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).
At least 11 people, including 5 suspects, are killed and 15 others are injured on Sunday's violence in China's Xinjiang region, raising the death toll to 20 over the weekend attacks in Kashgar. (CRI)(The Guardian)
The HSBC bank announces plans to cut 5,000 jobs now and 25,000 by 2013. (Reuters)
Foxconn Technology, a computer assembler headquartered in Taiwan, plans to add one million robots to its plants over the next three years, according to a Reuters report. (Reuters)
The date when the State of Palestine will look to a UN vote on its independence will be held on september 20, 2011, Palestinian officials have said they will start mass marches against Israel's occupation of the West Bank on the eve of the vote which will go under the name "Palestine 194".--BabbaQ (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am kind of on the fence here on the one hand the fact they have set a vote is an extremely significant in itself and is a borderline ITN item as simply "an announcement." The question is whether it should go up once here in August and again in September. I am leaning towards wait till the vote but am open to being persuaded otherwise. The Resident Anthropologist(talk)•(contribs) 22:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose considering that the main event is nearly two months away and the user has not indicated what he is actually nominating. Guys, please put some effort in your nominations. At least have a blurb and an existing article. JimSukwutput22:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support with article and changed blurb: It looks more like a specific attack than a general insurgency/uprising - and all news sources (Wall Street Journal, India Today, CNN, etc) say that they were masterminded outside the country (from Pakistan) - so its hardly a local uprising. That, and we would also need an article. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Insurgencies against the Beijing government are extremely rare" - this is factually incorrect. There is at least one such violent conflict in Xinjiang every year. I remember a few years back they stormed a police station and killed dozens of men; two years ago, I think, at least another 100 ethnic Chinese were killed in a riot. The Beijing government tends to play down these conflicts because they think news of racial conflict will only lead to more racial conflict. But still from what the government has revealed, there is a lot of ethnic and religious turmoil in that region. Also, note that by calling it an insurgency you have combined several separated incidents, all of which seem closer to terrorist attacks (explosions, stabbing in urban areas) rather than an insurgency (rebels controlling their own territories, etc.).JimSukwutput13:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about headlining it as: 20 killed as suppressed Uyghur minority rise up against Han Chinese colonialism. That would put some truth on the bones of this news. 79.75.82.183 (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Muslims bombing Chinese is a heroic movement, Christians bombing Caucasians is the acts of a lonely madman, and Muslims bombing Caucasians is of course horrendous terrorism. What an utterly asinine comment. JimSukwutput15:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support; coordinated attacks like this are fairly rare, especially in China where, as Jim said, most such news is suppressed. Also, the articles are in very good shape, which is a pleasant surprise. C628 (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: unusual location and now China is publicly blaming Pakistan trained militants[1]. This makes it even more notable as China is seen by Pakistanis as an "all weather friend" unlike other strategic partners like USA etc--Wikireader41 (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
strong/obvious oppose the story was on the debt limit NOT passing not the fact that it has. in which case we should be posting every EU statement of support for the PIIGS and every chinese raet increase that takes markets up the next day (and for that matter the mega falls in global markets)
It will barely even cover the interest on the debt they're paying... And of course, the Democrats have caved in to the right-wing idiots, which is very sad. I sort of sympathise with Lihaas' view as well; debate number 79 over this issue, although more contentious than before, remains the exact same thing. But we posted the UK's military cuts last year, so I'm fine with this either way. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)14:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and an obvious one at that. This is massively covered globally and has an extreme level of interest in the US and in the rest of the world. Not only that but the outcome of this debate (either way) will have a real affect on the global economy. The effects of this debate will be felt by billions of people in one way or another. RxS (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support once Congress votes on and passes/fails measure. Right now, the only news is Obama's speech, which really has no effect, but if/when Congress does something, effects will be had. C628 (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and obvious oppose, Since when have governments agreeing budgets made it on to ITN ? lets actually look at what this is. It is a group of over opinionated politicians messing about trying to justify their existence to the voters. Does anyone actually think the US would have defaulted on their debts. If this had been a muti-national or IMF bail out then yes, but to quote The West Wing this is just the US agreeing to increase the limit on the national credit card.Mtking (edits) 21:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you joking? Its been front page news for several days and has been discussed by serious publications like the Economist all month. The US is also about to lose its AAA debt rating - only about 30 countries and companies are AAA rated. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not, it may have been front page news for several days but I don't think the "deal" (such as it is) is very significant, governments pass budgets all the time, governments borrow money all the time. If and when the US looses AAA and I don't actually think they will unlike Todd Buchholz and others then that is significant and should be posted, but until then this should not be. Mtking (edits) 21:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it is any way relevant, I would have supported U2 360° Tour, had it not been posted before I got to it. The fact still remains that there is no significance to this, governments around the world pass budgets and borrow money every year, the significant aspect is either a US debt default or a change in the US credit rating. Mtking (edits) 22:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Golf competition and a rock band's tour being more significant than massive spending cuts in healthcare, education and social security (which will undoubtedly lead to a higher mortality rate), and the first famine to occur in 30 years. We live in a different world, eh? JimSukwutput22:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More prose. Right now the article contains very little recent information beside what is said in the blurb. It would also be great if you can expand the personal life section. Right now the article is almost completely career record, which makes it pretty much only interesting to golf fans. JimSukwutput04:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hottest golfer of any sex really...all sorts of reasons to post this. I didn't look but I assume this is ITNR. RxS (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not ITNR at the present moment, which is because they are only looking at the men's majors, and I believe that it is quite sexist on ITNR's behalf and should be changed. I have done a tremendous amount of work to bring women's articles up to the level of men's, so it can be included in ITNR. I think we need to open a discussion on ITNR golf to include women's stuff.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be so quick to accuse ITNR of sexism. The significance of a competition is largely measured by its viewership, and it is a fact that men's sports (with some exceptions) tend to have a larger audience. Blame the audience. JimSukwutput18:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but article needs a good expansion. And yes, I support a change to "2011 Hama crackdown" or similar name. See WP:POVTITLE - we do not use a title that is potentially biased unless the event is most commonly referred to by that name. Right now I see references to crackdown in the media, but not "massacre". JimSukwutput16:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - not only is is major news BabbaQ. It documents a horrid development in the Arab Spring that has become a drawn out fight for the soul of the Islamic world. This has to be one of the worst attacks in Syria, since the rebellion began, which means it merits ITN.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 02:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Lihaas here. I previously opposed the article that he had updated because it was, IMO, poorly written. But that was still in a MUCH better state than this one. I would not support this being posted at this stage. It needs at least double the size; the history section needs to be rewritten or eliminated; and the result needs to be clarified and sourced. JimSukwutput13:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is clearly consensus that the topic is notable, but the article is in poor shape and has a {{POV}} tag on it. I'm not going to post if it's in that condition. NW(Talk)13:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, eventually. But the article has a really long way to go. And it has a POV tag. Last time I checked there wasn't any discussion on the talk page so it can probably be removed. RxS (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
conditional support for a pre-determined short-term basis (a week? till aug 5 or resolution) as its globally notable despie being domestic and the talk of the town at the moment. Although id prefer a regular article than the timeline synopsis...though then gain as a stickhy timeline could work.Lihaas (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, now that I think of it again, this probably doesn't warrant a sticky. The article only has a few lines for recent events and the whole thing will be over by tomorrow or the day after. I agree with what Crispmuncher said below. Oppose. JimSukwutput16:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as there is no single event, we can wait until some sort of agreement is reached or we can wait until August 3, when no agreement would be an event on its own... --Tone15:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support unusual globally watched drama about the worlds sole superpower possibly headed towards default on its debt ( which for the longest time has been regarded as one of the safest investments known to mankind)--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Stickies are best used for those stories where there are multiple ongoing developments, and ITN risks becoming saturated with separate threads of the same story. So far we have had no posts on this matter, nor indeed even any nominations. A sticky therefore strikes me as far too premature. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - Crisp pretty much has it correct. One way or another, in three days, we can simply post a blurb about how the crisis was resolved or about the collapse of civilization. Swarmu | t19:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same main reasons as Crispmuncher, the only ITN worthy post I foresee out of this is if the US actually defaults on its obligation to it bond holders. Mtking (edits) 22:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: The ending of the tour is significant not only because it set records as the highest-attended and highest-grossing tour of all time, but its 110 shows took place over a three-year period in countries all around the world. Please note this is my first nomination here, so I apologize for any procedural issues I may have overlooked. Since I've never written a blurb here, I'd be happy to rewrite it to make it more suitable. –Dream out loud (talk) 07:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, for the basic fact that its the highest grossing tour and highest attendance beating the old record by about $1.5m and 3 million attendees. YuMaNuMa (talk) 07:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
strong support as a fisrt (we just posted harry potter) and a minority topic as music is rarely on here. (forissues not pertaining to death)Lihaas (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned that there seems to be a double standard here in terms of what exactly is culture and what isn't. But anyway, I support this. JimSukwutput13:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What an AWESOME show it was! But aside from the fact that I went, I support because of its record-breaking revenue and attendance. I still cannot believe they didn't play Bad... EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)16:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone add "in 30 countries" to the end of the blurb? I think this would be a good way to show how internationally diverse the tour was. Here's a source.[2] –Dream out loud (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pay-TV company BSkyB secures a seven year deal to share the United Kingdom broadcasting rights of Formula One racing. From March 2012 half the races will air on Sky, while the BBC retains the right to show the other half. (Bloomberg)
The Prime Minister of South Korea, Kim Hwang-sik, calls for an overhaul of disaster management following the death of 59 people in floods and landslides caused by heavy rain in recent days. (Yonhap)
The legal team representing Glenn Mulcaire, the private investigator at the centre of claims of phone hacking, says that he "acted on the instructions of others". (BBC)
Broadcaster BSkyB announces its intention to return $1bn to shareholders angered by the recent fall in its share prices. (BBC)
Appearing in court, protester Jonathan May-Bowles admits to throwing a foam pie at Rupert Murdoch as he gave evidence to a Parliamentary Committee. (BBC)
UK based Internet blogger Bilal Zaheer Ahmad is sentenced to 12 years imprisonment after admitting using his blog to solicit the murder of MPs who voted for the Iraq War. (BBC)
A U.S. Court of Appeals holds that isolated DNA is "markedly different" in its chemical structure from the DNA within chromosomes, and thus is not simply a product of nature but of human ingenuity. According, the court upholds two patents held by Myriad Genetics against challenge. (New York Times)
shouldtn we get an article and an update first? it would give better background as to whether its notable for ITN. i myself am a bit split at the moment.Lihaas (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mining accidents, unfortunately, are extremely common and part of the job. The article on Mining accident says this for China: "Between January 2001 and October 2004, there were 188 accidents that had a death toll of more than 10." If this were to be posted, then we would have to post one mining accident every 7.4 days, for China alone. JimSukwutput18:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, a comparison of Ukraine to China is more apples-to-oranges; China is especially notorious for lethal mine accidents. Poland is probably more comparable; the article List of mining disasters in Poland lists fewer major accidents in recent years. SpencerT♦C05:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see is that the bottom line is both countries are developing nations and accidents as such are fairly common and usually tend to go unreported. The fact that the death toll is 18 heightens the seriousness of the tragedy but it is not uncommon.YuMaNuMa (talk) 05:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that China is more notorious for lethal mine accidents is probably because it produces 45 times the coal that Ukraine does. If you have fewer miners, you have fewer mining accidents - and that does not make them any more notable. It wouldn't be particularly notable, say, if Cyprus had a mining accident, even if it were extremely rare due to the country's size. JimSukwutput10:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of the opinion that relatively frequent events like mining accidents, especially in countries that don't necessarily have an impeccable safety record, should only be posted if they have some special claim to notability, like being the worst in a country for a long time. If either of these incidents develop into something like that, I could support, but I'm not sure why two completely different incidents in separate mines are covered in one article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Chilean miners story was popular because they were still alive and were successfully rescued. That's not the case here and, as pointed out above, that makes it just another tragic accident. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)00:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is the sort of headline newsy news that we should be doing less of. Unless there's something more to the story than just a mining accident we should let it pass. If we look at it from our readers perspective, it's not likely that many of them will be looking for information on this topic. RxS (talk) 05:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing in particular seems to distinguish this storm from the dozen of other storms that tend to sweep across the South China Sea during this season, except the slightly high death toll. The damage is very limited at the moment, at barely $26 million (compare that to Sarika, at $248 million; Aere, at $1.37 billion). JimSukwutput18:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With damages of at (now) least US$34 million, Nock-ten is now the second costliest storm in the Western Pacific this year behind Sarika; Aere had US#31.7 million in damages... or 1.37 billion Philippine pesos. The "slightly high death toll" is sure to eclipse Aere, the deadliest storm of the year in the Western Pacific. –HTD18:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I misread that part. However, given that we did not post Sarika or Aere, or any of the other storms in the season (they do not even have an article), I see no particular reason why this ought to be posted. Having a few more deaths than usual in one small category of natural disasters does not sound like particularly newsworthy. JimSukwutput19:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's in the past now. We screwed up earlier this year... you're not suggesting to commit the same mistake again, are you? –HTD19:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think it was a mistake, and it wouldn't be our mistake anyhow, considering that those articles do not even exist. JimSukwutput19:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Netural While Nocktens PAGASA name has met the pre published criteria for retirement. I do not think that Nock-ten did enough to justify a main page appearance. Esspecially when we are probbably gonna have stronger storms hitting PHP during the Autumn.Jason Rees (talk) 01:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per the fact that while 41 deaths is rather significant, I have to agree with Jason Rees that in the grand scheme of an entire typical hurricane/typhoon season this isn't exactly the worst. Ks0stm(T•C•G)02:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the rarity of this event and the degree of significance are probably debatable, but the article is looking good so a definite support. Swarmu | t03:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support It may not be a clear case of inclusion, the article is in good shape and we're behind...supporting to hopefully knock it off the schnide. RxS (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if someone creates/finds an article about the flooding in South Korea that is worth a separate blurb. –HTD17:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Brief article created. Although last year's floods in North Korea and Vietnam killed more people, such deadly floods in South Korea are a rare occurrence. ~AH1(discuss!)19:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please state what you mean by "common". Or this could just be another case of what I call news fatigue to seemingly oft-reported stories. Just because significant floods occur every year does not imply that an individual flood of a certain magnitude is always common in a specific area. ~AH1(discuss!)19:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with news fatigue. I simply think there are much more important stories elsewhere - be they related to humanitarian disasters (see the Somalia famine article below, of which I was the main author), or scientific discoveries, or political conflicts with long-reaching consequences. Natural disasters like this are unforeseeable and largely unavoidable events, and do not have any long-term consequences. Reading about such news does not give us any information beyond the fact that, out there, some people have it worse than us. Yes, it's important to know what's going on in the world, but when 3/4 of the stories nominated here are natural disasters, there's something fundamentally wrong with how we consume news. JimSukwutput22:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I think (and this is purely my opinion) there are two important differences between those "disaster" stories that ought to be posted and those that ought not. First, whether it is man-made (i.e. preventable) - for example, famines, massacres, accidents caused by poor training, and so on. Second, whether there is something that can be done about it - for example, disasters caused by environmental damage that can be reversed, or disasters that require an international relief effort. If neither of these are true, then the disaster/accident is purely unavoidable and unchangeable, and it becomes simply a consumption of news. The famine below is what I think is most appropriate in this regard - it was preventable, and there is still something that people can do about it.
Not to mention the immense difference in scale - using the death rate provided by the famine article, the famine is causing nearly 3000 deaths per day. This disaster nominated here simply pales in comparison to what's happening in many countries in eastern Africa, and I would rather we post numerous developments on that than this. JimSukwutput22:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Police tell the mother of murder victim Sarah Payne that her mobile phone details have been found in notes made by private investigator Glenn Mulcaire. (BBC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: The famine is a really big humanitarian story, and this development belongs on the main page. --Rhombus (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A bit late, in my opinion. The first UN airlift was on 13 July according to the article. There is no doubt that the famine remains a crisis, however, considering Al-Shabaab partially lifted its ban on humanitarian workers. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 20:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Al-Shabaab did not lift its ban (though it was previously reported so); in fact, it just entered into a major conflict with government forces. In addition, this is the first UN airlift since famine was declared on 20 July, and to my knowledge is only the second one throughout the drought. Airlifts are major operations, and few ever occur. JimSukwutput18:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment. This has already been on ITN twice, on the 17th and the 20th. Have there been any new developments since then? Jenks24 (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Lots of donation pledges; violent conflicts between government/aid groups and Al-Shabaab; and so on. I don't think this is the most important development, but there's definitely something that can be posted, given that this is the first official famine in nearly 30 years and have already resulted in at least twenty thousand deaths. JimSukwutput18:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support that as well. This is a disaster on the scale of the Japan earthquake, and it's ongoing and getting a lot worse. So since that was made a sticky, no reason not to do this one. JimSukwutput18:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to see this stickied, but if that doesn't happen, then I would be fine with a blurb regarding the conflict that Jim has pointed out below. Jenks24 (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as to any majorfamine, the UN will be airlifting food to the country. An event like this was inevitable since the famine grew into a crisis so there is really no point posting the same/similar event twice. YuMaNuMa (talk) 05:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is plainly wrong. This is the first famine declared by the UN since the 1984-85 Ethiopian famine, and there was no airlift during that period. JimSukwutput14:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
neutral it has come under criticism for red tape delays, while at the same time the number of refugees into Ethiopia is steadily ridsing as a result of the famine/drought. might even be a weak supportLihaas (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support, though not necessarily this particular blurb. I think this particular event is more important: "Africa Union peacekeepers say they have seized key territory from Islamist insurgents in Somalia's capital after they allegedly threatened aid camps." This is a major conflict, involving tens of thousands of African Union soldiers. JimSukwutput18:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose use of sticky Previously, "stickying" something was reserved for the Olympics- international events with high probability of multiple ITN postings (new world records and such), and ones that were constantly being updated well with new information. Recently, the usage has been expanded, and I think at times it has been appropriate, but for items such as this, it isn't. Stickying should be for clumping multiple items at once, not just a way to blanket cover updates to a single story. SpencerT♦C02:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support three items: in one blurb; the airlift, the refugee crisis and the insurgency. Major crisis is unfolding in Somalia. ~AH1(discuss!)17:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I Moved this discussion as there seems to be a consensus that the AU/Al-Shabaab conflict on 28 July should be mentioned. I also marked "[Ready]" as there is a clear consensus for posting. However, there doesn't seem to be a consensus on what particular blurb to use or whether to make it a sticky. Maybe an admin can make the choice here? JimSukwutput18:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is an update for each of the blurb suggested, at the ends of the second and third section respectively.
Six supports and one oppose seem to be a fairly decent consensus. The problem is that we have different preferences for what particular blurb to use. But I don't think we can resolve that any time soon, and I don't think it really matters. JimSukwutput19:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But no one blurb has a consensus, imo. It's not like the options are minor stylistic preferences, the consensus is torn as to which parts of the story are and aren't worth posting. I think we need more discussion (and preferably not just voting). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see the point. Any one who hasn't stated his/her preference yet, please comment on whether you prefer the first blurb (UN airlift), the second blurb (AU/Al-Shabaab conflict), or a combination of both. JimSukwutput22:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please correct me if I am wrong, but I thought this was the first time food was actually being airlifted into Somalia itself. Beyond that, I think it a sad commentary that, as of today, I cannot find any evidence on the main page that millions of people are starving to death as we speak. Instead we had Amy Winehouse's death and the Tour de France winner. The suggestion to make it sticky is a good one. If this doesn't merit it, then what does? --Rhombus (talk) 12:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Four people here seem to have a clear preference for posting this as a sticky (Jenks24, Ohconfucius, me, and Rhombus as the nominator). I'm changing the nomination title as a result. Also adding [Ready] - there are four supports for the sticky, two additional supports with no preference indicated, and one oppose for the sticky and one additional oppose with no preference indicated. A fairly decent consensus. Article was updated for both of the events described above and is being updated constantly. JimSukwutput14:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read the article. The airlift you're referring to was on July 13, in Kenya. The one nominated here occurred on July 27, in Somalia. As for stickying it, I certainly don't see how a hacking scandal of one company warrants one while a historical famine that affects 11 million people in 6 countries does not. This is not "one story". We have already posted two stories related to this, and there are two more stories nominated above that have gained widespread support. If this does not become a sticky, then we will have to post the article four times, and as Ohconfucius said, that number is only going to increase in the future. JimSukwutput04:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the [Ready] tag, it was "added" twice by Jim Sukwutput first when he moved the text here only to be removed by an administrator (HJ Mitchell) here and then re-added here. Please only add the "[Ready]" Tag once, if someone else, especialy an administrator, removes it leave it to others to judge if it should be marked again. Mtking (edits) 05:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mtking: HJ Mitchell removed the Ready tag because there was no consensus at that time about which particular blurb to post or whether to sticky it. Since then, two of the users have expressed their preference for stickying it, meaning that there is now a large majority in favor of that (if I can assume Eraserhead1 supports it, that makes three). And while HJ Mitchell said he prefers more discussion, 3 days have passed and there has been no response from any of the two previous oppose votes, one of which, by the way, is factually incorrect like yours. Would you also care to retract your incorrect statement, and explain why you still hold on to your position? JimSukwutput13:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to reemphasize the continued significance of this event and the many developments that have occurred around it - there are over 600 news articles about the Somalia famine alone during the last day. For example, torrential rain destroyed many of the refugee camps yesterday 12, leading to at least hundreds of deaths. On another note, some governments have made significant contributions to the relief effort, including Canada's $50 million and France's €30 million 3. To add onto that, the large-scale conflict between AU forces and Al-Shabaab is still going on and AU forces just launched a major offensive to seize large amounts of territories back from the insurgents 45.
This is also, by the way, stickied on the French and Spanish Wikipedias, and the German Wikipedia's article is constantly in the news section and getting more views than ours. How we can fail to post such an event in these circumstances is utterly incomprehensible to me. JimSukwutput14:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but we need a strong article to explain the background and why exactly this is significant. The Science Daily article seems like a good basis for an update. JimSukwutput19:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is confirm the right word? Scientists "confirm" evolution all the time but it can never become a scientific law. Also we should definitely cut the "By determining the mass of an antiproton" part out. I'm not seeing a mainstream coverage so I am opposing for now. MarcusQwertyus12:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your counter-example is a bit off. Matter-antimatter symmetry is a physical property (or law); evolution is a theory (or explanation), albeit one that has been tested and affirmed endless times. Confirm is definitely the right word to describe the first one. JimSukwutput13:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. You have to be a physicist to understand the article and the article doesn't mention the current discovery (although I'm sure someone will fix that.) This is a minority topic and we already have an item about as asteroid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard-of-Earth (talk • contribs) 18:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We posted the election results in June. We very rarely post inaugurations as they are symbolic.EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)16:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be confusion because it seems the posting administrator didn't make a note on the election article's talk page. The stats clearly show it, though. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 16:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"rarely " post? why the bias to anglo-countries. (although i think Ireland was posted too, coul dbe wrong)
Stats dont mean they were necessarily on ITN, it was a hot-issue at the time and it could have generated sensation. (peru market and silver prices in the news back then) STL generated views without ever being on ITN.Lihaas (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
to reiterate, we dotn vote count here. you have to give a reason;; and that point has a counter-arguement, so you should counter that.Lihaas (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't see it, and wouldn't have understood it anyhow. Anyway, switching to neutral now based on Arsonal's comment below. I don't think it makes sense to post a insignificant story just because we didn't post the main event previously, but I see the point.JimSukwutput18:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm striking my previous comment because the story was never posted back in June despite its ITNR status. There was concern about the lack of a prose update. If the election article is inadequate, Humala's article is an alternate choice. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 19:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Support in light of this. I guess I should have checked before making that initial claim. Lucky break, Lihaas :P EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)16:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, in that case, as above. And because the timer is red hot and all other nominations today look like duds. Nightw19:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question should we bold the election article (or both?)? as the former has the current quit e git prose update of the inauguration.Lihaas (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
In the news toolbox
