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.
Tropical Storm Trami
Tropical Storm Trami(satellite image shown) leaves more than 120 people dead in the Philippines.
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).
Strong Oppose on consistency grounds. If we did not post anything about the actual protest, it makes no sense whatsoever to post this one. Most of the event occurred at the same time as the nominated event below (Nov 15) and is merely one of many results of what happened. JimSukwutput06:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't agree that we should conflate these arrests with the progression and day-to-day affairs of Occupy Wall Street. These arrests were carried out against individuals other than those who are participating in the protests. The two subjects are related but fundamentally distinct. — C M B J07:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The NYPD used unconstitutional threats and violence to silence and "detain" journalists and create a media black-out during the eviction in clear violation of the 1st Amendment (this isn't soapboxing, this is what just about every media organisation is reporting, except Fox). But, this was just one small (albeit very significant) aspect of a topic (the forced removal of the Occupy Wall Street protesters) that has already been nominated below. Regardless, the Occupy nominations already have bugger-all chance of being posted by this editorial community. Add to that the complete and utter subservience and sycophantic hero-worship that these editors display when grovelling at the feet of the NYPD, then you have WP:SNOW chance of getting this posted. Remember: you are completely forbidden from ever suggesting any wrongdoing by American cops in ITN/C ;-) DeterenceTalk06:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is just a detail of an event and not a news story in its own right. The Occupy "movement" has had its news events nominated here before and consistently failed to persuade the community that they are notable enough for inclusion. That journalists are arrested as part of wider unrest is just a consequence which does not move the story forward and is certainly not credible enough for a front page mention. doktorbwordsdeeds07:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: IAEA has published numerous reports on Iran, none of which have been as strongly-worded and explicit as this one. The report has generated a unique response from the international community and world powers. WikifanBe nice22:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose They've been saying this about Iran for more years than I can count and they wrongly accused Iraq of the same thing for over a decade. And do we want to open the IAEA-is-a-spineless-puppet-of-the-White-House can of worms? DeterenceTalk22:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is definitely more than a political threat, at least this time. I'm just really not sure what to make of it without further investigation by the IAEA or other international bodies. And right now, it doesn't seem to have garnered a very public reaction so far. No judgement on the merits of the actual nomination, though. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)23:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Iran has been suspected of that for decades. The IAEA can only point a finger at someone - if a country takes unusual action because of it, that would be more meaningful. Mamyles (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree, Iran has been "suspected" for decades, but the IAEA has never made an official stance on Iran until this week. Former IAEA chief EB denied Iran may be weaponizing its nuclear program, but Yukiya Amano came out and announced it to the whole world. The report is leading to a showdown at the UN. So countries are taking unusual action in this situation. WikifanBe nice01:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This blurb passes my standards for NPOV on a internationally notable and important news story. It is the fact of the report itself that makes this item ITN-worthy; the validity of the report is moot and our personal opinions about that are, or should be, of small import. Jusdafax02:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. Depending on your personal political views, IAEA's report might or might not be a fair accusation. But there is no doubt that the very accusation itself is significant politically. It's also incorrect to say that IAEA has been accusing Iran of the same thing for many years. This as far as I know is completely incorrect; just a few years ago they released a highly controversial report (contradicting U.S. official position) saying that Iran did not have a nuclear weapons program. This is by far the strongest accusation (and evidence, if you believe it is legitimate) that Iran has a nuclear weapons program from an UN agency. JimSukwutput05:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Currently the top world news at the BBC and has been covered extensively in the UK at least. This has been described as the Free Syrian Army's (made up of anti-government deserters) highest profile attack so far. It was made against the feared Air Force Intelligence Directorate building in Harasta and other targets in Zamalke, Hamuriya and Douma. The attack was well co-ordinated and planned and is the first on a major security facility in Syria, I feel this is a major development. Perhaps could be used as an amendment to the current blurb. --Dumelow (talk) 12:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now the current top story is about Syria and has been for DAYS, we're not going to post every little development in that conflict. Bombing has been routine over there this is nothing new, partially destroying a building (BTW "partially destroying" could mean that they just broke a window glass) is not exceptional and is still an unconfirmed report based on Syrian opposition claims (Remember how the Libyan NTC repeatedly lied about making major breakthroughs in the war?). Also I just realized that the current story featured seems wrong; the BBC says "The meeting is expected to ratify last week's vote to suspend Syria and also debate possible further measures against Damascus.", [1] So basically what they did is agree on suspending but have not actually done so as of now. --Tachfin (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on article, neither bolded article has any substantial mention of the attack. --`Golbez (talk)
Comment This should have been posted months back, while this isn't the ideal incident to start posting, the commencement of the civil war which is closely foreseeable should be swiftly posted with a low consensus. YuMaNuMa (talk) 10:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support obviously. As for whether the articles are ready - it's true that the updates for this specific events are minimal, but given that we haven't posted anything about the uprising except for the Arab League decision, a substantial part of the latter article can be considered updates of recent events. The article is also of exceptional quality (well-written and well-cited). JimSukwutput16:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, we don't write names in the blurb. However, if we omit the names, the blurb is too short. Yet again, we cannot say like ... with three astronauts.... as there are one astronaut and two cosmonauts. With 3 men sounds lame. Any other suggestion? Ready to post otherwise. --Tone16:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I may have forgotten something, but isn't the significance of this being the first docking with the station since the final Space Shuttle mission in July? That at least helps put this in perspective. --MASEM (t) 21:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as i remember expeditions to ISS were made an exception unless it was more than just crew change. I am going to oppose this one since nothing significant has taken place that differs this Soyuz mission from last one or next one. This should not be ITNR -- Ashish-g5519:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is especially significant as there was consideration of having to abandon the station, because of the crash of an unmanned Progress cargo ship in August (mentioned in the above source). That they were able to successfully conduct this flight provides continuity of operations. Mamyles (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Progress and Soyuz missions are very different though. If the last Soyuz (TMA) crashed i would totally agree. Its quite a bit like saying a delta rocket crahsed so we should post the next shuttle launch (obviously ignoring significance of such launch). -- Ashish-g5520:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When we were updating the space criteria I argued that routine crew rotation shouldn't be on ITNR. Consensus went against me, and they do indeed qualify under the new criteria. I obviously disagree with this, but it was what was decided at the time. Modest Geniustalk21:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Significant for a number of reasons, including the fact that the USA is now hitching a ride to get to the ISS. Disagree that this should not be on ITNR; this is an important moment in international relations, and of major interest in the wake of previous talk of abandoning the station, as noted by Mamyles. I do agree that the article needs more than one sentence for the update. Jusdafax20:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question All the shuttle missions were on ITN, but were the Russian and Chinese manned missions as well? I remember at least one Chinese (their first I think) made it to ITN. I'm honestly just curious. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 03:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pressure is applied to the Syrian government from many sides as Turkey threatens to cut electricity to its southern neighbor, while the European Union increases sanctions on the regime. (CNN)
Chinese artist Ai Weiwei pays 8.45 million yuan in taxes after receiving a large number of donations from supporters who believe the debt was politically motivated because of his criticism of the Chinese government. (CNN)
Police in the English city of Birmingham arrest four men in the Sparkhill district in a major anti-terrorism operation. (BBC)
Article updated 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.
Nominator's comments: Never before made an ITN nomination, so please don't castigate me if I've caused some problems. Someone please fill in the "ITNR" and "minority" columns for me, because I don't know what they are. --Nyttend backup (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ready Extensive article with considerable referencing. It is certainly better quality than the majority of election ITN/R we see on this page. While the election was 8 days ago, the official results have only just been released, on the 15th of November. I've removed the minority topic tag. DeterenceTalk23:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support but the use of the term "disputed election" in the blurb does not seem right. There doesn't seem to be any allegation of fraud or irregularity, but the strong possibility of an effective voter boycott. I'm not sure how we succinctly express that, but we need to. --FormerIP (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Something other than the tables in the Results section would be nice. Perhaps a couple sentences or a paragraph summarizing the results? -- tariqabjotu02:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What if we changed it to something like "is certified as the winner"? That would allow us to leave out the disputed part without sacrificing NPOV. Nyttend (talk) 03:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
EJS is reelected as the president as Tubman boycotts the second round? Not perfect either... However, I remember some time ago when we had the parliamentary election in Egypt, we just stated the winner and not the fact that the biggest opposition party boycotted the election. --Tone08:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mistral's comment makes me wonder if we need to say that she was elected, since that's relatively old news: the news is that she's now known to be the winner. Couldn't we just ignore the question of dispute by concentrating on the announcement that she's the winner? Nyttend (talk) 12:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a long section, so I imagine it wouldn't take too much of your time to read what everyone else has said, including my still unanswered comment as to why this isn't up to standards yet. -- tariqabjotu20:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considering our normal standards and the fact that this is an event with a whole 70K article dedicated to it, I'd say there is such a thing as over-fussy. --FormerIP (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your attitude and Tone's capitulation still doesn't negate your laziness. The article does not mention the results in the appropriate section, which is the key news item here. ITN has taken quite the dive over the past several weeks. Posting the same types of trope articles with poor updates out of desperation because second-tier events with much better updates get shot down. Refusing to post poorly updated articles like these is not "over-fussy"; it's maintaining the quality of the section, which some people -- like, apparently, Tone -- are not willing to do. -- tariqabjotu21:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get what the issue is. A table is as good as a paragraph for explaining who got what number of votes in an election. In fact, it's better, unless you're a fan of extremely boring prose. We normally ask for a few lines of update, but here, we have paragraph after paragraph of a new article dealing with the elections. And this is our first news since fucking Saturday. I can agree with you about items being shot down, but blocking other articles as a response would be childish. I assume that's nothing to do with your trivial objection here. --FormerIP (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're tripping over yourself, and in doing so are proving my point. You basically say that because we haven't gotten any updates since Saturday, we should lower our update standards to push an article onto ITN (yeah, don't pretend as if I'm making up and raising standards as some sort of "response"). Like I said, I don't think that's acceptable. If there's any standard to lower in times of drought, it's the consensus standard. Our goal, after all, is to showcase updated articles, not showcase articles that everyone wants on the Main Page. So, well-updated updates with borderline consensus should take precedence over poorly updated articles with unanimity. And about tables... don't your remember your high school science teacher who docked points for failing to put a caption and title for your tables? This is the equivalent. Yeah, these tables have titles, but you need some context, an explanation, a paragraph explaining what the tables just put in numbers. It's not so difficult to put that together. And I fully intend to take Tone up on his offer to pull the item should this not be corrected in the next few hours. -- tariqabjotu00:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the results and all relevant info were in the introduction the last time I checked. Still, feel free to pull the item until the issue is solved, I don't mind. --Tone21:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - significant story, article is clearly ready to go (a disagreement over the best way to present results really shouldn't prevent it going up). Warofdreamstalk15:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would be uneasy in supporting a nomination about the murder of an internationally famous celebrity, let alone the murder of a relatively unknown rugby player whose main claim to fame is based on the colour of his skin when he scored a try. DeterenceTalk01:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First gas summit of the Gas Exporting Countries Forum
Nominator's comments: First summit of the organization which members have 2/3 of world natural gas reserves; continues movement towards "Gas-OPEC". Beagel (talk) 11:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The summit only has a few sentences in the article, but featuring the GECF is important and significant as an international development. Mamyles (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on article, the article is internally inconsistent (the map doesn't match the member list), and there's only 12 words devoted to the update, which demands a much more substantial treatment. Mamyles says featuring the GECF summit is important, and they may be right, but as it is the article doesn't explain what's special about the summit. Nothing sets it apart in the article from the 13 meetings before. --Golbez (talk) 13:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure, but leaning to oppose. It looks to me like the news is that a group a ministers that has met every year since 2001 has this year decided to brand its meeting a "summit" instead of a "ministerial meeting". --FormerIP (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Here as in the nomination from yesterday. This is not front page material. It is "local police clearing a public space". The numbers involved in this specific incident is not enough to justify a notable front page news event, nor is the police behaviour more than would be normally expected under the circumstances. As has been mentioned before, no Occupy incident has yet been proven notable enough by the nominator for front page inclusion. This little local difficulty does not change that. doktorbwordsdeeds11:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"local police clearing a public space"? Your assessment is so utterly simplistic that it is bordering on the ridiculous. Or you are trolling. DeterenceTalk00:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support in contrast to most of the OWS hooks we have seen posted, this is a significant development. The NYC camp is the flagship and the government shutting it down by force will be a game changer. A check with Google News shows that this shutdown in being covered in depth by basically every news organization. JORGENEV11:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. That "everyone else is covering it" does not make minor protest changes significant. Media are only covering these in depth because a small group would again complain loudly if it wasn't covered 100%. Mamyles (talk) 12:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to my reasoning, this action is expected and used often with protests on private property. Protestors were breaking the park rules (camping), repeatedly warned and asked to leave by police & owners, then arrested for trespassing. The temporary eviction, to clean and prevent further camping, is not startling. Note that the legal rationale for eviction is trespassing, as owners explicitly asked police to conduct the operation.
I agree that these events are of diehard importance to a small group. This could qualify for ITN. However, the blurb now is heavily biased toward protestors. I would weakly support a blurb like "Occupy Wall Street protestors in NYC were temporarily evicted from Zuccotti Park by police for safety and trespassing violations," which is a neutral POV stating the fact, duration, and reason of eviction. Mamyles (talk) 03:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't anywhere close to being a "neutral POV stating the fact". For a start, the eviction is not temporary (and only the most gullible ever believed it was going to be temporary). As for the reason behind the eviction being public "safety", I didn't think anyone was naive enough to swallow that line. DeterenceTalk04:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on article and nom - the article only states that on Nov 15, police started clearing it. Is it ongoing? Did they completely clear it? The article update is not sufficient for ITN. I would probably support if the update were more substantial. Also, the nom is issued in bad faith, apparently some people still can't get their lives past the fact that Joe Paterno got on ITN. --Golbez (talk) 13:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support correct me if I'm wrong, but we've posted protested from Greece, Spain, and the UK among others. Yet this doesn't a have a snowball's chance in hell despite its international coverage. Its CBC's and BBC's top headline yes, I realize everyone gets a different BBC headline and at some point we need to realize this isn't some minor fad. I'm not saying we need to post the minutia of it, but the clearing of the main camp does seem important. Hot Stoptalk-contribs13:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: would it possibly make sense to combine the Portland one below with the NYC one here as a single blurb on the Occupy protests? --MASEM (t) 13:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Arguments based on describing something, removing the noteworthy elements from your description and then asking why the event is noteworthy are not valid. The same can be done with any event. This event is noteworthy because the world's media finds it so. It's not our role to second-guess. Plus we need to post something new. Note to Hotstop: I don't think we have posted Occupy protests from Greece, Spain and the UK. Those places are not in the US, after all. --FormerIP (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
lol I get it, we only post news from the US! that explains why we would never post about Syria, Italy, Mexico, Greece, Africa, or cars that aren't in NASCAR! --Golbez (talk) 14:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, therefore what the media posts is not always relevant. ITN serves simply to bring significant event articles of wide interest to the community's attention. Events are notable when consensus here proves so. Mamyles (talk) 01:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Look at our current ITN: we have one country-wide violent uprising that has been about to turn into a civil war for quite some time; three changes to major political players on three continents; one guy becoming the all-time greatest motorsport driver in world history; an extinction of a sub-species; and a minority topic from fine arts. Now just ask yourself: what has our New York's finest evicting 200 people from one place to another anything – just anything at all – to do with these other stories? It compares not even closely to them in significance, even if it is drummed by all media outlets 24/7. It might suffice as a counter-culture minority topic, but as counter-culture is almost always very much politically radical, I don't think that we, as an encyclopedia and a reference work, should dwell too deep down that road. I would be inclined to exclude anything having to do with political philosophy from the definition of a "minority topic," not only due to immerse problems with original research. It just somehow.. doesn't fit the dignity of an encyclopedia to post fresh news of (mostly young) people democratically protesting the police on its main page. I hope you can understand.. --hydrox (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment re:Hydrox It is worth understanding that Hydrox has nailed the issue on the head for this nomination and others. This eviction has been, gone, and disappeared in the night. It's already just another stale story amongst dozens (if not hundreds) in this on-going leaderless narrative that is the Occupy "movement". Wikipedia rightly gave prominence to the Arab Spring because the event had "Point A, Persons B and C, and Event D". Occupy has got every letter of the alphabet in a bag and refuses to even lay then out for inspection. This story is, as Hydrox says, "200 people evicted from a public place". And that's it. There's nothing more to the story, so why put it on the front page? I would go so far as to suggest that all Occupy story nominations are automatically shut-down by way of WP:SNOW. doktorbwordsdeeds16:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Suggest rebranding this. The occupy protests are being raided in many cities today (New York, Toronto, London), one month after the global day of action, and the overall shutting down of the occupations may warrant a posting in the very near future. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢17:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - we can't post every new development in the occupy XY saga. Not really a newsworthy incident, given the small numbers of protestors involved. Pantherskin (talk) 19:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the rules are wrong here This story is a real problem for ITN. There is a global movement happening, and it's now at the stage where many instances of that movement are being closed down by authorities. (It has happened in my city.) No single instance of a close down will satisfy ITN guidelines. The Opposes above are technically correct. The real news is the fact that it's happening in many places, more or less concurrently. But no news outlets are reporting on it that way. They are all looking locally. We are the GLOBAL encyclopaedia, but for us to somehow combine instances here would be classic WP:SYNTHESIS, and totally unacceptable according to our rules. But it is happening, and it's significant. Our rules are preventing us from telling the real story here. I don't know the solution. HiLo48 (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's T:TDYK to bring attention to articles. In Portal:Current events there are 5 specific incidents covered in the last week and a list of the articles about the occupy movement. People who want to know about it will just type Occupy (whatever) in the search box. We are not hiding the information. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo48, I couldn't agree more. And we're experiencing similar difficulties in ITN with nominations about the Syrian civil war, the Eurozone debt crisis and even Greece. Of course, it wouldn't be a problem if more editors would use a bit of common sense instead of wikilawyering every topic they don't like into oblivion. DeterenceTalk23:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support - I don't understand the hate-on for the Occupy protests here. The end of the New York protest is significant. The movement was in ITN when it was born, now it's dead and deserves mention. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mamyles, NYT says "judge upheld the city’s move to clear the park and bar the protesters from bringing back their tents or staying overnight". [3] Whats your source? --76.18.43.253 (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Protestors are in the park now, as shown by the image depicting police allowing them back, and the article you just quoted. They may not legally camp there, including tents, which was actually in the park rules (as set by the land owner) throughout the protests. That development is not really anything new. Mamyles (talk) 02:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So they can no longer permanently occupy the park, just visit for a while, as per park rules. Sounds like the death of "occupy" wall street to me... The NYC movement, as it was for months, has been killed. Major shift, major story. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I know ITN/C isn't a simple majority vote. I've seen numerous "occupy" events shot at in the last few weeks, including 1000s of protesters closing down the port of oakland. At the same time, I saw "Support support support, JoePa!". I don't get it. Anyway, kindly consider:
Comment I've heard more negative comments about Wikipedia in the preceding weeks than I have ever, due to the failure to cover this movement in ITN. Many users that do not understand how Wikipedia works think that the company/organization itself is censoring major news on this important movement. I submit my personal theory (and likely shared by more than a few) that this continued oversight is costing Wikipedia support. el.nuevo.miguel17:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? The Occupy Wall Street protest is the FLAGSHIP protest that inspired similar protests by countless thousands of protesters in literally hundreds of towns and cities in every country in the Western world, and you cannot appreciate why this is "any different"? Ashishg55, it's taking a hell of a lot of personal self-control not to tear you a new one over that remark. DeterenceTalk01:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
point i was making is many cities have same situation where people are being forced to leave. Just because New York was first one does not mean we need up to minute updates on ITN. And if i wasnt in good mood then i would be looking to get you blocked right now for that comment Deterence. -- Ashish-g5502:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And we post lots of situations where people are being forced to leave. This was the seat of a movement which had off-shots in 100s of cities. Portland, Toronto, Miami, DC, and so on and so forth. It was the "Occupy Wall Street" movement, and now police have run them out at the end of a bayonet. That's a big difference from chasing the homeless out of downsview park. I do appreciate your restraint in the face of some passionate but clearly inappropriate remarks. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 02:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm a bit dismayed by the wall of Opposes here. Several people here seem to be setting the bar for the inclusion of Occupy Wall Street on ITN way too high. Yeah, we don't need to post every development in this event, but we haven't. We posted about this a month and a half ago, and that's about it. Even then, people complained this wasn't of international significance (especially because the previous event was even more minor and fleeting), just a localized hippie-fest. When it went global in mid-October, that wasn't sufficient. And, now, with the New York flagship protest dramatically dismantled (and note the eviction has now been upheld by a judge), that's not good enough either. It's fine if you still think this hasn't met your standards, but, frankly, short of the protesters being murdered, it seems some people just don't want Occupy Wall Street anywhere on the Main Page, often because of dismay with the movement (lack of organization, unclear goals, etc.). Okay, I got that. You don't have to support the movement. You don't have to think their protest is effective. You don't have to think the people involved are productive members of society who can't afford to put their lives on hold for days or weeks on end. But, you can't deny that the protest, and particularly last night's incident, has received international attention, even if it's not the most important event, or among the fifty most important events, happening in the world right now. For the umpteenth time, this section is called In the News, not What Should Be In the News. So, while it's okay to oppose this nomination, please don't be so closed-minded to nominations related to Occupy Wall Street or celebrities or Theme X because you personally don't think they're meaningful -- especially with ITN as stagnant as it is now. -- tariqabjotu02:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The events in NYC were boring. There was no bloodshed. Compare this when they took over the Port of Oakland (mayhem). If there was an ITN-able event from the OWS movement, it was the event in Oakland, not this. Unless of course they (the NYC occupiers) riot over this. –HTD03:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm one of the guys who opposed this and yes, I've seen the threshold for ITN generally being pushed higher and higher over time. My personal guess for the reason is that notability being a subjective criteria, everybody has their own inherent bias and difference of opinion on how important a topic is, and when a nomination gets shot down for reason of lack of notability, this leads to situation where people think "You think X topic is not notable enough to cross the notability barrier? If that's where you are drawing the threshold, then I dont see how Y topic (which in my mind is far less significant than X topic) can cross that threshold." This has lead to the threshold being pushed further and further up with a something bordering on crab mentality preventing nominations from going through. I cant really think of a solution to this. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 07:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that your edit came over 12 hours after I made the above comment, and it still does not warrant a mention in the lead, it cant be a significant episode in the whole event. Therefore I stand my my OpposeMtking (edits) 06:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The rhetoric that I used was not intended to be taken literally. Regardless, on what basis do you assume that these details do not warrant inclusion in the lead? Content contribution, or the lack thereof, is unrelated to the merit of a subject. And just to be clear here, we're talking about the confiscation of a NBC reporter's press pass, an assault on a New York Post reporter, the grounding of NBC and CBS news choppers, and the arrests of reporters for the Associated Press, the New York Times and NPR. I'd reason that if this many journalists encountered similar belligerence in virtually any other part of the world, it would be easily fast-tracked through ITN within a few hours time. — C M B J07:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Therein lies the rub - if it happened in any other part of the world, those disgraceful acts (and unlawful acts, unless the 1st Amendment has been repealed in recent days) would not have been perpetrated by the NYPD. As we have seen in the past, the majority of editors in ITN have zero tolerance for anything that even hints at negativity or disrespect or anything short of 100% subservience towards their beloved American cops. Especially the NYPD. If ever you wanted a clear insight into the conservative demographic that dominates in ITN, it is the tantrums they throw whenever anyone dares to criticise an American cop. DeterenceTalk07:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - let's address this more broadly I have begun a thread at Wikipedia talk:In the news to address the fact that the rules won't let us talk about the whole Occupy movement here. Feel free to contribute. (Constructively please.) HiLo48 (talk) 04:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - The documented use of force against multiple professional journalists—anywhere in the world, and by any organized body—is automatic ITN criteria in my books. — C M B J05:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I didn't notice that the results were actually announced on Thursday. This could maybe just scrape in still, but perhaps it is stale. The article looks ready. --FormerIP (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I'd say post it anyway, but the article looks pretty bad. The update's there, but the lead is a single sentence and most of the sections lack substance. Plus the fact that the result was no surprise. Nightw20:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, seeing no information in article on this, nor the use of "chemical weapons" (I'm sure we could find a more hyperbolic term for 'tear gas' if we really tried.) --Golbez (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now it's not, but as of the moment you made your nom it had no information that was in the nom. Striking my oppose as the primary reason was the lack of update, but I still don't think it qualifies for front page. --Golbez (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be pedantic, but we made our edits in the same minute: 15:21 UTC. So it's reasonable for me to still see an unupdated article. Updates should occur before the nom. --Golbez (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is worth noting that almost none, if any at all, Occupy stories have ever made it to the front page. Consensus on this page has been very clear - this is a little local difficulty, it is not a front page news event. This development is just a small point in a largely self-generated story. Nothing in this story is worth giving credence. doktorbwordsdeeds15:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
<e/c>Neutral - There exists a dissonance between WP:ITN and the rest of Wikipedia mainspace regarding the notability of these events. According to the Occupy AFDs, they are considered notable enough to be posted, yet WP:ITN consensus states that it is not. Should this dissonance perhaps be resolved?--WaltCip (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs discuss notability for mainspace retention: that is a lot lower threshold than ITN notability. If people are making comments at AfD about ITN-worthiness that is in the wrong place: this is where eligibility under those higher criteria are properly scrutinized. There is no inconsistency there. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose on neutrality concerns: the current blurb is part of the problem: it's simply too emotive and not remotely compatible with NPOV. I have similar concerns, albeit not a strong, about the actual article: I could easily run through it placing half a dozen issues templates and who knows how many "citation needed"s. The whole "chemical weapons" thing is problematic but so are the impact weapons comments. These are normal law enforcement tactics, and dressing up the story in hyperbole for political ends does not alter that. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Support Despite being carried daily my all the major media outlets in the western world for many weeks, the Occupy protests have been virtually ignored by ITN. Sadly, I suspect (read: know damn well) that there are a lot more personal politics behind the opposition to posts about the Occupy protests than honest assessment of the ITNworthiness of the Occupy nominations - the votes of some editors on these issues are more predictable than the rising of the sun.
Golbez, Crispmuncher, etc, clearly, the use of the term "chemical agents" (which redirects to "chemical weapons") is rhetorical, bordering on hyperbole. As is the idiotic term "impact weapons". But, if you had done ANY reading on this matter then you would know that that is the ridiculous language used by law enforcement on the scene: "while officers used loudspeakers to warn protesters that anyone who resisted risked arrest and could be "subject to chemical agents and impact weapons"." I guess the mayor's PR office thought "chemical agents and impact weapons" sounded better than "our crack team of wife-beaters are going to stomp a bunch of hippies into the pavement with battons and tear-gas". DeterenceTalk19:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"ANY reading" Not my job. The article did not contain any reference to chemical anything so all I had to go on was the nomination; I had no reason to believe the hyperbole was caused by the police and not by the nom. When it was pointed out I clammed up but if you insist: I apologize for accusing the nom of hyperbole. (Though, it should have been contained in quotes, should it not? Especially since the nature of said agents exists solely in a statement and we don't know what these agents and impact weapons are?) --Golbez (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you 100% that the phrase "chemical agents and impact weapons" should have been in quotes. Especially given the provocative nature of such language. I have amended the blurb accordingly. As for not knowing what "chemical agents and impact weapons" the police use, I rather hope we all have better imaginations than that. Hint: the "impact weapons" are not feather dusters. DeterenceTalk20:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you any reading you would have seen the blurb has been revised since my post: it did refer to "chemical weapons" which is a truly ridiculous stretch. However, my concerns stand: this is essentially a minor and routine detail of standard law enforcement practices. Putting in the blurb like that is still POV due to undue prominence. Are we trying to suggest police don't reach for their batons everyday when dealing with low-level disorder? Crispmuncher (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I know the blurb has been revised. I revised it. Regardless, no one is denying that this is a routine behaviour by American cops. It is the scale of the Occupy movement that makes this development notable. Isn't that obvious? DeterenceTalk22:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the blurb: There are no "U.S. riot police". I suggest omitting "U.S." altogether, or saying, "In the United States, ". Also, no hyphen in shut down. --Golbez (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 76.18.43.253... Seriously I'm neutral on this, but I believe a major protest (I have no idea if this one is) in a major country should deserve a mention sometimes, it's not as if it happens every other week. --Tachfin (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What? Countless thousands of protesters in hundreds of towns and cities spread over every country in the Western world (and more than a few in the developing world). The only people who are still kidding themselves that this isn't a "major protest" (indeed, a contender for the biggest protest in the history of Democracy) are trolling Republicans. I'm a right-winger who treats The Fountainhead like a bible and disagrees with 90% of the Occupy agenda, but even I'm not tarded enough to pretend this is a non-event. DeterenceTalk03:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But this nomination isn't about the thousands of protesters in hundreds of towns and cities spread over every country in the Western world (and more than a few in the developing world). It's about Riot (sic) police shutting down Occupy Portland. Yes, there is something global happening, and it is newsworthy, but I'm not sure how we include it here. HiLo48 (talk) 07:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think the blurb is that bad, though I don't see a good reason to include the police's "threat" (how about mentioning some of the "kill the pigs" chants from the protesters?). But overall this event does not strike me as being particularly notable. JimSukwutput06:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a link to a video source for the Occupy Portland protesters chanting "kill the pigs"? (Video please, not Fox News commentary). DeterenceTalk06:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Updated Blurb Continuation of existing nominated story adds only that protesters are now being removed. This is a natural continuation of the story and does not add further credibility to the nomination or notability to the event. That a local police force are clearing a protest from a public space is not news, certainly not front page Wikipedia news doktorbwordsdeeds09:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I doubt that you would support an ITN nomination about the Occupy protests even if the NYPD charged in with tanks and opened fire on a group of hippy school children. Btw, I wasn't proposing a new blurb. I was quoting the BBC news source. DeterenceTalk09:37, 15 November 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