is no requirement for a story to be of international importance the geographical scope of an article (national or by extension even sub-national) is fundamental to determining the relative significance of a story. To argue otherwise and that geographical scope is an irrelevance is to argue that a big story that only affects a small village of say 500 people is more significant than a lesser story of multinational proportions. We're discussing this story here and it is not shoe-in nor a SNOW. Does the closure of e.g. an individual primary school rank ahead of this story on the basis that that story is more significant to the one square mile or whatever that school serves? Crispmuncher (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
You might have a mistaken impression that it is a domestic story because you're in the UK. This has gotten HUGE responses in Asia, where I live. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Without the wider scandal it wouldn't make it to ITN, but that's not the situation here. It's part of the larger story and that's what's carrying this forward and making it something suitable for ITN. This is not a domestic story. It's being covered globally and is having real world consequences far outside the UK. RxS (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'* Strong support clear worldwide interest given the whole story. Am happy to justify this tomorrow. But it's Friday night and pub o clock. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a reasonable consensus for this now, so marking ready. General sentiment is that this should replace current BSkyB blurb. Consensus on whether the new blurb should be bumped or not is less clear so the admin can be the judge of that. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Unmarked [Ready]: revised blurb and in particular fresh bold targets warrant further discussion. I'm also firming up to an oppose in respect of of NuclearWarfare's proposed blurb simply because that would be highlighting News International phone hacking scandal for a second time in nine days. I would suggest getting Les Hinton properly updated and leading with the individuals instead, but adding Hinton at this stage still needs more evidence of consensus. Finally, I also note that neither were at News Corp itself but subsidiaries. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The Les Hinton development is a big surprise, and makes it relevant to the US. There may be more to come. There will be adverts in all the newspapers this weekend with 'apologies to the nation' for what happened here. One thing, though - I wouldn't call this a 'political controversy'. It is more than just politics, as it involves an independent public inquiry headed by a judge, with wide-ranging powers, and it involves possible police corruption as well. As they say, this story has legs. Carcharoth (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is headline news in the non-Murdoch media in Australia. (Not so big in his papers, for some inexplicable reason.) Rupert has even apologised to his mum, who still lives here near Melbourne. Yes, he IS old, but she's 102! I'd be interested to know what she thought. News Corp has a big slice of the Oz media, so it matters. HiLo48 (talk) 03:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely support the revised blurb, and I don't think it requires further discussion. Brooks' resignation was notable enough to post and Hinton's on top of that is even bigger news. This is MAJOR news worldwide and we ought to post this ASAP. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 06:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not require further discussion? Marking ready? When it has already been pointed out that a last minute change to the blurb, after it had already been marked Ready once, is something that is clearly and uncategorically wrong? Again, neither of them were at News Corp. In any case, since when has one support and one oppose amounted to consensus here? Crispmuncher (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
You didn't oppose the new change; what you opposed was the original blurb as well, in which case there was overwhelming consensus to post.
The last minute change was made to reflect the clearly much more notable news that Hinton resigned. Given that the original blurb already has a consensus to post, and then we have another even more notable event on top of that, there is little need for another exhaustive discussion.
In any case, clearly there's more than one person supporting the update here. Eraserhead was the one who marked ready, not me, and I'd like to note that he and I has barely agreed on anything during my short history of contributing to ITN discussions.Batjik Syutfu (talk) 07:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[Closed] Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Part 2 Opens World Wide
As an uninvolved editor in this discussion, I'm going to close this. There is no consensus here, but there is some general agreement (even amongst a number of opposers) that any revenue record should be re-nominated when final opening weekend revenues are released. Until then, this nomination is unlikely to gain consensus, and we should all stop beating a dead horse. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose Not news. It's expected, and it really has no significance in society beyond its role as entertainment.
=> Neutral, in consideration of the record-breaking gross. I personally don't believe breaking a box office record is a reason to post, but I can see why some would. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support final movie in a massive series of worldwide notability. Clearly vastly worthy of posting. Don't really see how you can justify not posting it (same as the above story really). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The end of Era, No sequels, remakes, or reboots will be made for decades... if ever. $2 billion grossed for just the movies and cultural icon to a generation. (Bit biased here since its my generation) The Resident Anthropologist(talk)•(contribs) 17:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I try not to make accusation of US bias, although I am aware that many do, but this is a very crass example of such a bias in proposal. It has been released in (according to its article here) Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Australia, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Lithuania, UK, Puerto Rico and "several other countries" before its release in the US, but we are expected to make a headline out of its US release??? Kevin McE (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) We can mend the blurb to reflect on the worldwide release, but it's no one's fault that it wasn't nominated two days ago. It's not US bias... well, maybe the blurb. I support posting the release in general, in any case, as it's the closing chapter in the highest-grossing film series of all time -- not adjusted for inflation of course. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)17:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The movie has already broken one record, although I'm not sure how significant it is: It's made the most money ever in midnight ticket sales, $43.5 million or so, if Warner Bros is to believed. source Again, I'm not sure how significant it is in the long run or if it merits a posting on ITN, but seeing as how the timer has been red for like a day and a half... --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 17:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We put up a blurb noting the release of the final book when it came out under the argument that the Harry Potter series is a cultural phenomenon and therefore the end of the series is a major deal. To any comments that claimed we were advertising a product, the reply was that an item on ITN was not going to convince anyone to go out and buy a book. --PlasmaTwa218:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, unless, as MG says, it breaks some sort of box-office record. And it's technically old news, since it was first released two days ago. Nightw20:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a major record. I was thinking total revenue or total audience. How widespread are midnight openings anyway? Isn't that a fairly recent thing? Modest Geniustalk21:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose this is cheap news, even by 'entertainment news' standards. Yes, it's a "blockbuster" movie, but in the grand scheme of things it's an utterly irrelevant event. Unless it tops Avatar, no way. SwarmX03:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Harry Potter is one of the most notable book series in the history of the world ever. The only books I would be confident to say outsold it are the Bible and the Koran and shit that's it. Its clearly vastly more notable than the 25th bomb in Pakistan to kill 50 people this year which would get posted without question.
This is the final movie made of the series, which as well as being one of the most popular book series it is one of the biggest cultural phenomenons of the past 20 years, it is therefore clearly vastly notable and vastly worthy of posting. We may as well give up on ITN completely if it isn't going to get stuff like this right.
Very funny. You can't, in your right mind, expect Wikipedia to retain any neutrality by posting "XYZ film is opening today", especially one like this. ƒox09:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is just a film opening, if it ends up setting some box office record then I may consider support at that point. Since a significant number of Oppose's also removing ready as it is not. Mtking (edits) 08:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The opposes are all utterly invalid as they totally fail to address the fact that Harry Potter is one of the biggest cultural phenomenons of the past 20 years. Trying to claim that the final movie of almost certainly the biggest non-religious book series ever isn't notable enough for ITN is like arguing that water isn't wet.
The other reasons for opposing probably down to it being made by a corporation. Given outside of North Korea we live in a capitalist world companies are going to do notable things from time to time, and opposing them all is ridiculous. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
all of that is in your opinion. You added "[Ready]" first, I then removed it, please leave it to someone else to re-added it after they have assessed it. Mtking (edits) 09:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Name a bigger cultural event of the past 20 years. Name a non-religous book that's sold more copies. None of what I've said is really opinion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is however the best selling series of all time - [11] selling 450 million copies across the series. And if we didn't post Lord of the Rings final movie we also fail to understand culture. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We live in a capitalist society, get over it. And lets not forget the 8000 news stories about this on Google News. That's insane. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's called PR. The marketing for this film will infect the media, that's just what happens. Listen, I'll be happy to post about this if and when it gets Oscars, breaks records... but not when it's opening. ƒox09:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any event of any significance has PR, for example the Beijing Shanghai railway certainly did. What counts is that its getting massive media coverage now, and that its one of the biggest cultural events of the past 20 years, and is the final movie of the biggest selling book series ever. According to the Wikipedia article the first book additionally has sold over 100 million copies, which puts it up there with the Lord of the Rings etc - unfortunately it isn't sourced - but if the series has sold 450 million its certainly plausible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, the first book. Which one's this film based on..? No amount of "but we posted..." is going to change my mind here. ƒox09:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But this is the last movie in the series, which is the biggest selling book series of all time. Arguing that a book only released in 2007 has to beat the Tale of Two Cities which has been out for 150 years in sales to be notable is absurd. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Um, guys... This is going to break the worldwide opening weekend record, the opening weekend record in the US and Canada, and the opening day record in the US and Canada. However we need to wait until after the weekend when this is officially confirmed. Theleftorium(talk)09:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I'm saying. The blurb should be something like "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2, the final film installment of the popular book series, breaks the worldwide opening weekend record and the US and Canada opening weekend record" (or something similiar). We probably shouldn't post that until the numbers have been confirmed on monday? Theleftorium(talk)10:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to post the record for the movie. Posting Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2, the final film installment of the best selling book series ever opens worldwide. is clearly basically as notable as a cultural event can possibly be. I cannot fathom how anyone can consider this item worthy of opposing as it stands unless they have been living under a rock since 1997.
I mean Jesus Christ I probably won't even go and see this movie at all, but I can see that the final movie of a half billion selling book series is kinda going to be notable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considering it's over the weekend, the earliest possible date for confirmation is the Monday. Although we'll likely have a pretty good idea by Sunday. ƒox12:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The record that its the biggest selling book series ever is confirmed yes. The inability of people here to judge a notable event in any other area than bombs going off is utterly disgusting, and a disgrace to the effort put in to make the section functional. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Part of editing Wikipedia means that people are inevitably going to disagree with you about what is important and what is not. You might not agree, but it is entirely valid to say think any number of these things:
The posting of the movie releases as opposed to the book releases is not the same thing in terms of significance.
Therefore, the book records should not have an impact on whether we post the movie or not.
We would be better off linking it on the Main Page during the Oscars.
We should only post the Harry Potter movies, or any movie, if and when they shatter a major record along the lines of Avatar.
I sense you're getting a little frustrated, and I'm going to ask that you step back and smell the roses a bit before you begin violating WP:NPA. NW(Talk)14:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasn't the final movie you'd have more of a point, but it isn't and this one has got 32000 Google News hits as well. All of them ultimately come down to a total aversion to posting any kind of cultural event. Even ones which are clear cultural phenomenons.
If we aren't going to post Potter today I don't see honestly how one can view the section as worthwhile. There is no point in ITN if all it can manage to do is post bombs. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The film has now shattered the opening day record in the US/Canada with over $92 million (way above expectations). See [12]. That's 20 million more than the previous record! Opening weekend record is locked now. Theleftorium(talk)17:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose current blurb ("film is released"). Oppose proposed blurb ("film breks opening record"), since these are not notable record. If, and only if it surpasses Avatar, I would support any mention of it in ITN. Clearly "in this date" material to me. Maddox (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable record? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. It's the most notable record after total domestic gross and total worldwide gross. No film will ever surpass Avatar, by the way. Theleftorium(talk)18:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eraserhead, could you refrain from hounding everyone who !votes oppose? They're entitled to their opinions. At the moment it looks like you're on some sort of crusade to get this posted. If and when this breaks a major record (opening weekend revenue seems likely), it should be renominated, and I imagine will gain consensus easily. Modest Geniustalk23:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I share Eraserhead's frustration here. Yes people are entitled to their own opinions but when people argue 'opening record--woopdee' with no care as to whether our readers are interested in it is distressing. The article has 200k views--that's very strong reader interest. This is the end of a fantasy franchise which began 14 years ago with the publication of the first HP novel--it's not just any movie. There seems to be a paranoia against posting 'commercial stories' which I can't understand. Wikipedia pages are not advertisements; they are written from NPOV and they often contain criticism of the article's subject. I can't understand why people think the Wikipedia's main page's content should be dictated by misguided fears that we might be promoting a film. Eraserhead and other editors here aren't arguing out of COI. Fisnally, the same story is being covered by all sorts of mainstream media outlets--are the BBC, the Guardian, and NPR being paid off by Rowling to increase movie sales?--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support now. The opening raised the record for biggest "domestic" (USA+Canada) box office day from $72,703,754 to $92,100,000.[13] World wide numbers are harder to collect and compare but it's also a huge international success and probably had the biggest world wide day on July 15. I get 17400 Google News hits on "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" in the last 24 hours. The opening of a huge film is the big news. By the time opening weekend is calculated it is already smaller news, and it takes weeks or months after that to compete for biggest total. Ending the highest-grossing film series is also important. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support posting now. This is notable. Period. Anybody arguing otherwise is either kidding themselves, or just stupid. Grsz1101:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, tending to oppose Anything that attracts "votes" like that ^ is problematical. Wikipedia needs to have some standards. HiLo48 (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Honestly, meh. Just meh. I spent nearly the entirety of the last three days at a college orientation (Boomer!) where it seems like this was one of the hot topics of conversation, so I apologize if I'm a little burnt out on this. I love this series and its accomplishments are certainly noteworthy, but honestly, I don't consider it "news" in the strictest sense. I'm fine if it goes up and I'm fine if it doesn't. Ks0stm(T•C•G)03:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At least six Yemeni militants are killed following an air strike on a police station in the Abyan Governorate that the militants had overrun. (Al Jazeera)
The poet Liao Yiwu tells the BBC of how he fled China via Vietnam and other countries and arrived in Germany after his struggles with Chinese authorities who have spent decades suppressing his work and imprisoning him. (BBC)
A rare manuscript of an unfinished Jane Austen novel has sold for £993,250 (US$1.6m) in London. The work, The Watsons, was sold at Sotheby's for three times its estimated price. (BBC)
Japan's foreign ministry plans to boycott Korean Air services for one month in response to a demonstration flight of a Korean Air Airbus A380 over the disputed Liancourt Rocks, beginning on Monday. (MarketWatch)
India and Bangladesh commence a joint census to resolve claims over disputed border areas. (BBC)
U.S. security manufacturer Armor Holdings pays a $16 million fine to settle bribery charges relating to the payment of a United Nations official. (BBC)
In his first major interview on the phone-hacking crisis, Rupert Murdoch says his company has handled it "extremely well" and that News Corp will recover. (BBC)
U.S. district court judge Reggie Walton declares a mistrial in the perjury trial of former baseball star Roger Clemens after prosecutors present evidence that Walton had previously ruled inadmissible. Walton will hold a hearing on September 2 to determine whether to hold a new trial. (ESPN)
At least thirty-two Chileanpolice and 54 demonstrators are arrested in a demonstration demanding more funds for higher education. (Antara News)
Politics and elections
The Italian Senate approves an austerity budget aimed at preventing the need for a financial bailout for Italy. (BBC)
weak support if updated. beleive weposted the kidnappings, so the release should follow. were also over 24 hours with a red warning aboveLihaas (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're over 24 hours with a red warning is not a good argument for posting anything; and if you did use that as a criteria, surely that would count in the above nomination regarding Rebekah Brooks. More proof of disruption... For the record, we did not post the kidnapping. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
my opinion not uours. your disrptuion as an attack rather than a support provides NOTHING. i dont brooks is as worthy ()see above first__) if you want to use that arguement than about half the arguemnts here "per above dont mean crap all!!! dont tell me about hypfrisyLihaas (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lihaas, it would be much easier for all of us if you ran a spell-check on your comments before posting. They require significant effort to decipher. Modest Geniustalk21:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Former Argentine officers are convicted of torture and murder
Oppose. This is domestic news in my opinion. The officers themselves are not notable in their own right, they have been convicted according to local laws. That's something very different from e.g. a highly notable person like Ratko Mladic being convicted by an international tribunal. Mocctur (talk) 08:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly to replace the current phone hacking blurb but this starting a new investigation into hacking on 9/11 victims seems highly notable in its own right. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Investigations can be started at the drop of a hat. If there are criminal charges, that's another matter. Would prefer to wait for those, if they actually end up happening. NW(Talk)20:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Overall, this is one of those huge stories that is always developing more and more. We simply can't post every new development, so we should only stick to major ones, such as (as NW said) criminal charges, etc. SwarmX23:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[Ready to be un-removed?] Lost rainbow toad rediscovered
Weak opposeMeh. Definitely interesting, but it wasn't 'thought extinct', and its conservation status is only 'endangered'. It was just "lost". I have absolutely no idea how significant a rediscovery of a "lost species" is, so I'm opposing based on the fact that it doesn't seem to be a major event in the grand scheme of things. SwarmX23:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Off beat story that's still of interest. Especially given how long it's been since it's been seen. RxS (talk) 13:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Unusual and interesting science story. We often post the discovery of new species (at least of large animals), and rediscovering one which hadn't been seen for so long seems comparable. Article is short, but passes the criteria. Marking as ready. Modest Geniustalk19:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not to be rude, but I can't fathom how we deliberated for forty hours and the only article we posted happens to have two relevant sentences. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Temporarily removing. There are only 2 paragraphs, each of which is not even 5 sentences long! I'm very willing to repost when the article is expanded more. SpencerT♦C02:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless properly updated. The article (not just the update, the whole article) would have to be 2.5x expanded to even qualify for DYK; I see no reason why ITN should adopt looser standards than DYK. NW(Talk)19:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please check and restore if it is ok now I have expanded it and added more references. Sadly, because I was planning to improve it for DYK but you guys saw it first. Sharktopustalk23:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the current version as well. The relevant part is still far too short. The articles cited are fairly long and detailed, so I see no reason why it can't be updated further more. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While an interesting story, this goes under sport statistics in my opinion and I am not in favour of those. The article is in a pretty good shape, though. --Tone15:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Tone. "Interesting" or "record" sports stats are like once-in-a-lifetime astronomical occurrences - there's simply that many of them that they are common when considered collectively. The vast majority are completely non-notable and only the most exceptional gain widespread attention. I don't see this as being one of those cases. Crispmuncher (talk) 03:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose. Previous consensus has been almost uniformly opposed to stories based on sports statistics only, and I don't see any reason to change that. Modest Geniustalk19:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Breaking" in the sense that it was originally thought to be a fireworks depot, not an arms dump (Turkmenistan government still claims it is), and the death toll was originally thought to be no higher than 15, but since yesterday opposition groups report more than 1,300 deaths. --bender235 (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If it is only being reported now we could not have known last week. There's a big difference between -15 and 1,300+. --candle•wicke18:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oppose wishy washy deals no surety as to whqatis hapeenins g . opp grouos just want to oppose govt action anywhere,Lihaas (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty safe this isn't a story made up by the Turkmeni opposition. At least in my eyes this doesn't look like a fireworks warehouse. BTW: were you typing with your feet, or what? --bender235 (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though the blurb should be cleaned up a bit (i.e. no "possibles"). However, over 1,000 deaths is astounding and definitely significant. SwarmX23:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This seems to be a significant event, but the section at its current state consists of two sentences with little more information than the blurb; and there seems to be significant controversy over the death toll. Will support if some reliable sources can back this up. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 10:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm concerned at the lack of confirmation from major Western news agencies. Is there convincing evidence for that number of deaths? If so it would be clearly notable, but at present how is anyone to know? Also, the article is nowhere near sufficient. Modest Geniustalk19:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I haven't formatted this properly or if I haven't followed some sort of procedure; I hardly ever venture over this way, and consent to any changes necessary. A new country officially coming into being struck me as being main page worthy. —WFC— 18:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If this were a country like Switzerland joining after years of being a neutral country, or a country like Taiwan being given a seat, I'd support. But I don't see anything special here. Hot Stop(t)19:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm inclined to oppose on the grounds that we posted it last week. On the other hand the article did get massive hits last week (260k) so possibly it is worth posting again. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose South Sudan joins African Union, South Sudan joins IOC, South Sudan joins Arab League, etc. etc. All of them would happen only for one reason: South Sudan is a new country. This is expected and is not news. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is simply another element of statehood. What's the real difference between this and e.g. the country starting to issue passports, printing its own currency, forming bilateral diplomatic relations, or even getting its own dialing code? Ultimately these are all natural (and to a greater or lesser extent inevitable) consequences of the story we have already reported. Crispmuncher (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose. Joining the UN is indeed a Very Big Thing, and if a country was doing so after a period of years outside the organisation, I would support. But we featured the independence last week. This is just part of the independence process, not a major new shift in foreign policy. Modest Geniustalk20:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Palestinian university student is killed as he attempts to defy arrest after residents throw stones at Israeli soldiers in a community north of Nablus. (BBC)
And I still cannot believe you compared it to Texas. But beside that, I'd only support when some significant event occurs (like an announcement by the UN for humanitarian aid or something), as the drought is no longer recent news for ITN standards. Article is at 2011 Horn of Africa drought. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)01:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have expanded the article, but need help doing this. As for a particular event for the blurb, here's my try: "United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon calls on countries worldwide to urgently support the work of UN agencies in the Horn of Africa drought." This happened yesterday and is a pretty significant statement. It's on headline news worldwide, and I suspect is how the nominator and many people have heard of the news recently. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 06:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some examples of headlines about this event from the past few days (various languages):123456. While the drought itself has been reported for a few weeks, the many recent developments have led to a great deal of attention in the last few days. Definitely suitable for ITN. Batjik Syutfu (talk) 07:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support if the blurb is changed to reflect that the news isn't Ban Ki-moon's 'calls', it's that "Some 10 million people are said to be affected by the Horn of Africa's worst drought in 60 years." SwarmX23:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just expanded the article. It is now, by my count, around twenty times longer than the frog article you just posted. Can we post this now? Batjik Syutfu (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: We've has a few nominations relating to this story over the last few days including at least one that was more "running commentary" than substantive new developments. I think this one is significant enough it its own right for a posting. Minority topic asserted as a business story, albeit one with heavy political dimensions. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This story has been the #1 news story in the UK for a week, the USA for the last couple of days, and today much of the English speaking world. It's now conspicuous by its absence from the main page. Fig (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was intentionally vague at nomination, mostly to get the ball rolling as articles are updated - blurbs can be tweaked as things evolve. I suspect BSkyB is the main bold article for this one. It's debatable whether the update criteria are satisfied: the coverage of today's events is probably insufficient but in the wider context we have a solid and well referenced couple of paragraphs of events over the last couple of days as they relate specifically to the proposed blurb. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK I've tightened up the blurb and got 4 sentences on the latest incident as well as a significant amount of further background. Marking [Ready] given the lack of opposition. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. It's a bump, but it seems to be of global interest given the consensus. (This does however mean we've put two up in a very short space of time...) ƒox22:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a huge fan of this, but I suppose it provides a nice contrast to the rest of the articles on ITN: terrorist attack, assasination, explosion, naval disaster, and...netball. I will look forward to see how this posting of "Murdoch backs down from making a business deal under political pressure" will compare with the eventual ITN discussion of "US Government decides not to hit its debt ceiling" (hopefully it's that discussion, and not "well, the entire global economy is screwed now"). NW(Talk)01:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is why minority topics are given preferential treatment - to throw a bit of variety into the mix. "Shit happened, x dead", "Major cock-up, y dead", "Monumental incompetence, z dead" gets a bit samey after a while. I'm the first to oppose too easy a ride for any story here, but if the whole format gets too dry and predictable, posting only stories that fit some criterion that would ultimately prove very narrow, then we quickly lose interest and with it front page status. Crispmuncher (talk) 03:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Support when the articles been expanded to at least the minimum quality. It's not close at this point, right now it reads like a news flash. RxS (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support once article meets minimum standards. The location and the potential to cause a nuclear war makes them notable enough IMO. Already fingers are being pointed at Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence on various Indian news channels.--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
potential for nuclear war???? i was willing ot go to kulfi centre right now as i write. (liquor store closed though...oitherwise i could have got pics for the WP page.)Lihaas (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as soon as the article is in decent shape. This is making news everywhere. So far we have 10 confirmed casualties. @Wikireader41: I haven't heard ISI being referred to in NDTV, IBN or Times Now although LeT and the IM have been named by the media (not the police) as prime suspects - the Mumbai police officer who spoke to the media just a while ago confirmed 3 IEDs and said they are collecting forensic evidencce. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think it was on Sahara Samay. IM is considered to have strong ties to ISI by many in India and elsewhere just like LeT. Obviously this is media speculation but many people believe that. Especially in light of where the investigation of 2008 Mumbai attacks went.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no biggie, we have it all the time and there arent even the nakabandis on the road. Sure Haji Ali may be closed but thats not barometer. the club was open and EMPTY. lets see if we have a bandh tomorrowLihaas (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support It seems to be very well covered, since I've heard it many times today. In addition, the bomb blasts are not as such common as we should post them.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:36, 13 July 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
