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).
A car bomb targeting Yemen's defence minister, Mohammed Nasser Ahmed, kills at least twelve people, including seven bodyguards of the minister and five civilians in Sana. (The New York Times)
A suicide bombing in front of a police station in the western Istanbul suburb of Sultangazi kills a policeman, the bomber, and injures several others. The leftist group Dev Sol claims responsibility. (BBC)
Two people are shot dead at close range in the center of Milan. Hours later, another shooting in plain view shakes the financial capital of Italy. (Reuters)
China's Ministry of Defence says the nationalization of the disputed Senkaku Islands by Japan is "illegal and invalid"; that it would closely monitor the "evolution of the situation" and "reserve the right to take reciprocal measures". (Xinhua)
China summons Japanese ambassador Uichiro Niwa to lodge a protest over Japan's nationalization of the Senkaku Islands. Beijing warned it will take "necessary measures" to protect its claim on the islands. (Bloomberg)(The Hindu)
Newly declassified documents confirm that the United States deliberately ignored Soviet involvement in the 1940 Katyn massacre, despite credible evidence to the contrary provided no later than 1943. While until 1945 this choice could be explained as World War II grand strategy, it is not known why the White House remained silent on the matter until now. (AP via New York Daily News)
Sources tell the Frankfurter Allgemeine newspaper that the German military spying agency MAD tried to recruit Uwe Mundlos in 1995. Mundlos refused to cooperate and subsequently participated in ten terrorist murders with the nazi group NSU. He died in 2011; police say he committed suicide. (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung)
Three people are killed and several others seriously injured after a coach taking people home from the Isle of Wight-based music festival, Bestival 2012 crashes in Surrey, England. (BBC)
Tariq al-Hashimi rejects the charges leading to his death sentence in Baghdad on Sunday. He, being a Sunni, claims to be a "target" of Shiite prime minister Nouri al-Maliki. He refuses to return to Iraq for an appeal as long as, according to him, the judicial system is "corrupt". He claims to put the verdict "on his chest as a medal". Al-Qaeda says "black days" are ahead. The reaction of Iraqi people on the street generally welcomes a fair rule of law but is wary of political influencing and sectarianism. (ABC News)(Euronews)
According to a parliamentary answer by the ministry of health, the value of a life lost during a clinical trial is 2.2 lakhrupees ($ 4,000) in India in 2011. This number is the average compensation paid for deaths during clinical trials. No rules governing compensations for clinical trial-related injury or death have been approved by the Parliament of India yet. (IRNA)[permanent dead link]
CommentOriginal research is not suitable to be announced on Wikipedia until the result has been indepedently confirmed. Quoting the linked article in short: "Many mathematicians have expended a great deal of effort trying to prove the conjecture. In 2007, French mathematician Lucien Szpiro, ... claimed to have a proof of it, but it was soon found to be flawed. He [Mochizuki] has developed techniques that very few other mathematicians fully understand ... 'At this point, he is probably the only one that knows it all.' ... The work 'uses a huge number of insights that are going to take a long time to be digested by the community'". It's a claimed proof by a mathematician to a problem that others have failed before. I've seen enough of claimed P=NP proofs rejected in my time to be very skeptical until this has been properly reviewed by other mathematicians. --hydrox (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose: Totally agreed that we need it verified first, and this should not have been brought up again given that nothing further has happened (or at least been announced). It's just promotional. WP does not need to the @math Twitter feed. —Kerfuffler19:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A main water supply pipe serving central Aleppo is allegedly struck by a government air strike. Hundreds of thousands of inhabitants are left without drinking water. The Aleppo governor says "sabotage" damaged "two pumps serving three districts" and repair work is ongoing. Food, cooking gas and electricity are reported to be in short supply. (The New York Times)(AP via CBC)(Xinhua)
Two car bombs explode near a hospital in Aleppo that was recently turned into an army barracks. At least 17 people are reported killed and more than 40 others injured. (Reuters)
NestorLouis Michel calls Rwandan President Paul Kagame a "great leader" ("grootleider"). Kagame has been accused of war crimes during Rwanda's invasion of the DR Congo in 1996, and of having led a subsequent proxy war against the DR Congo by arming the CNDP until January 20, 2009. Congo currently accuses Rwandan defence officials of supporting a newdestabilisation of East Congo. Louis Michel urges the international community for "more time" to "objectivate the facts first" before taking any action. (De Zondag, p. 12-13, in Dutch)
Closing their annual summit, APEC leaders report progress in Vladivostok over environmental and trade barrier issues; some territorial issues remain unsolved. (Wall Street Journal)
Elections for the 70-member Legislative Council are held in Hong Kong. Forty seats are elected by direct popular vote, the remainder are attributed by the "functional constituencies": business and special interest groups. China has promised a fully popular vote by the year 2020; the roadmap is still being laid out. (BBC)(Xinhua)(Pakistan Today)(Washington Post)
Article needs updating The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
We have usually posted the women's events first, and then added the men's. I trust when the blurb is posted, it will be without the redundant capitals in the current proposal. Kevin McE (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there needs to be no mention of him being the first Briton to win for 76 years, it's a side thing and a little trivial. Also, for the sake of raging nationalists it's best to keep any mention of his nationality off the front page I should warn. --Τασουλα (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that nationality should not feature (it doesn't normally). And another reason for not posting the "first British since..." bits is that he is not the first British GS winner in x years (that would probably be Virginia Wade), nor even the first British male GS winner in 76 years (that would be various doubles winners, including his brother a few years ago in the mixed doubles and Jonathan Marray only a few months ago in the men's doubles). Andy Murray is the first British male singles Grand Slam title winner in 76 years, but the qualifiers 'male' and 'singles' are important. But this is all irrelevant, as I've said below that only a 'normal' ITN posting is needed here. But I thought it worth pointing out in case someone suggested something and got it wrong (as above). Carcharoth (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support (if updates are sufficient). Also agree that a normal posting is all that's needed here. No need to emphasise the various records/duration-since-last-winner elements for either Williams or Murray. And agree with dropping the unnecessary capitals in the blurb - suggest following the wording used in previous tennis Grand Slam ITN items. Oh, and well done Andy! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a non-Brit I support mentioning the nationality as I said above. I think it's pretty significant that a country that hosts a grand slam event and gave the world tennis in its modern form has had its first mens' major winner in over 70 years. It's just a guess but I imagine that in a year that's been pretty successful for British sport this will be one of the more significant British sporting moments in decades. It's a nice factoid to add as a hook to the blurb. I suppose it might be pretty hard to be concise though with both the mens and womens winners to mention.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, if you are going to suggest this, please get it right (finding a source would probably help you get it right). You added 'men's', but missed out 'singles' in what you said. i.e. it should be stated as the first British winner of a male singles Grand Slam tennis title (not 'major') for 76 years. But it is precisely because you need the qualifiers 'male' and 'singles' that it is difficult to keep this concise enough. The alternative would be to split up the two, and expand the entry on Serena Wiliams, as her achievements establish several records (see her article), helping to cement her place as one of the greats of the women's game. I suspect, though, that by the time this is all sorted out, someone will have posted the simple "X and Y win" entry. If people want something different from the ordinary ITN/R postings, then you need to plan ahead and get consensus here ahead of time. Oh, and the reason posting the nationality would be a bad idea is that it could lead to a squabble over British/Scottish... (silly, but very likely). Carcharoth (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the thing: The only ITN worthy news is the tournament final itself. Not the greatest Briton in 70 odd years thing. It's never the norm to post stuff like this along with the regular blurb anyway, it's that...uncomplicated folks! And sadly that is likely, anyone who quickly scans the page history will know that :( --Τασουλα (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100% (and have said so twice above already). I'm merely trying to make sure that inaccuracies don't get posted (even if it is vanishingly unlikely such 'extended' entries will be posted anyway). I could have not corrected Johnsemlak, but thought it safest to do so anyway. It would have been quicker to post the entry to ITN, but I think someone should rustle up a picture first. Of Andy, of course! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 02:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the qualifiers that are necessary and just not looking them the precise durations involved; of course I agree the blurb must be factually accurate. I don't think there's consensus to post the nationality so I'm not sure it's worth much discussion for now; but I maintain I think it will be a very significant result. The BBC called it 'historic'. Of course they're flagwaving but here there's a substantive reason to do so.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support without mentioning Britain's first X. However, I was wondering if there would be any way to word it something like: At the US OpenAndy Murray wins the Men's Singles, his first Grand Slam victory, while Serena Williams wins her 30th Grand Slam title (or 15th singles title if you prefer) in the Women's Singles. (possibly not the best wording). Both numbers seem somewhat significant to me, and it is a compromise instead of invoking the nationalities. Just a thought.--23230talk08:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support': Obviously major news in Nigeria and to the global relief/aid community (such as me!). This coupled with the massive amount of Boko Haram attacks in recent months...not having a good time. --Τασουλα (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question - should a new article be created for this, or is there an existing article we can update? Feel free to create and update on your own if you'd like. --Activism123421:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article created - I've created the article and I am working on it. I have made a list of many references to use on the talk page - I've got to go for now, so feel free to update the article with them. --Activism123423:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jusdafax, and suggest WP:DYK. Unless I'm mistaken, the only recent development is the announcement of the latest death and displacement figures—incidentally, the sources indicate a figure of 36,331 displaced persons, not 120,000. The Reuters report states: "Floods across Nigeria have killed 137 people and displaced more than 30,000 since the beginning of July, the local Red Cross said on Sunday." (emphasis added) -- Black Falcon(talk)04:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this item marked "ready"? Putting aside, for a moment, the question of whether it should be featured at all, neither the article nor the blurb are suitable for posting. The figure of 120,000 displaced persons is not supported by any of the sources and the article contains no recent update. -- Black Falcon(talk)19:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, and have removed the ready tag. The item may be significant, and a proper article and update may be appropriate for posting, but I as well have serious concerns over the state of the article. If these were fixed, I could support as well, but merely being a significant event should not excuse an article in this state. If this needs to be on the main page, it needs fixing up. --Jayron3220:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No update for any flooding occurring in September. If there is notable, recent flooding, please update, but otherwise, I would suggest DYK if eligible. SpencerT♦C06:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also support a different wording in the blurb mentioning the conclusion of the women's tournament as well. Something like "The 40th Chess Olympiad concludes with Armenia winning the open and Russia winning the women's section of the tournament." sounds better. The same blurb was used when we posted it two years ago.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a memory game is it? :P well, I don't think I even knew ITN/C existed back then...I think I may of been a mere IP making small edits back then. If I remember correctly, it's always Eastern Europe that has the great success. Keh. --Τασουλα (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The game is popular worldwide and record 157 countries fielded their own national teams at this Olympiad. However, it's true that the countries from Eastern Europe usually achieve the best results.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ready Seems that we've already reached a consensus, the article is updated, and if no further objection is given, the nomination should be marked as ready for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it's not every day a vice-president gets put in jail, and when you consider that's in Iraq, the implications can be huge. It's top news story on a variety of outlets as well. --Activism123415:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It should ne noted that the article's subject is sentenced to death and is currently a fugitive (as now noted in the blurb) and is in Turkey. He appears unlikely to be returned, and is not in jail nor likely to be as far as I can tell. Jusdafax16:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the condition we change "former" to "fugitive" in the blurb--he had not left office when he fled. Also, the lead doesn't even mention the death sentence. μηδείς (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. 1) "two deaths" is rather minor. The article is missing an important piece: who was killed and when? If he was coordinating attacks while serving as VP then I can support. He left office in May, and the warrant was issued in December. 2) Per WT:ITN we don't post until the appeals process is complete, so I guess we have to wait until he comes out of hiding to appeal his conviction. Comment this will probably go up, so please include "in absentia" in the blurb. --IP98 (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The most important thing here is not that he is a vice president, but that he is the leader of the Sunnis in government. al-Maliki Seems to be running a purge of all non-Shias using stuff like this. So this is very notable as part of the control battle. Thue (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article, rightly or wrongly, is rated in the "stub" class. I won't go into details just yet, but I see some possible BLP disputes in the article, and if it is put on the front page as it appears as of my posting, there could be issues. Strongly suggest anyone thinking of making a !vote here take a careful look at the article. Jusdafax16:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This seems to be a part of the Sunni-Shia battle for control of the power in Iraq's government. From the context of what seems to be a systematic purge by al-Maliki, it is probably made-up charges, but who knows. In any case very notable, more from al-Hashimi being the leader of the Sunni fraction than from him being the Vice President. Thue (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong postmortem support — Good God Iraq, please do something about your Prime Minister ASAP. He's stoking the flames of sectarian conflict. Don't let your country descend into war yet again! Kurtis (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the first time in nearly eighteen months, a sign of life appears of four French nationals kidnapped by Al-Qa'eda in Arlit, Niger. A videotape shows them healthy; they ask France to negotiate their release. (Reuters via Yahoo! News)
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.
Comment. Embolden the festival itself. I'm probably leaning towards supporting this one on the main page; the Venice festival is probably #2 in the world after Cannes but unlike the awards given at that one, the Golden Lion is more of a "lifetime achievement" which sets it apart. If it's deemed that there's been too many culture or film items then this'll probably stumble though. GRAPPLEX18:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support per ITN/R. Venice is #3 after Cannes and TIFF. Conditional due to lack of prose. Boiler plate lead and a brief summary of the competition section. Maybe bold Pieta, which is a little better. --IP98 (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter, but regarding TIFF, Variety magazine acknowledged that "the Festival is second only to Cannes in terms of high-profile pics, stars and market activity.". Mostly I'm just making a plug for the home team :). TIFF doesn't have a "winner" so there is nothing really to post when it ends. --IP98 (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support per IP98. It is of global significance and recognised at ITN/R. News about arts are very rare, so it would be great for balance. Is a pitty the articles are in such sorry state. Would also unlink South Korea from the blurb as the least relevant wikilink of five. --ELEKHHT03:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I forget, what is the current policy on linking countries/nationalities on the main page? I seem to remember a policy that nationalities are always linked. Otherwise support.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to the posting, but the obvious lack of unanimity in the importance of this suggests that it probably should not be at ITN/R: this seems to have gone through primarily not because it is considered important in this discussion, but because someone thought it important in a very short, scarcely commented upon nomination at itn/r. Kevin McE (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the bickering about the #2/#3 ranking of the Venice festival, and a single oppose !vote, doesn't amount to a lack of consensus? Anyway, I think as per usual as with ITNR items editors may not feel a need to post support !votes. As to how Venice got on ITNR, I'm unfamiliar with the discussion that resulted in its inclusion but it may simply be that it's obviously notable as (by many accounts) the number 2 event in the international film festival calendar. There have been subsequent discussions about which festivals to include and I can't recall a suggestion to drop Venice.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: As of this writing, the closing ceremony is tomorrow, but writing it to give people the chance of updating the article to the best possible. In addition to have enough comments before it goes live. – HonorTheKing (talk)06:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm interested to know under what conditions this is less ITN-worthy than the closing of the able-bodied Olympics - what's the difference? Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The opening and closing ceremonies were both posted for the regular London Olympics, so why should the paralympics not have the closing ceremonies posted? It seems a bit weird to post about an opening ceremony of an event but not about the closing ceremony of the event. Andise1 (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. We posted both the opening and closing of the Olympics so why not this? besides I don't remember we posted anything about any event during it and we did not add a sticky as well. So if I was right, then this would only the second ITN post about the Paralympics. Mohamed CJ(talk)18:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The fact that we posted the opening and closing ceremonies of the London Olympics is of no relevance. The Summer Olympics, and the men's World Cup, are events of extreme global notability; the paralympics don't come close. We DID post the opening ceremony. We don't have a policy of posting women's events equally with men's events either. For example, we don't post the opening of the Women's World Cup. We almost never post the opening or closing of multisport events, such as the Commonwealth Games, Pan American Games, Asian Games, etc. The Olympics and the World Cup are exceptions due to the level of global notability of those events. Also, 'x-event was already posted' is an extremely common rationale used here to oppose posting an event.--Johnsemlak
Support. No-one seems to be giving a valid reason not to post this. It's one of the world's major sporting events and the closing ceremony is likely to be major news in several English-speaking countries. Are we supposed to avoid posting out of respect to the proper Olympics or something? Formerip (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency is a valid reason to oppose. We don't post both the closing and opening of the Women's World Cup, the Commonwealth Games, the Euro2012, the Pan -American games, etc.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ITN/R states that the opening ceremony for the Paralympic games is ITN/R, but not the closing ceremony. Unfortunately, the Paralympic games receives only a fraction of the worldwide attention that the Olympics gets. I've seen one story about Oscar Pistorius, who is receiving the clear majority of news coverage in these games, on the CNN and BBC headlines, but nothing else at all about Paralympics coverage. I'm not trying to diminish the importance of the event itself, but I think that the opening ceremony is all that needs to be posted to ITN. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 20:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anc, the fact that you haven't seen much coverage of the games makes it easy to guess where you live, but I don't think it tells us much else. Formerip (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where I am from, nor where anyone else is from, means nothing to why something should or shouldn't be posted. Even on the BBC.co.uk website, I have yet to see anything besides the opening ceremony, and articles about Oscar Pistorius (who is on the front of the BBC right now, in a small headline). When the closing ceremony is held tomorrow, I would like to see how much attention it gets before I consider changing my vote. To date, the level of coverage that I have seen from US and Non-US news outlets has consisted of the opening ceremony, Pistorius claiming another runner had an unfair advantage in a race, his gold medal today, and a picture slideshow of the opening ceremony. Other than this, even from non-US news sources, there has either been hardly anything, or it was either buried underneath other stories, or about Pistorius. Here is an example to support my argument: the official Paralympic YouTube channel is one of the largest sources of live and on-demand Paralympic games coverage worldwide, with over 780 hours of coverage. Its most popular video about the 2012 games has 198.8 thousand views. This video is about the opening ceremony. The next most popular video is about Pistorius, with 153.8k views. Third is of a swimming event with 88k views, and the rest are significantly less in terms of views. The opening ceremony was deserving of ITN praise, and Pistorius has also been covered heavily, but otherwise, there hasn't been anything else. If there is a huge buzz about the ceremony tomorrow, I will consider changing my vote. In addition, while the opening ceremony for the games in 2008, and the Winter games in 2010 were posted to ITN, the closing ceremony has never been posted to ITN, and on top of this, as other users have mentioned, the article could be better.. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 01:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FormerIP the fact that you think it's getting that much coverage worldwide probably tells me where you live. Yes, it's getting a lot of pro-British coverage on the BBC; the coverage is markedly lower elsewhere, in Russia an example I can think of .--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support (though without "is held after 11 days"). The coverage in the U.S. seems to have been anomalously low, in other countries there's been more attention, and in the UK the Paralympics has been a significant proportion of the news cycles. The Paralypics represents the premier competition for dozens of sports and has seen various records and achievements which could have even been ITN items in themselves. An ITN item for the closing seems appropriate. (Would support adding this to ITN/R for what it's worth). LukeSurltc22:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as noted above, opening and closing ceremonies of Olympics were posted, I don't see why this shouldn't be posted as well. It's a significant international event watched by millions. --Activism123401:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I was kind of neutral until I've opened the ceremony article. If it is in such a poor state I highly doubt that the ceremony itself is that notable. Nergaal (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As far as I can tell, the Paralympics don't garner the level of attention, coverage, and national comradry all around the world that the Olympics do. The Opening Ceremony was rightfully posted, but I don't think it's necessary to do the same for the closing, even if that's what we do for the Olympics. But perhaps this is something that should be decided upon after the ceremony; even if the games themselves aren't watched religiously, maybe the closing will be covered extensively. -- tariqabjotu01:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article is in poor shape, I saw no coverage of the Paralympics while it was going on, and see little coverage of the closing ceremonies now. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support We posted the opening ceremony, it seems reasonable to post the closing ceromony too. ITNR does not serve to limit what can be posting, only clarify what should be posted Quantumsilverfish (talk) 02:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Yes, the London Olympics' opening and closing ceremonies were posted, but I believe this should be treated case-by-case. The closing ceremony did not receive a lot of coverage, so I don't think it should be posted. ComputerJA (talk) 06:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto, the news is already on al jazeera, btw and in the next 12 hours will likely be higher, but well see.
Oppose: although there has been blanket coverage of any event in which UK athletes have had a chance here, global profile is many notches lower than that of the Olympics, and arguments based on equal rights or the notion that posting the opening ceremony demands posting the closing ceremony are validated by neither practice on ITN nor purpose of the template. The 2012 Paralympics article has had only minor tweaking since we featured it 11 days ago, with the medal table and the controversiesLihaas (talk) 12:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC) section as the only substantive additions. If posted: The "chronological summary" linked under the Easter Egg of after 11 days (which, if retained, needs to be expanded: what 11 days?) is by no means a chronological summary: it is simply a list of gold medallists, with virtually no prose. Kevin McE (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not much press coverage or public interest in the UK? Do you live in a shed or something? Here are the UK front pages the day after the opening ceremony. As you can see, it takes up the whole of the front page of the Mail, Mirror, Evening Standard, i, Telegraph, Guardian, Independent, Sun and Times. You can also flick through the site, and you'll see that the paralympics have received wall-to-wall front page coverage in the UK throughout the time they have been happenning.
It's fair to say that other countries have not matched the extent of the this coverage but, looking at today's papers, you can see that the Paralympics make the front page of both main Irish newspapers [2], around half of the South African newspapers [3], The Press in New Zealand [4], the Times Colonialist in Canada [5]. Austrlia doesn't really seem to do newspapers on a Sunday, but the Sydney Morning Herald had it on the front page on Thursday [6] and Friday [7]. Formerip (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose based on the quality of the article. —WFC— 06:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Opposition stricken due to considerable improvement since I posted. At the time of this posting, a 3–4 sentence expansion of the reception section would probably be enough to remove the orange tags. —WFC— FL wishlist11:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A competition with 164 nations all competing is very rare, and therefore makes this a major event. In my opinion this is extremely newsworthy. CaptRik (talk) 08:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support before it becomes stale. We didn't have a sticky for this, one of the largest and most prominent sporting events in the world. Let's at least mark the closing. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why people who oppose are indifferent to specially-abled people. They form a significant section of humanity. It is the biggest sporting extravaganza for them to prove that they are no different. Yes, because of the physical disabilities they may not run as fast as Bolt or swim as quickly as Phelps. But, their participation is and will always inspire millions across the globe. And as the saying goes- the winner is not the fastest or the strongest one but one who thinks he can. Should be posted before the article becomes stale.Regards, theTigerKing16:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is an appalling lack of good faith to level such an accusation against those who have posted valid reasons. I think you owe an apology. Kevin McE (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I'll remove that ready tag, because it is not meant to be an indication of consensus, but of the status of the article. Consensus as to importance is the call of the posting admin, and is far . Kevin McE (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please post it before it goes stale. Some shockers of opposes here. Black Kite (talk)
Concur with Muhoshgu. The only reason to post being offered is that we posted the closing of the Olympics, which seems silly--the two events have incomparable notability. Aside from the British media (which is doing a fair bit of flag waving here), I've seen little if no coverage of the closing ceremony in Xinhua, Al Jazeera, RBK.ru--a Russian site, L'equip, etc. Again, we posted the opening ceremony.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll grant that the quality of the posted article is much improved. But the Paralympics, for better or worse, have a fraction of the notability of the Olympics, and I don't see their closing ceremonies as meriting ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Simple vote count dudes. Is worth posting even if it is not notable "enough". The event marks the end of the "biggest sporting extravaganza of the disabled".Regards, theTigerKing17:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's not a vote a vote? Please explain? The articles in the ITN are based on editors votes, Right? Please discuss the opposition. If you believe that the arguments put forward in support of the article's candidacy are not worthwhile, then please elucidate your thoughts. We will strive to reach at a consensus through discussions.Regards, theTigerKing18:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a clear majority to post, and some of the opposes were based on the article not having been expanded, which it is now. Consensus does not mean "something I agree with". Black Kite (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All of the opposes have arguments other than the article expansion issue. 13-9 is hardly a clear consensus, and the support argments are 'we also posted the Olympics closing (invalid) and vague uncited references to global coverage.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that "I didn't see much of this on TV where I live" (which appears to be a good percentage of the opposes) isn't anything we should be concerned about. Black Kite (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're joking. One of them even says "it didn't receive much coverage in the UK" which is simply a lie - it was the front page story in every single national newspaper today. It's still the top story on the BBC, as well as a number of other international agencies. Black Kite (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many other oppose votes validly cite that outside the UK the coverage is been much lower. I can't find much prominant mention above of the closing ceremony in non-British sources, and I cited several examples of such above. The British media is clearly doing a lot of flag waving on this.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look at my post above on that matter. I have seen little evidence of huge interest in the closing ceremony. Please don't post what I mean; I'll do that myself. I've posted evidence from several international media backing up my opinion; you haven't. Another oppose !vote says global profile is many notches lower than that of the Olympics, and arguments based on equal rights or the notion that posting the opening ceremony demands posting the closing ceremony are validated by neither practice on ITN nor purpose of the template, arguments I have yet to see refuted here. Several have pointed out that the opening ceremony was posted. Several people have questioned the 'global coverage' or interest in the closing ceremony--very little evidence has been given of such. I wouldn't deny the global interest in the paralympics as a whole. They were posted already at ITN. But posting about them again is normally done with sports events of extreme global notability. You can't deny that the Paralympics simply doesn't compare with the Summer Olympics in terms of global coverage or interest. And why in the world is this being made into a US issue?--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I wasn't trying to put words into your mouth. However, three of the 9 "Opposes" are simply we posted the opening ceremony, two are the article hasn't been updated, and one is the comically untrue one I mentioned above ... given that, do you not think there is at least some consensus here? Black Kite (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Well, I showed above that the games have been consistent front page news in all the main English-speaking countries except one.
It shouldn't be posted simply to achieve parity with the Olympics, of course, but because it is a major event with a lot of coverage. I don't think anyone would argue that it's as big as the Olympics, but how do you think it compares, in terms of media attention, with the Chess Olympiad? Formerip (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite :::OK, Apologies myself. CIVIL should always rule. :) I guess one reason I"m a little stubborn here is because 'x-event was already posted' is an extremely common rationale to oppose at ITN. It is very rare that any event, be it a sports event or a otherwise, is posted when it was previously mentioned on ITN. Regarding the US coverage issue, I completely agree that the lack of US tv on the paralympics should not be a factor. Actually, the lack of US tv coverage has in fact itself generated some news (i.e. complaints) in the US. But it really seems to me that since the issue was debated a week ago about the sticky, that people are using the supposed lack of US interest as some sort of support, and are focusing only on coverage in the US and coverage in the UK. For what it's worth, I was living in Russia until a couple of months ago, and I monitor the news there. THere have been regular headlines of Russian wins, such as Russia winning gold in paralympic football. The TV coverage was limited to less than one hour per day during soap-opera time. The closing ceremony (which is what is being discussed here) got no coverage that I saw. I'm sure one could search for a headline but nothing was displayed prominently where I checked. One can check, with google translate, at rbk.ru or news.yandex.ru themselves. That's the evidence that I can cite.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@ Formerip--you have done anything but prove that it's getting coverage in every country except one. This is what I meant above. It's like people are leveraging the claims that the US doens't care about the paralympics as support for this nomination (like saying 'your opposition tells me where you live') Perhaps you've demonstrated that it's big in the anglophone world outside the US. Also, coverage fo the closing ceremony itself (what was nominated) is very minimal from what I can see. Just one example The Toronto Star sports page doesn't mention it at all. This meme that the US doesn't care about the Paralymics is perhaps a worthy discussion for another (off-wiki) forum but focusing on the US doesn't make demonstrate this nomination's global importance. If anything your post above is just demonstrating a pro-anglophone systemic bias.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you've demonstrated that it's big in the anglophone world outside the US. That's exactly what I claimed to have demonstrated. What parallel universe have we just walked into where that's not enough? Formerip (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ok, I did misread your post. If the Paralympics hadn't already been posted, that would probably be enough. A second posting, IMHO and that of several posters above, should require a higher degree of interest. Plus, I've cited evidence above that the closing ceremony itself doesn't command the same interest.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Humanitarian groups express concern over Chile's army head, involved in controversy over a directive instructing military recruiters not to admit homosexuals. (BBC)
A former Premier League football youth star is jailed for life with a minimum term of 10 years after being convicted of murdering his girlfriend, who sustained at least 60 stab wounds to the head and body. (BBC)
Oppose Weak oppose: The update here is just a one line snippet that anyone could read in a newspaper; not worthy of Wikipedia. If it's fleshed out with background on the dispute and reasons for expulsion, I might change my opinion. You should at least try to update articles to ITN quality before nominating them. The article has been updated better now, but given the already thoroughly strained relations, I can't help but wonder whether this little bit of political gerrymandering is actually significant. Kerfuffler (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lol I'll second that, nominating something could be the first step towards it being updated sufficiently. Kerfuffler, a simple "wait until updated" in the future is probably more ideal :P --Τασουλα (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support the post, but it's purely political. There was no crisis here, no trigger. No pardoned murderer or secret drone attack. It's just Canada being retarded. --IP98 (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - significant turn of events in international contentious affairs. I will expand the article to include more info, and update the lead in a few minutes. --Activism123420:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this seems like a significant development, the article is updated, and it is in the news. I also validated ComputerJA's point: I think the blurb should include a short summation of Canada's rationale, as that seems highly relevent. --Jayron3220:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb - a few people requested that reasons be listed in the blurb. How about "Canada severs all diplomatic ties with Iran, citing safety concerns for diplomats, its nuclear program, human rights violations, foreign policy, and threats against Israel." I removed the whole part about closing the embassy, as that's seemingly obvious - closing diplomatic ties = closing the embassy. Thoughts? --Activism123420:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Severs ties" is too general. Canada undoubtedly still trades with Iran, still accepts Iranian students, remains willing to attend international conferences that Iran is invited to, and so on. Formerip (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe something like Activism stated, where his blurb specifically notes that its the diplomatic ties that are severed. Canuck89 (have words with me) 00:03, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
Because we're using it as a statement of fact, and it's inaccurate. The title of a newspaper article shouldn't be enshrined; they are often carefully chosen to push a particular POV. Kerfuffler (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd do it myself, but I've commented so it would be better if someone uninvolved did it: Can we get some form of the revised blurb in there? The current blurb begs the question "why?" and there have been several people (myself included) who have indicated that an expanded blurb would be appropriate. Some combination of Activism's and Egeymi's suggestions above. --Jayron3202:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you (or anyone else) suggest possible wording? I tried thinking of something to add on to the blurb, but nothing made sense or sounded clear. SpencerT♦C07:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A combined blurb with Egeymi's suggestion, which many editors seem to support, would be "Canada severs all diplomatic ties with Iran, citing safety concerns for diplomats, Iranian support for Bashar al-Assad, the Iranian nuclear program, human rights violations, and threats against Israel." I think the current one is too vague, but isn't exactly an error so I'm posting this here rather than on the errors page. --Activism123400:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This seems a pretty weak story - two countries that seem to have always had pretty poor relations, that in recent years have got even worse, carry on in much the same vein. JMiall₰23:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Belated support as the severing of diplomatic ties is a big deal; I would support expanding the blurb to that nominated in the ITN template.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Sounds very important as series of earthquakes were reported with much damage, high death toll, and high level of media coverage worldwide. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, see 2012 Costa Rica earthquake for an example where I think the editors did a much better job of explaining the earthquake area, actual earthquake, and visible effects. That is what Wikipedia is about. If you update with this type of information, I would probably drop to “weak oppose”. Kerfuffler (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A fairly typical event and deathtoll for this part of the world. There have been similar quakes in China with death tolls far higher than this. We aren't a record of every quiver of our planet. doktorbwordsdeeds16:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - provided the article is sufficiently improved and expanded. The event is highly notable, but the article is bare-bones. -Zanhe (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support- The article isn't that bad and certainly meets the minimum requirements, and since this earthquake occurred in a world power like China, the importance is magnified that much more than places like Costa Rica. For instance, the 2011 Virginia earthquake was posted, but that was very minor and killed notable; it was only notable because it occurred in a populous place in the U.S. In fact, Yunnan is home to even more people than the Northeast megalopolis. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As of right now, the article has 302 characters of prose. If there are minimum requirements, I'd hope they'd necessitate the article at least be long enough for DYK. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kerfuffler, there just isn't enough content in this article. Maybe if it were properly expanded, I'd support, but in this state, I can't. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - In the past few hours the article has expanded (even yours truly lent a hand) and though still on the thin side, is acceptable for ITN. No doubt the article will be expanding further. Jusdafax07:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 89 dead is actually pretty low. Zhaotong has a population of over 5 million. We know from the school collapses over there that construction isn't exactly world class. I oppose the number of deaths alone being a benchmark for inclusion, because we're not a death ticker. But even 100,000 people inconvenienced in a country of 1,200,000,000 isn't exactly a big deal. --IP98 (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we go by percentage then 89 deaths in China would be equal to about 0.09 deaths in Bahrain (1.2M population) and by that logic we'd be posting almost every few deaths in that country (3-7 deaths would equal 3-7,000) while ignoring 100s of deaths in China and other populous countries. Mohamed CJ(talk)15:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but we won't post almost every few deaths in Bahrain, so we shouldn't post just because of 89 deaths in china. Just like .09 deaths in Bahrain "isn't news", 89 in china "isn't news". Thanks for clearing that up :). PS: We're not a death ticker. --IP98 (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support the update is just about there now, and with any luck posting will help the article develop further. —WFC— 12:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ready. Everything seems to be good with article size passing over DYK threshold. The last one-line section could be merged with another or expanded. Mohamed CJ(talk)15:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, notable since covered internationally. But, adressing the message above, what do you mean by DKY? It should be ITN or what?Egeymi (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment bus crash in China == post. bus crash in Iran == nope. Earthquake in China == post. Earth quake in Costa Rica == nope. Huh? --IP98 (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3 people died in the Costa Rican earthquake. At least 89 died in this earthquake, with that number likely to grow. I think it's clear which is more significant. Location means nothing.-- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 21:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3 people out of 4.1 million died in Costa Rica, 89 out of 1200 million died in China. Seems like 3 dead in Costa Rica is a natural disaster massacre compared to China... Of course, we're not a death ticker. I'm sorry for my confusion, what exactly is the minimum number of deaths? --IP98 (talk) 00:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support on notability grounds. Pretty high death toll; as I said there's no hard figure on how many deaths make an event sufficiently notable but 89 is a lot. That said, I think the article is pretty sparse still. I don't think the article has three well formed paragraphs and that's a bare minimum.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment can someone move this section down to the 6th (as that's the date that the event happened) I'd do it myself but my machine is rather clunky so I can't get the edit for the whole page done fast enough not to get an edit conflict, cheers. EdwardLane (talk) 11:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
try this for context: "Following the death of... and the arrest of whatshisface, Pakistan expels expatriate employees of Save the Children"
Hi Lihaas, just to double check... you mean foreign rather than expat, and to insert Osama bin Laden and Dr. Shakil Afridi? If so your suggested blurb becomes blurb "Following the death of Osama bin Laden and the arrest of Dr. Shakil Afridi, Pakistan expels foreign employees of Save the Children" which seems reasonable, guess I should Support as nomEdwardLane (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2012 (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