Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 54

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:In the news. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 50

←

Archive 52

→

Ongoing: Too much confusion?

I am wondering if the Ongoing line is becoming too much trouble to be worth it. There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding or confusion as to what it is actually for, which at least some thinking it is for any event in progress, when it is only supposed to be for an incrementally updated article where the updates would not merit posting on their own, but do collectively. Not sure what can be done, if anything. 331dot (talk) 11:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions: (1) Add something better about "ongoing" to Wikipedia:In the news. (2) Add a short hidden comment to {{ITN candidate}} pointing to it, e.g. . (3) Say a few words at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/header to the same effect. Bencherlite^Talk 14:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'd suggest doing any or all of that. Note, however, that posting instructions does not actually improve anything. That is, even if we post instructions, people will still be confused at exactly the same rate as currently. However, what posting instructions does do is allow us to make them feel bad for not reading them, and/or to make ourselves feel morally superior because we did. --Jayron32 14:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  - However, if we don't have a better explanation of ongoing than we do at present, then the ITN regulars are effectively keeping the rules to themselves, and making others feel bad that they're not part of the club. I don't think that that's a preferable approach. Bencherlite ^Talk 14:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we need to be clear is that Ongoing should be used for mid-term (from a week to a few months) events where there would otherwise be frequent posting to ITN, or where events are otherwise rapidly changing in the real world that necessitate changes and updates to the target articles. Note this last part is different from where a news story may be in the news and the article is getting updated but the event itself is relatively stable: things like the Indian floods present or the immigrant crisis are "stable" but still widely reported news events and thus fail this test for Ongoing. Considering the ur examples of Ongoing have been things like the Olympics and FIFA World Cup, I would also argue that the aftermath of the Paris attacks, the disappearance of MH380, the crashes of that plane in the Ukraine as well as the recent MetroJet, all those would have a reasonable week in the Ongoing line as the stories were actively developing during that time, so if the news blurb dropped off the list, they could be there for a few added days. But not indefinitely. Otherwise, we're using just the "in the news and frequently updated" as a metric which is a bad one as I could easily argue that we should have a 2016 US Presidential Election ongoing that would last through the year given the volume and update frequency of the news; but in considering the stability of the news, it would fail that. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I've boldly added more information to WP:ITN regarding most of our agreed upon standards for what is posted in each part of ITN, presuming the sort of questions we frequently get, regarding the posting of Blurbs, Pictures, Ongoing, and RDs. --Jayron 32 15:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Can I revert the instructions back to what it was? There isn't a consensus yet to improve instructions. Also, they give administrators more superiority than they deserve. --George Ho (talk) 22: 12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't do that if I were you. This is not a bureaucracy, we empower admins to gauge consensus and to trust them to do things like not destroy Wikipedia. If you think admins shouldn't be trusted to do these kind of tasks (which has always been the case), please open a Wikipedia-wide RfC to reduce their "superiority" and constrain their "superpowers"!! (P.S. it simply reflects what happens, it doesn't give admins anything more than is already happening...) The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

How would "European migrant crisis" and "Syrian Civil War" adhere to current instructions of Ongoing? Also, the Blurbs instructions wouldn't make Russian Anti-Doping Agency qualified for Main Page's ITN, would it? Also, what about fire at one of Azerbaijan's oil fields? ~~I like previous "Death" instructions more than current RD instructions. The previous allowed lesser known Ranjit Roy Chaudhury to be honorably mentioned than the current instructions would.~~ --George Ho (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Striking out previous comment about RD ticker, "famous people" looks as if Western figures have been mentioned more than non-Westerners. Ranjit Roy Chaudhury wasn't famous, but he was very important doctor in India. And he was featured in the Main Page. George Ho (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

As noted above, We don't have to wait for a discussion to actually do anything and policy and guideline pages are written to reflect existing practice, they do not create practice. Is there any long standing practice I have written there that you disagree with? Not in the "I don't like this practice" sense but in the "I don't think that's how it actually works" sense. If so, lets talk about that. But at Wikipedia, we don't sit around and wait for consensus to make every little change, if there is a substantive disagreement and there is some contention then we discuss. But in absence of contention, there's no need to discuss. Of course, if what I wrote needs tweaking in terms of wording, feel free to do so. And if there's something I've written that does NOT reflect current practice, lets discuss that. But please do not just go undoing willy-nilly simply because you didn't get to vote on something. If we waited for that, we'd never get anything done around here. Also, I am going to disagree with something TRM said: Whether or not I am an admin should have nothing at all to do with whether or not you should accept or not accept what I have done. If the text I added had been added by someone without the admin bit, you shouldn't revert it for the exact same reason you shouldn't revert it when I did it. --Jayron 32 00:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and "European migrant crisis" and "Syrian Civil War" adhere to the second point "Any story may be proposed for an "ongoing" link through the normal use of the nomination page, subject to the usual standards of community consensus." We discussed it, and there was consensus to do what we did. --Jayron 32 00:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The description of "Ongoing" right now does not mesh with what's happening in practice. Example: the 2015 South Indian floods nomination. The description right now implies that a continuously updated article that is also in the news will be listed as ongoing. However the nomination is being opposed because "that floods require clean-up is not something notable or unusual or even encyclopedic", "not seeing anything significant about the aftermath", and "ongoing is not meant for this type event, where the only changes made to the article are updates in casualties and damage(or the effort to clean it up, as stated)". None of these deal with the two main requirements, i.e. none of these oppose votes either say that the article is not being updated or the item is not in the news. In fact the third oppose vote implies that there are further criteria before an article is featured. In other words, if the current description is accurate policy then all three of these oppose votes are invalid, while if these oppose votes are valid, the current description is not accurate policy. Banedon (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

No, it is exactly current policy. Read it again. Ongoing, bullet point 2, states "Any story may be proposed for an "ongoing" link through the normal use of the nomination page, subject to the usual standards of community consensus." Does it have consensus to post? If it does, it will be posted. If it does not have consensus, it will not be posted. That's how consensus works. Also the definition of "valid" is not "agrees with me". People are quite allowed to vote how they see fit, and that someone has a rationale you don't personally agree with does not make their rationale instantly invalid. --Jayron 32 02:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps rewording the principle for clarity can avoid discussions of confusion. --George Ho (talk) 02:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

What phrasing would you find clearer than what is currently written? "Normal use of the nomination page subject to the usual standards of community consensus" with community consensus linked to WP:CONSENSUS seems fairly unambiguous. What do you suggest we say other than "We talk about it, and we do what people agree on". --Jayron 32 02:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, no need for further clarity. I added just an example. --George Ho (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you implying that it is "valid" to oppose certain stories because of a perceived country bias, "People are quite allowed to vote how they see fit" and all that? Banedon (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

No, no, no. Jayron probably meant that aftermaths of shootings and floodings may not be worthy enough to merit a listing. --George Ho (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

No one is saying you can't say that. However, the flip side is that people are quite allowed to also argue that you are wrong. Freedom to speak ones mind works both ways; being allowed to make an argument also means that other people are allowed equally to claim your argument is in error. Past results have indicated that people generally dislike arguments based on anti-ethnic/cultural/national rationales which are unrelated to the prominence of a story or the quality of the article. --Jayron 32 02:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure, except when it comes to closing the nomination, it's often implied that opposing something because of country bias is flat out invalid and the vote not counted. Barring the fact that this simply makes people lie about why they are opposing a nomination, it also implies that there are valid and invalid reasons to oppose or support a nomination. The description makes no mention of that, plus it implies that the three oppose votes for this particular nomination are invalid. Banedon (talk) 03:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I reworded the phrase in response. --George Ho (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you implying that it is good for us to consider anti-ethnic bias and outright bigotry as equally as important as rationales based on article quality? Because it sounds like you're defending the notion that all rationales are equally just and right (which they aren't) and you're specifically noting ethnic or national origin issues as ones which should be given more weight. Can you please clarify, because until now I've assumed you're a reasonable person, but you seem to be saying something unreasonable: that anti-ethnic bigotry is as good of a reason as any other to oppose something... That can't be what you're saying, so please tell me it isn't. --Jayron 32 12:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I took Banedon to be saying quite the opposite - that anti-ethnic bigotry is an example of a invalid reason to oppose. I think you are talking past each other. Neljack (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes and no, to some extent. But we are treading on thin ice here: Jayron32's post is subtly manipulative in the sense that it encourages people to agree with him, because not agreeing is unreasonable. Let's not go there.

I was not aiming to express an opinion when I wrote what I did. However, I'll take a position now: I think people should be allowed to vote however they wish for whatever reason they think is valid. That's because being told why I am allowed or not allowed to support or oppose a nomination is something I find distasteful. It's also pointless because it'll simply make people (once they realize it) lie about why they support or oppose something. Let's take as an example Trump's statement that Muslims should not be allowed into the USA, and assume that it is bigotry. However if he wins the next US presidential election anyway, then he is perfectly justified to push that law into being even though it is bigotry, because the will of the majority is behind him. In the same way Wikipedia works by consensus. If consensus is that it is OK to oppose a nomination because of anti-ethnic bias or outright bigotry — in the sense that the majority of people oppose a nomination for those reasons — then that's the way the wind blows. We trust that there are enough enlightened people around to keep ITN honest. Semi-related ongoing RfC on this: [1]

All that is somewhat tangential to improving the policy writeup for this section, however. Whatever the policy may eventually be, the section should say so clearly. I have pointed out what I think is wrong with the section. I get the feeling that what was intended is that every item must be 1) continuously updated and 2) frequently in the news to even be considered (if a nomination doesn't, it is snow closed for example), but if it meets those two criteria then it's up to consensus. If this is so, the text should be worded as such. With that said I'll go ahead and say that I do not think an article has to be continuously updated to be featured as ongoing; frequently in the news suffices. Banedon (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

People are allowed to vote "I don't like the French, so I am opposing this" and no one will remove their vote. It is a statement of fact to say that "admins will ignore this rationale when assessing consensus". --Jayron 32 11:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:BEANS: While bigotry may always be a fact of life, forcing one to at least be creative and WP:CIVIL to carry out their agenda is not something we should be worrying about. People will always vote how they want, but we can still publish best practices for the majority that probably want to be more constructive, and telling them that their !vote will be discounted is not exactly telling them they will be banned from Wikipedia for it.—Bagumba (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand. If we tell someone that their vote will be discounted, what's stopping them from modifying their vote in response? Suppose an editor opposes a nomination because (s)he perceives an overall pro-Spanish bias in ITN. So (s)he votes that way, then gets told the vote won't be counted. Now wiser, the next time (s)he opposes a nomination, what is stopping him or her from saying (using the current nomination about Spanish galleon San Jose as an example) "oppose per The Rambling Man"? In fact if one reads ITN long enough, it's not hard to come up with a pseudo-valid reason to oppose any nomination, e.g. something like "Oppose, I just don't see how this is significant enough" is sufficiently vague as to apply to anything. Banedon (talk) 05:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Nothing is stopping them. It's like what's to stop someone from saying they are older to get a senior discount, a minor from ordering a drink at the bar, an employer who doesnt want to hire a <pick_group_to_discriminate-against>, an editor who wants to sock, etc. I understand your point, but the reality is that any system for anything—Wikipedia or not—can be gamed, but we don't need to make it any easier than it has to be. Really, there are a lot of editors that have no filter even if they "should" know, so why reward them?—Bagumba (talk) 06:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

We agree to disagree then. We both agree the policy is semi-futile, but you think it's worth implementing anyway while I think that's grounds for not doing it. In any case, if the policy is implemented, then the invalid reasons should be clearly stated in its own section. That kind of defeats the reason for having the policy, but I think that's preferable to having unstated requirements. Banedon (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with the "semi-futile" characterization; no rule is ever going to be a panacea for someone hell-bent on circumventing its spirit. As far as "invalid reasons", are you referring to Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Please_do_not... or something else?—Bagumba (talk) 06:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

No, put it in WP:ITN, and spell out that "if you oppose something because of [reasons] your vote will be discounted". Banedon (talk) 06:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm missing what the motivation is to duplicate what is already spelled out at WP:ITNC. People have to go to ITNC to !vote, they may or may not ever read WP:ITN.—Bagumba (talk) 07:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not spelled out on ITNC (compare what I wrote vs. what's on ITNC, there's an obvious and big difference). Also policy should be given in policy pages not elsewhere, and furthermore, based on your reason for having the rule, it is preferable that the people who are going to vote based on ethnic bias don't read WP:ITN. Banedon (talk) 09:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it's spelled out not ONCE but TWICE there. In the section Bagumba linked to, it mentions that people should not oppose for country of origin in one bullet point, then later tells people to avoid ethnocentric arguments in another. --Jayron 32 22:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The "or your vote will be discounted" part is clearly not given. Banedon (talk) 03:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It feels like you're already getting your money's worth of time-wasting here. This discussion appears to be going nowhere. If you're going to launch an RFC (as you have threatened to do), please do so post-haste. If not, then I suggest there's little support to continue to keep this particular thread of discussion going. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Minimum time for a nom to be discussed before closing?

Hi administrators and particularly Stephen. What is the minimum time for a nom to be up and discussed before closing? The nom for RD Mattiwilda Dobbs was up for 10 hours and had one comment on it before Stephen closed it with "no consensus". That seems a extremely short period of time to gather opinions and to be frank, one comment does not in any way constitute consensus. Could the nom be re-opened for a decent length of time so that more than one editor can state an opinion? This doesn't seem to be a reasonable way to make decisions. (In addition, it's noted that other noms have been left open for 3 to 4 days to gather opinions e.g Angkor Wat. Again, why the quick close on this one?) Thanks. MurielMary (talk) 06:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

There isn't a minimum time. It's a judgement call. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I see. So maybe the more relevant question here is why one comment was considered to be consensus? Have not seen this happen in the last three months - every nom has been left to gather a number of comments and then a decision made, this being the definition of "consensus" as opposed to "one comment makes the decision". MurielMary (talk) 07:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree that there is no minimum, and I have sometimes closed obviously utterly inappropriate nominations before anyone else has even commented. Having said that, this one seems too fast. I spotted her obituary in my paper copy of The Times the other day and although I can't now see more online than the preview this may well be a case where her article doesn't do her achievements/importance justice. Bencherlite ^Talk 07:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is a tricky one to assess notability on as opera singers don't generally receive awards or honours in the same way sports stars do for example. Their recordings don't sell in record numbers and they aren't many opera competitions for them to win. Dobbs' notability comes from being a pioneer, a groundbreaking first. This is exactly why I think the nom was prematurely closed, as there could be some constructive discussion around this nom, which would help with assessing other similar articles as well as this one. MurielMary (talk) 08:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I think part of the reason it was closed may have been that being so far down on the list that the admin felt it was unlikely to gain consensus before it dropped off the ITNC page. I think a better rationale for the closing would have made things clearer. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It's possible, however comments and consensus have been reached in 36 hours before now. Would appreciate the nom being re-opened to enable discussion. MurielMary (talk) 10:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Someone wishing to support the nomination can certainly remove the closure. Have you asked Stephen for a clearer explanation of his reasoning? 331dot (talk) 10:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to MurielMary for coming here for a discussion and not notifying me or raising it on my talk until the end. I was working up the nominations to see if anything had been missed and came to this death on the 8th, with an oppose on notability. I missed that it was a relatively new nomination, for which I apologise, and treated it rather as something that had just not garnered any interest, so closed it on the basis of no consensus and being six days old, and so rather stale. The best reaction would have been to just revert that closure, with a pointing out of my error in the edit summary. Anyone is free to do that, neither closing or reopening nominations is an administrator privilege. Best wishes, Step hen 20:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Stephen, thanks for the response and advice to revert a closure - I wasn't aware that that option was open to any editor rather than an admin only. Cheers, MurielMary (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey MurielMary, just to let you know: There are only a few basic actions which are reserved for admins: the ability to delete or protect an article, the ability to block a user, and the ability to assign some user rights to other users. If you aren't an admin, you couldn't even do these things if you tried, because the tools to do them are not activated for you. Being an admin gives a user the right to use a few extra tools, but otherwise, admins do NOT have more rights than other users; if you have the ability to do something, you have the right to do something at Wikipedia, so long as a) you do so in good faith and b) if someone disagrees, you're willing to discuss it with them. If anyone tells you differently, they're wrong. --Jayron 32 12:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

No, this is not always true. For example, you cannot come along and revert an admin's closure of an AfD discussion, even if it was keep. There are various other places where an admin's action should not be summarily reverted, even if you do have the "ability" to do so. It's a tricky concept for newcomers to grasp, based on norms built up over the years. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

This is always true. You should not come along and revert any closure without due cause, and this should apply to whoever made the initial closure. You should not revert the closure of anyone without due cause. Admins do not have special "immune from criticism or people fixing their mistakes" rules for themselves. Admins are not demigods who always do everything correct, and if they screw something up, it is expected that someone else can come fix it. Now, people should not go reverting proper closures just to make a point, and people need to accept that reverting any closure of a discussion is serious business and not to be taken lightly. But no one should ever feel like admins are to be treated differently than anyone else just because they have a few extra tools. They are not. --Jayron 32 15:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

There are some differences between admins and non-admins at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions. Everybody can go to Wikipedia:Deletion review no matter who closed a discussion. ITN discussions don't have these rules. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed there are, generally because enacting the results of those discussions require tools that only admins have. Likewise, closing a discussion as "consensus to post" requires an admin to post the item, it is usually not helpful for a non-admin to close such a discussion. However, discussion closures that don't require editing the protected ITN template do not require admin tools, and anyone may close those discussions; likewise anyone may revert such a closure if they in good faith believe the closure was in serious error. --Jayron 32 19:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

And above all, WP:IAR. Sometimes these godly entities named "admins" or "sysops" fuck up, and sometimes just telling them they have and undoing their shoddy work to enable the encyclopedia to continue to improve is just the right thing to do. To fallaciously claim that it's disallowed to undo anything an admin has done shows a distinct lack of understanding of what a modern-day admin is all about. Time to update. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Excess reporting on Sports (ITN)

This has been discussed before, as I have seen through the archive, but no decisions or actions have been taken. To set some context for this, the current ITN section reads as follows:

The International Monetary Fund approves adding China's renminbi to its basket of reserve currencies.
In tennis, the Davis Cup concludes with Great Britain (captain Leon Smith pictured) defeating Belgium in the final.
In Canadian football, the Edmonton Eskimos defeat the Ottawa Redblacks to win the Grey Cup.
A bomb attack on a bus kills 14 presidential security guards in Tunis, Tunisia.
A Russian Su-24 warplane is shot down by a Turkish Air Force F-16 near the border between Turkey and Syria.
American Pfizer and Irish Allergan agree to a merger that will create the world's largest pharmaceutical company.

The two sports-related stories seem very unremarkable compared to the other ones. The reason for this is that the sports-related stories can be predicted to be news next year and the following as well. There is nothing especially noteworthy about these stories. If, however, this was the 10th or 100th (or some important number) time that the Edmonton Eskimos win the Grey Cup, then THAT would be noteworthy compared to the stories it is around. A Russian plane taken down by the Turkish Air Force is such an incredibly once-in-a-lifetime kind of event that it will be discussed and investigated for many decades. Although I love my soccer team, and would love to see them up there every time they win a Champion's League, we should hold these selected stories to a similar standard of notability.

I want to propose the following rules of thumb to help us lessen this excess in sports reporting. Let's discuss them, throw some out, add some new ones, but finally end with a reasonable working consensus:

As a blanket rule, let's not report on winning any tournament/league, in any sport, that occurs every year.
Let's focus on special notable things like: "Michael Phelps wins a record breaking 8 gold medals in the 2008 summer olympics", "Sachin Tendulkar, record-holding cricket player (can be more specific), announces his retirement from the sport", or "Real Madrid wins the 2014 UEFA Champions League for a total of 10 total wins, the most in the league's history". By only reporting these kind of stories, we will also not have as much of a bias towards sports popular in certain countries. It's clear that important news stories get attention here regardless of the sport, but not-so-noteworthy ones are only represented when it's a sport popular in english speaking countries. This could potentially solve that.
It's ok if the ITN section does not have a sports story. We don't need to use it as filler.
Anything else??

Please take the time to think about this and reply with your views.

Thanks! Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The content on ITN changes day by day. Now there are two out of six blurbs that are sport related. I don't see a problem with that. One is ITN/R, meaning it has been deemed worthy of posting every year, and the other was posted based on editor consensus. They're not "filler", they're sporting news stories. As for your "blanket rule" of not posting sporting championships, that's silly. The Super Bowl, NBA Finals, World Series, Premier League etc. championships will be posted year after year. If you want to see fewer sports items posted, nominate non-sports items in the news. If you have an issue with a specific ITN/R posting, suggest it be removed at the appropriate talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

We have a list of items that will be posted as long as they are adequately updated, it's called WP:ITNR (which stands for "in the news, recurring items"). Often, these sports items conclude and are posted at roughly the same time, hence the multiple appearances on the main page. In any case, this, like the rest of Wikipedia, works by consensus. If you'd like to contribute to the ITN section, please feel free to nominate articles at WP:ITNC. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The idea of recurring sports events being unimportant does not represent a majority view. You and I may think that sports don't matter much in the grand scheme of things, but billions of others would disagree. A significant number of people believe sporting events are very important, thus why there is so much coverage of it. This interest often translates into high article quality of even seemingly esoteric events, like The Boat Race. ITN is designed to showcase quality articles that are in the news, and this should apply to any topic notable enough for an article & consensus at ITNR/C. Mamyles (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Hamsterlopithecus: Kinda what Mamyles said. Everyone has some sort of content on Wikipedia that they find unimportant or even offensive. If we start getting into judgement calls on what is 'important' other people will inevitably be disappointed and angry. If you don't like what is posted to ITN, I invite you to participate in discussions at WP:ITNC or make your own nominations there. That's the way to change what is posted, not arbitrary judgement calls. 331dot (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

As to "sports popular in certain countries", that is irrelevant, as the vast majority of events posted to ITN only involve a single country. We specifically discourage that type of argument in ITNC discussions(see the "Please do not.." section on that page). Now, if your argument is that certain events do not get lots of news coverage in general, that's a valid point. 331dot (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

If we restrict ITN to once-in-a-lifetime events, the section will frequently become stale, and miss out on a decent number of well-updated articles. It's also a slippery slope: just because sporting related items occur with known regularity, should we similarly restrict election items as well? I generally lean more toward inclusivity on ITN, toward posting more items, assuming they have the requisite updates. Spencer^T♦C 23:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Please note that the definition of "unremarkable" is not "personally not interesting to me". If we can come to an agreement on that, the rest of the complaint seems irrelevant. --Jayron 32 02:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

TRM correctly points out the underlying problem, WP:ITNR with whole swathes of events added at once, rather than every item on that list having been approved in its own RfC. Every item there which was not added by its own exclusive RfC should be removed until an individual RfC is held to restore it. This does not, of course, mean that items wouldn't get posted. It would simply mean items with significant opposition wouldn't get posted in a mere 4 hours. μηδείς (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
What she said. --Dweller (talk) 11:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment I don't see any problem per se with any topic occasionally proliferating, so long as each individual item has been properly assessed. If we had, perchance, six election results from around the world to report on in three days, so be it. Editors do seem to try to reasonably balance things, so no topic completely dominates at one time. --Dweller (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
This suggestion was posted around the time that another use was commenting on the candidates page that some stories should be pulled because we had too many politics items and too many terrorism items. You can't please everybody all of the time etc. In general, these things sort themselves out over time. I'd note also that posting retirements of sporting figures (for example) is not universally appreciated because some leading players have a habit of unretiring, so I doubt we'd easily get consensus on what "special notable" sports stories were. Bencherlite ^Talk 14:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Surprised to find that MMA/UFC made ITN. It's enjoying something of a vogue but nevertheless is pretty niche. Doesn't strike me as appropraite content for ITN. I'm not really sure it meets the stated requirements for being ITN "The In the news (ITN) section on the main page serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest." I don't see any articles that have been substantially updated and I wouldn't consider MMA wide interest.Mattojgb (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

In the future, you can fix this problem by preventing reliable sources from posting MMA results. --Jayron 32 18:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Did it make the back page anywhere? (Other than Ireland maybe and niche publications) 95.150.97.184 (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

St Vincent elections blurb

Right now the Main Page is out of balance. The St Vincent elections should be reinserted. I contacted the administrator who removed it, but I see she is less active. --George Ho (talk) 04:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Saints?

Does ITN routinely post stories about canonization? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

No, but with the Mother Teresa story, given her importance, it seems a more unusual circumstance and thus appropriate for posting (obviously now waiting until said ceremony) eg, I was not attempting any ITNR-type nom with it. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Defamation per se

I'll bring it up here after the fact, for future reference. WP:BLP applies to the recently dead. Calling someone a pervert or a child molester (not merely saying they have been accused of that by an RS, but calling them that when they have not been found guilty of it) is defamation per se, and a violation of WP:BLP full stop.

There seems to have been some confusion by User:Mjroots, User:331dot, and User:George Ho regarding whether a nomination should proceed or not based on untried criminal allegations. That was totally beside the point, and I had no opinion on the nomination, nor was that the source of my objection.

What you simply cannot do is flat out refer to someone in these terms in WP's voice or as WP's agent without attribution. If we are discussing nominations for RD there is no reason not to quote sources, but simply to describe someone as a deviant or having committed a crime of moral turpitude is unacceptable. μηδείς (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

If recently deceased, WP:BDP should be used, right? As for calling a person a "child molester", my apologies, that was a bad sarcasm. I was trying to object Mjroots's arguments. A low-profile criminal may not reach the same heights as the high-profile one. --George Ho (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, George. I do think there was some confusion between my procedural concern and the notion that I was either supporting or opposing the nom based on the possibly defamatory issue. I'd point out the death of a certain US Senator who was listed at ITN a few years back whom some would have accused of a vile crime. My point was that the issue could be discussed without even mentioning the supposed crime/infamy, and if it were mentioned, it should be referred to as an infamy alleged by notable sources. My concern posting here is more to point out that this is a serious policy issue, rather than to revisit the nomination's outcome. μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] ITN general attitude towards U.S. shootings

This discussion does not seem to be accomplishing anything; as such I am closing this. Let's move on. 331dot (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think we need to revisit this issue because it's a common point of contention among ITN contributors, especially in light of the Los Angeles Unified School District terrorism hoax. Had it blown up to be something else, such as yet another U.S. shooting, inevitably there would have been an argument about whether or not it should be posted. Yes, it's true that U.S. has a disproportionately high number of shootings compared to other nations. Yes, it's true that reasonable gun control legislation would stop these shootings from being so commonplace and routine. However, in the San Bernandino shooting that was posted not long ago, which was widely regarded to be terrorism, there was still some dispute as to whether or not it should be posted given the U.S's history. So I think that even though we want to avoid instruction creep, we should try to have some general guideline set in place as to where the bar should be set for posting these events. Having a guideline will hopefully help to prevent some unnecessary and inflammatory side discussions.--WaltCip (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

If we need some sort of guideline in this area(leaning against, but not totally there yet) I don't think it should just deal with or single out U.S. shootings. It should be applicable to such events regardless of location. That said, I have little problem with people in good faith using criteria like history or the relevant country's laws/social situation to judge an ITN nomination. I'm American and I don't support posting every US shooting; each one should be weighed on its merits, news coverage, and article quality. Sometimes a country's history or laws are relevant. 331dot (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We do have guidance. It has ALWAYS (or as imperceptibly close to always as to make no difference) stated in the instructions on the candidates page "Please do not...complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive." We don't need special rules which state "Your bigotry is not OK even when it's target is Americans". We're clearly and unambiguously telling people not to do that. America doesn't need special rules that say "OK, don't complain about where an event happens, except for America, because fuck those guys" or "C'mon guys, let's not make this a "We hate Americans and their damned gun culture" issue." We have guidance. People just need to be reminded of it from time to time. --Jayron 32 15:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

And as the continuing and increasing numbers of mass shootings in the US take place, the less and less likely they are to be featured as they will become as commonplace as the "Indian road traffic accident". The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The only way we can assess that is by the level and depth of news coverage. Because drawing false analogies to events which do NOT have large amounts of reliable sources is actually meaningless here. At Wikipedia, we don't reach conclusions and then reach for bullshit analogies to justify them. We find reliable sources and work forward from there. --Jayron 32 16:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Despite folks like TRM saying these things are "commonplace" in the U.S., these shootings are incredibly important as we see increased calls for action.[2][3][4] The issue of guns in the U.S. appears to be approaching a potential critical mass. This is not business as usual. It is extremely newsworthy and to dismiss it so nonchalantly is doing a disservice to Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

That's also mostly irrelevant. The only relevant factor we should consider is are people learning about this current event through their reliable newsmedia. If they are, and we have a quality article about the event in question, we should not stand in the way posting the quality article to the main page because we don't personally like something about the event. --Jayron 32 18:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's irrelevant as the larger picture under which these shootings are happening. But yes, I do believe that the coverage of some of these shootings (remember, only the most major shootings get nominated, and the "smallest" ones don't even get Wikipedia articles) is sufficiently significant that it meets the purpose and criteria of ITN. TRM nominated the San Bernardino attack (which shocked me), but then backed away from it when it began to appear it wasn't ISIL related. As if that somehow diminished the quality of the article or scope of the news coverage. (And of course it turned out to be ISIL-inspired anyway). – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

We have to be aware that gun crimes in the US are routine, sadly. Most of them are out a moment of anger or dispassion, the person acting irrationally or the like such as in the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting. Those types of crimes are not really as significant as they just point out to the larger problem of gun control/availability in the US. The San Bernadino shooting is far different as it was clearly planned (even before the connection to ISIL was considered), a sign of something more sinister at work. Each story should still be evaluated on a case-by-case for ITN posting, but my personal line is distinguishing between something that out of the blue that is similar a tragic event, and something clearly planned out, a sign of a deeper story. --MASEM (t) 18:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

All fine and good, except at Wikipedia, we aren't supposed to be bringing our own personal feelings into these matters. We're supposed to assess reliable sources, and reflect what they do. --Jayron 32 18:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not so much a personal "feeling" just a categorization that I use. Further, this is the importance of WP:NOT#NEWS and that ITN is not meant to be a news ticker. Shootings in the US get a disproportionate amount of coverage in the news. That's a systematic bias we are meant to work against. Just because a story is coverage broadly around the world does not necessary mean it is appropriate for en.wiki inclusion or to be on ITN, and we are enabled to make these types of decisions to keep the work on track. --MASEM (t) 18:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Not all shootings get that level of news coverage, and those don't get nominated, let alone posted. The day of the San Bernardino attack, there was a mass shooting in Savannah.[5] It got very little coverage, and therefore was not nominated for ITN, nor was an article created for it. For 2015, only ten mass shootings have articles, and not all of them were posted or even nominated at ITN. Considering we're averaging a mass shooting per day, and only ten of those have articles, I think the system is working itself out. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Though to bring it back around to the ITN issue, there definitely are editors here that when any US mass shooting is presented for ITNC, they immediately oppose because it's yet another US mass shooting, and then at the same time, a mass shooting elsewhere in the world is strongly supported because, for the most part, it isn't the US. That I think is what this thread is concerned with. We are clearly not going to post every US mass shooting ITNC but it should not be for the reason because it happened in the US. That's why I myself consider the line based on intent and the larger picture that lead to the shooting, ignoring the geographical aspect. This generally has followed what stories are or aren't posted. --MASEM (t) 19:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

That we have had more mass shootings in the US this year than days of the year means that we have to be highly selective over those which are placed on the main page. This is English language Wikipedia, and just because The New York Times doesn't feature a road traffic accident in India which kills 50, it doesn't mean we have to feature a mass shooting in the US which kills 10, say. To do so is to wander onto the side of tabloidism, and certainly perpetuates systemic bias. Mass shootings (other than in, say, Mexico) are rare as rocking horse shit, which is why they should be featured. I nominated the San Bernadino shooting, quite rightly it would appear, because it was an act of terrorism. Most other guncrimes are just stupid Americans with easy access to guns going rogue. Not worth reporting on at all. Wikipedia is not, and should never be, a vessel to change legislation. That should be down to the people of America and the NRA. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's why we need a new and separate guideline: because the guideline we currently have about not complaining about an event as it relates to a single country clearly does not reflect community consensus as outlined in the above discussion. I agree with TRM, there's really no excuse for the U.S. to not have acted by now to implement comprehensive gun control laws to stop stupid and unnecessary shootings like this from occurring. So either they are the very strong exception to the rule that we not complain about single-country events (and an exception we should make note of for new contributors), or we need a new rule outright.--WaltCip (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, it reflects community consensus. The voice of a few bigots who feel the need to use a particular news event as a reason to get on their soap box and rail against stupid Americans is not equivalent to the community as a whole. The loudest and rudest are not representative of consensus. --Jayron 32 23:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

What our government has done (or really, hasn't done) to solve the problem isn't relevant as to whether or not this shooting or that shooting are worthy of being posted. (As to the legal aspect, check out Australia, which set strict gun laws after a massacre and they haven't had a problem since.) Shooters all have their own motives, like the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting, which should have been posted as it was a noteworthy example of anti-abortion violence, but noone (myself included) bothered to nominate it. So what shootings have been posted to ITN in 2015? San Bernardino and Charleston. Any others? If it's only two that've been posted this year, then I think the problem is we aren't posting enough of them. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

For "The voice of a few bigots", see "the rest of the civilised world". As I've already said, it's only to do with stupid Americans who buy their burger, get a free gun and go postal. The frequency is such that it equates to road traffic accidents in India. There's nothing remarkable about most of the US mass shootings other than the over-emphasised, over-published and overly emotional outpourings when yet another school/office/etc gets targeted. It's becoming a case of "who cares", almost routine. We don't need to post any more of these, to do so will simply encourage further attacks. One day we'll see a parting note from one of these armed-up pricks saying "well at least I'll make it to ITN on Wikipedia!" The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The rest of the world does not have an open, seething hate of Americans which influences them to make unjustifiable, prejudicial, and unsupportable (in terms of evidence) opposes at ITN based only on the national or ethnic origin of a story. Just you. --Jayron 32 20:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, I don't see how calling out burger-eating maniac shooters equates to an unequivocal seething hate of all Americans, and even President Obama himself has called the shootings "routine".--WaltCip (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I have some actual American friends, all of whom are in 100% agreement with me that the country's pathetic and horrifically negligent approach to the mass murder of people, frequently including children, is a universal abhorrence, a seething sore of modern civility that is influenced by ignorance and prejudice, that the majority of the population of the US are not prepared to do anything about. It's not "just me", it's hundreds of millions of people worldwide looking at the parochial bullshit and calling it as it is. Mass ignorance and massive stupidity. But then again, it's probably all our fault. (P.S. "The rest of the world does not have an open, seething hate of Americans..." actually, a lot of the rest of world actually does hold that position... wake up). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Right, because the first defense of against accusations of bigotry is always "No, I can't be prejudiced. I have lots of XXX friends..." No one has ever tried that before. Or you could, you know, assess every individual story based on its prevalence in reliable news sources, and ignore the nationality of the people involved. But that would make you a reasonable, rational person. You're not going to do that. --Jayron 32 04:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I hold out hope that one day some of you will actually understand irony. But not much hope. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, there's nothing inherently wrong with what you are saying here, and in another context, I would fully agree with you. The issue is not whether or not it is good for people to have easy access to tools of mass murder. The issue is mostly whether or not Wikipedia's ITN Candidates page is the appropriate venue for airing that particular political opinion, or whether or not it is appropriate to use the ITN Candidates page as a means by which to initiate, in whatever little way one can, a change of the public reporting of such events. It isn't. ITN, and all of Wikipedia, must be a reflection of what reliable sources say, not a means by which to change the world. It is possible for a person to agree that people should not have access to tools of mass murder, and still not think that ITN/C is the proper venue to air such grievances, or to use the posting or non-posting of stories as a means to enforce that political opinion. --Jayron 32 17:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I totally agree with everything TRM is saying about gun control as a political issue, but I disagree that our political failures on that issue somehow renders mass shootings in the U.S. too "commonplace" for ITN. If there's sufficient devastation and news coverage of the event, and a sufficient article to post, it should go up. The gunman's motives aren't necessarily relevant. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Commentary here calling the American people "idiotic" and "stupid" over this issue is offensive and unjustified. The idea that gun control can stop mass shootings is debatable. Many mass murderers still use illegal weaponry such as bombs [1][2][3], despite bombs being extremely controlled. Perpetrators simply ignore the law. This lends credibility to the theory that controlling weaponry does not deter criminals, who by definition break laws, and that therefore a quest to change the US constitution may be pointless. The issue is not as clear-cut as some would have you believe. (However, there is evidence that gun control could help prevent suicides.)

In any case, a lack of preparedness would not be justification to ignore a notable event. For example, if a small earthquake kills many people in an unprepared country, but the same size earthquake occurring in a prepared area would not have, the former event is still notable enough to post. I think we can continue to decide on the merits of posting nominated shootings using existing processes and policies at ITN/C. As Muboshgu mentions above, we have been doing a great job at filtering these so far. Mamyles (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Taking initiative to hat this before it delves off into debate on ideologies that have nothing to do with handling ITN issues. --Masem

The following discussion has been closed by Masem. Please do not modify it.

Point of information: I think we (at least I) have only ever described the shooters as idiotic and stupid. The majority of Americans just accept these daily slaughters, including those of children in schools, as commonplace, with a hint of "oh my goodness" and then move on. Of course gun control can stop mass shootings. It may take time, but of course it can. In the meantime, America wrings its hands, those who are concerned put on their concerned faces, the NRA use every opportunity to explain why more guns are better than fewer guns, some Americans continually misinterpret their constitutional amendment in the face of dead children, and good news, Donald Trump is doing rather well with his national front and pro-gun approach. Bravo. To the point, we should be proactive in reducing the number of these US mass shootings that appear. Right now, there's more than one per day, and thankfully we don't feature many of them. But we should certainly wait before posting another (unless in extremis something happens that nobody saw coming...) until we have a justifiable reason beyond "crazy American with free gun goes postal" which is (in my mind) identical to "road traffic accident in India kills x". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't exaggerate. I don't know if it's even legal to offer a free gun for buying something — even if it was the shop would have to call the national background check number and it might be instant gun but might take up to a few days for merchant to get the green light (though I think there's a low volume private sale/gift gun show loophole around this still?) King of the Hill did have a cop say it's okay to give a free pistol "with [a] $600 purchase of quality science-fiction" [6] but then again it's a cartoon (then again it's usually accurate about the level of redneckitude in Texas, according to natives). And let's see how easy it'd be for you to get a gun in my part of America, it's almost impossible for regular people to get a legal handgun. You'd have to pay $5,000 non-refundable just to apply, be interviewed by cops that rubber-stamp "no", attend gun class, pass a test, pass a shooting test I think (at one of the 1 or 2 gun ranges for 8 million people) and also be a celebrity or politician or work with diamonds or something. That guy who shot evil thugs* in a train and often carried cash and electronics for work was denied even though it was the crimey 80s and he was shoved through a glass door in a failed robbery once and was permanently injured. Mr. Goetz just had to go to the South to get a gun legally (only the bringing it back is illegal). If you're going to ban guns then you better solve the problem of everyone going to other states to get them. ~500 people are murdered by handguns each year in my city despite the near-total ban. *They were evil. One of them was later convicted for holding a pregnant woman at gunpoint while his buddy raped and sodomized her. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

There aren't burger joints where can buy guns? Sure you don't "buy a Big Mac, get a Glock free" but the point I was making was the absolute freedom with which any American can get armed up. I don't quite follow your "you better solve the problem of everyone going to other states to get them" argument. Ban them in your country, it's really easy. Are you so indoctrinated that you can't see that it's insane that this is happening more than once a day in your country yet happening less than once a year or once a decade in other "civilised" countries? Bizarre, I'm just glad that the US is a long way away from the rest of civilisation. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

And even if guns are flat-out banned nationally, we all know how well that works with drugs. Criminals will find a way to get illegal products, no matter how much effort is put in to stop them. Mamyles (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Though that doesn't mean we should let people sell heroin legally or have loose gun laws in big cities. Having gun laws like the Republican parts of the country just wouldn't work here, people are too stupid or short-tempered and too high population density (collateral damage) and we have enough children shot by stay bullets already. While it would be nice to eliminate smuggled guns in New York City it's probably not feasible to reduce them much more than now. You'd have to ban guns in a much larger area than one state for it to have a chance in hell and the American hunting culture and Republicans just wouldn't allow it, not for decades at least. And then after that it would probably take 50-100 years for a gun ban to work as criminals get caught and their guns confiscated and guns break and few people with technical skill want to risk abetting non-gun crimes and going to jail to repair them. How long did it take for the supply to dry up when the UK banned it's guns? Did they have much less gangsterism at the time than the US does new? I guess it might be a little easier to ban guns than drugs as drugs can be made from poppies and plants that grow wild somewhere while guns require more tech, and drugs can be swallowed in condoms but guns set off metal detectors and X-rays and are hard to defecate. Besides the issue of rampant crime for 50-100 years after there is no way guns could be banned nationwide any time soon because it'd be so hard to kill the Amendment. That would require passing a Constitutional Amendment by over 75% and canceling part of one of our three revered foundational documents for the first time. Okay, the Constitution is nothing but a ball and chain on progress that needs serious amending and the right wing quoting Founding Fathers like they're revealed truth is stupid but they see those as almost the secular version of Scripture and religious figures. The original paper with the 2nd Amendment on it is publicly displayed under bulletproof glass in an inert helium atmosphere with the other founding documents (Constitution and independence declaration). These three documents are in the grandiosely named Rotunda for the Charters of Freedom. Now that's reverence. I wouldn't be surprised if mass shootings and crime are actually solved by scanning every 5 year old's brain and curing the psychopathic, sadistic and criminal ones with 22nd century technology before the guns are banned (and that would reduce most of the desire to ban guns). This might be why Rambling Man thinks I seem resigned to mass shootings but I know how impossible banning guns nationwide would be in the foreseeable future by intuition because I live here so it doesn't even cross my mind. (Even Obama says that he wholeheartedly supports the 2nd Amendment or a paraphrase of that because he wants to get elected and our current social democrat candidate supports it (but he's from an unusually gun-friendly state, but they're one of the most rural and smallest largest city states in the country so that's probably why. (If I lived a mile from my nearest neighbor I'd want a gun, too. Not if they were illegal in my country, though))) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment It's become fashionable to bandy about the notion that the "US has a mass shooting every day", often citing some WP:RS [7] which itself is referencing some sort of "sub-reddit" which itself is referencing some website "shootingtracker.com". When you actually look at the data, you'll find there are often 1 or 0 fatalities, or that the circumstances are such that the victims were familiar with their assailant (gangs, domestic, etc). The obviously anti-gun "GunsAreCool" may classify these as a "mass shooting", but the general population of the united states, and the media, do not. So lets stop shrieking "Ho-hum mass shootings in America every day" because it's offensive and un-helpful. Thanks. --68.115.239.114 (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Heh, The Washington Post is no longer a reliable source? Don't keep up this ignorance, or denial, or whatever it is. Tens of thousands are killed every year in the US by being shot to death. It's undeniable. But keep up the good work by ignoring it, or even encouraging it! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback. I consider your suggestion "or even encouraging it" (gun violence) a personal attack and ask that you immediately apologize. Yes, tens of thousands are shot to death annually in the US, it's tragic, but this discussion is about mass shootings, not victims of individual domestic violence or accidental shootings. Regarding the Washington Post, as they did not conduct the research themselves, and are linking to data from an anonymous internet blog site called "reddit", you may wish to review the data yourself. It's publicly available. Again, I await your apology for the cruel and unnecessary personal attack that I somehow contribute to gun violence. --68.115.239.114 (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  - I don't see how anyone or anything on Wikipedia would trigger shootings. Your average street gang member and/or terrorist probably spends most of their time preparing for battle, not reading ITN. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
    
    Whatever consensus may have come from this discussion, IP 68, the consensus is clearly against you. The United States is awash in mass shootings and kids are dying brutally and needlessly on a constant basis. Please don't attempt to deny it; it merely stalls the argument and may even be considered trolling in some circles.--WaltCip (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
    - How did the IP "encourage" mass shootings? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
      - At no point did I suggest the IP encouraged mass shootings.--WaltCip (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
        
        No, TRM said that. So what's the beef with the IP [and his various IP-hoppers]? And your characterization of "awash" is a gross exaggeration. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
        
        I'm certain TRM was intentionally being ironic.--WaltCip (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
        
        Yes, hello, thank you. I've not tried to deny anything, I consider the suggestion that I'm deliberately trying to stall the "argument" offensive as well. I would also suggest that remarks like "awash in mass shootings" are unhelpful. There is a difference between the random collection of gun related tragedies amassed by the random and anonymous users of "Reddit", and the Active shooter events which stun the nation. Perhaps that is the issue, that someone typed "mass shootings USA" into a search engine and turned up a link to a Reddit page that refuses to go away, when for better or worse, the media and general public use "mass shooting" to refer to Active shooter. Perhaps it would be wise to archive this section, and start again with a focus on the "Active shooter", since while tragically there may be incidents daily like "Four people wounded in shooting in Savannah", no one is creating WP articles for these incidents, let alone nominating them for ITN. Regarding "The Rambling Man", I have no idea who this individual is, or what this individual's intentions were (ironic or otherwise). All I know is that the subject was "...killed every year in the US by being shot to death..." concluded "...or even encouraging it!" and that statement was an offensive, hurtful personal attack. --68.115.239.114 (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? At what point did I say that the specific IP encouraged mass murder, unless you don't understand irony? Is this an affliction of all Americans or is it just those who frequent Wikipedia? I had hoped that some of you would have some sense and some courage but right now, there's nothing there at all. This discussion is a complete waste of time, so let's close it as soon as possible. In the mean time there'll be at least one or two more mass shootings in the US. Get over it, nothing will change, the dead children in schools and those who tried to protect them will continue to die in vain as most of you keep claiming your second amendment. Nothing will ever change, and most of us are glad to not be part of the pathetic ignorance. Tens of thousands dead every year, but hey, more guns = better protection! Well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

"Don't keep up this ignorance, or denial, or whatever it is. Tens of thousands are killed every year in the US by being shot to death. It's undeniable. But keep up the good work by ignoring it, or even encouraging it!" Those are your words, "The Rambling Man". I don't seem them as ironic, I see them as offensive. All you need to do is apologize, but instead you declare "you don't understand irony", and suggest that it is an affliction of at least "Americans who frequent Wikipedia". You've gone on to say that you "had hoped that some of you would have some sense and some courage but right now, there's nothing there at all" which further suggests that all of "you" (us) are without sense or courage? Are these more insults or more irony? I kindly ask that you review WP:NPA, comment on the content and not the contributor, and apologize for the above litany of insults. Thank you. --68.115.239.114 (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC) You an also apologize for the edit summary "pathetic to the nth degree". --68.115.239.114 (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC) — 68.115.239.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No chance. The litany of reality checks and the litany of ignorance is sufficient for me to realise that there's little more I can do or say. I will not be an apologist for a breed of individuals who are content to watch children murdered by a so-called right to defend ones-self. Get over it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Mother Jones is progressive (they broke the "Mitt Romney considers 47% of Americans irredeemable parasites" story) and even they say there were only 6 (or 4) mass shootings this year. The federal government (currently left-wing as we all know) says there were 6, not 355. Incidents where drug gangs shoot each other or domestic violence shouldn't count (they'd go in the "yay! criminals hurt themselves" or "tragic but could've been done by sword or even knife" categories) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

American federal government left wing?' In what parallel universe? They can't even get reasonable gun restrictions legislated, never mind repealing the second amendment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Europe!

Not achieving anything. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Good news everyone! as of now 100% of the blubs, 66% of the RDs and 50% of the ongoings are Euro-centric. Thank God we've been able to counter systemic bias by choking the main page with stories about Europe! --68.115.239.114 (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

And you find this kind of commentary useful...how? ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh if only someone had the courage to stick that after one of TRMs worthless diatribes about "murdered children" this would be a less combative, more collaborative place. So yes, I took a moment to point out the absurdity of shrieking "American bias" while porking on the Europe. Do I expect it to change anything? No. It seems to be the status quo here. --68.115.239.114 (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't perceive a Europe bias right now. Three of the blurbs deal with Europe, but they are on very different topics (I do continue to think regardless that the UK blurb should emphasize why it is significant). The other two (FIFA and UFC 194) are global interest items, and arguably Soyuz fits this as well. As for the status quo: someone close the RfC above already, so I can start another one. Banedon (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repopulating Wikinews

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Withdrawing. I shouldn't have brought it up here. --George Ho (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The sister project has been very slow lately. The ITN is more restricted than Wikinews, but many people still use ITN without probably being aware of Wikinews. I even discussed it at WP:VPM, but no one has responded for several days. If we can rely more on Wikinews, then I guess we shouldn't any longer rely on ITN. But how do I centrally promote awareness of Wikinews? --George Ho (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

What does promoting Wikinews have to do with ITN? Even if it does, I'm not sure we should be in the business of promoting anything. 331dot (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

How wide is wide?

If resignation of a Georgian PM isn't interesting to mainstream Wikipedians, which other interests are wide to them, regardless of importance? Also, nothing new has been posted for five days. --George Ho (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Purely subjective and based on consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions for recent deaths?

I don't know how the "recent deaths" section for the front page of ITN is chosen. I think it should be more up to date and include five people instead of just three since it seems a few days behind. It would be good to have the most recent deaths like Natalie Cole and Wayne Rogers. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

In the same way ITNC works, but applying RD criteria. We (traditionally) limit to three to prevent taking up two lines in the ITN section of the main page. Feel free to nominate Cole and Rogers at ITNC. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

In fact, both of your suggestions have been nominated! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC: news types and dominance

ITN is occasionally dominated by news of a single type, which is a consequence of several newsworthy items of that type happening at the same time. Should ITN have in-built controls against this happening?

Example: if five countries have elections at the same time and all the articles are updated, ITN may wind up featuring all five elections at the same time. Since there is only so much space, this means ITN becomes politics-dominated. Under the status quo, we live with this until such time as more news items are nominated and posted.

Option 1: Yes. A single news type dominating ITN is a problem.
Option 2: No. A single news type dominating ITN is a problem but the status quo is the best solution.
Option 3: No. A single news type dominating ITN is not a problem.

Banedon (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Option 3. This is not a problem- but even if it was nothing different needs to be done. We have no control over events in the world and their newsworthiness. If people feel that there are too many election events at one time(for example), they can use that as a reason to oppose posting other election stories. 331dot (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment - We have a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items#Change proposal: All changes to the head of government. For those notified about this discussion, feel free to go there. George Ho (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Option 2/3 which are the same thing to me. There is no problem, therefore the status quo is just fine. We can't control the news. Just as when we get the run every year of Nobel Prizes, we post them. Nobody dies. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with 331dot and TRM. One type of news dominating ITN temporarily is not a problem. If ITN was permanently dominated by that type of news, it would be a different matter. Neljack (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Bill Cosby nominaton "snow close"

Done. Nothing more to "debate" here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closed after two !votes and less than a half hour on the board? I strongly object on procedural grounds, and ask an uninvolved admin to reopen the nomination and let it run its course. NOTE: I will not debate the merits of the nomination here. The place for that is the improperly closed ITN nomination. Jus da fax 17:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FYI, nominations have been SNOW-closed in the past in less than thirty minutes. This is not a procedural issue.--WaltCip (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

If it isn't, it should be. Two votes is not enough to invoke SNOW, and neither is 30 minutes. Banedon (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Given we are talking a serious BLP issue, this is a clear allowance for a fast SNOW close, in addition to past ways we handle legal cases (which is, baring people in seats of power, we never ITN the arrest or initial charge, but at the verdict). --MASEM (t) 03:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Malheur incident

It might have been a bit early to close the Malheur incident. According to the state's leading newspaper, The Oregonian, the situation is likely to go on for some time, but eventually will have to be resolved by law enforcement. (See "What's next" in story.) Sca (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes but the scale of it relative to world events is trivial. If the situation changes, that might be reason to reconsider. --MASEM (t) 00:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

And even then, if it ends in the worst possible scenario, would it not be akin to routine U.S. gun crime? The bid to close the nomination was correct.--WaltCip (talk) 12:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

If it ended horribly, it would certainly be different than the "routine U.S. gun crime" (it's an armed militia rather than a lone wolf psycho), but at present it's a relatively minor event. No issue with it being closed given the current developments. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 13:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

It's trivial. Once the shooting starts, it'll be a story. Until then, it's just gun-toting Americans threatening other gun-toting Americans. Boring. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Expected. Boring. Sca (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Predictable. Repetitive.--WaltCip (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

This just in to the ITN news desk — Oregon Considers Wall to Keep Out Angry White Men. – Sca (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

So what? We're not an "Oregon angry man ticker". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

If one were to read the linked material, one would find it's a humorous parody on the situation.

Sca (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany

Two arrests in Cologne added to article. Sca (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Well this has already been posted so your update here is not really necessary, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, posted at WP:ERRORS. 15:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

FYI, still in the news. Sca (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

And still on the main page.... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The article has been removed from "the home page" by User:Jehochman here apparently they think that articles which have tags on'em (in this case a copy-edit tag, which the article badly needs) cannot be linked to from main page. I have no idea if this ITN policy, standard procedure or what, but it does seem quite silly and wrong headed to me (Jehochman actually appears to be under the impression that it is forbidden to tag articles for problems if they are linked to from the main page which is even more wrong headed). One would think that a tag on a high traffic article like that would either motivate users to actually fix the problem (my own knowledge of German is insufficient) or help recruit new editors to the project, or both.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Weeell, unlike DYK, part of ITN's purpose is to highlight "quality" articles, so that's why articles tagged as poorly referenced or NPOV are usually removed from ITN. You're probably right that it might get fixed, but on the other hand it may expose Wikipedia to criticism for posting items to its main page that are sub-standard. Damned if you do.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

With respect, but trouble often with "In the news" items is often that these are developing stories. often lacking the time to have covered its content with reliable sources for confirmation. In other words, if quality ultimately constitutes the correctness of an article in an absolute measurement, then the "In the News" portion will always fail to meet thát requirement in the following days of the occurance. and with this article in particular, information is still remaining quite contradicting from any sources whatsoever and not particulairly fast pased in progress. Yet, it is sufficiently noteworthy news considering its covered by national news agencies across the globe. Maybe this particular article turns out to be an exception to the rule. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This isn't unique to ITN. OTD/SA can't have quality tagged articles as their primary article either and I believe this applies to DYK and TFP/POTD as well (although I couldn't find it mentioned in the guidelines). Nil Einne (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

It may apply anecdotally at DYK but it's not enforced by any means. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. Can you give examples where DYK has quality tagged articles as their primary article? I'm aware of a few cases where they probably should have had quality tags on the article (but didn't) and which got posted. But I wasn't aware that things are so bad there that they're now regularly posting primary articles which have quality tags at the time of posting. Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Andean orogeny, for instance, will hit main page soon, that's got two inline orange maintenance tags. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

(EC) It's also accepted that the main page is targeted at readers, so linking to articles to try and attract editors to them is frequently rejected as a rationale. (There have been limited proposals for specific sections relating to attracting editors which have had some minor support, but never the whole main page.) While ITN has always had somewhat of a problem that the info is recent therefore the article is generally in a state of flux; it's been accepted for a long time the quality should be sufficient that it doesn't merit any tags before it's posted. If things change after the posting, it's possible a removal may be justified. This delays postings to ITN and sometimes prevents them, but since ITN isn't intended as a newsticker, this is normally accepted as the way things work. (It isn't of course unique to ITN. We've had anniversaries which seem fairly significant missed out on SA/OTD because of it.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

David Bowie put on Recent Deaths

Well-known singer, would be important for headlines and death.--69.223.190.96 (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

He's got a blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

In the future, if there's something you want to see posted, nominate it.--WaltCip (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Definition of overemphasis

The repeated postings of "El Chapo" escaping and recapturing drew mixed reactions, but consensus majorly (if not unanimously) supported posting it. Also, the sexual assaults in Germany on New Year's Eve (before re-removals due to maintenance issues) was posted, despite opposition. If opposition doesn't hold weight well, how should we define overemphasis correctly and influence consensus to oppose something so overly emphasized? --George Ho (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

We base everything on consensus. Nothing's changed. Nothing more to see here. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

How does 50/50 consensus lead to posting a story? How can an argument be convincing? George Ho (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

That's why consensus on Wikipedia is not considered to be just about counting heads. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

And I've seen cases where I think even one nay !vote has held up not posting as the nay !vote pointed out sourcing issues to be fixed, which none of the support !votes pointed out. It works both ways. --MASEM (t) 00:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This is why we have admins, trusted to weigh up argument, not just count hands. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTAVOTE is no longer a guideline; it was downgraded into an essay. Has anyone known that? --George Ho (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS is the policy. Step hen 00:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Back to emphasis. How should a consensus not overly emphasize one story or another? --George Ho (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

By trusting admins. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately

back again. --Marvel Hero (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

If you wish to nominate something, please do so at WP:ITNC. 331dot (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to In The News post The WHO announces the end of the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa, which caused more than 11,000 deaths. --Marvel Hero (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind that 3 cases is not the same as an "epidemic" that caused >11,000 deaths. Plus, the blurb wasn't that the ebola was 100% eradicated, but that the world's authority on the situation declared it as such. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Are you saying that the WHO did not make that announcement on the date we said they made the announcement? --Jayron 32 17:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jayron32: I am not accusing you or anybody else for posting that news. I am following that since it was posted. I wanted to know that in this particular case, when the news has counter developments, will it be pulled out or kept as it is? Next time I will have to write in details, as few words can convey something else to others. Marvel Hero (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The word epidemic means a specific set of conditions regarding the spread of a disease. The end of the epidemic (the exact wording in the blurb) does not mean that the disease organism has been rendered exinct, and that we expect no person will ever come down with the illness ever again. The article you note does not contain any information which contradicts or adds anything useful to the blurb, because the fact that individual people will continue to contract the disease does not mean that the epidemic itself hasn't ended. You've posted articles about a) 1 new case and b) 3 new cases of the disease. I have never, ever, in my life heard of 4 cases of a disease meeting the minimum qualifications for an epidemic. --Jayron 32 17:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the blurb remains accurate. WHO caveated the situation with an acceptance that odd cases may crop up, as they have, but as Jayron says, a handful isn't an epidemic. If we see hundreds of new cases in the next week, we can talk about removing the item from ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I was under the impression that WHO declared this outbreak/epidemic concluded, not that the ebola virus had been eradicated. The Black Death ended some time ago, but bubonic plague still exists. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 12:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

RD: Jeanne Cordova

Although the discussion of Cordova's nom for RD has been closed on the basis of being stale, I note that her obituary just appeared in the LA Times on 15 January. As there were a number of "oppose" votes based on the absence of the death from mainstream media, I'd like to suggest a review of this nom now that it *has* appeared in mainstream media. Thanks, MurielMary (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent deaths are listed on the date of the person's death, for the sake of neutrality, and kept until a week (7 full days) after their death (or until they get pushed from the template). In this case, Cordova's passing has reached the week mark and would, at best, only be listed for a few hours if discussion is reopened and time is allowed for editors to weigh in. Furthermore, I believe only three people are listed at any given time in RD (I could be wrong, though), and the three presently listed are more recent than Cordova with Monte Irvin's passing on January 11. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I closed it as [stale] because there are three, more-recent RDs already listed, therefore this will never be featured, regardless of any additional obituaries. If you want to re-nominate with a later date, I would expect that to be strongly opposed, as her death was well-known several days ago, but that's up to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, ta. MurielMary (talk) 09:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Who has the right to close the sections and mark as ready and closed

We have the answer to the OP. Nothing more needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can only administrators post the news on front page? --Marvel Hero (talk) 10:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I think I read somewhere in the ITN policies that anyone can mark a nom as "ready" but an admin has the final say and does the posting. I may be wrong however! MurielMary (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Anyone can close a discussion or mark it as ready, though this is generally left to admins. Only administrators can update the in the news template. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 10:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The answer is that any good faith editor who is uninvolved in the discussion can assess a consensus and close a discussion. For purely practical reasons, it's usually not helpful (and does not generate any less work; in fact, usually generates more work) for non-admins to close discussions for items that need to be posted as a result of the discussion (because admins are actually needed to post) however, any uninvolved good-faith editor may always close any discussion anywhere on Wikipedia which doesn't directly require the admin tools to enact the results of, and anyone who tells you differently is lying. --Jayron 32 02:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Or is simply ill-informed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

But more likely lying. 108.33.72.244 (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

It's best not to assume that others are lying. Not to say it doesn't happen, but "more likely" is an exaggeration. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Policy on RD removal when older than the oldest blurb

I've just updated the template, which means that the oldest RD is older than the oldest blurb. I seem to recall we'd agreed that RDs should stay up for a fixed period (where space was available) so I haven't removed it. However, I note the admin instructions still state: "No RD items are to be older than the oldest item on the template with a blurb; an RD item should be removed when it is older than any other item on the template."

Am I misremembering? For clarity, could someone update the instructions if they've changed? Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

There was a discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_53#Proposal:_All_RD_listings_remain_up_for_seven_days, so RD listings remain up for 7 days before coming off (at least if I'm understanding that correctly). Spencer^T♦C 07:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks; it looks like there was no consensus as to the precise wording for the instructions (7 days after death vs 7 days after posting), so they remained unchanged. Could we agree to just remove the entire sentence I quoted? That would leave it ambiguous (ie up the editing admin's discretion) exactly how long RDs stay up, in the event that new ones don't come along to displace them, but would delete the instruction to remove items older than the oldest blurb, against which the consensus was clear. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I was surprised when the question arose. ITN, in its entirety, is based on the dates on which events occurred (with the posting order relevant only to our handling of items about same-date events). We label the individual items – including recent deaths – accordingly. Whether the "event" is a death or the date on which it became known publicly, why would we invent a special exception for RD? —David Levy 22:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Not particularly arguing either way but I can see the difference. With news events, there are often many editors working on the article and it swiftly becomes postable; if that does not happen it soon becomes stale. With deaths of non-popular figures, there is often little interest in improving the article and it is often a single editor from ITN trying to get it to a postable quality, which can be time-consuming, particularly if sources are not freely available online. The interest has more to do with the life, rather than the event of death, and so there is less problem with it becoming stale if posted late. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I've noted that distinction (albeit in a slightly different context) in the past. I regard it as the basis of a reasonable argument for adjusting our handling of deaths at ITN (and I actually proposed such a change), but we've never arrived at such a decision. My question's wording was flawed, as I meant to ask why someone participating in the previous discussion would assume that a special exception for RD was implied. —David Levy 05:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, the blurbs and the RDs have no relation to each other. I would advocate that RDs persist for a maximum of seven days after the date of death. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

In line with this discussion & the previous one, I have edited the RD instructions to read:

For RD items, the posting system is slightly different. RD items are listed by date of death, with the most recent death on the left side and the oldest death on the right. New RD items are added in the order of their occurrence; if two deaths are on the same date, the new article is added to the left. There is a limit of three RD items at a time in the section. In general, RDs should remain up for no more than 7 days after the death, except where there was a substantial delay in posting the item.

Feel free to hack around at the 7 days wording... Espresso Addict (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hurricane Alex vs Pritzker Awards

Isn't the Alex story one day newer than the other? Why did the Awards story replace the Alex story? --George Ho (talk) 06:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I am surprised to see either of these events replacing the Ebola announcement, which was the same day as the hurricane and far more important. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hurricane Alex has been restored. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The Pritzker Awards is restored. However, the Jakarta attacks and the end of Ebola in West Africa are newer than the Awards. George Ho (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Good point. I seem to have swapped in the last item from the period when Pritzker had replaced the bottom item. I've swapped back the Jakarta attacks, as the Ebola item is long and the Iran item has been lengthened in the meantime. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Portuguese presidential election, 2016

This election happened just recently. Could you add the name of the new President-elect in the news? Thanks. --B.Lameira (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@B.Lameira: This is not the page to make nominations; please visit the nominations page to do so. Elections for head of state are on the Recurring items list so it would likely be posted, if it is shown to be in the news and the article adequately updated. 331dot (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is the second time in barely a week that the ITNC/talk page has been vandalized (both times by indians [8]). Can we lock it to new editors?Lihaas (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Why is the nationality of the vandal relevant?--WaltCip (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism twice in a week is hardly a reason for such a drastic measure. Several times in an hour, though ... --Tone 13:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Dunno the nationalisty, could very well be citizens of UK or something. Point is, its probs a sock.Lihaas (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

No need for protection for such an incredibly light level of vandalism. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] Suggesting rewording winter storm blurb

Clear that there's little support for this. Besides that, this isn't the location for complaints about blurbs, that'll be WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A winter storm (satellite image pictured) causes at least forty deaths and paralyzes travel across the Eastern United States.

"Paralyzing" travel is a disability metaphor, which is problematic to use. I'd like to see this reworded to "A winter storm causes at least forty deaths and halts travel across the Eastern United States." to get rid of the disability metaphor. 65.42.26.190 (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Oops, re-signing after log in --Alison (Crazytales) (talk; edits) 14:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Paralyzed does not just refer to people with disabilities, but to a lack of movement or activity[9]. Many aspects of language are offensive to someone and it is impossible to satisfy everyone. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the "metaphor" is ableist and raises eyebrows.--WaltCip (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not think that this should cause any concern. A valid definition of paralyze is "To render unable to function properly." This is not a metaphor, but actually an original definition taken from the etymological source French word paralyser. Mamyles (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Nope, not a concern at all, we use the word in its etymological sense all the time. It doesn't have to refer to disability, attempting to make it do so in every use is disruptive. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree that this is not an offensive use and it doesn't have to refer to disability. (The claim above that the etymology is French is about three millennia out, though; as the "para-" prefix suggests, it comes from the Greek "παράλυσις", "along with loosening".) ‑ Iridescent 20:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reopen Planet Nine discussion?

The closed discussion is archived, so I'm closing this. --George Ho (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion led to nowhere? The consensus is mixed. Both sides seem convincing. How does support weigh more than opposition? More comments are needed to pressure administrators to pull the story out... unless they fear of confusing readers. George Ho (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the item should simply be pulled, there was obviously no consensus, the best argument in favor of posting was that the journal which printed the study was prestigious, and the reaction has been doubting; e.g., http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/01/20/not-so-fast-why-there-likely-isnt-a-large-planet-beyond-pluto/#328dc67f5af44b79168f5af4. If anything, the blurb in truth would have had to be "Major journal publishes a study on a computer model". We don't even post things like Typhoon Haiyan which were actual facts on the ground headed directly for land because the "models might be wrong". This is a rather large fail, and DYK is still the best option. μηδείς (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion might best be conducted at the Main Page/Errors location. Jus da fax 19:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The notability and credibility have been thoroughly established, the only hitch is how people view the scientific process and what point is considered acceptable to "pull the trigger" on posting a story. You have to remember consensus is derived from the quality of arguments, not the number of votes. Multiple administrators (nominator Juliancolton, posting admin Tone, Newyorkbrad, Masem, Espresso Addict, and myself) all agree on this being posted. Since the arguments were getting nowhere it started devolving into, as Jayron32 put it, "veiled personal attacks", the discussion is best closed and we should move on. It's already been up for a day; if it was a mistake to post it, the damage is already done. But hey, we shared a topic of high interest, and potentially great encyclopedic value, so I don't see it as a loss either way. It would be a waste of time at this point to continue arguing over this, unless something huge comes out in the next few days that undermines the study's credibility. But that's just my opinion. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ --Jayron 32 20:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

That was a good call to close it. --Tone 20:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should reopen the debate now; with or without consensus it is posted, and only confusion will result from pulling now. I think there's a more general point underlying this debate about how scientific research rarely makes it to ITN, often because of the kind of objections we've seen here, yet we are supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a news feed. A careful piece of modelling is in itself a result, and perhaps when this has all calmed down, we should think about how we can post more such items, without getting sucked into faster-than-light neutrino territory. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Multiple admins agreeing on posting is meaningless, as they possess no more authority here than anyone else in such a capacity. The fact that the consensus was unclear at best and each side getting roughly the same level of support means that there was no consensus to post the item. We have essentially posted speculation- perhaps grounded in something, but speculation nevertheless; this planet has not been confirmed and the information was only released to get more people looking for it[10]. Even if it is not pulled(which, OK, it's over with) this was, I feel, a mistake. 331dot (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- Arguable we have posted "speculation" before: the WHO declaring the end of the Ebola epidemic (when three new cases appeared that same day), the addition of four new elements to the periodic table (where they have only existed for fractions of a second and thus require secondary evidence to confirm), the existence of water on Mars by secondary evidence, and arguably any major business deal like Dow/DuPont or Pfizer where the deal has to be approved and could be denied. However, all of these have three significant elements towards ITN (besides being sourcable): They are speculation put forth by an expert or the expert agency in that field, that they significant impact on the nature of that field if the speculation bears out, and that it is well covered by the news. In the current situation, if we were looking at the original 2014 paper speculating the planet which came from not-as-highly-respected persons as Michael Brown was, I would not expect posting as it fails the "expert" aspect, and I don't think it would have been well covered. As a practical example, we did not post the speculation that that professor in Africa solved one of the Millennial Prize proofs, since this person came out of nowhere and has no reasonable expertise to judge on, in addition to other factors. Given that science oriented topics are woefully underrepresented at ITN compared to politics and sports, I see no reason when the three criteria above are meant to not post groundbreaking if only preliminary findings. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
And yet again, another RS complaint that the Planet 9 from Outer Space press release was simply manure. μηδείς (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- Nothing in that source implies it's "manure", it simply discusses the history behind Pluto to a degree and states that there are likely other planets in our solar system yet to be discovered or hypothesized. In fact, the gist of the article is quite the opposite of how you managed to misinterpret it: The evidence might be sparse, but it is also compelling. The only aspect that can be construed as a "complaint" is a statement of fact: this is a theory/hypothesis, not concrete. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Personally I'm surprised consensus was assessed as "post", since if I had been tasked with assessing consensus I would almost certainly have assessed it as "no consensus". One thing in particular that I noticed was that it seems most editors with a declared or obvious background in the hard sciences (with the exception of Cyclonebiskit) are opposing, which I would have taken as a reason not to post the nomination. That said, what's done is done, and it's not like Wikipedia is going to suffer permanent damage from posting this so might as well leave the story there. Banedon (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- - Masem "Manure" was my own attempt at a polite assessment, I think yours, and especially the posting/closing admins actions were negligent, if not an abuse of privilege. We simply do not post speculations from journals due to their "prestige", and as a user with undergraduate and postgraduate focus in the hard sciences, I find the notion that opposition to this posting and closure should be based on my misunderstanding of the importance of its publication in a peer-reviwed journal insulting. Irregardless, the basis for its posting and the closure are both illegitimate (i.e, there's no such consensus) and I think the matter should be re-addressed with full prejudice. (Even though I have consistently voted against sports and political manure and in favor of fertile science topics.) μηδείς (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
    - Please note I didn't comment on the "manure" comment, that looks like Cyclonebiskit. However, my reasoning is not solely because of being published in a peer-reviewed journal (but which should be a minimum that we require for posting of new science stories at ITN), but that we're talking about one of the premiere persons in the field that had initially set out to debunk the 2014 only to turn around and give a strong likelihood it will exist. It will take years for anything more conclusive to come back to prove it or not due to distance and its low reflectivity that it is supposed to have. This is how most of the sciences that work far beyond the scope of human observation (the comsos and the atomic scales), and we should not discount big news breaking stories when they have strong backing of a leading expert in the field. --MASEM (t) 02:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
      - No offense Masem but what you write is why I was so perturbed by the support votes in the nomination. It's as though you've supported the nomination even though you don't really understand it. Plenty of papers published in peer-reviewed journals, even those as prestigious as Nature or The Lancet, are wrong. Sometimes peer-reviewed publications are not even "somewhat wrong", they are "totally wrong" (see e.g. water memory). That a prediction is backed by an expert gives it more credibility, but doesn't make it right. Not only can experts disagree (see e.g. Thorne–Hawking–Preskill bet; Hawking conceded but Preskill didn't), they can also be completely wrong (see e.g. Michelson-Morley experiment, the result of which surprised all the so-called experts of the era). That one of the luminaries of the field had initially set out to debunk the theory but turned around to embrace it simply isn't relevant in scientific terms. Scientific consensus is built on more than the opinion of a few luminaries, and the luminaries themselves can be wrong (see e.g. Newton's corpuscular theory of light, Pauling's advocacy of megavitamin C diets). By all means support the nomination if you think an intriguing possibility as opposed to discovery is worth posting, but please understand what the essence of the nomination first. Banedon (talk) 08:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
        The nuance of science and the admission that even bona fide experts in their field can be wrong is exactly the reason why we should post this story. If it serves to educate readers that science is not a magical pill that will cure all ailments, but is instead a more gradual and thorough process, so be it.--WaltCip (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
        
        Of course it could be wrong. There's a reason Brown said 90%, because there's some other possible explanations for the data, but 90% is a high level of confidence that is going to send some telescopes pointing to that sector of the sky to try to affirm it. All science that are based on indirect observations are all theories of this nature. The thing it, it is in the news now, meeting ITN requirements. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items#Removal_proposal:_ALL_general_elections

Please feel free to participate. Nergaal (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Comparative stats

FYI, there's a useful new tool for comparing page views: Article Comparison. I just checked the current ITN entries. Terry Wogan dominates the stats, peaking at about 500K, as only Paul Kantner is in the same league (about 200K). Andrew D. (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing events

Why is only the European migrant(/refugee) crisis listed here? Seems rather eurocentric. All the more so since much of said crisis is only part of the broader ongoing event of the Syrian Civil War + spillover/Arab Winter. 194.78.87.50 (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Because of [11] and [12]. Banedon (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you have an article with up-to-date content that we can post? If so, please nominate that article at WP:ITNC. We'd love to post it! --Jayron 32 22:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Reinsert Aussie Tennis Open?

BorgQueen removed the Australian Open Tennis (or something like that) for balance. However, it is currently outbalanced, especially when the dreaded blurb was removed. Shall it be restored? --This is George Ho actually (Talk) 01:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

1) BorgQueen did not remove that blurb. A different admin did 2) It was out-of-balance when removed though subsequent changes to the main page have caused it to since become out of balance, as frequently happens. 3) I have fixed the problem, though your tone is not collegial. Next time, just ask nicely, and don't go throwing around accusations with tones of bad faith. Instead, let people who know what their doing keep doing it the right way, and understand we aren't here trying to make Wikipedia worse. We're just volunteers doing our best to keep things going smoothly in our free time. --Jayron 32 02:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Need additional template for closed candidates

The ITN Note template, posted on an article's talk page, invites discussion on the ITN page. It says "Please remove this template when the nomination process has concluded" and "replacing it with Template:ITN Talk if appropriate". But ITN Talk template assumes the item was posted. When discussion has ended but item was not posted, there should be a template for the article's talk page that preserves the link to the ITN/C section, but notes that it was nominated but not posted.66.19.94.87 (talk) 11:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think items that were not posted really need a link to the archive discussion on their talk page; would it serve a useful purpose? For the sake of looking up old nominations of an item, using the search bar in the archived discussions on ITN/C is more useful, at least in my experience. Best, Spencer^T♦C 02:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, it would be useful for people that were curious as to why or why not it was selected. In fact the ITN Talk template would be more useful if it linked to the discussion also. I don't know how current discussions get archived. "Linking to the discussion" could very well be a link to the search bar, if that is possible and gives a unique result.66.19.93.4 (talk) 05:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Dan Gerson as potential 4th RD?

Hello, I've now had the chance to fully rewrite and overhaul the Dan Gerson article, which I didn't when I first nominated it. I think Gerson is notable as a top figure in his profession: while not a household name, he wrote three much-loved films that grossed around $2 billion from the Wikipedia figures, with another one still to come, and I was quite surprised to find he had not yet been nominated. (I don't normally write RD noms: I came expecting to just tune up the article and vote support, not write my own nomination.) Big Hero 6 won an Academy Award for best animated film and was the most successful animated film of the year; I can't find figures but Monsters, Inc. was also hugely successful. (Put another way: ignoring inflation, of the top 30 most successful animated films at the box office, he co-wrote three of them.) Plus there's the unexpectedness of someone dying this young just after writing an Academy award-winning film.

The article has now been expanded to seven times its previous length (to be fair, that includes some long quotes and interview transcripts) and is well-cited with no uncited facts. I'd say it's ready to go. Blythwood (talk) 06:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Is this a request to just include this as a one-off fourth RD or for us to consider adding a fourth RD full-time? This situation is not unique. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Three has the big advantage that it tends to fall on a single line unless the names are very long. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Good question: I brought this up on here at Espresso Addict's suggestion as the nomination came in a bit late. I'm not an expert on ITN policy issues so I'm not proposing a change to policy. Blythwood (talk) 07:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

In this case I'd be much happier to add Gerson as a fourth (and perhaps remove Zika or move it to ongoing if page balance is a problem) than to displace an Argentinian woman for an American man. I don't think it would be advisable to increase the usual maximum to four -- I think the situation where we have abundant RDs and stale news is relatively uncommon? Espresso Addict (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

It certainly is uncommon but I have seen it not long ago. My only reservation would be that this would set a precedent that would, in future, be difficult not to follow. It may be just as well to suggest four RDs are allowable if they don't disrupt the ITN section unnecessarily (leaving that down to admin judgement on, per your suggestion for example, removing stale news to balance things up). The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

To complicate matters further, Violette Verdy's article is also gaining support for inclusion on the RD ticker. The date of her death is the same as Forster and Bence, two days after Gerson's and one day before Koirala's. Is it going to be possible to give all these worthy articles space on the RD line? MurielMary (talk) 09:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I think Verdy's almost ready now, but there's still one citation requested, which I've not been able to cover. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

At present there's enough room, even having to go for an extra line, for another RD listing. I think we can add a 4th RD; however, if there's a 5th we may have to bump one off. An alternative is purposefully delay adding one for a day or so, keeping the maximum at 4, and allow the oldest one to get some extra time before knocking it off. As TRM mentioned it sets the stage for an unwanted precedent, but given the number of RD-worthy articles we might have to make an exception. But just that: an exception, not a new rule, which should be made clear in any archived discussion. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Gerson is barely RD-worthy on notability, and the article is now good enough but not exceptionally good. If you start making an exception now, it is clear that the same exception could never be denied for any RD where notability or article are better. LoveToLondon (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I think let's leave it now due to the pile of other candidates. I'll probably submit the Gerson article for a DYK as it's more than 5x expanded. Blythwood (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK is for once a good option here. It's a pity we have such a glut of viable candidates at the moment. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

ITN image

Dear colleagues at ITN, please be informed that there is a request on Talk:Main Page#ITN image to change the ITN image. My suggestion to bring this idea up to WP:ITN/C was deemed pointless. Please take the request from here. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Only if you have a sufficiently appropriate image from a newer story. See Wikipedia:In the news#Pictures for the ITN image requirements. If there isn't any proper images from articles which are newer than the current one, then there's not much we can do. --Jayron 32 00:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

We could have a joint picture of Pope Francis & Patriarch Kirill? Espresso Addict (talk) 09:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

There are images of both train involved in the Bad Aibling rail accident which could be used. Mjroots (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Taking up the suggestion that was made at WP:ERRORS (later blanked by Dweller who directed discussion here), someone suggested using a joint picture of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill. Is it not possible to use template:multiple image that I used on that article? FWIW, the Russian Wikipedia article on this is using this image, which looks to be non-free. It could be used on en-Wikipedia under fair use (maybe?), but not on the main page. Carcharoth (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Should Scalia be reopened?

No further discussion required, clearly no consensus either at ITNC or here for a blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article says that Scalia was the most influential conservative jurist in almost a century, got to be dictator 342 times (because his peer justices were tied), and was "perhaps the most influential figure in our legal system since his appointment" (1986). What did Thatcher do that's so far above that? Be PM for 1/3rd of Scalia's term and have a small war for a small island group of 5,000 people? (nothing big like Iraq I or Iraq II or Afghanistan I or Afghanistan II or even Bosnia) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it should've been posted as a blurb not just because of all that you mentioned, but also because of what comes next. Senate Republicans are threatening to run out the clock on whoever Obama nominates to replace him, upping the stakes of the 2016 elections (President and Senate), not to mention the upcoming docket of cases SCOTUS is to hear are major and Scalia's absence changes the calculus on them completely. For those who cry "U.S. only", one of those cases is a major one on climate change, which knows no borders. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

No. RD was the correct call, both in terms of judging the consensus and the purpose of the section. Scalia was a significant figure, but nowhere near full-blurb level (Nelson Mandela, Margaret Thatcher etc.) Modest Genius ^talk 17:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Can we PLEASE drop the Thatcher-Mandela comparisons. We have posted time and time again full blurbs of recent deaths that come nowhere near close to that standard.--WaltCip (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I feel that several of those were mistakes. That's the standard we should be setting for RD blurbs. Modest Genius ^talk 11:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

No. Nothing is indicating that the death of this individual has any genuine impact other than to sell newspapers. The American political system is bizarre (much like the British) but has sufficient inertia to prevent anything of any note occurring within years. To claim otherwise is simply hysteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Um, the death is and will impact U.S. politics in a MAJOR way. It's not that Scalia is "equal" to Mandela/Thatcher/etc., it's that the impact of the death of these figures crosses a certain threshold of newsworthiness. This isn't hysteria, despite how crazy our political system is. Supreme Court cases are not the legislative process, which has ground to a halt. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course Scalia's death will influence politics, it already has with the current scramble of the GOP trying to delay nomination until after the election. The point is that until the actual nomination is approved by Congress, this is 100% internal workings within the US; the results will have global impact, but not the machinations now. And from an ITN standpoint, then, this is far too soon to post that as well as focusing too much on one national aspect. --MASEM (t) 19:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't really intending to re-litigate this, despite the fact that that's basically what I've done. There wasn't consensus to post a blurb on ITN/C, it appears to still be that way based on this thread. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

No. RD is appropriate; blurbs are for unexpected deaths at a young age or deaths in office where the death itself is the story, or for those who are genuinely among the most famous people in the world like David Bowie. Scalia was certainly neither; I'd confidently say that less than half the population of the US, and less than 1% of the rest of the world, had the slightest idea who he was. Even Jimmy Carter, Mikhail Gorbachev or John Major are unlikely to get full blurbs when they die, and all of those are considerably more notable than Scalia. Would those supporting a blurb for Scalia also support a blurb for David Neuberger if he died? ‑ Iridescent 19:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
The fact that an elderly person, highly notable but not surpassingly notable, has died of natural causes would ordinarily merit an RD. In this case, what I think pushes Scalia's death toward blurbworthiness is the death of the important legal and political figure itself, coupled with its impact on the future of the Court, coupled with its implications for the presidential campaign (both parties' primaries and the general election), some of which have already started to play out. Putting all that together there is no question that Scalia's death is of national and international importance sufficient to warrant a full blurb. That said, his death occurred three days ago and at some point, a decision is made one way or the other and there's no point in continuing the discussion indefinitely. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I am sympathetic of the idea that the death of Antonin Scalia the man is not as notable necessarily as the political situation his death has created, and indeed as someone who regularly reads U.S. news it is clear to me that this is one of the biggest political stories and certainly the biggest death-related story for president Obama's second term. I reckon that if the upcoming confirmation battle is anything like Robert Bork then we are in for quite a ride, but that is a bit of crystal balling that is, in my view, outside of the purview of ITN, which is to decide based on the notability of the story itself. That said, my preferred line for 'death as a blurb' nominations is very high; in my view the standard should be "a death which has caused over a day of continuous coverage in all major cultural spheres of the world". Probably the only two people that passed this bar in the last ten years are Nelson Mandela and Michael Jackson. Colipon+(Talk) 20:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Scalia is very much still "in the news" today.[13][14][15][16] – Muboshgu (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

But that's not news of Scalia's death, that's news on the manoeuvering to fill his seat. Politicians playing politics, exacerbated by an upcoming election, isn't a proposed blurb yet. Step hen 01:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.