Hopefully this is an easy SUPPORT. China's first fifth generation stealth fighter like the [[F-22]] and [[PAK FA]] made its first flight hours ago. Very closely watched story on the press and militaries worldwide.[[User:Amraamny|Amraamny]] ([[User talk:Amraamny|talk]]) 06:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
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 Iranian government says an Israeli spying network - since dismantled - assassinated the University of Tehran's distinguished professor of elementary particle physics Masoud Alimohammadi; an Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson vows to sue. (Xinhua)
The apparent confession of Majid Jamali-Fash is broadcast on television; he says he was hired and trained by Israel before being sent to kill Alimohammadi in Iran. (The Guardian)
Lawyers for Julian Assange warn that he could be killed if he is extradited to the U.S. from Britain; Assange draws parallels between the rhetoric of the 2011 Tucson shooting and the language used against him by commentators such as Joe Biden, U.S. Vice President. (AFP)
One person is killed and seven injured by a gunman on a train in Egypt. (BBC)
Three Georgian Army soldiers are killed and 13 wounded when a mortar bomb explodes during exercises at a military base near Tbilisi, Georgia. (Reuters)
Hopefully this is an easy SUPPORT. China's first fifth generation stealth fighter like the F-22 and PAK FA made its first flight hours ago. Very closely watched story on the press and militaries worldwide.Amraamny (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this article has already had a run on ITN but matters have taken on a much more grave tone now. There could be up to 70 deaths alone on 10 January and the major city of Brisbane (pop >2m) is expected to be inundated. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Strong support: This has worsened considerably, and has now reached the capital. Brisbane suburbs are being told to evacuate (ABC). Over 70 people are missing, 8 confirmed dead (ABC). This is huge for Australia, which is used to decades of drought. Nightw03:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - I do agree that this is a different event to the rising flood waters further north, which were on the front page 1-2 weeks ago (this is a flash flood rather than slowly rising rivers). But I don't think 8 deaths is world front page material yet. As I understand it, only one Brisbane suburb has been told to evacuate. Hopefully Brisbane will survive relatively well, and most or all of the 70 missing in Toowoomba are OK, and there'll be no reason to put it on the front page. Adpete (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news I'm now Change to cautious support. Perhaps I'm showing regional bias (I'm Australian but the other side of the country from the floods), but there's clearly going to be great interest in Australia about this (one of the criteria at Wikipedia:In the news), even if not much elsewhere. Adpete (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I am normally a strong supporter of these discoveries, but this one in specific does not really raise the threshold that much. Just take a look at Super-Earth. It orbits a Sun-like star at under 0.02 AU - compared to Mercury at ~0.4AU. Nergaal (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Oppose. Certainly news in astronomy circles, but nowhere near as big as Gliese 581b was (and the controversy surrounding it...). This is incremental, not revolutionary; it's an impressive piece of work, with exquisite sensitivity, but the results are hardly surprising. Edit: This is a conference announcement, and as far as I can tell no paper has been published. The article also has unreferenced sections, and a slew of synthesis ('significance'). Modest Geniustalk02:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More than 150 Israeli university lecturers support a boycott of the University Centre of Samaria in Ariel over concerns of "unbearably harsh conditions" faced by Palestinians living nearby, as well as Ariel being an "illegal settlement" and a roadblock to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. (The Irish Times)(Al Jazeera)
Now that the FIFA World Footballer of the Year has been merged with the Ballon d'Or, the combined FIFA Ballon d'Or is now the undisputed highest individual award in the world sport of football (that's soccerball to you college hand-egg fans). Of obvious international interest and ITN level notability. MickMacNee (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, dunno. Football is a team sport. We should post team accomplishments instead IMO. We don't normally support 'best player' awards in any sport. But this is pretty big.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I dont really see what seperates this from the various "sportsman of the year" awards that were released during the New Year, of which none were put on ITN if I believe. I suppose if there is an award for basketball we will put it up? It's an international sport... --PlasmaTwa222:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle but the award article could do with more prose and this award is hidden somewhere between everything Messi was awarded so far... --Tone23:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: a vote, not the result of a sporting contest, and entirely incidental to a team sport. Article informs the reader of almost nothing in terms of who was able to vote, how the shortlist was selected etc etc Kevin McE (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is this as big of a deal in the soccer world as the Heisman Trophy is in America? If I were to stop a random soccer fan and ask him who's won the most Ballons d'Or, would he know? (Any American football fan can tell you the only person to win two Heismans.) If I named a random soccer star, would a fan be able to say whether he won a Ballon d'Or? If the answer is no, I oppose, and if the answer is yes, I oppose anyway, WP:POINT notwithstanding, on the grounds that it's dismissive of our readership to include this award and not the Heisman, which receives more attention than any other individual sports award in the English-speaking world. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Archie Griffin is in a statistical set of one - there's him, and the rest. That's not hard to remember. It's not comparable to expecting someone to know that Cruyff, Platini, van Basten have won the Ballon the most at 3 times each, with a further 6 players on 2 awards each. You'd have to think of an award in gridiron whose cumulative total is similar to that, to get an idea of what this is. But suffice to say, those three players are household names across Europe, even to non fans. Even winning this just once, means that you are more than just a 'random soccer star'. And I'd say the Heisman gets zero attention in the UK btw, whereas this is being covered by all the US networks (this was top result on Google.com just this second for 'Messi' in news), so it's not exactly apples and oranges if you are looking for a both or nothing deal here in that regard. MickMacNee (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most American football fans could easily name four or five of the past six Heisman winners (Tebow, Ingram, Newton and Bush are easy). The point I'm making is there's an aura to the Heisman Trophy that is unique from any other individual award that I know of in a team sport. Just do a Google Image Search for "Heisman pose". How many other trophies are so well-known that there's a meme of people (including the president of the U.S.) imitating the guy on it? (I don't even know what the NFL, MLB or NBA MVP trophies look like.) Is there that kind of mystique to the Ballon d'Or? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few months/weeks ago, there was a debate on who should win this (I don't remember such a spirited debate on the previous years), it was Messi and another guy. However, football and European sports in general are focused on teams, not individuals. As far as I know there still is no "official" FA Cup Final man of the match. It was only lately they started focusing on individual awards. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point I am trying to make is that there are waaay more football fans then that of American football. The award having an aura does not make it more prestigious than an award given for a more popular sport, with more fans and more players to choose from worldwide. Nergaal (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, clearly notable, with it being the highest award given to an individual in the most played and most watched sport in the world. Nightw03:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We didn't feature a sportsman of the year selection from among all of the world's athletes, across all sports, nor should we. Same for this. Grsz1105:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as it was already posted. The story now is the "3 years" part, which is not extraordinary to warrant ITN presence. I think any future Republican president will probably pardon him anyways. Nergaal (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The championship game to determine the NCAA Division I football champions will be played tonight in Arizona between the Auburn Tigers and the Oregon Ducks. I think it would be a good idea to start the debate, yelling and accusations of American bias beforehand so we can be in a good position by the time the game ends. This is a major sporting event in the States and will be followed by more people than the NBA or NHL finals. It is also important to note that the winning team will go undefeated if they win tonight, which could be added to any potential blurb. --PlasmaTwa219:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not a professional league, of no real general interest outside N. America, and not even a sport with major international interest at the professional level by any stretch imagination. To post this is would be a perfect example of the Bad Kind of systemic bias. I think we should be considering posting the result of the annual Wembley NFL game before ever considering posting this as being of any kind of ITN level of notability. MickMacNee (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Not a professional league, the participants are chosen by computer and rankings in various polls rather than results and on-field performance, and at the end of the day this is a student competition. If we posted this we would be setting a precedent to post all the NCAA student championships, which would be a bad thing IMO. For all sports which are only popular in one or two countries we only ever post one story per year; I don't see why american football should be treated any differently. Finally, mere audience numbers do NOT determine what we should post - if it did, we'd have a never ending stream of TV 'talent' shows and wrestling. I'm also sceptical that the worldwide audience for this game is higher than the worldwide audience for either the NHL or NBA finals, both of which are sports which are popular in many other nations. Modest Geniustalk21:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support it may be a rubbish sport, but American football is very popular in the US, who make up a substantial proportion of the audience. Giving it more than one story a year doesn't seem unreasonable. Just because we post this doesn't mean we can't post other non-US stories. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support the BCS in principle but I think this is not the same BCS... (no serious opinion otherwise, I'd just think Super Bowl was enough, maybe?) --Tone23:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Ah, it wouldn't be January without the annual BCS debate! Anyway, the same things as last year and the year before that -- college football is a religion in much of America. This is the second- or third-biggest annual sporting event in America. You can't make blanket statements about sports like "professional is bigger than amateur" or "international is bigger than domestic." Minor League Baseball is fully professional and international, but is no big deal, while big-time college football and basketball are huge. Take a look at the front page of the Eugene, Oregon, paper today, the day of the game. It doesn't matter how many countries a sport is popular in; it matters how many people, particularly readers, are interested in it, and American football has got to be the second-most-popular sport among English Wikipedia readers behind soccer. If America was divided into little bitty countries like Europe is, this would be big in 50 countries. And (to address Modest Genius's concern) everyone who follows American sports knows there are only two big-time college sports: football and men's basketball. All others are either minor spectator sports (college baseball, lacrosse, women's basketball) or are exclusively participatory sports with few real "fans." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you start dividing the European countries into subcountries that are between 37 million and 300k people, then, you will get almost 100 countries. The only annual event in soccer that gets posted is the Champions League final one and possibly the player of the year award. I don't see why the football that is nob played with your feet should get more than half of those ITNR spots. Nergaal (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this isn't a professional sporting event. It's child's play, literally, and of no interest to anyone outside the U.S. Popularity does not determine notability. Nightw03:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Nick Fairley would appreciate you calling him a child. Anyway, it bears pointing out that we had the Gaelic football championship, and that's both fully amateur and of interest to a lot fewer people than the BCS championship. And when it comes to sports, there's little difference between popularity and notability. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait a bit. The last time we posted the ceasefire from ETA was in September last year. But, if it's permanent, that would be the last one to post... --Tone12:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well the BBC in September said it was unclear whether it was permanent or temporary. It looks like it will be permanent. The article I Iinked to above covers the implications and the supposed motives for a ceasefire better than the new ones do. If the appropriate updates are made and the articles are in good shape I see no reason not post. So SupportThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obviously noteworthy, it doesn't matter if the Spanish government has not accepted it, it is a huge step towards the end of the conflict, and that's great! Diego Grez (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose due to the fact the ETA has called for a ceasefire several times in the past and that neither Spain or France have agreed to it. This could be notable if the governments agree, but as of right now... --PlasmaTwa220:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Support immediate posting. If you had asked me three years ago the chances of this getting to a ballot, as opposed to just collapsing into civil war again, I would have said maybe one in four. It's amazing this is holding together enough to get to the voting stage. - BanyanTree23:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't a news ticker. There's no rush. I agree that it's a very important issue (possibly will be one of the most important issues of this year), but a result would be much more appealing for the front page, as it normally is. I'm sure we could have waited two weeks. I mean, we're basing most of our support based on the fact that Southern Sudan will vote in favour (and chance are pretty high that they will), but if it doesn't, the notability and importance of this story drops very fast. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)01:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just posted, in light of the overwhelming support voiced above. I disagree with the suggestion that this topic's notability is bound up in the likelihood of a vote for secession. Referend(ums/a) to potentially create new states are very rare beasts indeed and inherently notable, regardless of the odds of assorted outcomes. Off the top of my head, I believe the last mass popular consultation along these lines was Quebec in 1995, and you can be quite sure that if we had an ITN at the time the voting itself would have been ITN-level-notable even though the result did not set in motion events that would lead to an independent Quebec. If we get a result around February 6, that will likely be post-worthy as well. If we get a formal independence declaration in July or thereabouts, that will be post-worthy, too. No need to ration coverage, this is rare stuff. The Tom (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gah, brainfart, forgot they referendized. We had results there at the end of a single day of voting, so not strictly comparable, and I'm pretty sure we had one story for the results and one for the declaration. (Aside: I think Montenegro's actually unique in history as being a peaceful creation of a new state following a popular referendum (Czechoslovakia was dissolved by the pols) so there's the possibility that Southern Sudan would be Number 2.) The Tom (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It took decades of civil war for Sudan to reach this point. The referendum is a concession to the rebels. And there could be violence yet over the composition of the border and other issues. I would hardly call it a peaceful split if we take the long view. Cjs2111 (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A fair point, Cjs2111.
For comparison's sake, I dug through the archives and here's how we ITN'ed Montenegro in 2006... (I was most unshocked to see myself in the thick of things): End of campaigning/beginning of voting the day before; revised to "voting underway" the day of; then revised again with provisional results the night of. A little more than a week later, we had a fresh item for the formal declaration of independence. The Tom (talk) 01:53, 10 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 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 [5], 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. [8][9] 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. [10] (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]
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
