Talk:Occupy group ends Monsanto protest on Maui

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Errata[edit]

  • Apparently, "Occupy Maui" is different than "Occupy Wall Street Maui". The official website for this group is occupymaui.com not occupymaui.org.
  • Maui Now is a reliable source with professional journalists and editors. For information see here.
  • Even though the official protests ended Sunday, the Facebook page for Occupy Wall Street Maui and another source imply that the protesters will return on Monday to say "Farewell". This is not confirmed nor verified.
  • I really dislike the current title, "Occupy group ends Monsanto protest on Maui". If someone can come up with a better title, by all means rename it.

Any questions, feel free to ask. Viriditas (talk) 13:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1387648 [Not ready][edit]

My response to the above:

As presented (by the lede as well as the headline), the News event ostensibly took place one day ago, but the most recent source is dated three days ago. Ergo the sources cannot possibly verify the news event.
No, the news event took place over the last seven days, with the last event occurring at sunset on January 29, which is less than 13 hours ago. Your claim that the sources do not verify the news event are extremely odd, since every aspect of the news story is verified by the sources. Viriditas (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
"No, the news event took place over the last seven days". You have failed to attend the first ten works of my comment, which is strange since you quoted them. --Pi zero (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Let me clarify for you then. The news event took place 13 hours prior to that comment, and the sources verify it entirely, saying that the weeklong protests would end on Sunday. Is this making sense to you yet? Everything has been verified. Viriditas (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The most recent source is three days old, which is already at the outer edge of the usual range for freshness. Sometimes the nature of a story reduces the size of the freshness window (which would make it already stale), but nothing of that sort really leaps out at me here.
As I just finished explaining above, The protest just ended at sunset on January 29 and is verified by the sources describing the scheduled protests: "Sunday, January 29, 2012: A dusk vigil will be held for small farmers at the occupation site fronting Monsanto on Maui." Furthermore, the most recent source is not three days old at this time, but two days based on its publishing date. Viriditas (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Today is Monday. Its publishing date is Friday. Perhaps you acquired the article on Sunday, but freshness is required at the time of publication, so the relevant difference in dates is three days rather than two.
If it is verified by trust-worthy sources that as of Saturday, Barack Obama was scheduled to hold a press conference about UFOs on Sunday, that is verification only that he was scheduled to hold such a press conference; it is not verification that he actually did. --Pi zero (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Your reply is disingenuous. The source was two days old, not three, and every word in the article has been verified. You're just making shit up. Please quote tme the policy or guideline that says we can't use sources that are two days old. As of this comment, the Google News index still lists that source from 2 days ago, not three as you keep asserting. That's because the date of publication is less than three days old, as I keep telling you. Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
If the story were verified, and still fresh, I might well consult with another reviewer about the relevance aspect of newsworthiness. The devil's-advocate position on newsworthiness would be that this was a few people holding a minor protest unrelated to the Occupy movement, invoking its name to drum up attention, and nothing much happened; I'd be keeping an eye out for refutation of aspects of that as I pored over the sources.
Everything has been verified and it's still fresh as the protest just finished. This was not a few people, but between 10-25, and it was highly newsworthy as it was one of many coordinated protests against Monsanto covered in the media which has received widespread attention across the country. Apparently, you haven't been paying attention to the news. A quick search shows multiple coordinated protests against Monsanto over the last week, in at least four cities (St. Louis, Saskatoon, London, and Kihei), comprising two U.S. states (Missouri, Hawaii) and three countries (U.S., Canada, U.K.). It is quite clear that this group is related to the Occupy movement[1] and a lot happened, including getting the ACLU, the County of Maui, the Maui Police Department, Monsanto pubic relations spokespeople, and three different media outlets involved. Viriditas (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I can only speculate on whether the article would be fresh if it were refocused on a verifiable news event, since that would depend on the new choice of focus. Hence my use of both criteria in conjunction. --Pi zero (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Your "speculation" isn't based on the facts. I wrote the news story before the protests had ended, and I completed it less than 13 hours later. The story is entirely fresh and verifiable. Your claim that it is not isn't supported by any guideline or policy. Viriditas (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The specification of the precise street address of the place targeted seems odd, and apt to have a POV intent behind it; that's another point I'd be scrutinizing.
The "precise" street address has nothing to do with any kind of "POV intent" nor do I have a clue what that is supposed to mean. That is the exact location of the protest. Feel free to attempt to describe what kind of "POV intent" could be behind describing the location of a protest, but don't try too hard, you might strain yourself. Viriditas (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Note, I will not be resubmitting this article for another review, because it is clear that the deck is stacked against it. Good work. I expect nothing less than this kind of blatant, overt obstructionism. Viriditas (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow. You're willing to throw away something this close to publishable; it's hard to take that as the act of someone who wanted to publish in the first place. How you choose to waste your time is entirely up to you, of course; but I admit I resent your wasting the hours of my time I've poured into trying to be helpful to you. --Pi zero (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I haven't done anything of the kind, nor have I found your review helpful. Viriditas (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)