::Well said.--[[User:Johnsemlak|Johnsemlak]] ([[User talk:Johnsemlak|talk]]) 02:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
::Well said.--[[User:Johnsemlak|Johnsemlak]] ([[User talk:Johnsemlak|talk]]) 02:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
:::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. –'''[[User:Howard the Duck|<font color="#FFA500">H</font>]][[User talk:Howard the Duck|<font color="#FFA500">T</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Howard the Duck|<font color="#FFA500">D</font>]]''' 03:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
:::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. –'''[[User:Howard the Duck|<font color="#FFA500">H</font>]][[User talk:Howard the Duck|<font color="#FFA500">T</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Howard the Duck|<font color="#FFA500">D</font>]]''' 03:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
:::: 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. [[User:Chocolate Horlicks|Chocolate Horlicks]] ([[User talk:Chocolate Horlicks|talk]]) 07:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
*'''<s>Oppose</s>''' The article [[Occupy Wall Street]] is not really fit to be linked to by the main page at this time, the section on today's events confusing, it is not clear what has been done and what stage everyone is at. [[User:Mtking|<span style="color:Green;text-shadow:lightgreen 0.110em 0.110em 0.110em;">Mt</span>]][[User talk:Mtking|<span style="color:gold;">king</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Mtking|<font color="gold"> (edits) </font>]]</sup> 04:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
*'''<s>Oppose</s>''' The article [[Occupy Wall Street]] is not really fit to be linked to by the main page at this time, the section on today's events confusing, it is not clear what has been done and what stage everyone is at. [[User:Mtking|<span style="color:Green;text-shadow:lightgreen 0.110em 0.110em 0.110em;">Mt</span>]][[User talk:Mtking|<span style="color:gold;">king</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Mtking|<font color="gold"> (edits) </font>]]</sup> 04:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
*: '''Strong oppose''' : given {{diff|Occupy Wall Street|460904351|460902577|this}} edit it looks like the page editors don't even think this was a very significant event. [[User:Mtking|<span style="color:Green;text-shadow:lightgreen 0.110em 0.110em 0.110em;">Mt</span>]][[User talk:Mtking|<span style="color:gold;">king</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Mtking|<font color="gold"> (edits) </font>]]</sup> 06:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
*: '''Strong oppose''' : given {{diff|Occupy Wall Street|460904351|460902577|this}} edit it looks like the page editors don't even think this was a very significant event. [[User:Mtking|<span style="color:Green;text-shadow:lightgreen 0.110em 0.110em 0.110em;">Mt</span>]][[User talk:Mtking|<span style="color:gold;">king</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Mtking|<font color="gold"> (edits) </font>]]</sup> 06:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section - it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.
Nomination steps
Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually - a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).
Voicing an opinion on an item
Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.
Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.
Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
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. DeterenceTalk 23:03, 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]
Exactly my problem. I didn't want to leave out Tubman's dispute, but I didn't know how better to express it. Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 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? -- tariqabjotu 02:15, 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]
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. DeterenceTalk 01:32, 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]
Support. Gas OPEC is an important development, though the article needs improvement. GreyHoodTalk 20:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Police in New York launched a pre-dawn raid to clear the Occupy Wall Street protesters
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. doktorbwordsdeeds 11:08, 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. DeterenceTalk 00:41, 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. JORGENEV 11:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beatniks being moved by the police isn't frontpage material. Lugnuts (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose just another aspect of an ongoing thing and not particularly notable or interesting. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We already posted the Occupy Wall Street protest; why do we need this?--♫GoP♫TCN 12:32, 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. DeterenceTalk 04:06, 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]
Oppose on the basis of my vote yesterday. HurricaneFan25 13:36, 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-contribs 13:47, 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]
I meant protests in general. 2010–2011 Greek protests has been posted twice and the 2011 Spanish protests was posted in May (I'd consider both related to OWS as all three were caused by the current economic crisis). The unrelated 2011 England riots was also posted back in September. Hot Stoptalk-contribs 13:59, 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]
Support. A major and unexpected raid on the original OWS encampment.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:21, 15 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]
Oppose: for reasons stated by other editors above. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 15:21, 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. doktorbwordsdeeds 16:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per hydrox and doktorb. Agree that excessive nominations of trivial Occupy events need to be stopped. 128.151.150.25 (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as from what I can tell the protesters have gotten a court order allowing them to return. --PlasmaTwa2 16:42, 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]
Support Major event making headlines across the world. --GoldenMew (talk) 18:54, 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. DeterenceTalk 23:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's just another day in the occupy something scene. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:24, 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]
The movement isn't "dead," just legally interrupted for a few hours. Protestors are already back in the park doing their thing. Mamyles (talk) 00:53, 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". [2] 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:
User
Last ITN/C edit
ITN/C discussions this month
Link
Lugnuts
7 days
4
[3]
Cameron Scott
12 days (both edits of 15th are occupy related)
5
[4]
GreatOrangePumpkin
3 days
6
[5]
Mamyles
regular
regular
[6]
Hurricanefan25
5 days
4
[7]
Chocolate Horlicks
2 days, highly irregular
6
[8]
Plasma Twa 2
5 days, highly irregular
2
[9]
Pantherskin
2
6, first ever ITN/C 12 days ago
[10]
Richard-of-Earth
14 days
1
[11]
Ashishg55
11
3
[12]
--76.18.43.253 (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC) A good faith edit from a genuine anonymous editor. I'm not a troll. Please don't revert my edits.[reply]
Hi, Could you elaborate ? I didnt get the significance of the above table. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. A major milestone at the originating location of this world-wide movement. In agreement with other support comments. el.nuevo.miguel 17:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.miguel 17:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although I support inclusion of this event, your personal theory is just that. --FormerIP (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oppose how is this any different than occupy protest situation in toronto right now? -- Ashish-g55 01:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know. But it's probably not identical, is it? I think your comment is over-cryptic. --FormerIP (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Has the one in Toronto been shut down by police? --76.18.43.253 (talk) 01:51, 16 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. DeterenceTalk 01:59, 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-g55 02:06, 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. -- tariqabjotu 02:30, 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. –HTD 03:37, 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]
Oppose The article Occupy Wall Street is not really fit to be linked to by the main page at this time, the section on today's events confusing, it is not clear what has been done and what stage everyone is at. Mtking (edits) 04:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose : given this edit it looks like the page editors don't even think this was a very significant event. Mtking (edits) 06:25, 16 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]
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: Results should be confirmed in a day or so,Lihaas (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: article currently has a cleanup tag on it. Jenks24 (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moved because the results have now been announced. --FormerIP (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Stale This really should have peen posted, per ITN/R, but, unfortunately, it has gone stale awaiting the necessary updates. DeterenceTalk 19:51, 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. Nightw 20:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How has this been declared stale (results announced 10 Nov), when the photo (auctioned 8 Nov) is posted??? Kevin McE (talk) 07:03, 15 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]
BBC has it as chemical, doesn't mention tear gas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.184 (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a chemical agent, not a chemical weapon. The article remains unupdated, my vote remains oppose. --Golbez (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not unupdated. Chemical agent redirects to Chemical weapon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.184 (talk) 15:26, 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]
Didnt expect such a quick reponse. When you said "The article remains unupdated" it was not unupdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.184 (talk) 15:44, 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]
Sorry about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.184 (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Global coverage, local impact. HurricaneFan25 15:28, 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. doktorbwordsdeeds 15:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So that means they should never make it to the front page? Riot police, tear gas, et al isn't a small point or a little local difficulty. Not here anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.184 (talk) 15:55, 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]
WP:Sofixit. Change it to whatever you think is suitable. Chemical and impact quoted by lots of reliable sources from the global community, Britain, Russia, New Zealand, et al. Chemical agent on Wikipedia = Chemical weapon, Impact weapon on Wikipedia = Club (weapon), this is the simple truth. If agent does not equal weapon then Wikipedia is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.106.184 (talk) 16:12, 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". DeterenceTalk 19:49, 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. DeterenceTalk 20:22, 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? DeterenceTalk 22:42, 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 - this has nothing to do with college football. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Good faith edit by legitimate anonymous editor. I am not a troll.[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]
Whether or not this is a "major protest" really depends on who you ask.--WaltCip (talk) 02:18, 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. DeterenceTalk 03:00, 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. JimSukwutput 06:21, 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). DeterenceTalk 06:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE"Police in New York have launched a pre-dawn operation to clear the Occupy Wall Street camp in Zuccotti Park" - BBCDeterenceTalk 09:25, 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 doktorbwordsdeeds 09:33, 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. DeterenceTalk 09:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - just don't see the level of notability an item for ITN should have. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Undercover British police officer Mark Kennedy admits that, in the guise of an environmental activist, he was used by the police forces of 22 countries, was responsible for the closing down of the Youth House community centre in Copenhagen, and committed two crimes on behalf of German police between 2004 and 2009, one of which was arson. (The Guardian)
comment Wrong Diego. The article says that Diego Rivas was a singer who was shot dead, whose band (Arriba Mi Sinaloa) he was briefly part of doesn't have an article either. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Non-notable either way. IgnorantArmies 03:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on the nominator not even making sure the proper article was linked, which implies the nominator didn't even see if the article was updated, which implies it can't make it onto ITN. --Golbez (talk) 15:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we have a proper link, my vote stands: No assertion of notability made, I would say the article as it is would not survive AFD. --Golbez (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've modified the nomination to link to the correct article: Diego Rivas (singer). Oppose due to article quality issues – no inline citations and almost no formatting – and unclear significance (see WP:ITN#Criteria). -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, and for info, I've taken it to AfD. Lugnuts (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A dignitary cannot be frisked by an entire country. The blurb should be more specific.--WaltCip (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The bolded article doesn't mention this incident at all. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Its kicked up quite a row and the US apologizing isn't common. But the article and the blurb need some work. Also, "has his clothes removed", makes it seem like he was strip-searched, but reports say only his jacket and shoes were removed. [13]. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In my opinion this isn't really news. Some important figure had to go through security checks most of the world submits to without incident. Beyond tabloid talk of US bias against India, I don't see why anyone should care. Mamyles (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: not of international significance. Overblown. IgnorantArmies 03:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this is America and we're all equal here, if I have to take off my jacket and shoes so does he. Not news. --Golbez (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you cracking a funny? Are you seriously suggesting that a former American President or the UK Prime Minister would be equally be subjected to such treatment? DeterenceTalk 19:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't they be proud to take part in our wonderful security apparatus? If not, then aren't they saying that 'normal' American citizens, by virtue of not being elected or rich, are presumed guilty before innocent? I would say the bigger news would be if he was searched without regret, but sadly our government has already apologized for following the procedure it inflicts on everyone else who flies through our airports. With the apology it officially becomes a mistake in procedure that, at worst, has issued a minor insult upon a former leader. Shit happens; not news. Now, if India wants to make something of it, by withdrawing an ambassador or calling for sanctions, first the world will stare blankly at the stupidity of it, and then we would post it on ITN, because then it would be news. --Golbez (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that former Presidents of India (and the USA) should be subjected to the same degrading and intrusive security measures as the rest of us. I just don't think that a former Indian President should be treated worse than a former UK Prime Minister. DeterenceTalk 20:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then the news would be that the former British PM was not subjected to standard security screening, not that the former Indian president was. And that story is likely stale. --Golbez (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This has been front page headline news in my part of the world for a day now. A name instantly recognised by all cricket fans who haven't just been sucked in by the frantic T20 trash. HiLo48 (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Very prominent and revered figure in cricket. Circumstances surrounding his death add to the notability of the incident. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a significant enough person, in my view. I agree that he was "one of the finest cricket writers of his generation" but I don't think that's enough. Also, about 60% of his biography is dedicated to controversies: Peter_Roebuck#1986_controversy, Peter_Roebuck#Assault_conviction, and the circumstances of his death. If he really was one of the greatest writers of his generation, a good biography would surely have more to say about it. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, we have "one of the finest cricket writers of his generation" dying in unexpected and dramatic circumstances, but that's not significant enough? I feel for all those current and aspiring cricket writers out there. None will ever appear here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I guess that Roebuck counts an internationally known figure, but not in recent years and not to the extent, IMO, that his death qualifies for ITN. Also, considering the circumstances of the death... --FormerIP (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By "circumstances of the death...", are you referring to his apparent suicide? Developing media reports suggest that it wasn't just your average suicide. And even if it was, should it stop us listing him? HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Out of respect for the dead, I don't think we should go into it too much. But, reading media reports and our own article, people might read between the lines, rightly or wrongly, and make assumptions about Roebuck's personal life. we don't say anything that isn't sourced. But, all the same, I think we should not link the article from the front page whilst it is subject to likely speculation. --FormerIP (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on. There has been speculation about Michael Jackson's death for the past two years, and we didn't stop posting about him. The seeming controversy about Roebuck's death makes this event more notable. And I really don't accept "Out of respect for the dead..." as a reason for leaving something out of an encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about leaving it out of the encyclopaedia? Just not linking from the front page at a time when eyebrows are raised and the facts are not known. Probably a bit academic anyway, since the predominant view seems to be that Roebuck is too obscure in any case.--FormerIP (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, he may be a former captain of Somerset County Cricket Club, but he's not really globally notable: even within cricket circles, he's not a huge figure. As part of an ongoing project I aim to significantly improve the article in the future, but as said above, the circumstances are getting murkier too. Harriastalk 21:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's just a silly thing to say so soon after we very rapidly posted about purely American college football paedophile story. Roebuck's story is far more international.(Even though we're told it doesn't have to be.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We made a stupid error. That's not a good argument for making further stupid errors. --FormerIP (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure: my gut says, "No, he's not important enough, no one outside of cricket would care". However, Roebuck is clearly "widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field" (from WP:ITN/DC), that is, over 600 major cricket matches and one of the best known cricket writers of his generation. His death received attention in a number of countries over a number of days, so "lacks international significance" is hardly an argument. IgnorantArmies 03:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some fields are limited enough that being a very important figure in that field is not enough. If there were a way of identifying the top journalist, or even top sports journalist, there might be a case for inclusion. If there were a way of categorising and tabulating influential ex-cricketers, there might be a case. But the narrow field of cricket journalism (and what grounds are there that he was outstanding in that field anyway), that is not enough. Oppose. Kevin McE (talk) 07:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A publication's opinion on one of their own writers is scarcely disinterested. Post-mortem tributes are prone to hyperbole. Kevin McE (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Barely noteworthy even in cricket-playing countries. Circumstances of his death are irrelevant. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now, that's an idiotic post. Immediately after I posted a link to very clear evidence of how noteworthy this person and the event is, you say it's not. And I have seen several attempts here to post an old age death of someone famous, rejected precisely because the circumstances of death were not noteworthy. This time they obviously are. Now, I don't mind if this doesn't get posted after a sensible, objective discussion, but that post is rubbish. HiLo48 (talk) 09:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm grateful for your considered and well thought out response. I didn't say he's not "notable" as a person deserving an article here - I'm saying his death is not sufficiently noteworthy to be mentioned on the main page here. The fact that it's mentioned, somewhere probably not generally on the front page, in media in cricket-playing countries is not important. It's not a very big item of news. He was a sportsman and a writer who died. Happens all the time. Not important enough. "Idiot" = Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the first to admit that cultural differences between people across the world can sometimes cause difficulties in communication, but in that little chat we've just had your responses seem to have been made as if you have read nothing of what I have just posted in each case. I find such things very frustrating, and shall leave our little chat with that comment. HiLo48 (talk) 10:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Kevin McE pretty much nails it for me. Even if he is one of the 'best ever cricket journalists' that's a narrowly defined field.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It cracks me up that the strongest opposition to any ITN nominations about cricket usually come from the most passionate advocates of ITN nominations about American football, which inevitably have considerably less international notability. DeterenceTalk 00:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The largest favela of Brazil cleared of drug gangs
Nominator's comments: Seems a notable development. Brazilian favelas are ill-known around the world as bastions of crime, and the event is a major sign that the situation is changing. GreyHoodTalk 11:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Historically and in contemporary criminological studies, drug sweeps decrease the crime rate in the short term, but in the long term cause a rebound that results in a return to the original crime rate (perhaps even slightly higher). This is why I would be hesitant to post a news story such as this as it most likely would have no lasting effect.
Oppose - No mention of it in the Rochina article. If the police operation itself were noteworthy, perhaps that operation should have an article which could be nominated. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Good faith anonymous editor. I'm not a troll. Please don't revert my comments[reply]
ConditionalSupport pending his actual resignation. With a consummate game-player like Berlusconi, actions speak louder than words. DeterenceTalk 02:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Notable by itself and even more notable considering the context. This is likely to have a significant effect on whether the euro will survive, evident by the stock market reactions today. JimSukwutput 03:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
and the PIIGS are all done in 12 mths...obvious support but think a new article on the election should be added.Lihaas (talk) 07:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's a Prime Minister, not a President. The resignation of a Prime Minister does not entail that a new election will take place. Under Italy's system of government, the new Prime Minister would usually chosen by the caucus of the former Prime Minister's political party, and even that is subject to the coalition agreement and that party remaining the dominant political party within a coalition government. DeterenceTalk 08:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that a new govt could be formed, but after his meeting with napolitano yest theres an even chance pf elecions partuicualrly at a time like this when its harder to command a majority govt. lets wit and watch.Lihaas (talk) 08:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support only when he is no longer prime minister anymore. These sorts of situations change very rapidly, and politics is a funny business. If and when he isn't the PM, it should end up on ITN. However, the sort of political negotiations going on which may lead to him resigning if certain conditions are meant is not the sort of thing which normally makes ITN. --Jayron32 07:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
were some weeks away from that..Lihaas (talk) 08:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until he actually resigns. The key point is when he goes, and he's ducked out of promises before. I refrained from nominating this myself for that exactly reason. Waiting also gives time for a proper update to be written. Modest Geniustalk 09:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per Modest Genius. --bender235 (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - Agree that waiting is called for, per MG. Jusdafax 07:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hold, then post as soon as it happens - As above. Neutralitytalk 02:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moved, because it just happened. --FormerIP (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BBC are reporting that the Italian Presidency has connfirmed he's gone. I think it's good to go now. yorkshiresky (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until such time a successor is appointed: that is usually the convention on ITN. It shouldn't be very long either, most commentators are expecting a new government before the markets open on Monday at the latest. Crispmuncher (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. DS (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. Belrusconi is such a prominent figure that naming his successor will be a separate story. --Tone 00:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a revised blurb would be appropriate if it happens quickly. --FormerIP (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True. Let's see. --Tone 00:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to take a jump start on that debate, but no I don't think that's the case here. Unlike election results, we usually do not post resignations or appointments, unless generally notable. We already posted the resignation of Berlusconi, but the nomination of his successor would not normally merit a mentioning. --hydrox (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it time to update the blurb and say that Mario Monti has replaced him ? --Tachfin (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article:No article specified Blurb: Seven people are killed in an attack on the city of Taraz in southern Kazakhstan. It is one of the worst attacks in the country's history. () News source(s):BBC
Support. Such attacks on Kazakhstan do appear rare. ~AH1(discuss!) 19:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral leaning oppose. Rare place, but small scale. GreyHoodTalk 19:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, for now: What type of attack? Who did the attacking? Blurb needs to be re-written. Even so, seven deaths is peanuts in comparison to what is usually posted on here. IgnorantArmies 03:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Following earlier calls to end the violent crackdown, Arab League seems to be now putting some real pressure on Syria. --hydrox (talk) 13:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support once updated. --FormerIP (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support if Saudi Arabia thinks you've been behaving bad, you must be doing something really wrong. Hot Stoptalk-contribs 14:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Easily. However, since this will not take effect until November 16, we should wait. --bender235 (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that current blurb wording does not suggest the decision would enter into force immediately. --hydrox (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True. However, Syria can avoid the suspension by stopping the crackdown. Although this is not likely to happen, the blurb then would be incorrect. As of now, the Arab League only threatened to suspend Syria. --bender235 (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, technically correct yes, depending on which is your source. AJE thinks Syria is only being threatened at this stage, while CNN formulates it "move takes effect Wednesday". Most sources seem to share CNN's view. --hydrox (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jassim al-Thani said Syria will be suspended by 16 November if it does not implement the Arab peace deal that it previously agreed to. That's a fact, not a matter of interpretation. If Assad implements the plan (which is highly unlikely, tho), Syria will not be suspended on Wednesday. So let's wait until Wednesday and see what happens. --bender235 (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, as Syria is definitely doing something wrong with international implications. The news is the decision to suspend, so I would prefer immediate posting. Mamyles (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While tempted to support on the face of the importance of the news, is it consensus here that a three sentence update way down in the article (3.2 Reactions -International) is enough? I'd like to see a bit more of an update prior to posting this on the Main Page, and perhaps a brief mention in the lede. Jusdafax 16:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done I've added a paragraph about major international reactions to the lead. --hydrox (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd propose to change the blurb to Arab League suspends Syria's membership amidst continued crackdown of internal uprising. it is shorter and more neutral: Syrian rebels act at least as violently as the government. GreyHoodTalk 19:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Rebels act at least as violently as the government" is a bit of an overstatement as far as I know, as the government forces are the ones killing civilians. But you are right – there are some armed factions too among the rebels – so "civilian uprising" is not correct. I've changed the blurb. --hydrox (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. A very high share of victims are soldiers and officials, and many of them were killed in quite a violent way. GreyHoodTalk 20:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Over 1000 security officers have been killed. This is not in dispute. But the government says rebels are responsible while the protesters say they're in fact killed by the government. Doesn't matter which side you believe, this is clearly not as simple as government shooting civilians. JimSukwutput 03:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Thanks to Hydrox for the update. I consider this item newsworthy and the blurb ready to post. Jusdafax 23:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The grammar in the suggested item is poor. It should be something like: The Arab League agrees to suspend Syria's membership amidst the continued violent crackdown of an civilian internal uprising.Nick-D (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support In addition to above-mentioned significance, the League has suspended members only twice before in 66-year history. PopularMax (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. International agreement to end crackdown; crackdown continues; Arab League suspension...sounds familiar? This is definitely notable, regardless of what the Syrian government decides to do. JimSukwutput 03:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Marking 'ready'.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Nominator's comments: APEC meeting this weekend (12-13 Nov). The article needs some serious work, but this is an ITNR item. I hoping that this nomination will encourage editors to improve the article for a story they might otherwise not have been aware of. Modest Geniustalk 12:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now better, but still needs some work. Modest Geniustalk 13:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: I suggest the article Andreas Gursky to be featured in the news. His image Rhine II (1999) has fetched $4.3m (£2.7m) at Christie's New York, setting an auction record for a photograph. Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-15689652 85.178.186.249 (talk) 08:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would be an interesting item indeed. However, it would be nice to have a separate article on the artwork, as is usually the case when we feature works of art. --Tone 13:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though it's a shame we don't have an article on the photograph itself. Even Gursky's article has an orange-level tag, so we can't bold that. Modest Geniustalk 13:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the tag as outdated. Is anyone willing to create an article on the photograph? GreyHoodTalk 13:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The article's a stub so obviously needs expansion and if we could keep some eyeballs on it for now as I'd worry someone might nominate it for deletion.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since Johnsemlak neglected to mention it, the article is at Rhein II. Modest Geniustalk 17:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good job! We still need an update of Andreas Gursky, as well as a decision which article to highlight. GreyHoodTalk 17:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the article on the image itself to the requisite length (currently 4 paragraphs, 6 references, and one image). Modest Geniustalk 17:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've bolded the image article and placed [Ready] mark. Andreas Gursky better be updated more, but I've inserted the key information in one sentence. GreyHoodTalk 18:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ready to post. However, fetched? Is that really the proper expression here? --Tone 21:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BBC used it. But we may use any other expression except of "sold", which is at the end of the blurb. GreyHoodTalk 21:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article says this occurred on November 8, which is earlier than our oldest item on ITN now. Any reason it shouldn't be dated as November 8? -- tariqabjotu 03:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True. The oldest item in the ITN box dates from November 10. Too late then... Still, as the new article is well written, I suggest it is taken to DYK. --Tone 09:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The amount, and hence the record, wasn't announced until the 11th. Still, I can take it to DYK if you prefer. Modest Geniustalk 23:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, DYK would be better. -- tariqabjotu 04:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Never mind; it fits on ITN now. -- tariqabjotu 04:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the need to be absolutely strict with keeping the ITN template in chronological order. I suggest we give this event at least a little more front page time that it will likely receive by dropping one or two items off of the bottom prior to dropping this one. The sale may have happened on 8 Nov, but it remains the record setting sale still obviously, and more to the point remains of interest to readers.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We very rarely post these sort of awards in any sport, let alone in athletics. And the article is just a single table anyway. Modest Geniustalk 13:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Awards are a reasonable thing to post for the arts or sciences, where there is no other formal top level competition. By definition, each sport has a way of determining its best in direct competition, and that is the result that merits consideration here. Kevin McE (talk) 13:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in the case of athletics (except marathons), we don't post the results of any regular competitions, unlike, say football (of any code). We only post the setting of world records.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
References
Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents: